| Type | Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle | Source | Last Checked |  |
 |
Newsvine is msnbc.com's social-news community where you can discuss stories, publish your own column, and connect with other news lovers.
Just icons and no text - Nooooo! If I could, I would go back to DOS. If you want pictures, buy Apple. Leave my words alone!
I have 4 systems w/ XP , actually a 98SE,WIN 3.1/and DOS as well. There is an ol' Chinese saying:
FIRST,.....DO NOTHING. that says it all
actually, I'm using it now... and it's a DEFINATE improvement over Vista (which, IMO, wasn't as bad as the naysayers implied - it did have it's moments though).
#1 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:55 AM EDTI am mystified as to the ire over Vista. We have it and have had no problems with it.
I'm also using the released version (MSDN Subscription). I've been using it since the Beta. I also loved Vista albeit the 64-bit version. I never had any problems on my Core 2 Duo Vostro 1700 with 4 GB of RAM.
I'm looking forward to some netbooks coming out with dual processors and a decent graphics card running on Windows 7.
#2 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 10:02 AM EDTtry a mac- they have offered what you're looking for for years...
I've ran beta(s) and now have Win 7 RC operational. Beats Vista Hands Down!. A nice swift interface without the memory hogging of Vista. So far all programmes that ran on Vista also run on Win 7.
#3 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:01 AM EDTAs an IT professional who has beta tested for Microsoft, my rule of thumb is wait for Service Pack 2 before upgrading my PCs. By then the major bugs, and many little ones, have been worked out of the OS. PC hardware and software vendors have also had time to fix/optimize drivers and patch their applications.
#4 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:55 AM EDTAMEN!
So far ive had one problem with it.It seams that if disconnect the hd for any reason it will forget what to do.
Me too! I've used every Microsoft OS since the beginning. I used to jump right in but now, IMO, SP2 is the minimum wait before making the switch. Believe it or not, I've got Vista working great on all four of my machines. I'm an oldie -- set in my ways. I think I'll enjoy what I've got for now. :)
Eh unless windows 7 can print legal tender and directly deposit it, its a waste of time and money to bother with.
#5 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 12:16 PM EDTI hope microsoft prices come down. If they want more people to upgrade how about a rebate for upgraders!
#6 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 1:15 PM EDTWindows7 is basically a gimmick. Its too expensive, its just a platform for the programs I want to run to run. Right now there is not a single program that I need that requires an upgrade from XP to Windows vista aka mojave aka Win 7. This article is a joke, as it is nothing but a sales pitch. It reads with just enough negatives to give the appearance of objectivity while pumping you with false positives as a band wagon reaction to Vista. Nice try.
#7 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:07 PM EDTWhy? don't fix what ain't broke
XP R3 works great for me - Vista is a joke and Win7 is way to much like Vista. A pain in the butt to get around. Upgrade the core okay, but why change everything that makes the system what it is. You can make Win 7 look like XP, but you can't make it function as well, because all the "new" features corrupt the basics of a user friendly interface.
#8 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:13 PM EDTI wonder what you well be doing when XP dies down and Microsoft stops supporting it and giving out release packets? Look Vista was a joke, I ran it and it just had problems. Now windows 7 isn't anything like Vista at all. True it has some of the stuff that vista has but that is only because people liked the features that were in Vista.
Ok sure Windows 7 *as i am running it now from upgrading from Vista Ultimate 64 bit* runs extremely perfect. You need to go out and buy it and try it before you make any remarks about Win 7 since apparently you never used it at all!
All the new features corrupt the basics of user friendly interface?? Humm thats a new one on me. You know that isn't even true about Win 7 at all, i nfact it is the most user friendly OS ever that came out of Micorosft! So why not go and get a copy this oct and try it out you would be very pleased with it! Then you can compare it with xp R3.
Just so you are aware, you can set the taskbar to look like vista, words included :)
#9 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 5:45 PM EDTFor those worried about Windows 7 being icon-crazy, 7 has additional customization features (like Visioned pointed out: you can still have text in your task bar). I've found it very snappy and pleasant, easier to work with and more helpful in my daily tasks. It feels like the OS is working for me, not the other way around. There is more to 7 than just flash, I assure you. It's not flawless, but it's a worthy upgrade if you're in the market. Not convinced? Get the Release Candidate for free from Microsoft. You should decide based on your own experience, not just by reading a few incomplete articles.
#10 - Wed Aug 12, 2009 7:02 PM EDTOnly problem with OSX is that it cant run Windows online games, a huge (understatement) market, which makes it fail. I can buy any souped up version of Linux if I want something like OSX.
