Vista 64bit beats WIN7 64bit [Archive]

blogbytes

02-07-2009, 11:48 PM

Vista 64bit beats WIN7 64bit in overall performance test from PC Format.

And what about Windows 7? It's fast, particularly for number crunching, and can perform well with the lastest Games, but if youre looking for speed alone it doesn't quite beat Vista yet.

SOurce Pc format July 09

Who has read the article, and what are your thoughts?

Ekhaatvensters

03-07-2009, 01:32 AM

This would go against a lot of other reviews.. I don't really trust PC Format for this kind of thing. In any case it's a beta/RC still, which build were they testing with?

What are they testing as well exactly, if anyone could give the numbers/tests for the article it will help. I am pretty sure that Windows 7 would simply feel faster than Vista 64 and in fact be faster for the UI in any case. I doubt anyone would actually stick to Vista for speed.

ld13

03-07-2009, 02:00 AM

A SP2 product against a pre-Retail product - seems fair. :cool:

Sadly I don't buy the PC Format as much as I used to...
Need to read the review before I dare to say anything more. And wait till Win7 is Retail of course.

blogbytes

03-07-2009, 01:09 PM

dablakmark8

03-07-2009, 01:20 PM

I don't get it,win7 is faster.I run xp/vista/win7 32/win7 64 all on one pc and by my judgment win7 64 is better.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 01:28 PM

I saw a similar benchmark before and at the time 7 supporters said 7 is only in Beta and will be faster when it's released.

killadoob

03-07-2009, 01:30 PM

Well i have used windows vista/xp and 7 64 and i can tell just by using it that windows 7 is faster than both of them.

windows 7 far faster than vista, on the same hardware corel draw opens faster and photoshop 3 open 3 times as fast.

Not sure what test they are using but this sounds like BS to me. Anyone who has used vista and windows 7 will tell you it is faster. A good testiment to windows 7 speed is my mini 9, there is no way in hell it would run as well as it does with vista installed. My dell mini 9 runs very fast, infact faster than the xp it came with.

Windows 7 boots in half the time vista does.

cerebus

03-07-2009, 01:35 PM

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/gaming-smackdown-windows-xp-vs-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=2

dablakmark8

03-07-2009, 01:48 PM

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/gaming-smackdown-windows-xp-vs-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=2

dumbstruck ed..if you can call that a word.vista64 better:(

PC Direct

03-07-2009, 01:52 PM

Rofl

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 01:57 PM

All these people who claim 7 is faster... it's in their heads, 7 boots faster and that's about it really.

If they can post benchmarks to back up their statements then I'll trust their judgment, I've tested 7 myself on an older PC and it does not fair better than Vista SP1 because the screen jerks in frames and there are no display drivers for the videocard.

7 is Vista SP2 with a new taskbar and a few tweaks... the drivers don't lie.

cerebus

03-07-2009, 02:00 PM

dumbstruck ed..if you can call that a word.vista64 better:(

That isn't what those benchmarks showed at all. Vista was decisively better in only one test - Far Cry 2. Everything else was either comparable or Win7 had the lead.

killadoob

03-07-2009, 02:00 PM

Did you use vista aqua? Why is it aqua people with older pc's that struggled to run vista can now run windows 7 just fine? All in their heads i guess.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 02:06 PM

Did you use vista aqua? Why is it aqua people with older pc's that struggled to run vista can now run windows 7 just fine? All in their heads i guess.

That's because the 7 drivers are better? vista's issue all along was drivers, they became better and better, I use 7 now and again and honestly it may be better than Vista but not by much as the benchmarks prove. 7 takes advantage of the faults Vista had.

On that OLD PC I'm referring to I've put XP on again because it flies, even with the 512MB of Ram.

killadoob

03-07-2009, 02:10 PM

Strange because when i ran windows 7 as my primary OS the speed was remarkable.

Everything opens faster, boots faster, feels faster and strange thing almost the entire population of windows 7 users are saying it's faster so i am not really sure these benchmarks can be all that accurate.

Show us some benchmarks of stuff like photoshop, corel etc opening and i can assure you it will beat vista by a mile. I guess everyone is imagining it though hey?

cerebus

03-07-2009, 02:13 PM

I can tell you for sure Win7 64 takes up less memory - about a gig from what I remember.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 02:14 PM

Show us some benchmarks of stuff like photoshop, corel etc opening and i can assure you it will beat vista by a mile. I guess everyone is imagining it though hey?

