Well?
XP 4 life
I've found no compelling reason to do so yet, Mono.
If you can get it really cheap than why not? YOu have to keep current on these things or else The Man may cut you off.
Either downgrade to XP or upgrade to 7, just get the hell off vista.
Because it's much much better.
Put Ubuntu on and be l33t.
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 07:26:18 AM
Either downgrade to XP or upgrade to 7, just get the hell off vista.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 07:26:18 AM
Either downgrade to XP or upgrade to 7, just get the hell off vista.
Vista hating lemmings :rolleyes:
Micro$oft's marketing department is apparently as good as Apple's now :)
Quote from: Sahib on November 25, 2009, 07:59:19 AM
Quote from: Tyr on November 25, 2009, 07:26:18 AM
Either downgrade to XP or upgrade to 7, just get the hell off vista.
Vista hating lemmings :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Its not at all being a lemming, I've suffered through trying to use that piece of crap several times myself. It takes forever and a day just to open a window.
:huh: Only if your hardware is shit.
Vista sucks just because it takes forever to boot.
I have my own reasons for not thinking Vista is teh best. But I have 64 on my gaming PC and it is great. My media PC running home premium whatsis is a little less so, but that probably has more to do with my systematic abuse than Vista itself.
Windows 7 itself could be called Vista Mark 2 for godsakes.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2009, 08:12:10 AM
Vista sucks just because it takes forever to boot.
I'm not saying Win 7 isn't better than Vista--because by all accounts it is. All I'm saying is that Vista isn't the unusable piece of shit the general public seems to think it is.
How much are they paying you?
:lmfao: Why would they pay me to tell people it's not vital to upgrade? Upgrading = more money for Microsoft. Not upgrading = no money for Microsoft.
Naw not really, like Cal says. I guess if you're using one of the 32 bit Vistas and want to have a 64 bit OS, that would be a good reason. Or if you're trying to run Vista on a 386 like Grey Fox and Tyr apparently are. Otherwise? Eh.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 25, 2009, 08:26:05 AM
Naw not really, like Cal says. I guess if you're using one of the 32 bit Vistas and want to have a 64 bit OS, that would be a good reason. Or if you're trying to run Vista on a 386 like M. Fox and Tyr apparently are. Otherwise? Eh.
I7 920, GTX 285, Asus Mobo with 8 PCI Express 16x.
This shit is crazy fast, yet Vista sucks on it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on November 25, 2009, 08:27:13 AM
I7 920, GTX 285, Asus Mobo with 8 PCI Express 16x.
This shit is crazy fast, yet Vista sucks on it.
Well...how long does it take to boot up? What programs are starting up, etc? My falling apart piece of shit is less than one minute from beep to desktop with things like evemon, winamp, and poweriso starting at boot. Vista Bidness is the shit though.
It's probably vshield slowing it down but my Win 7 partition also has it & it isn't as slow.
Maybe. Out of curiosity, if it's significantly faster with your particular setup, why not just use 7 all the way, since you already have it and all? Still in the "testing" phase?
7's better for notebooks; my laptop got an hour and a half battery on high performance under Vista, up to two and a half on power saver. Under 7, I'm getting two hours on high performance and three and a half on power saver. The power management's better, and the boot time's shrunk, lowering the amount of battery that's exhausted during boot, so you get both increases.
Also, I find that 7's wireless network discovery works MUCH better. I was having issues with spotty networks on Vista, and those same networks are being discovered, connecting, and remaining connected with less problems almost all the time now.
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on November 25, 2009, 09:14:27 AM
Maybe. Out of curiosity, if it's significantly faster with your particular setup, why not just use 7 all the way, since you already have it and all? Still in the "testing" phase?
Because of people screaming "don't upgrade". We have (as a business) to keep supporting Vista. So I have to keep using it.
I've had it on pretty OK computers. All of which showed massive performance boosts when they were fixed with windows xp
On the subject of 7 I'm getting it free through uni but have to download and burn it myself. Which is the 32 bit one: X64 or X86? I know 64 bit is x86:64 but...thats both numbers.
I'm going to install it on my desktop at christmas I think but unsure on my laptop: is it better than XP or just less bad than vista?
x86 : 32 bit
x64 : 64 bit
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 25, 2009, 08:15:00 AM
Windows 7 itself could be called Vista Mark 2 for godsakes.
Windows ME => Windows XP...
I have Win7 and Vista on various sytems. Win7 is better, but not that much. Stick with Vista for now, unless you have a 32bit system. Next time you change your computer, get Win7.
I agree XP seems to be doing everything my vista machine does with a good deal of more transperance as to what actually happens :D
BUT, both my XP machines the time to get online with IE has grown to minutes after the last patches of IE 7 and now IE 8.. even on a fresh install of XP :(
V
Quote from: Valdemar on November 26, 2009, 09:07:44 AM
I agree XP seems to be doing everything my vista machine does with a good deal of more transperance as to what actually happens :D
BUT, both my XP machines the time to get online with IE has grown to minutes after the last patches of IE 7 and now IE 8.. even on a fresh install of XP :(
V
Use a different browser.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on November 25, 2009, 09:23:04 AM
Also, I find that 7's wireless network discovery works MUCH better. I was having issues with spotty networks on Vista, and those same networks are being discovered, connecting, and remaining connected with less problems almost all the time now.
Yeah, by the time we get to Windows 9, wireless network might actually be usable.
Personally, I love Win 7. All my programs are snappier in 7 than Vista.
Plus 7 was free for me.
So the answer is: no :bowler:
Quote from: garbon on November 26, 2009, 06:57:14 PM
Quote from: Cerr on November 26, 2009, 12:35:28 PM
Use a different browser.
seriously
For certyain applications and websites IE is the only solution. WHY has it become slower over time? Even on a fresh install? And mean slow as in several minutes to the first start up.