#11 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:10 AM EDTWhich online games are you referring to? I play Lord of The Rings Online on my Mac Pro using Vista and it works great. When running Windows natively on a Mac it is no different than using a PC.
I have VISTA and I HATE it. It came on my new computer. Have had more trouble in the 1 1/2 years with it than all previous years of computer ownership. Will be a cold day in July before I spend another dime on a MS product.
I could not vote because I will not buy the new OS, but I am definitely NOT happy with what I have now.
#12 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:33 AM EDTIf you want a good Vista or Windows 7 experience heed the following advice:
Make sure your CPU is at least a dual core 64 bit processor with a quad core 64 bit CPU even better. I recommend at least a 2.66MHZ processor.
Run only the 64 bit Ultimate Version. If you want to run the 32 bit version then stay with XP Pro. No reason for you to upgrade. Vista 32 bit even has the same memory limitation of XP Pro in that no more than 3GB is going to be used by the OS no matter how much memory is installed on the motherboard. If you want Vista looking windows(skins) on XP then use a 3rd party program like Stardock's window blinds.
Use at least 4GB memory. 8GB memory is best. Lack of memory creates seeming poor performance by constantly waiting for programs to swap to and from the page file. Open enough windows with little memory and the whole thing crashes. PC's sold as Vista compatable with only 2GB of memory will just not perform. Memory prices are now so low, this should no problem for most users. If you go with 8GB then you can also turn off system paging. Adding more memory is the single one thing you can do to improve overall performance.
Make sure your video card is up to par. Your video card should be at least an Nvidia GeForce 6800 or an ATI 1900XT or better. If you're in the market for a new video card then make sure it has at least 1GB of video memory and is DirectX 10.1 complient.
I'm with you.
Nothing wrong with Xp,Vista,OS X, Linux or Win 7, 95% of you never update your computers and take care of them. Like your car you have to change the oil.
I think I will buy an Apple. I have had trouble with every Microsoft operating system I have had and I am fed up with Bill Gate's follies.
#13 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:58 AM EDT
The funny thing about APPLE is that it does have it's share of problems to..
Lets see with an APPLE you can't just go out to like Best buy and buy and a DVD player and plug it into a MAC computer.. No it has to be made for the Mac, and they do tend to crash to (Macs are not perfect computers either.) They cost way more then a PC does and it can't even do what a PC can do!).
You just don't understand how to fix them do you? You need to learn to do that, true some of the OS's didn't work that great I even had problems with them including XP and Vista 64 bit but I manage to put up with the crashes and the blue screens (oh yeah that does happen in vista) and the freezes. But ever since i got win 7 it works alot better!
Wait until Oct 22nd and get WIn 7 Ultimate (It is worth the extra dough trust me).
THen you won't have any more problems at all..
Neal: It's obvious you've never owned a Mac. I've used both platforms extensively and I've built several of my own PCs. I know how to build and repair and all the rest and I would choose a Mac any day over a PC. There is nothing a PC can do that a Mac can't do just the same. In fact, a Mac can run OS X and Windows and that's something a PC can't do. Sure, nothing is 100% perfect and in the end it is a matter of preference. But generally speaking, OS X is a much better OS than Windows. It is laughable to see how MS is trying to emulate so many features from OS X into 7 that has existed for Mac users for years now. Still, it's a matter of opinion. Apple is a true innovator of technology in both hardware and software and their excellence forces MS to stay on their toes and turn out a more stable product. So even if you dislike Apple and prefer WIndows, you are directly benefiting from Apple's innovation.
Neal ..do you work for microsoft?
Linux is superior to both OS X and Windows. For the average person, though, it's not a practical choice. And it's a fact: low-IQ consumers get along much better with Macs...they've always been more integrated and simpler to use for the "average" person, and are clearly marketed that way. Really watch a few Mac commericals and you'll see it; without that market, Apple would have been defunct long ago. Personally, I prefer to retain whatever control over my operating environment functionality will allow. But then, I've always enjoyed using a computer the most when running my programs from a command line.
And td3k, the implication that Apple/Mac is responsible for Microsoft's success in the os market is ludicrous on its face, and is a perpetuation of the Steve Jobs cult-inspired fallacy that Apple/Mac is the poor little underdog that big, evil Microsoft stole ideas from and took advantage of. It's a great thing, free enterprise: that which works the best for the most people and for the least money is what takes the market share. End of story.
