This is so comical. On one hand hand they're touting how people should buy a PC, and have choice, and pushing hard on how much better Windows 7 will be over Vista, and that it is THE OS of the decade. Then they turn around and say, okay HP, go ahead and keep offering XP...
They have so much confidence in their products, and product development.
... Win7 is much faster than Vista, and about on par, or faster than XP in my experience, even in beta.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
It sure seems that way to me. However, while it may be faster, it still has the same annoying user interface of Vista (I find translucent title bars and the 'pop-out' dialog boxes to be horribly distracting).
I also find it hard to believe that it performs well on a netbook. I've got a 1.83ghz C2D and a gig of memory, and it seems to perform nothing more than adequately. With two gigs, it would probably be just fine, and while you can get netbooks with 2g ram, they still have comparably underpowered CPUs.
As long as XP continues to thrive malware makers have a sure way to propagate their crud. I work at a company of 30K + employees and got a trojan that destroyed my system a few weeks ago. I called our helpdesk to reimage my laptop as no personal files were kept there. The lead helpdesk tech told me he had the same trojan.
McAfee and 4 other anti-malware apps couldn't completely clean my system with McAfee being the worst and that is our corporate standard.
Guess where I got the Trojan? AppleInsider.com. My PC with XP got infected in a heartbeat and when I came home and went to AppleInsider.com on my MacBook Safari warned me of the malware on the site. I no longer visit AppleInsider.com on my PC. Why can Safari detect malware on a site and IE 7 cannot? Google maybe?
Of all the operating systems that need a browser to be able to warn of malware you would believe Microsoft would be licensing whatever tech to get this done.
Move on already! Vista had problems. Windows 7 is optimized like Snow Leopard will be to Leopard. Microsoft need to stand up and demand for the good of the internet and corporation that XP is not for sale. What will corporations do then? They buy Vista and Windows 7 and actually use the products.
What version of Safari are you using to automatically find malware? Or do you have anti-virus software in use? My version of Safari (3.2.1) does not find malware. No big deal on the Mac since the malware can't be executed.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
If you're going to use the Service Pack analogy, then Windows 7 would have to be Windows Vista SP2, because Vista SP1 has been out for more than a year now.
Windows 2000 had internal version number 5.0.3700. Windows XP had internal version 5.1.2600. That's also only a 0.1 difference, for whatever that factoid is worth. (Hint: that factoid is worthless. So is the factoid that Windows 7 is only 0.1 away from Vista.) Was Windows XP essentially just a service pack on Windows 2000?
Then, 32-bit Windows XP went through 4 iterations - RTM, SP1, SP2, and SP3. But it maintained the same internal version number (5.1.2600) the whole time.
And then, paradoxically, other editions of Windows came along targeting various 64-bit architectures, all branded as XP, but they were based on the Windows 2003 Server code base (internal version number 5.2).
If you wanted to read anything into version numbers at all (which is sketchy at best) then the simple fact that the engineering team gave this OS an internal version number that's different from Vista's internal version number in the first place, is evidence that they must have considered the changes significant enough to go beyond something that they'd be able to deliver in the form of a service pack. If it had been delivered in a service pack, then in accordance with their historical patterns, the version number wouldn't have changed.
(But as I said, attempting to read too much into anybody's system of assigning version numbers is always going to be an imprecise art.)
If people already have a retail or upgrade copy of XP from their old PC (not an OEM version), can't they just transfer the license to the new PC without worrying about what OS is pre-loaded? I am assuming they would have to call Microsoft to make that happen since you can't deactivate MS software on your own. So maybe that is too much of a hassle.
I think it is misleading for Microsoft to count a Vista sale when people choose to downgrade back to XP through Microsoft's program. So they claim how popular Vista is based on computer sales that don't even run Vista.
Companies have no interest in Vista or Win7. I worked for a top insurance company that just decided to upgrade to XP Pro LAST YEAR. I guess they waited 8 years to decide on that upgrade. They were running NT and 2000. So I am sure they will go 10 years before they decide on Win7. Most companies have bare-bones PC's that are barely capable of running XP Pro.
why is this on AppleInsider? Oh yeah, because Prince McDork is a pathetic Apple fangirl. The tone Dilger uses to write her articles is just a tad condescending, like hollier than thou which to me, strips the piece of any unbias.
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting "piece of information" and I enjoy reading about other topics and not just mac stuff, but this has little direct relevance to Apple or Apple's OS. Yes, it's still interesting but this belongs on ZDNet.
