Some Windows 7 Screenshots

Aqua_lung said:
I'm a Linux user and have defended Vista since SP1, many times I have said that I prefer it to XP. You are clutching to straws trying to put some of the blame on Linux users.
Click to expand...

I am certainly NOT a Linux Fanboy, but I agree, Linux users cannot be blamed for anything in Windows, and vice versa.
 
Why oh why does every thread turn into "Operating System X vs Vista"? :confused:

I for one am looking forward to trying the new Windows, I have high (misplaced) expectations :D
 
The_Techie said:
Why oh why does every thread turn into "Operating System X vs Vista"? :confused:

I for one am looking forward to trying the new Windows, I have high (misplaced) expectations :D
Click to expand...

I'm one of the few that's never had an issue with Vista... *puts up the nearest meatshield*

I'm looking forward to Win7 myself... Might be nice :)
 
killadoob said:
So your saying that Vista is making inefficient use of the memory it uses? How exactly?
Click to expand...

Why does it need 750MB of RAM to idle? Is it trying to find a cure for AIDS or something, nevermind the fact that it needs 2GB of RAM to run acceptably.
 
I haven't had any issues with Vista. People at work critised me for switching from XP to Vista, 2months later they also moved to Vista :D
 
Hawker does it really matter if it idles at 750mb, majority of people who run vista have 2-4gb, its pretty obvious you need it, the problem is okes harp on this memory thing so much. Vista runs perfect on my fiancee's laptop that has 1 gb of memory and vista business, infact it runs as well as xp does with aero on.

Hawker tell me how much do you know about vista? or are you another forum reader who is making comments based on other people's comment? just out interest :)

Damn most people run xp with 2gb yet running vista with 2gb is frowned upon. Like i said the reason Vista has failed is because people harp on stupid ass things about it.

Hawker no vista won't run on a 486, no it won't run on p1 p2 p3, it will not run with anything under 512 memory.

Then again its 2008 not 1997 brother.

Yea meilie those people who critised you i will put money on the fact they read somewhere vista is rubbish eh :p
 
Yea meilie those people who critised you i will put money on the fact they read somewhere vista is rubbish eh
Click to expand...

Have used it, worked with it, solved customers problems with it. In many cases we had to go back to XP to solve the customer's complaints, which were all valid.

I have several copies of it, but I will see with interest what Windows 7 offers. Otherwise it's XP FTW....
 
ooo... Well, Turiko, if you have any copies of Vista that you're not planning on using, feel free to send them this way. I'd like to put it on me other compie :p Pleaaaase? ^.^
 
Turiko those problem customers had out of interest, did they involve the OS itself or did they involve like application's not running or poor driver support for the product that would not work?
 
How on earth did screenshots of Windows 7 end up being Vista vs everyother os?
 
Linoman said:
I agree with you, I think Microsoft did not have enough time with Vista. Considering the fact the project was restarted, they probably just rushed it to finish the product.



Agreed, I think a lot of MS's thinking about marketing. A lot of people feel Vista's image is damaged beyond repair, instead of MS trying to fix it with SP's etc. It is probably better for them to improve Vista but release it with a entirely new name.

Starting off on a clean slate, marketing can be a powerful tool. Especially with consumers.



Not my favorite but I do think it will become Microsoft's standard. At least if every application has the ribbon interface. Parts of the OS should not feel out of place.
Click to expand...

Thread derailer you are lino man :p.
 
killadoob said:
Thread derailer you are lino man :p.
Click to expand...

I derailed my own thread:eek:

Although I must admit, I think Vista on the correct hardware and ALL updates added to it.

It is an OK os, I would not say it is perfect as it has flaws, although compared to XP I think it is far superior. Especially the security model it uses, networking and copying however is debatable.
 
killadoob said:
Turiko those problem customers had out of interest, did they involve the OS itself or did they involve like application's not running or poor driver support for the product that would not work?
Click to expand...

Some PC's just won't run Vista properly because there are no drivers for them.

Yesterday I planned installing Vista on a PC(I like Vista and did not want XP on the system)... big mistake it was painfuly slow, thought I could get a driver for it but no luck no Vista support and never will be the Microsoft drivers just allow the device to function albeit slow.

Point: Some PC's just can't run Vista even if they can run XP fairly decently, accusing somebody of not taking the time to get it to work properly is rather ignorant.
 
Yea but aqua you should know that very old pc's will struggle, why would install vista? I never accused a single a person, i said most find one problem and deem it crap instead of trying first to fix it. Do you think when XP came out it ran well on a p1 with 32mb of ram? nope it ran like crap. When you installed XP on a fairly decent pc yet the drivers had a problem people sat and tried to make it run, sometimes failing.

I work with vista almost everyday and have not found a decent computer from a good name brand that did not have vista 32 or 64 bit drivers, so that pc your talking about must be rather old not to have drivers. what was the spec of that system and what driver could you not find? did you try driver detective?

So like i said that must have been some old hardware not to support vista.

Lino nice find man, alot of that is true but they forget to mention xp had similar problems when it was released. I'm not denying vista won't replace XP, the main reason for this is it does not bring much to the table that makes business want to move to it but as an OS it's very good.

Also it does not need the latest hardware to run well, it just needs a decent system and not something from 2005 :p

Anyways whateva guys :), use linux use vista use xp whatever works for you at the end of day that is what counts. No point trying to defend an OS that has been destroyed by bad publicity, it still sold more copies than xp did in its first year, although that might change when they count the down-grade or for some vista haters the upgrade to xp :p
 
Last edited:
so user-friendly, yet so G-damn expensive and unsecure. I am in the process of switching over to linux
 
WikusMoller said:
so user-friendly, yet so G-damn expensive and unsecure. I am in the process of switching over to linux
Click to expand...
Vista is more secure than XP.;) Still doesn't make it as secure as linux...but its a start.

hawker said:
Why does it need 750MB of RAM to idle?
Click to expand...
It caches frequently used programs. Cached programs are a lot more useful than empty RAM...once the RAM is needed, windows throws out the cached info.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X