I never once said Microsoft owes their success to Apple. I said that because of Apple's innovation and ground breaking progress in both software and hardware design it forces Microsoft to do better. It's like back when the only big car company was GM. They were content with producing mediocre and downright bad products because what else were you going to buy? Microsoft fell into this same mentality and that can be seen in many of their over priced, under performing products. People got fed up with it and looked elsewhere. My opinions are based on my own experiences with using both operating systems extensively. Windows 7 is just Vista rewarmed - and it still doesn't have all the advancements that are available in Snow Leopard.
I just bought a new computer with Windows Vista X64 version. It is not as good as the original Vista. Based on that experience I won't be giving Windows 7 a try for at least a couple of years when I buy a new computer. An then I might first look at a Mac or something other than a MS system. MS op systems have a horrible reputation not being well thought out and too many security problems.
#14 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:56 AM EDTAll the PC's in my home network are running Windows Vista 64 Ultimate. They're stable, never crash on my Core2duo and Quad core systems. I was an early adopter of Vista and suffered through the TDR errors, waiting for video card manufacturers to build a video card that could handle areo, waited on printer drivers, raid drivers all of it. Win 7 is Vista 2.0 and for the most part uses the same drivers as Vista. Users who upgrade from Vista will have a more stable experience than users who upgrade from XP.
I dislike pinning applications to the Task Bar and would miss the quick launch toolbar. Vista has the same application preview buttons that Win 7 provides, there is just no reason to upgrade again. I tried Win7 Beta and RC1, just not enough bang for the buck to switch. While Win7 didn't run any worse than Vista, it didn't run any better either.
The biggest mistake is that both Vista and Win 7 support 32 bit environments. It is a 64 bit computing world now. I think both OS's would've been better received if only 64 bit versions released. Then people with a 10 year old XP machine with 512KB memory would not complain about their system not being able to run Vista or Win7.
#15 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:55 AM EDTI totally agree. I run Vista Ultimate on my Mac Pro desktop natively using boot camp. I also have Windows 7 RC running on a separate hard drive and the differences between the two are pretty minimal as best as I can tell. Overall I would say Windows 7 is a slight improvement over Vista with a few new tricks and features, but there is no way you can look at Windows 7 and not know that this is Vista just repackaged and spit shined. There is absolutely no way MS can even begin to justify the outrageous price they charge for this OS. Customers who purchased Vista are getting the ultimate shaft (pun intended) if they want to move to 7 and the pricing reflects that. If MS was hoping a large following of people moving to 7 I think they're going to blow it just because of the fact that in most cases people will have to do a clean install to upgrade, the pricing is too expensive, and in the end you'll still have an OS that has 32 bit code in it's core.
I wonder how many people who voted "Definitely! I'll be first in line" are Microsoft Employees??
#16 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:41 AM EDTNot me Magnum Serpentine
I have been running Windows 7 since the beta was released and have absolutely no problems. Much faster than Vista, and installation was a breeze. So far, I have had no problems with drivers or any of my existing software. Even some of my old DOS programs run without problems. I'll definately purchase the Ultimate version.
#17 - Thu Aug 13, 2009 1:05 PM EDTMy son built an 8 gig system with quad core phenom II chip. Obviously, without a 64-bit OS, he can't use 4 gigs of RAM at all. What choice does he have in upgrading from XP except vista 64 or 7? Not much really that will be compatible with Windows based software, e.g. many games and Word. As between the two, he might as well take the plunge and do a clean install of 7 rather than a double upgrade to Vista and then to 7. It is paifull to put out the money, but there isn't really a choice.
#18 - Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:52 AM EDTRedhat Fedora has a kernel that runs 4+ GIG of memory
.PAE physical address exntension
Magnum Serpentine: right on the mark!
W7 is just Vista whipped around to look different.
Give me a reason to believe anything else!
I like Linux...it is free...heard Ubuntu works without problems
as in Fedora
#19 - Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:48 PM EDTsounds = reads really funny, half crazy, all this ballyhoo about just another one of our Great- Friend's sales pitches .... & reading it on this 4 year old matte supermarket-laptop screen, with the help of a somewhat corrupted XP pro (in lieu of its OEM home) + kept alive by me : a total digi-analphabet ! > well, +++ the keyboard is for another tongue AS WELL !! >>> aLL you (mostly?all?) guyz queuing up there in redmond seemz to ave too much money fo yo brainz - Y don't yer go 'n buy yerself a good beer, or a nice glass of wine, instead ! ! ! HEY !
#20 - Thu Aug 20, 2009 4:59 PM EDTIf all you have is a "4 YO supermarket laptop", then you really don't have much choice, do you? Better stay where you are.
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Log In | Register
XP is so boring next to Vista or Windows 7. I love the new taskbar - I have all the programs I run pinned and it doesn't take any more roo