Prev: No Internet connection on a laptop
Next: Blue screen/Memory dump
From: Dave C. on 14 Jan 2010 01:59
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:13:58 -0500
Larc <larc(a)notmyaddress.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 15:50:02 +0800, "Man-wai Chang to The Door
> (24000bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> | > Win 7 looks like Vista, but it runs more smoothly and efficiently.
> |
> | Win 7 does *BOOT FASTER* than Vi$ta. I doubt whether Win 7 runs
> | more efficiently.
>
> Win7 largely continues taking away user options that Vista started.
> Any operating system that won't do what I want it to do and can't be
> set up as I want is of no use to me even if it is "smooth and
> efficient." I'm sticking with XP!
>
> Larc

Y'know, you'd be a helluva lot more convincing if you changed your last
sentence.
I'm sticking with xubuntu!

That would sound more sincere than, "Microsoft already has my money!"
-Dave
From: shegeek72 on 14 Jan 2010 21:59
On Jan 14, 9:13 am, Larc <l...(a)notmyaddress.com> wrote:
> Win7 largely continues taking away user options that Vista started.  Any
> operating system that won't do what I want it to do and can't be set up as I
> want is of no use to me even if it is "smooth and efficient."  I'm sticking with
> XP!

I have 3 systems: a laptop with Vista HP 64-bit, a desktop with Vista
HP 32-bit/Win7 HP 32-bit (dual-boot) and another desktop with XP SP2,
that I've used (through various hardware changes) for 10 years. I've
been using Vista a little over 2 years. I waited to try Vista because
I'd heard all the bad raps about it. Though the interesting thing was
the ones who actually used Vista usually liked it and those who didn't
were usually XP users who were jumping on the 'hate Vista' bandwagon.
I'm not discounting that there were problems with Vista, with hardware
and software compatibility. But there were problems with XP, too, when
it was first released.

I'd be interested to know what user options Vista and Win7 take away.

From: Bug Dout on 15 Jan 2010 00:18
Toolpackinmama <philnblanc(a)comcast.net> writes:

> Win 7 looks like Vista, but it runs more smoothly and efficiently.

So yeah, Win 7 is Vista SP2.
--
I think there is only one quality worse than hardness of heart and
that is softness of head.
Theodore Roosevelt
From: shegeek72 on 15 Jan 2010 01:33
On Jan 14, 9:18 pm, Bug Dout <bugg...(a)mailinator.com> wrote:
> So yeah, Win 7 is Vista SP2.

I have to disagree. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

"Windows 7 includes a number of new features, such as advances in
touch and handwriting recognition, support for virtual hard disks,
improved performance on multi-core processors, improved boot
performance, DirectAccess, and kernel improvements. Windows 7 adds
support for systems using multiple heterogeneous graphics cards from
different vendors (Heterogeneous Multi-adapter), a new version of
Windows Media Center, a Gadget for Windows Media Center, improved
media features, the XPS Essentials Pack and Windows PowerShell being
included, and a redesigned Calculator with multiline capabilities
including Programmer and Statistics modes along with unit conversion.
Many new items have been added to the Control Panel, including
ClearType Text Tuner, Display Color Calibration Wizard, Gadgets,
Recovery, Troubleshooting, Workspaces Center, Location and Other
Sensors, Credential Manager, Biometric Devices, System Icons, and
Display."

That's just an excerpt. The GUI has been retooled, as well as the
taskbar. The UAC now has different settings for security or can be
easily turned off (that I did). IMO, Win7 is not a Vista service pack.

I've used Win7 and Vista side-by-side for a couple weeks and, so far,
am happy. That's not to say I won't run into problems and I'll post
them here if I do. But based on initial impressions I think XP users
who've been holding out for Vista's 'successor' will be happy.


From: Dave C. on 14 Jan 2010 19:18
On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 18:59:48 -0800 (PST)
shegeek72 <karmictaragem(a)2die4.com> wrote:

> On Jan 14, 9:13 am, Larc <l...(a)notmyaddress.com> wrote:
> > Win7 largely continues taking away user options that Vista started.
> >  Any operating system that won't do what I want it to do and can't
> > be set up as I want is of no use to me even if it is "smooth and
> > efficient."  I'm sticking with XP!
>
> I have 3 systems: a laptop with Vista HP 64-bit, a desktop with Vista
> HP 32-bit/Win7 HP 32-bit (dual-boot) and another desktop with XP SP2,
> that I've used (through various hardware changes) for 10 years. I've
> been using Vista a little over 2 years. I waited to try Vista because
> I'd heard all the bad raps about it. Though the interesting thing was
> the ones who actually used Vista usually liked it and those who didn't
> were usually XP users who were jumping on the 'hate Vista' bandwagon.

Yeah, I waited a while to try Vista also. When I did, my impression of
Vista was that it was Windows XP. The only difference I noticed
between Vista and XP was Vista booted a lot faster. I had fresh
installs of XP and Vista on the same hardware at the time, so I could
compare. Vista booted much faster. That was the only significant
difference.

I still don't get all the Vista bashing. Bash Microsoft if you want
(note I'm posting this using linux right now). But as far as operating
systems go, Vista is no better or worse than XP. And Vista does start
faster, so that's something. -Dave
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: No Internet connection on a laptop
Next: Blue screen/Memory dump