Please do... you're the one on a 7 crusade so please provide the proof then I'll believe you.
:p

killadoob

03-07-2009, 02:20 PM

Alright just for you i shall make.

Got my g.skill drive by tomorrow and i shall load windows vista on that drive and make a video, hmmm will have to figure out how too edit it though but i will prove it to you.

alkit

03-07-2009, 02:21 PM

No proof needed. Just open up either control panel, windows explorer, windows media player in win 7 and vista and you will clearly see which is faster. Windows 7 wins by miles. Even booting time is quicker. And I have a core2duo T9300 with 4gb ram and I still see the difference, so imagine those with lower specs, prob loving the improved speed

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 02:23 PM

PeterCH

03-07-2009, 02:26 PM

That's because the 7 drivers are better? vista's issue all along was drivers, they became better and better, I use 7 now and again and honestly it may be better than Vista but not by much as the benchmarks prove. 7 takes advantage of the faults Vista had.

On that OLD PC I'm referring to I've put XP on again because it flies, even with the 512MB of Ram.

You need to drink the KOOL-AID (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=drink+the+kool-aid) like the others, and BELIEVE! ;)

Then chant: "7 is faster than XP and Vista", repeat x 10,000,000

PeterCH

03-07-2009, 02:28 PM

sand_man

03-07-2009, 02:36 PM

I'm not a fan of Windows 7 64-bit, some may laugh but for me 32-bit is the more stable and quicker OS of the 2...

PeterCH

03-07-2009, 02:59 PM

I'm not a fan of Windows 7 64-bit, some may laugh but for me 32-bit is the more stable and quicker OS of the 2...

The ones who laugh are usually those who run 64bit on 8GB memory systems running MS Office and watching YouTube.

killadoob

03-07-2009, 03:11 PM

Barfish88

03-07-2009, 03:17 PM

Vistax64 Ultimate FTW

cerebus

03-07-2009, 03:20 PM

The biggest joke is peter getting involved with windows 7 threads but has no real time experience other than what he reads.

That my friend is a joke peter, i hope you have at least taken time out to try it peter.

He saw an opportunity to snipe Windows and took it. Don't hate the player hate the game.
http://www.themaclawyer.com/uploads/image/mac%20vs%20pc%207.jpg

blaaislaai

03-07-2009, 03:21 PM

Vistax64 Ultimate FTW

i have that at the moment, its a big fail. the first beta of win7 works way better for me!

Barfish88

03-07-2009, 03:26 PM

i have that at the moment, its a big fail. the first beta of win7 works way better for me!

Using vista x64 sp2 for a couple of months now, no problems at all.

blaaislaai

03-07-2009, 03:29 PM

Using vista x64 sp2 for a couple of months now, no problems at all.

I have the same, its very jittering for me. will be upgrading to win7 soon:)

PeterCH

03-07-2009, 03:35 PM

He saw an opportunity to snipe Windows and took it. Don't hate the player hate the game.
http://www.themaclawyer.com/uploads/image/mac%20vs%20pc%207.jpg

I'm not playing Mac vs Win, I'm saying XP is good enough.

But yeah, I haven't drunk the Kool-aid.

cerebus

03-07-2009, 03:40 PM

Also good enough (http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/tiger_01.jpg) :D

killadoob

03-07-2009, 03:42 PM

I'm not playing Mac vs Win, I'm saying XP is good enough.

But yeah, I haven't drunk the Kool-aid.

Yea so then maybe before you speak about something good or bad you should actually take the time out to use it.

