Yeah, they toned down UAC, >>AND << Superfetch's memory hogging, so as you say "it works like XP and it looks like Vista".Very fair. I'm using also Windows 7, and it's unbelievable good (Microsoft). I always have the feeling that it works fast like Windows XP, and the looking of Windows Vista
Truth be told, that's what's important, whether or not it worked for you. It is still nicknamed the "mistake edition", for better or worse.Wow, I may be the only person in the world who actually liked Windows ME! Or maybe that is just my brain justifying that i actually paid for it. But i never had any issues with reliability, compatibility, or anything else.
I won't comment on the underlying argument about health-care costs of MSM$ seem to have a habit of releasing a clunker OS from time to time. Methinks it's to boost sales of their next version, while attempting to compensate for rising cost in employee benefit packages, most notably the rise in health care premiums . So now, everybody says, "wow", this is so much better than Vista. Of course it is, it is after all, what Vista should have been.
Well i am still using xp sp2. So far, i am quite happy for it, not seeing any motivation of switching to 7. Maybe window 8 is the right callashwingeek said:
Well i am not too sure about choosing Windows 7. I will stick to my Windows XP for a year or two.
Or till microsoft officially stops Win XP support. It is said that they will stop XP support by 2014.
This does go a long way toward reinforcing my argument that Vista was the Windows 7 beta. XP was the only M$ OS in about 7 years! Vista lasted about 2! Vista was tested slower than XP in almost every performance aspect. I am of the opinion also, that Vista wasn't that bad, but it wasn't that good either.However, I think as Vista was a radical departure from XP; MS didn't prepared its customer base enough to take such a drastic change from the way they were used to (with xp/2k) in the olden days; secondly, I believe it wasn't ready, they tried to rush it out, instead of taking may be few more Quarters to prepare it for prime time (case in point SP1).
You would have to qualify this statement by telling us what's faster. I know the answer, I just want to see if you do.I don't believe on this statement. do we see xp is fast.
I am glad to see 7 doing so well, but I think the sales numbers reflect the market for new PCs to a much greater extent than the market for upgrades. We who read things like Techspot tend to forget that most average consumers NEVER upgrade to a new OS; they just buy a new PC. My parents bought a PC with XP that included a free Vista upgrade, and they never installed Vista even when I offered to do it for them. Their first experience with Windows 7 will be if and when they buy a PC that has it already installed. Many retail pre-built computers made in the XP era do not meet the minimum requirements to run a full-featured version of 7.The sales numbers also show how hungry the market is for a new OS to replace their aged Win XP.
Good point, but there may be a "chicken and the egg" paradigm involved here.I am glad to see 7 doing so well, but I think the sales numbers reflect the market for new PCs to a much greater extent than the market for upgrades. We who read things like Techspot tend to forget that most average consumers NEVER upgrade to a new OS; they just buy a new PC. .... [ ]... Many retail pre-built computers made in the XP era do not meet the minimum requirements to run a full-featured version of 7.
All valid points, and i loved the part quoted above!"well honey, we haven't had a new PC in 5 years, and people are saying wonderful things about the new Windows7, and this old clunker won't run it. Whaddya think, can we go look around for something better"? This just falls into the category of "should we trade in our car this year, (Vista) or next year (Windows 7). And we all know who lost that argument.