With good price and qualified products, Zhengzhou Vipeak Heavy Industry Machinery Co., Ltd has long been one of the best powder processing machinery companies in China, Welcome all the customers from worldwide to browse our website and choose our machinery.
Being a leading company in Industrial powder processing, Engineering Stone crushing and Construction Sand Making, Zhengzhou Vipeak Heavy Industry Machinery Co., Ltd is a high-tech mining machinery company in China. Our service has expanded to the entire world, almost including 75 countries.From Engineering Stone, Construction Sand to Engineering Powder, All Equipments from VIPEAK exert great productivity and stability on working sites, make the customers satisfied. We strongly feel that customers do not only need equipments with good performance, but in the hope of their efficiency, their benefit and their competitive power。so high value added equipments have been produced.We have never been satisfied; our customer?s satisfaction is our utmost objective.
If HP chooses to install XP rather than Win7, it will be making a very stupid decision.
I'm using Win7 on my MSI Wind netbook, and subjectively it easily outperforms XP - and that's with all the graphics options turned on.
Make no mistake, Win7 is a big step forward. Would I choose it over Mac OS X? No. But if I'm using a non-Apple PC, there's no way that I'd want to run anything else.
I agree, I don't hold anything personal against Windows itself but rather against the people running Microsoft. Win7 beta runs great, even as a VM, & it is everything that Vista should have been.
I personally believe that it is definitely possible that Windows can be as secure & slick as OS X, my main reason for choosing OS X is that I'm a network engineer & Unix just goes well with a CLI guy like me. An OS that has killer CLI & great UI, who could ask for more! MD-DOS is a joke, always was.
I welcome Win7, I honestly want something that can work for Windows users cause I'm sick of fixing XP issues & dealing with XP viruses. We need something of quality from Microsoft cause when the OS with 90% market share has major security issues it isn't just the users of that OS that are at risk. Information about myself & my fiances likely sits on an XP machine somewhere & I can only hope it isn't one of the ones that fell to the Conflicker virus.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
It is. Just install it and compare the two (preferably on the same machine.)
I have Vista Home Premium and Win7 Beta 1 installed on my Toshiba laptop, and Win7 does most everything faster than Vista, and my netbook, same thing with Win7 compared to XP.
The Tosh has a Turion 64 X2 1.8 GHz dual-core, 2GB RAM, ATI X1200 IGP, but a slow 200 GB 4200 RPM HD. The netbook is an Acer Aspire One with a 160 GB 5400 RPM HD and a gig of RAM.
Service Packs almost never bring performance increases, just a collection of patches and occasional add-ons (XP SP2 added Windows Firewall and the security center), but when Vista SP1 came out, it didn't make my desktop running Business edition any faster.
Aero even works fine on my netbook, with only the Intel GMA 950 - it's pretty slick considering (even gets a better Windows Index score than my laptop in Win7: a 2.1 vs. a 2.0), but Win7 has a score for disk transfer speed now, and a 4200 RPM drive is dirt slow.
IMO, Win7 is to Vista, like Snow Leopard will be Leopard: cut the fat in the OS, and see how much faster it gets (although Apple hasn't done a public beta of SL, but I'm liking Win7 a lot so far, and I even know people that are using it as their main OS now).
I'll probably even get Win7 64-bit once that is RTM, and upgrade my laptop to 4 GB. SL should be good, but I don't how much benefit I would see with it on my older C2D Mini.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
It's actualy a closer representation to say it's like XP service pack 2. XP was once upon a time the worst OS MS had ever made. After hardware support revisions and and the rest of service pack 2 it became the darling of the PC world. Thats how most MS OSs work. They start week and get better as the service packs come through. The problem with Vista was that they didn't give proper specs from the onset to run the OS properly. This coupled with the same bad initial hardware support hindered performance and made people stick with XP. People thought they could run Vista with a single core processor and a gig of ram with their outdated onboard video. It didn't help that computer manufacturers like dell and hp allowed machines originaly designed for XP to get loaded with Vista prior to sale. It was a complete breakdown with a perfectly fine OS(for the most part) that couldnt run the way it was meant to because people don't understand components.
The truth is that Vista is far enough along that it's actually a halfway descent OS. Especial the 64bit version.
This all being said, if you have the proper hardware and are running the 64bit version of Windows 7 with 5 or 6 gigs of ram it should be pretty close to Xp in speed.
It's all about running this stuff with the right junk.