May give us the sense you know WTF is going as opposed to just talking kuk about kuk that you have no idea about :D

The_Techie

03-07-2009, 03:44 PM

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 03:57 PM

PCFormat are quite inaccurate in their tests, you need to look at some of those benchmark graphs and look at the numbers and they don't match at times. For one at least they mention that it is a new OS and not everyone has jumped on to the band wagon for the drivers/software, to the public eye as far as I'm concerned. Comparing an 4770 against a 4890 and GTX275 (need to check that it is a GTX275)?!?! and no mention of it's amazing crossfire potential. Did anyone get their free copy of Sony Vegas from *********.com (starred out in case of a ban lol)? Just look at the giveaway prize pic for the "best letter" for a clue.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 04:00 PM

Interesting to note that a game of Warcraft 3 uses 95% to 98% of my Q6600's Core0 in Windows XP and Windows Vista, and between 15% and 30% in Windows 7, all running at 60FPS. :confused:

(just substitute Core0 for whichever core it fancies to run on for that session :p)

Yeah and some ignorant poster told me a few months back before 7 that Vista multithreading technology was perfect :rolleyes: and I was waiting for it to be fixed.

I think it was someone that starts with a K :p

killadoob

03-07-2009, 04:18 PM

Nope was not me :D don't even know what multithreading technology is :p

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 04:40 PM

Nope was not me :D don't even know what multithreading technology is :p

Found it...

There is still room for improvement, managing cores better etc.

Vista runs flawlessly man, its actually the most incredible OS to date from Microsoft.

Managing cores better? explain this to me please?

The_Techie

03-07-2009, 04:45 PM

Either way, I've found Windows 7 to be a step in the right direction. Though I still prefer Ubuntu for daily use :p

killadoob

03-07-2009, 04:46 PM

Yea i said it runs flawlessly for me, never mentioned anything about multithreading being perfect i do not even know that is, i thought it was something intel cpu's had :D

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 04:49 PM

Yea i said it runs flawlessly for me, never mentioned anything about multithreading being perfect i do not even know that is, i thought it was something intel cpu's had :D

I meant managing cores not multi-threading should have rephrased myself. :p

The_Techie

03-07-2009, 04:52 PM

Well, just to clarify, the load isn't spread among my cores, it's just reduced to less than a third :eek:

killadoob

03-07-2009, 05:14 PM

Answer me this though guys, why is it my old e8400 @ 4.0ghz booted slower than my q6600 stock standard in vista?

I had to wait for my pc to be ready with the dual core but with the quadcore once the desktop loaded it was good to go.

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 06:03 PM

Keeper

03-07-2009, 06:38 PM

If they can post benchmarks to back up their statements then I'll trust their judgment, I've tested 7 myself on an older PC and it does not fair better than Vista SP1 because the screen jerks in frames and there are no display drivers for the videocard.

*shakes head*

Aqua, do you think it's possible those two underlined sentences could be linked, possibly?

maybe, just maybe :p

killadoob

03-07-2009, 06:39 PM

It is because the start-up process is not multi-core related.

So then if that is the case the e8400 @ 4.0ghz should load things faster than a q6600 @ 2.4ghz if it nos multi-core related right?

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 06:54 PM

*shakes head*

Aqua, do you think it's possible those two underlined sentences could be linked, possibly?

maybe, just maybe :p

That's my point... it works with a low resolution and the stock generic windows driver but my LCD is a 20 inch and on vista or 7 the card can't run the screen, on XP even with the generic driver it drives my 20" display without problems.

killadoob

03-07-2009, 07:28 PM

I have never heard of someone running a vga card with no drivers, it defies all logic.

Your moaning about something that can be fixed by installing a driver.

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 07:33 PM

So then if that is the case the e8400 @ 4.0ghz should load things faster than a q6600 @ 2.4ghz if it nos multi-core related right?

Yep, but you might have to check if things have changed with the way 7's apps operates as my previous answer was pointing to the multi-core myth found with Vista.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 07:34 PM

I have never heard of someone running a vga card with no drivers, it defies all logic.

Your moaning about something that can be fixed by installing a driver.

There are no drivers for it, it runs the Windows generic display drivers, my point is that ATI said they will not support the card beyond XP, it's not powerful enough for Vista or 7 but it runs perfectly with XP over DVI and was shocked too see it stutter with Vista/7.

So more proof that 7 and Vista require new more powerful hardware and are only faster on new hardware.

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 07:49 PM

There are no drivers for it, it runs the Windows generic display drivers, my point is that ATI said they will not support the card beyond XP, it's not powerful enough for Vista or 7 but it runs perfectly with XP over DVI and was shocked too see it stutter with Vista/7.

So more proof that 7 and Vista require new more powerful hardware and are only faster on new hardware.

