EPTVista or XP - Page 2
| Blogs > ThE_OsToJiY |
|
Kurosaki
United States158 Posts
| ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
Fr33t
United States1128 Posts
| ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On September 18 2009 11:31 mahnini wrote: vista if you have the hardware it's funny how people recommend 7 and then be lik omg vista is so bad because for the average user they are nearly the same. If you have the hardware. Yes you are correct, but if you don't have the hardware for Vista but do for XP then you can also run 7. The thing about 7 is while it is very close to Vista it is a huge performance leap on older or weaker hardware. For example, I cannot run Vista (without it being as slow as piss) on my netbook and you would find it near impossible to find a netbook with Vista on it. But I loaded 7 onto it and its amazingly fast for the hardware specs that it has (go do a search for netbook specs, they're all roughly the same). So yes if you have the hardware the differences are harder to notice, but if you don't exactly have a great machine then 7 does shine. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
Its like being served three drinks that are roughly the same and drinking the crappiest one because 'eh they're all roughly the same'. | ||
|
iamho
United States3345 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On September 18 2009 13:26 Chuiu wrote: I'm sure as hell not going to recommend Vista. XP and 7 are both better, why the fuck wouldn't I recommend them? Its like being served three drinks that are roughly the same and drinking the crappiest one because 'eh they're all roughly the same'. Eh, did you turn off UAC and aero in vista before making judgment? Because if not, you're pretty stupid. How do you expect to run a shit ton of eye candy on one OS, nothing on the other and then complain that the former is too slow? Most netbooks have integrated graphics so of course Aero is going to really slow the computer down. Anyway I recommend Vista because it runs very fast on my laptop and you can upgrade to windows 7 without having to do a clean install. I have xp desktop and vista laptop and there is NO advantage that xp has over vista. In fact, my desktop has been getting countless blue screens while my laptop has gotten literally nothing. Of course, the desktop has a lot more software and different hardware and other crap installed so I'm hesitant to blame it on XP. But vista has never crashed on me yet and I will be upgrading to 7 on both computers. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 18 2009 13:26 Chuiu wrote: I'm sure as hell not going to recommend Vista. XP and 7 are both better, why the fuck wouldn't I recommend them? Its like being served three drinks that are roughly the same and drinking the crappiest one because 'eh they're all roughly the same'. except 7 is for all intents and purposes a slightly faster vista? we're talking about a couple seconds in specific apps. and vista is even faster than 7 in some apps so... the only really large improvements come from network transfer speeds which the average user probably does not care about. they also mention 'snappier ui' but also admit that aspect could not be measured reliably. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3 i'm not saying windows 7 isnt better than vista. i'm saying you cant really insult vista without shitting on windows 7 as well. thus, the fact that you would recommend XP over vista because it is better is kinda bleh when benchmarks show that 7 trades off with vista | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 18 2009 11:31 mahnini wrote: vista if you have the hardware it's funny how people recommend 7 and then be lik omg vista is so bad because for the average user they are nearly the same. i used to think there was no reason to switch to vista over xp but i also used to format routinely (like every 3 months) because xp would slow down drastically over time. vista is less affected by that to the point where i dont format anymore at all for speed reasons. No one pays attention when I say this.  Every speed test is done on a fresh install. Do a speed test on 9 month old systems and XP will get curb stomped by both Vista and 7.Anyways, 2GB of ram is a bit low but I'd get Vista, and then later get the 7 upgrade. I'd also buy some more ram if I were you, since it's pretty cheap anyways and pretty useful. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 18 2009 14:37 mahnini wrote: except 7 is for all intents and purposes a slightly faster vista? we're talking about a couple seconds in specific apps. and vista is even faster than 7 in some apps so... the only really large improvements come from network transfer speeds which the average user probably does not care about. they also mention 'snappier ui' but also admit that aspect could not be measured reliably. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3 i'm not saying windows 7 isnt better than vista. i'm saying you cant really insult vista without shitting on windows 7 as well. thus, the fact that you would recommend XP over vista because it is better is kinda bleh when benchmarks show that 7 trades off with vista In synthetic benchmarks, 7 and Vista run very close but I think with animations and response times, 7 is somehow a bit snappier. It might be psychological, but I think the presentation of information (not access times, but display times) is quicker. That said, you're basically right. 7 and Vista are running the same thing under the hood, which is nice because the driver base for both operating systems is about 95% the same. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
or 7 could just plain be faster. i just wish my mobo drivers would come out faster | ||
|
meathook
1289 Posts
| ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
i just had to. | ||
|
ero
United States66 Posts
it's fine now. | ||
|
emucxg
Finland4559 Posts
| ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
| ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
But of course, as far as I know, Seven preety much trumps both. | ||
| ||