It's so refreshing to actually see an intelligent discussion on a web site devoted to one company about a competing one. There are quite a few of us here that use Bootcamp because of specific needs. But I have seen countless web sites where people will blantly attack someone just because they want information or to discuss one platorm or the other. It's GREAT to see all of us here interact this way.
When you see posts like this where they refuse to accept any facts about anything Apple, you appreciate the community we have here a lot.
Most of this silly XP downgrade is due to corporations (Microsoft's biggest clients) that are too cheap to upgrade, even after 7 years.
I worked for a company that made millions year after year, was based on information distribution and was 90% web based but even in 2008 they were still running PIII/P4 Pc's from 2004 and earlier, used Server 2000 on ancient servers that were from 2001 and refused to upgrade to vista, or even new hardware, because it would hurt their profits. (Even though they had tons of cash in reserve to do so)
Compound this with an IT group that has no training in Vista administration (and of course they weren't going to pay them to go and learn anything), have proprietary software that wasn't made to work with Vista (because they rehashed it year after year) so there was strike two.
Until these multi-billion dollar corps decide "Okay, now we are ready" it will continue to happen. Microsoft did nothing but hurt themselves by build a reputation for keeping OS's alive for a decade.
Comments
They have so much confidence in their products, and product development.
Oh well. What do I care; I use OS X.
... Win7 is much faster than Vista, and about on par, or faster than XP in my experience, even in beta.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
It sure seems that way to me. However, while it may be faster, it still has the same annoying user interface of Vista (I find translucent title bars and the 'pop-out' dialog boxes to be horribly distracting).
I also find it hard to believe that it performs well on a netbook. I've got a 1.83ghz C2D and a gig of memory, and it seems to perform nothing more than adequately. With two gigs, it would probably be just fine, and while you can get netbooks with 2g ram, they still have comparably underpowered CPUs.
This is so stupid!
As long as XP continues to thrive malware makers have a sure way to propagate their crud. I work at a company of 30K + employees and got a trojan that destroyed my system a few weeks ago. I called our helpdesk to reimage my laptop as no personal files were kept there. The lead helpdesk tech told me he had the same trojan.
McAfee and 4 other anti-malware apps couldn't completely clean my system with McAfee being the worst and that is our corporate standard.
Guess where I got the Trojan? AppleInsider.com. My PC with XP got infected in a heartbeat and when I came home and went to AppleInsider.com on my MacBook Safari warned me of the malware on the site. I no longer visit AppleInsider.com on my PC. Why can Safari detect malware on a site and IE 7 cannot? Google maybe?
Of all the operating systems that need a browser to be able to warn of malware you would believe Microsoft would be licensing whatever tech to get this done.
Move on already! Vista had problems. Windows 7 is optimized like Snow Leopard will be to Leopard. Microsoft need to stand up and demand for the good of the internet and corporation that XP is not for sale. What will corporations do then? They buy Vista and Windows 7 and actually use the products.
What version of Safari are you using to automatically find malware? Or do you have anti-virus software in use? My version of Safari (3.2.1) does not find malware. No big deal on the Mac since the malware can't be executed.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
If you're going to use the Service Pack analogy, then Windows 7 would have to be Windows Vista SP2, because Vista SP1 has been out for more than a year now.
Windows 2000 had internal version number 5.0.3700. Windows XP had internal version 5.1.2600. That's also only a 0.1 difference, for whatever that factoid is worth. (Hint: that factoid is worthless. So is the factoid that Windows 7 is only 0.1 away from Vista.) Was Windows XP essentially just a service pack on Windows 2000?
Then, 32-bit Windows XP went through 4 iterations - RTM, SP1, SP2, and SP3. But it maintained the same internal version number (5.1.2600) the whole time.
And then, paradoxically, other editions of Windows came along targeting various 64-bit architectures, all branded as XP, but they were based on the Windows 2003 Server code base (internal version number 5.2).
If you wanted to read anything into version numbers at all (which is sketchy at best) then the simple fact that the engineering team gave this OS an internal version number that's different from Vista's internal version number in the first place, is evidence that they must have considered the changes significant enough to go beyond something that they'd be able to deliver in the form of a service pack. If it had been delivered in a service pack, then in accordance with their historical patterns, the version number wouldn't have changed.
(But as I said, attempting to read too much into anybody's system of assigning version numbers is always going to be an imprecise art.)
I think it is misleading for Microsoft to count a Vista sale when people choose to downgrade back to XP through Microsoft's program. So they claim how popular Vista is based on computer sales that don't even run Vista.
