An Interesting Comparision Between Vista and 7

200motels

http://variableghz.com/2012/01/why-windows-vista-sp1-is-better-than-windows-7/
An interesting read.

Overheal

mother of god he's right, when I got 7 ultimate I wanted DreamScene and totally forgot about it. Now I'm mildly upset, and shaking my fist.

the rest of his argument I think is really shaky, but dreamscene..!

the_syco

I glanced through it. Seems to hate W7 with a passion. I hate Vista, as it's still sh|te after a few service packs, whereas W7 is good now.

Fysh

Guy's a twit or a troll. His arguments against 7 are mostly predicated on "I dont like this feature or setting, and changing it is too technical for the average user", which might be reasonable if his thesis weren't "and Vista is better", since getting Vista to work well is possible with the right hardware (memory is key but so is a dedicated graphics card, IME) but is at least as technical as anything he moans about. I've yet to meet a user who thinks installing WLE is easier than disabling ReadyBoost or Superfetch.

Also, even the post SP2 indexer in Vista hammers performance too much. My experience is that people prefer the indexer to be disabled and to use a 3rd party tool like Google desktop search.

Also also, Dreamscene can die in a fire. The description on the MS website makes it sound utterly stupid, and frankly I'm glad it's gone - all I can imagine arising from it are performance issues followed by moaning.

200motels

I've never really used Vista only an odd time as I have a old PC with it Vista on it and I played around with it last night oh what a nightmare, it needed 2 service packs which it's still installing and the amount of space it takes up all by itself is unbelievable, it's Vista Ultimate with 2 GB of ram Pentium 4 Processor, I'll play around some more with it but won't be using for everyday use as I have 2 other PC'S with 7 and XP on them, the XP one would be much faster than the Vista one,, I think the article is interesting but Vista better than 7 NO.

blackdog2

Installed Vista on a homebuild with only 1GB of RAM (the rest of the specs weren't bad - 3.6GHz Prescott P4 and X800 GTO graphics), as it had no bloatware it ran fairly zippily. I didn't notice many major bugs that made me think "This is a whole heap of crap", it was faster than my last machine, and looked a hell of a lot prettier, but the exact same comparisons he drew could be made of Vista vs XP.

When I got my 7 lappy (pentium t4500, 2GB RAM and ATI 4570M gfx, bloatware to beat the band) everything was just... smoother. More fluid. I think the consumer will notice most the prettiness of the interface, and then how it runs on the available hardware. Stability is a given, and the particulars of the search indexer are beyond the average user.

Sure, some real issues seem to have gotten his goat, but as a fairly average user I am most thankful for 7, and looking forward to getting 8 in a service pack's time

the_syco

blackdog2 wrote: »

looking forward to getting 8 in a service pack's time

If you loved Vista, you'll love W8.

Oh, wait :pac:

As far as I have seen, Metro is great on tablets, phones, etc. Not so great on a PC.

Capt'n Midnight

blackdog2 wrote: »

same comparisons he drew could be made of Vista vs XP

All the new versions of windows it's the same old story of

the nice optional features are cool

but OMGF !!
XYZ are missing and why is ABC so much slower then the old version and why oh why do they keep moving and renaming stuff that powers users use and why did they drop the feature that was supposedly the reason for the whole big change (I'm looking at you winfs - first promised in the days of '95 and still waiting)

(People also get narked about missing drivers but blame the manufacturers who had 2+ years to get them working)