Vista 64bit beats WIN7 64bit

Aqua_lung said:
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.
Click to expand...

You need to drink the KOOL-AID like the others, and BELIEVE! ;)

Then chant: "7 is faster than XP and Vista", repeat x 10,000,000
 
alkit said:
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
Click to expand...

You mean it pre-loads/pre-fetches/pre-caches stuff better.

"Opening faster" doesn't cut it.
 
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...
 
sandmanm34 said:
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...
Click to expand...

The ones who laugh are usually those who run 64bit on 8GB memory systems running MS Office and watching YouTube.
 
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.
 
PeterCH said:
I'm not playing Mac vs Win, I'm saying XP is good enough.

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

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
 
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)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
The_Techie said:
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)
Click to expand...

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
 
Either way, I've found Windows 7 to be a step in the right direction. Though I still prefer Ubuntu for daily use :p
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X