Companies have no interest in Vista or Win7. I worked for a top insurance company that just decided to upgrade to XP Pro LAST YEAR. I guess they waited 8 years to decide on that upgrade. They were running NT and 2000. So I am sure they will go 10 years before they decide on Win7. Most companies have bare-bones PC's that are barely capable of running XP Pro.
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting "piece of information" and I enjoy reading about other topics and not just mac stuff, but this has little direct relevance to Apple or Apple's OS. Yes, it's still interesting but this belongs on ZDNet.
Being a leading company in Industrial powder processing, Engineering Stone crushing and Construction Sand Making, Zhengzhou Vipeak Heavy Industry Machinery Co., Ltd is a high-tech mining machinery company in China. Our service has expanded to the entire world, almost including 75 countries.From Engineering Stone, Construction Sand to Engineering Powder, All Equipments from VIPEAK exert great productivity and stability on working sites, make the customers satisfied. We strongly feel that customers do not only need equipments with good performance, but in the hope of their efficiency, their benefit and their competitive power。so high value added equipments have been produced.We have never been satisfied; our customer?s satisfaction is our utmost objective.
Crusher|Jaw Crusher|Impact Crusher|Raymond mill|grinding mill|Ball mill
Crusher
Jaw Crusher
Impact Crusher
Raymond mill
grinding mill
Mill Series|Raymond Mill|Super Pressure Trapezium Mill|Straight Centrifugal Grinder
Jaw Crushser|Impact Crusher|Hammer Crusher
Jaw Crushser|Impact Crusher|Hammer Crusher
Three-rings and medium-speed superfine grinding mill|Powder mill
Raymond mill|Raymond grinder|Raymond roller mill|R Pendulum mill
Vertical roller mill|Coarse powder grinder
High Pressure Suspension Grinder|High Pressure Raymond Mill|Powder mill
Fine powder grinding mill|Fine powder equipment|Powder mill
Ball mill
Jaw Crushser|Stone Crusher|Rock Crusher
Impact Crusher|Stone Crusher|Crushing Machine
Sand Making Machine
Sand Washing Machine
Hammer Crusher|crushing machine|Pulverizer
Circular Vibrating Screen
Vibrating Feeder
http://www.grinderpro.com/index.asp
Crusher|Jaw Crusher|Impact Crusher|Raymond mill|grinding mill|Ball mill=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/HGM.html
Three-rings and medium-speed superfine grinding mill|Powder mill=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Raymond.html
Raymond mill|Raymond grinder|Raymond roller mill|R Pendulum mill=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Straight.html
Vertical roller mill|Coarse powder grinder=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Suspension.html
High Pressure Suspension Grinder|High Pressure Raymond Mill|Powder mill=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Micro-powder.html
Fine powder grinding mill|Fine powder equipment|Powder mill=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/ball.html
Ball mill=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Jaw.html
Jaw Crushser|Stone Crusher|Rock Crusher=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Impact.html
Impact Crusher|Stone Crusher|Crushing Machine=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Sand_Making.html
Sand Making Machine=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Sand_Washing.html
Sand Washing Machine =Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Hammer.html
Hammer Crusher|crushing machine|Pulverizer=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Circular_V...ng_Screen.html
Circular Vibrating Screen=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
http://www.grinderpro.com/Vibrating.html
Vibrating Feeder=Vipeak Heavy Industry in China
If HP chooses to install XP rather than Win7, it will be making a very stupid decision.
I'm using Win7 on my MSI Wind netbook, and subjectively it easily outperforms XP - and that's with all the graphics options turned on.
Make no mistake, Win7 is a big step forward. Would I choose it over Mac OS X? No. But if I'm using a non-Apple PC, there's no way that I'd want to run anything else.
I agree, I don't hold anything personal against Windows itself but rather against the people running Microsoft. Win7 beta runs great, even as a VM, & it is everything that Vista should have been.
I personally believe that it is definitely possible that Windows can be as secure & slick as OS X, my main reason for choosing OS X is that I'm a network engineer & Unix just goes well with a CLI guy like me. An OS that has killer CLI & great UI, who could ask for more! MD-DOS is a joke, always was.
I welcome Win7, I honestly want something that can work for Windows users cause I'm sick of fixing XP issues & dealing with XP viruses. We need something of quality from Microsoft cause when the OS with 90% market share has major security issues it isn't just the users of that OS that are at risk. Information about myself & my fiances likely sits on an XP machine somewhere & I can only hope it isn't one of the ones that fell to the Conflicker virus.