So I'm guessing you were able to install Vista/7 or weren't you able to get to the install screen?
That's why it's called the present. Get an upgrade on the graphics device or downgrade to Windows 98, you will see your performance skyrocket.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 07:57 PM

So I'm guessing you were able to install Vista/7 or weren't you able to get to the install screen?
That's why it's called the present. Get an upgrade on the graphics device or downgrade to Windows 98, you will see your performance skyrocket.

Yes it installed because the card works at low resolution like 800x600, installation is done at low resolution, when I set it to the 20' resolution it jerks.

I have upgraded, this is my HTPC that still runs fine with XP.

I have a quadcore and 9600GT but use a real OS... linux not that toy "7" OS :rolleyes:
:p

I am Penguin

03-07-2009, 08:26 PM

Vista 64bit beats WIN7 64bit in overall performance test from PC Format.

SOurce Pc format July 09

Who has read the article, and what are your thoughts?

Must have been a Mac/Linux fanboi doing the honours? Anyway PCformat is not a mag I will take at all seriously. The fact that they even compared a beta/RC release with a "established" system is point and case and shows their lack of common sense and mentality very clearly.

The key reason Windows 7 isn't topping the benchmarks is due to the state of Nvidia's drivers. This isn't a dig at the GPU giant, merely a statement of fact – after all, the OS hasn't been released yet. Cast your mind back to the release of Vista and the shaky start that had and we'd hazard a guess that Nvidia will be pushing up the framerates as the launch date nears.

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/gaming-smackdown-windows-xp-vs-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=2

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 08:48 PM

Yes it installed because the card works at low resolution like 800x600, installation is done at low resolution, when I set it to the 20' resolution it jerks.

I have upgraded, this is my HTPC that still runs fine with XP.

I have a quadcore and 9600GT but use a real OS... linux not that toy "7" OS :rolleyes:
:p

Now what are you complaining about if you did upgrade the rig?
A tweak here & there could have sorted the problem out and essentially you expect one to i.e. experience HD(16:9/720p) content on a typical CRT TV screen(4:3/480p) whilst not seeing problems.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 08:54 PM

Now what are you complain about if you did upgrade?
A tweak here & there could have sorted the problem out and essentially you expect one i.e. to experience HD(16:9/720p) content on a typical CRT TV screen(4:3/480p) whilst not see problems .

WTF? :confused:
Were you even following what I was saying?

Anyway my point is yes 7 may be faster than Vista in some cases but not by much they are still basically the same and drivers are proof to this.

Grouter

03-07-2009, 08:59 PM

Anyway my point is yes 7 may be faster than Vista in some cases but not by much they are still basically the same and drivers are proof to this.

That's what I said here (http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showpost.php?p=2874618&postcount=7).

killadoob

03-07-2009, 09:00 PM

No windows 7 is faster as whole OS, things like benchmarks may be the same but there is a big increase in perform over vista.

What vga card is this just out interest? Would that not be ati's fault for not supporting though? Maybe it would run fine if it had drivers?

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 09:06 PM

@killadoob, I was also thinking the same thing about ati not willing to support it further.

/WTF? Why is the article Tech Radar exactly the same as the one in the latest PCF?

killadoob

03-07-2009, 09:08 PM

WTF? Why is the article Tech Radar exactly the same as the one in the latest PCF?

What did you think they actually wrote it?

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 09:13 PM

What vga card is this just out interest? Would that not be ati's fault for not supporting though? Maybe it would run fine if it had drivers?

RADEON™ 9250 Series Chipset Features
• Operation System Support: Windows® XP / 2000
http://www.msicomputer.com/product/p_spec.asp?model=RX9250-T128&class=vga

look at those resolutions, and LCD only needs 60hz so it can scale quite high.

Like I said, no vista drivers hence no 7 drivers it's only DX8 so what do you expect.

Edit: and this card was bought around 2005

killadoob

03-07-2009, 09:22 PM

Just out interest, was vista running with aero on or off?

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 09:24 PM

Just out interest, was vista running with aero on or off?

lol, off obviously. :p

I don't know what you lot are trying to prove but 7 is not faster than XP period. it is meant for new hardware.

Grouter

03-07-2009, 09:27 PM

Just out interest, was vista running with aero on or off?

