The Risk of Waiting for Windows 7

I'm running XP until they no longer make software that can run on it. It's nice and quick now, I get like 200% better gaming performance in XP for some reason over Vista... Vista just plain blows. I ran it for a couple months, gave up and went back to XP. Reinstalled it a couple weeks ago, gave it another try, had it on my system for a grand total of about 3 days and then reverted back to XP because Vista was already running like a bloated, slow SOB.

And since I have no real indication that Windows 7 isn't going to be more of the same crap that Vista was...
 
I'm still sticking to XP because I don't see any reason to change to Vista. Vista seems to have bad legacy support for some things I still like or they have implemented it in a bad way. I also changed recently my laptop back to XP, it just works much better. I would move over to linux but gaming would be a problem, so let's see what the future brings..
 
I agree with the previous poster that said that Vista 32 and Vista 64 are two completely different beasts. I have two computers with 32 bit Vista, and two with 64 bit. The 64 bit computers (one has only 2GB of ram and a dual core, the other is my quad core rig) consistently require less reboots and run way more stable than the 32 bit machines. I am nothing but impressed with 64 bit vista. It uses 8GB of ram to prefetch my favorite apps and games. Where XP users wait 7-8 seconds to load applications, my Vista machine loads them in 1-2 seconds. I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but it's a huge boon to me when I'm running many different apps and windows, which I do often. I like the responsiveness and stability. Vista really does a lot more than XP did for me. I loved XP just fine. Used it since the official beta, but I gave Vista a fair chance and I've seriously had less growing pains with Vista than I had with XP back in the day. Two of the computers I used at both home and work, I downgraded back to Win2k Pro because of XP issues. One of those computers ran every day for four years without a single OS reinstall using win2k pro. It was older hardware and it just couldn't run XP, but it ran Win2kPro for nearly 10 years like a champ. We couldn't seem to make that stupid computer die.

But it was the same issue that we're having today with Vista. People just blow it out of proportion. To call Vista the Windows ME of today is total BS. Anybody who does that hasn't given vista a fair chance or taken advantage of what it has to offer.

Now, when I say that, I'm not saying that everybody really needs all that Vista has to offer, but many would've benefited from it if they'd given it a fair chance, and I meet people every day who refuse. My 59 yr old dad has always been more afraid of computers than poisonous spiders or rabid bears. It was hard as heck to get him to learn the simplest things in Win2k, then XP. He has adopted Vista and grown to love it faster than he liked any other OS he'd ever used, including XP, ME, and Win2K Pro. He liked it so much he shelled out $100 just to put it on his computer at home. He loves the simplified interface and instant search. He's way more productive and takes advantage of all the neat folder organization features and multitasking capabilities, along with the parental controls he uses for my little brother that still lives at home.

I just upgraded my mom's computer about a week ago, and already she is taking advantage of things in Vista that she could never do in XP. Whether it's just simpler in Vista or it is just naturally more fit to the way she thinks ... whatever. She's liking it a lot, too.

I know a few people who just can't use it because their embroidery machine won't work with Vista. I understand that. But Vista really does have some serious benefits to offer people - people who will take advantage of it.
 
CrimandEvil said:
Funny. I see lots of people posting about how they're perfectly happy with XP which I would assume to me, based on logic or course, that they feel they don't need to update to Vista.
Click to expand...

And that has what to do with a panacea?
 
Nenu said:
Um, I replied to you because you did say that :rolleyes:
You made no reference to other threads either.
Click to expand...

You know, one of my favorite shirts has this loose thread ....


Ok. It's way too late. I'm going to bed now. I am kinda excited for Windows 7 to come out. Hooray for Direct X 11!! Even though we're still polishing ten!!!
 
its stupid willing to wait for windows 7 and be an early adopter because of all the scare stories from early adopters of vista.. does not compute.. does not compute..

early adopting is early adopting.. no ifs or buts..
 
guess I'm just waiting cause I dont have a need to do a hardware upgrade to be able to reasonably run vista, not to mention I dont want to buy it either...guess I'll probably be saying the same thing about windows 7 though ;)
 
Terry Olaes said:
Are you XP users willing to wait until 2010 for a new version of Windows?
Click to expand...

Until I see a reason to double my system RAM and still decrease my performance, yes, I'll wait for Windows 7.

PS: I already have a copy of Vista Ultimate, got it for free, didn't like it, went back tro XP. IF I have to format my HD again before Windows 7 I MAY try Vista again, but don't count on it.
 
I'm still happy with XP.. just don't have any reason to go to Vista. Main gripe is the MS seems to feel the need to rearrange everything, rename the icons, move the link somewhere else, etc, etc. Its like coming home and finding your wife has moved all the furniture...
 
epblash said:
I get like 200% better gaming performance in XP for some reason over Vista
Click to expand...

lol.gif
lol.gif
lol.gif
 
I will probably wait for Win7 for my main machines -- or even later!

