WINDOWS 8 & 7 Discussion

Why were the drivers NOT on time for Vista then?
And i AM already running Win7 without any drivers missing.....MS put Win7 out as fast as they could because they want to put the release debacle of Vista behind them. Vista could've served for another couple of years and it probably will, just like XP, but it's name has been damaged so best to move on.

 

I meant as a general user you need some time span...They cant just keep jumping around like that with OS....Now DX10 cards will not have DX11 features....But alltogether win 7 is far far better then vista..I am using one...

 

far far better? hm.. not my experience but i'm quite alone (i'm one of those who does think the iphone is not the greatest phone in existance as well, etc.. you may get the idea).

ssd are like hdd's, but based on flash memory instead of rotating disks. they have huge performance benefits due to that. and some problems there's a huge ssd thread in this forums, its sticky

 

Core count has nothing to do with the bit width of the processor. No Core 2 part (solo, duo, or quad) can run 128-bit code. They can run 64-bit, 32-bit, or anything prior.

I could say the same thing about Windows 98 in relation to 95. =)

 

you have a typo, you ment 2008.

and btw, it's still "vista with small changes" in the backend. but that is actually one of the good things imho. i like how it works with everything that vista works, how it includes all the good stuff of vista and finally makes them shine.

i didn't like how vista got hurt because of all the big changes in it.

on the front end, win7 has big changes. but thats not nearly as much work as back end changes are.

some of the new stuff that vista introduced: completely new setup routine/winpe environment. complete new driver model for gpus (a huge advancement in stability, but tons of work went into that). a complete new networking stack (+frontend). rewritten security model with uac in. full new dll handling with winsxs rewritten.

i'm glad vista made those changes, and glad win7 doesn't. i'm glad for both

wow..

i'm quite positive about win7 right now. i still hate the new taskbar takes away all "uh maybe i should get it anyways"

just seen Windows 7 UAC Code Injection Vulnerability Video Demonstration Source Code Released
this right now. still a problem? I hope not. Else, it renders UAC default settings on Win7 completely useless.

 

I wouldn't even agree with that. Win7 is a slightly polished-up Vista, and that's all there is to it. It's analogous to Win2K versus WinXP (pre-SP2 anyway...): Some little tweaks here and there, slightly more polished interface, nothing major anywhere.

[rant]Underneath, still the same crappy desktop graphics (which they promised us they'd replace with some up-to-date vector-based graphics subsystem when Vista was still called Longhorn; you know, the kind of graphics susbsystem that OS X uses for how many years now?). Resolution independence anyone? Sheesh, in the age of ultra-high resolution monitors, you can still not increase the DPI in Win7 without running into all sorts of problems. As soon as you dig just an inch underneath the surface, what do you see? The desktop properties dialog from Windows NT 3.x! Still no WinFS. The list of missed advances goes on and on. For crying out loud, when will they give us a modern operating system?[\rant]

Seriously, Win7 is alright, but it is a far cry from where we should be in 2010.

 

I try to formulate it in a way that I don't get that many naysayers, but I guess everyone knows I believe the same you do

actually, osx doesn't deliver it really as well, and the vista GUI is far away from the pixel-only graphics towards vectorized and scalable graphics. but there are explicit explanations on why vectorized won't really work. simple: it would not look better, but worse by default than the old one. there's much more to it. but simplified, that's the reason.
now winfs would be fun. really useful? don't know. but it would be fun

yep.

what i love is after win7. the biggest thing is, they now do checks for every component if it gets used. so starting with win8, we will see finally how they drop useless old stuff no one needs anymore (or, possibly, make it optional with some stubs to inform the user). same for office.

can't wait for what comes thanks to those measurements.

 

Guys is it possible to use vista key in upgrade to windows 7....Will, it work

 

Nope. Unless you are using a Vista Beta Key back when Vista was in beta mode.

 

The thing with Windows 8 is that:
The Vista people are working on 7 while making patches for Vista and stuff.
The people who worked on XP. What do you do with them? You fire them because XP is finished? No, you make them work on another project.

 

W7 is more efficient than Vista from an I/O and memory standpoint. Vista is such a hog! Not to mention W7 has an improved UI (for the most part). However, Windows XP is still going to be generally faster than W7 on older systems.

 

Why would someone wanna have a 8yrs old system lying in thier home for xp...When the truth is that you get very cheap laptops now days with minium 3GB ram placed inn with 160 - 250 GB HDD minium range...For laptops & if you speak about desktop then probably 3GB will be minium 4GB easy...

Also, custom biuld desktop are more cheaper then branded with 8GB Ram...

 

You would be surprised how many people still use computers from 2001.

 

Indeed. My dad had a computer from way back that had Windows 95 on it. It was running fine all the way up until a few months ago, when he found that the new applications he wanted wouldn't work at all on it, and that it (finally) grew too slow for his needs.

 

After talking with a Windows rep directly, 7 is supposed to be around until 2014. Vista was the 3 year cycle, Win7 should be the 5 year cycle. That was the last I heard.

 

64 bit may take off faster in the consumer market but the business market isn't ready for it. Business applications will move slowly into 64 bit. Payroll, financial and HR software which all companies use won't be 64 bit for awhile. My compant will not replace 1500 pc every 3 years the Microsoft develops a new OS. Windows 8 is no different from any other OS from MS. Vista would have been out way before it was but the issue with security in XP may MS take their Vista resources and put them into a SP for XP.

If you look around at the laptops that are coming out with memory above 4 gig are coming with 6 gig. Just like the 32 bit OS limitations the hardware now will only read a little over 6 gig. The price of 4 gig memory chips is around 400.00 and 2 gig ram chips are barely over 20. I bought a kit for 45 a month ago.

 

It also uses IIS 7.5 and we haven't migrated to IIS 7.0 yet because our Web apps aren't compatible yet.

 

and 64bit only would mean none of the older hw could use the actual configured os for your business, even while a p4 can easily handle win7 and daily office tasks. and <=4gb ram is enough for most business tasks just as well.

going 64bit only is simply not needed and a bad move. having support for going 64bit, where it makes sense, is important (and given since vista).

 

I tested Win7 RC and don't really see any significant difference in speed. The big plus is that it recognized almost all the drivers. With specialized drivers you still have to get from the manufacturer. The GUI isn't as cluttered. The one thing I did notice is that there isn't a 'classic view' option when clicking 'control panel'. I will stay with Vista for now since it's running without any problems.

 

You can sort of get the classic look if you switch the view from category to large/small icons.