I doubt aero would have been possible with legacy drivers - would be disabled.

Oh, and Aqua_lung, what's the point? New OS, get a new card. Done.

blogbytes

03-07-2009, 09:30 PM

Must have been a Mac/Linux fanboi doing the honours? Anyway PCformat is not a mag I will take at all seriously. The fact that they even compared a beta/RC release with a "established" system is point and case and shows their lack of common sense and mentality very clearly.
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/gaming-smackdown-windows-xp-vs-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=2

So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey ;)

I don't even know how to spell lunix :D

When is WIN 7 coming out? You guys really think it is going to be twice as fast as it is now? :confused: Well, guess we will have to wait for the final release. I cant bother much, as Im still running XP and it flies :p -- Duck & run

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 09:32 PM

Oh, and Aqua_lung, what's the point? New OS, get a new card. Done.

refer to post #52

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 09:52 PM

What did you think they actually wrote it?

No, just wondering why I spent 40 bucks on a paper paperweight?

DJNgoma

03-07-2009, 10:03 PM

Oh, and Aqua_lung, what's the point? New OS, get a new card. Done.

Explain that in arabic to Aqua_lung, it might paint a better picture from right to left.

Aqua_lung

03-07-2009, 10:19 PM

For those who have a problem reading, my original post was...

All these people who claim 7 is faster... it's in their heads, 7 boots faster and that's about it really.

If they can post benchmarks to back up their statements then I'll trust their judgment, I've tested 7 myself on an older PC and it does not fair better than Vista SP1 because the screen jerks in frames and there are no display drivers for the videocard.

Then I had the doubters thinking 7 can do miracles like make a DX8 card perform if I "tweak" it :rolleyes: , I provided the info and card (Radeon 9250) which has no Vista/7 support because it's DX8, DX9 is only needed for aero but even without aero it jerks with the Microsoft Drivers.

My point stands... 7 is not as reincarnation, it is Vista re-branded.

Now I don't use this PC myself it's an HTPC someone else uses, I have a modern PC but still consider 7 a Vista makeover.

PixelPusha

03-07-2009, 10:37 PM

well my windows 98 SE beats Vista :P

I am Penguin

03-07-2009, 10:45 PM

So, a thought crossed your mind? Must have been a long and lonely journey ;)

I don't even know how to spell lunix :D

When is WIN 7 coming out? You guys really think it is going to be twice as fast as it is now? :confused: Well, guess we will have to wait for the final release. I cant bother much, as Im still running XP and it flies :p -- Duck & run

Dont make your problems ours :D

Anyway give windows 7 a chance to mature then compare with whatever available "OS" system. For now there are only a few (Asus) motherboard vendors fully certified as Windows 7 compatible. Like the Asus PQ5 Pro turbo and some Nvvidia cards. Can even Download Windows seven drivers already. Use those capatible hardware items and then we can compare results. This constant arguing about windows7 at this stage even whilst using ancient hardware is just well ... stupid... What do people expect, Windows 7 must now upgrade their cheapskate shiite hardware too. Ridiculous. Its rather a case of Lunix :D Lunatics that cannot stomach some progress as they know so well their darling OS are a few decades behind.

I am Penguin

03-07-2009, 10:57 PM

For those who have a problem reading, my original post was...

Then I had the doubters thinking 7 can do miracles like make a DX8 card perform if I "tweak" it :rolleyes: , I provided the info and card (Radeon 9250) which has no Vista/7 support because it's DX8, DX9 is only needed for aero but even without aero it jerks with the Microsoft Drivers.

My point stands... 7 is not as reincarnation, it is Vista re-branded.

Now I don't use this PC myself it's an HTPC someone else uses, I have a modern PC but still consider 7 a Vista makeover.

Whatever tickles your fancy, mate. Just because you ran some tests on Your hardware proves the point conclusively. Everyone else and sundry claiming the differ must then be wrong. LOL. Call that a chip in the old block.
Yeah like Linux are based on the same "Kernals" mostly any new OS will be largely based on previous systems, the "makeover" will include the best of various structures working since Win 3.1 up to inluding Vista. So the "rebranded" Windows7 is a reincarnation of all the best parts of previous Microsoft operating systems. Call it Win 3.1 +++++++ up to 7 if you please/ like. Fact remains it is called Windows7 and it is a huge improvement as accepted by most all over the Net accept by a very small, very clever, know it ALL minority.