V
You use bad applications and websites.
I got Vista when I bought my new laptop and the one complaint I have is that bootup is a tad slow, but I'm not going through a 6-8 hour reinstallation of the OS to gain 10-20 seconds every time I boot the thing (especially since I mostly leave it in "sleep" mode).
Infact, I find that Vista is extremely pain-free to work with compared to XP. When there's a problem with the wireless network for instance, the little fucker chugs through all the possible reasons and actually, unlike XP, presents a problem solver that solves the problem!
Noting that power management may be better on Windows 7 could tip me over to upgrading, but otherwise I don't think I will do anything about it until I decide to go from 2 to 4 gigs of RAM.
Addendum. I just checked, and I already have 4 gigs, which makes the fact that this computer came with 32-bit OS a bit irritating.
Motherfuckers. :mad:
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2009, 10:32:00 AM
I got Vista when I bought my new laptop and the one complaint I have is that bootup is a tad slow, but I'm not going through a 6-8 hour reinstallation of the OS to gain 10-20 seconds every time I boot the thing (especially since I mostly leave it in "sleep" mode).
Infact, I find that Vista is extremely pain-free to work with compared to XP. When there's a problem with the wireless network for instance, the little fucker chugs through all the possible reasons and actually, unlike XP, presents a problem solver that solves the problem!
Noting that power management may be better on Windows 7 could tip me over to upgrading, but otherwise I don't think I will do anything about it until I decide to go from 2 to 4 gigs of RAM.
Addendum. I just checked, and I already have 4 gigs, which makes the fact that this computer came with 32-bit OS a bit irritating.
Motherfuckers. :mad:
It shouldn't take that long to do an upgrade install of Win7, but you could just set the install to run at night and it will be done when you wake up the next morning. Once you get the ball rolling, the Win7 install process (at least the upgrade install process) is totally unattended.
Does it really take anywhere near 6-8 hours to install an OS?
Even then if Win 7 really shaved 20 secs of startup time I'd consider it.
By the way, the Snow Leopard upgrade took 30 minutes. :)
No, Win 7 took less then 2 hours here. (Twice).
Yeah, and reinstalling all your gadgets and programs and doodads and porncollection and customizing all the settings, that too is done in under 2 hours?
ALLOW ME TO SNORT INCREDULOUSLY.
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2009, 03:02:30 PM
Yeah, and reinstalling all your gadgets and programs and doodads and porncollection and customizing all the settings, that too is done in under 2 hours?
ALLOW ME TO SNORT INCREDULOUSLY.
AS mentioned, upgrading to Snow Leopard was done in 30 minutes, including "recustomizing it". :)
I won't be changing until the day Microsoft forces me to by doing something that makes game developers no longer support XP. Probably not that long off :mad:
Quote from: Slargos on November 27, 2009, 03:02:30 PM
Yeah, and reinstalling all your gadgets and programs and doodads and porncollection and customizing all the settings, that too is done in under 2 hours?
ALLOW ME TO SNORT INCREDULOUSLY.
Yeah, uh, you wouldn't have to do any of that with an upgrade install. The only things you'd need to customize are the new Win7 features, and you can do that as you go.
The upgrade is pretty painless if its Vista 32 to 7 32.
XP to 7 is still pretty painless until you realize you didn't back your shit up.
Win 7 is great for handling networking issues. It totally took care of my Vista 64 home beast desktop's inability to print to the network printer.
Any verdict on my question?
7: Actually good (better than XP) or just less bad than Vista?
Quote from: Caliga on November 25, 2009, 10:50:41 AM
x86 : 32 bit
x64 : 64 bit
Ta
Well, when they move to a file system similar to Sun's ZFS it will be stellar.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on November 28, 2009, 09:03:53 PM
Well, when they move to a file system similar to Sun's ZFS it will be stellar.
NTFS is petty solid. :huh:
Was half joking.
I'm not going to rush to move to Seven for my systems at work. I might do so for my laptops, they are given out to faculty and see heavy use. Seven seems pretty solid for laptops.
I'm thinking of making the jump from Vista to Windows 7 as well, but I just bought fucking Vista. I'm not keen on shelling out another chunk of cash. Though I admit I don't care for Vista as much as I liked XP (which I thought was great. I had ME before).
I would say 7 is a worthwhile upgrade, and I didn't even have quite the issues with Vista that everyone else claims to have had. I'm probably going to be screamed down by the "M$ISTEHDEVILAPPELRULZ!!1!1!" crowd, though.
I've only used one Vista computer (not one of mine). It is increeeedibly slow. It takes like 30 secs to fire up IE or Firefox. It really gets me on my nerves. It's not an old or shitty system, either. It's clean and the only software installed consists of a firewall, an antivirus, Skype, Mozilla and the crap that came preinstalled.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 01, 2009, 04:39:59 PM
I've only used one Vista computer (not one of mine). It is increeeedibly slow. It takes like 30 secs to fire up IE or Firefox. It really gets me on my nerves. It's not an old or shitty system, either. It's clean and the only software installed consists of a firewall, an antivirus, Skype, Mozilla and the crap that came preinstalled.
ATI, nVidia, or some IGP? For some reason, ATI's Catalyst Control Center bogs things down horribly, I've noticed. Also, some of that "bloatware" can really slow down a startup (particularly "photo managers" like Adobe Album Starter Edition or HP PhotoSmart).
IE's load time is ridiculous. Firefox's used to be pretty good, but something in the period between 3.5.2 and 3.5.3 made it slow way down. Once I put 3.5.5 on Windows 7, though, it almost went back to the speed it had before the mysterious startup lag.