Why upgrade from XP Pro 64 to Win 7 64
in [64 Bits Windows]
|
Prev: defrag missing
Next: XP Pro 64 restore points
From: Richard on 21 Dec 2009 18:19 In his posting of Mon, 21 Dec 2009, Clemens Gleich writes > >> Is there any benefit in upgrading from XP Pro64 o Windows 7 64 please? > >The user interface is a big step forward, if you are a power user and >do a lot via keyboard. I just love it. Thanks Clemens This computer is only used for Photoshop hence the 16G of ram which has 12G allocated to a ram disk which has been a great success. I really do not attach any importance to nice user friendly interfaces etc, just as long as it runs reliably and I can get the drivers I need then I'm a happy chap. my use of key strokes is confined to Photoshop so it looks as if 7 would not be a useful move for me.<G> Cheers Richard snip --
From: Juergen Kluth on 21 Dec 2009 19:20 1) You have a good chance to get the money or W7 pro 1 to 1 if you sell xp x64 at ebay. that must not last forever. 2) W7 makes u read as much documents as linux did, if u install this. jk
From: Richard on 21 Dec 2009 19:52 In his posting of Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Juergen Kluth writes >1) >You have a good chance to get the money or W7 pro 1 to 1 >if you sell xp x64 at ebay. Thanks Juergen but I don't get it<G> Cheers Richard > >that must not last forever. > >2) >W7 makes u read as much documents as linux did, if u install this. > >jk > -- Richard Kenward
From: David Kerber on 24 Dec 2009 08:33 In article <u8UcuSMgKHA.1536(a)TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, Charlie(a)mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org says... > > Well, there's a lot more functionality in Win7. This, I would strongly disagree with. While there has supposedly been some new stuff added (though I haven't found it yet; mostly it's just been moved), there has been a lot of functionality *removed* that I really miss. > It's certainly more secure. Agree. > And it is far better supported for drivers and software. Not yet. It's getting there, but there's still a lot of stuff with XP drivers but not Win7/Vista. > Is it faster? > Probably not, though if you have enough hardware to run 64-bit at all, it > probably isn't any different in speed. Faster for some things, I suspect, > though I honestly haven't done any direct tests. The real point is that > Windows 7 is the future, and Windows XP x64 Edition is a dead-end. <pedantic>So is windows 7, just a few years farther down the road. </pedantic> D
From: David Kerber on 24 Dec 2009 08:41
In article <LHcHpyPTL6LLFwP3(a)eclipse.co.uk>, richard(a)spamfree.co.uk says... ... > I was happy with NT4....never had any real problems, but when 2000 came > along I really had no wish to move to XP when that arrived and only did > do for the 64bit support when eventually that was offered. Windows 2000 was my favorite version, because it was the fastest executing applications. Slower than molasses in january starting up and shutting down, but that only happened once a month or so, so application speed was my key point. D |