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
It is. Just install it and compare the two (preferably on the same machine.)
I have Vista Home Premium and Win7 Beta 1 installed on my Toshiba laptop, and Win7 does most everything faster than Vista, and my netbook, same thing with Win7 compared to XP.
The Tosh has a Turion 64 X2 1.8 GHz dual-core, 2GB RAM, ATI X1200 IGP, but a slow 200 GB 4200 RPM HD. The netbook is an Acer Aspire One with a 160 GB 5400 RPM HD and a gig of RAM.
Service Packs almost never bring performance increases, just a collection of patches and occasional add-ons (XP SP2 added Windows Firewall and the security center), but when Vista SP1 came out, it didn't make my desktop running Business edition any faster.
Aero even works fine on my netbook, with only the Intel GMA 950 - it's pretty slick considering (even gets a better Windows Index score than my laptop in Win7: a 2.1 vs. a 2.0), but Win7 has a score for disk transfer speed now, and a 4200 RPM drive is dirt slow.
IMO, Win7 is to Vista, like Snow Leopard will be Leopard: cut the fat in the OS, and see how much faster it gets (although Apple hasn't done a public beta of SL, but I'm liking Win7 a lot so far, and I even know people that are using it as their main OS now).
I'll probably even get Win7 64-bit once that is RTM, and upgrade my laptop to 4 GB. SL should be good, but I don't how much benefit I would see with it on my older C2D Mini.
Wlll they ever move FreshStart for non-profits from 2000Pro to XP?
FreshStart stopped taking orders last month and ceases to exist.
https://www.microsoft.com/Education/.../FsSplash.aspx
If true, that claim would surprise me-- a lot-- since there's no architectural different between Vista and "Windows 7" (which, inside Microsoft's engineering department, is still known by its development name: "Windows 6.1"-- apparently, the integer-upgrade was a marketing decision, not necessarily justified by any actual technical upgrades...).
As Ballmer himself is quoted in the article we're discussion, "7" is an interface improvement, with improvements in performance. Historically, it's comparable to Vista SP1-- and, yes, service packs for Win2K and XP often DID bring moderate performance improvements.
But if Win7 is "much faster than Vista," then I'll be very surprised...
It's actualy a closer representation to say it's like XP service pack 2. XP was once upon a time the worst OS MS had ever made. After hardware support revisions and and the rest of service pack 2 it became the darling of the PC world. Thats how most MS OSs work. They start week and get better as the service packs come through. The problem with Vista was that they didn't give proper specs from the onset to run the OS properly. This coupled with the same bad initial hardware support hindered performance and made people stick with XP. People thought they could run Vista with a single core processor and a gig of ram with their outdated onboard video. It didn't help that computer manufacturers like dell and hp allowed machines originaly designed for XP to get loaded with Vista prior to sale. It was a complete breakdown with a perfectly fine OS(for the most part) that couldnt run the way it was meant to because people don't understand components.
The truth is that Vista is far enough along that it's actually a halfway descent OS. Especial the 64bit version.
This all being said, if you have the proper hardware and are running the 64bit version of Windows 7 with 5 or 6 gigs of ram it should be pretty close to Xp in speed.
It's all about running this stuff with the right junk.
I'm a Linux guy by the way.
When you see posts like this where they refuse to accept any facts about anything Apple, you appreciate the community we have here a lot.
http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forum...ead_id=2764818
I worked for a company that made millions year after year, was based on information distribution and was 90% web based but even in 2008 they were still running PIII/P4 Pc's from 2004 and earlier, used Server 2000 on ancient servers that were from 2001 and refused to upgrade to vista, or even new hardware, because it would hurt their profits. (Even though they had tons of cash in reserve to do so)
Compound this with an IT group that has no training in Vista administration (and of course they weren't going to pay them to go and learn anything), have proprietary software that wasn't made to work with Vista (because they rehashed it year after year) so there was strike two.
Until these multi-billion dollar corps decide "Okay, now we are ready" it will continue to happen. Microsoft did nothing but hurt themselves by build a reputation for keeping OS's alive for a decade.
I thought Windows 7 was supposed to be the "OS X killer"....yet it can't even kill Windows XP.
HAHAHA! Freaking awesome.
Yeah, I've got XP on my PC. Gonna try and keep it running until 2014. Then it's Mac time for me.