Now relax, Install windows7 and enjoy.

blogbytes

03-07-2009, 11:10 PM

Dont make your problems ours :D
Arent we here all a big happy family that go by the term - sharing is caring :D

Anyway give windows 7 a chance to mature then compare with whatever available "OS" system.

I have windows 7(7100) installed on another drive. I do like the look and feel of it, feels a bit lighter than vista, and yes, it boots up faster than my XP. I did though struggle to install Adobe Design Premium CS3. It just simply failed. Thats why I am back/still on XP.

I gave Vista 55 times a chance, 2 days later it was replaced by XP again :D

DJNgoma

04-07-2009, 01:32 AM

I did though struggle to install Adobe Design Premium CS3. It just simply failed.

Did you try compatiblity mode?

killadoob

04-07-2009, 07:11 AM

Odd if you ask me i have the entire adobe CS collection installed and running on windows 7, along with just about every major app i ever used under xp.

O and windows 7 does not need to mature as it uses vista drivers very well so you don't need certified windows 7 drivers as such for the moment, i am in time there will be windows 7 drivers for everything but for now vista drivers as just fine.

blogbytes

04-07-2009, 10:29 AM

Did you try compatiblity mode?

Nope, will try it.

@killadoob

Ya, its weird, it starts the installation and just fails with an error message. Maybe its the amd :p

Aqua_lung

04-07-2009, 12:44 PM

Its rather a case of Lunix :D Lunatics that cannot stomach some progress as they know so well their darling OS are a few decades behind.

Funny you should say that when Linux is the first OS to support USB3.. wonder how long it will take MS*** to catchup. :rolleyes:

Linux will be the first operating system with official support for USB 3, an Intel open-source developer has announced.

Sarah Sharp, who works in Intel's Open Source Technology Centre, says on her blog that support of USB 3 would soon be integrated into the Linux kernel.

killadoob

04-07-2009, 09:02 PM

So linux supports usb3 when no hardware does?

Wow linux rocks :D

I am Penguin

04-07-2009, 11:51 PM

Funny you should say that when Linux is the first OS to support USB3.. wonder how long it will take MS*** to catchup. :rolleyes:

Typical using one dubious item to claim that Linux are in the forefront of technology? Its a case of driversrather and proves nothing about the functionality or use of Linux as a desktop operating system.

Aqua_lung

05-07-2009, 11:00 AM

Wow linux rocks :D

Yup sure does.

blogbytes

05-07-2009, 03:18 PM

Yup sure does.

What linux are you using? I have a spare drive lying around and acctually want to install a distri, but not to sure which one.

@killadoob

Have installed the Adobe Design Premium Package on win7. It worked, yay.

Loading of PS in Win7 roughly 5sec. In win XP roughly 6 sec. Hmm, 1 sec. (First time open)
I did realise though, if you close it and reopen it at a later stage it takes windows 7 about 1 sec. With win xp it takes about 2-3 sec. :cool:

Aqua_lung

05-07-2009, 04:00 PM

What linux are you using? I have a spare drive lying around and acctually want to install a distri, but not to sure which one.

I'm using what most Linux users are using now, Ubuntu ;)
http://www.ubuntu.com/GetUbuntu/download
you can download on local or order a free cd
https://shipit.ubuntu.com/

Loading of PS in Win7 roughly 5sec. In win XP roughly 6 sec. Hmm, 1 sec. (First time open)
I did realise though, if you close it and reopen it at a later stage it takes windows 7 about 1 sec. With win xp it takes about 2-3 sec. :cool:
I recommend all win users to upgrade to 7, it's inevitable anyway.

DJNgoma

05-07-2009, 05:44 PM

I thought "real" Linux users use Fedora or openSUSE lol. TIA, the best things in life are free.

Aqua_lung

05-07-2009, 08:08 PM

I thought "real" Linux users use Fedora or openSUSE lol. TIA, the best things in life are free.

Fedora and Opensuse are both n00b friendly, how are they different from Ubuntu?

Real linux users compile their own kernel.... which I don't have time for so Ubuntu works for me, besides most of my downloaded packages are only for Ubuntu/ debian anyway.