I am intimately familiar with Vista and have to support it on a daily basis -- and I am still not overly impressed with it.

I will make the following observations:
1) XP works well and supports basically everything. It is also VERY stable when setup properly (my own PC hasn't been rebooted in months).

2) Vista, with SP1 and updated drivers, works and runs MOST software ok.

3) Vista *is* harder to get screwed up with Spyware/Virii than XP.

4) Vista64 is a lot more stable than Vista32 -- probably because no attempt is made to support a lot of legacy crap/drivers in the first place.

5) Vista64 is noticably more responsive than XP or Vista32 -- BUT a lot of software simply doesn't work on 64bit OS's yet.

That said, I still personally dislike Vista's UI immensely -- especially from a network support standpoint. It takes 2x-3x as many clicks actually get to the configuration pages or actually make changes.

I have also seen far too many situations of late where the TCP networking layer in Vista gets totally borked to the point you have to do a full reload of the OS (however, I actually am about ready to pin this problem on HP and something they have loaded, as I have only seen this problem on HP laptops using their factory load of Vista32).]

My entire issue with upgrading to Vista on my own personal machines thus far has been the simple question of "what does it buy me?"

I think what annoys me most about Vista is its UI. I utterly loathe the new non-expanding all programs menu (which means I have to scroll to find programs and then expand the subitem). Yes, the search box is nice, but that means I have to switch between keyboard/mouse yet again, which slows me down even more. I also detest the new control panel layouts and a lot of other "look & feel" issues (bring back the filmstrip view!). From a support standpoint, the sheer lack of consistancy in the Vista UI is a nightmare. There is absolutely no rhyme or reason as to whether or not an action will be on a menu (which, for file view, is by default turned off), associated with a text tag on the left side, associated with an icon at the top, or associated with an icon in the window itself (i.e. control panel). Additionally, in control panel, there is no consistency as to which icons open new windows, change the actions pane, or open up within the same window. XP's UI was no thing of beauty to be sure and a lot of consistency issues are present in it as well, but compared to Vista it is amazingly well laid out. It seems like the hired someone who got fired from Apple to design the look and feel and then had the engineers attach functions to things after the layout was done -- and then never had anyone go back and actually verify that the actual layout or menu flow made sense!

I am hoping that there will be some compelling reasons by the time Win7 rolls around -- though I personally suspect that it may just be more of the same (or worse).
 
I used Vista 32 on an Asus laptop for gaming for 1 year, and then Vista 64 on a desktop for 4 months, and neither one of them have ever blue screened on me. Guess I have good hardware.

The only hurdle I am concerned about with Windows 7 is that it will cost money. Other than that, all I read in the article is troll bait.
 
sfsuphysics said:
Willing to wait? The question isn't so much am I "willing to wait", it's what fucking point is there to switching to Vista? As it is now the only thing that really hits my mind that might be something useful is DX10, so unless game makers make a slew of DX10 only titles that won't run on DX9, waiting for the next version of windows won't be a problem... and if I have to wait longer I will.
Click to expand...

Many titles still run on DX8, whats your point?

jstnomega said:
this message happily brought to you from my W's 98SE box
Click to expand...

Win98SE FTW
 
daragon said:
Until I see a reason to double my system RAM and still decrease my performance, yes, I'll wait for Windows 7.

PS: I already have a copy of Vista Ultimate, got it for free, didn't like it, went back tro XP. IF I have to format my HD again before Windows 7 I MAY try Vista again, but don't count on it.
Click to expand...

Ah.. if you aren't using it I'll take it off your hands.. I would like to move from XP to vista for the kicks of it... ;)
 
daragon said:
Until I see a reason to double my system RAM and still decrease my performance, yes, I'll wait for Windows 7.

PS: I already have a copy of Vista Ultimate, got it for free, didn't like it, went back tro XP. IF I have to format my HD again before Windows 7 I MAY try Vista again, but don't count on it.
Click to expand...

Unless you run Vista for 1-2 weeks to give superfetch a chance, you WON'T LIKE VISTA.

Let me repeat that:

Unless you run Vista for 1-2 weeks to give superfetch a chance to learn your work/gaming patterns on your system YOU WON'T LIKE VISTA.

It will feel a little slow and more sluggish than XP. If you gave it a solid two weeks, maybe one week minimum when you allegedly tried Vista out then go ahead and post your feedback here.

If you installed it and ran it for two days and went back to XP STFU.

With the exception of those that have proprietary stuff they have to have working for their business or that old game they're addicted to that just won't run with Vista, you haven't tried Vista until you've given it a chance to optimize itself. Vista is constantly performance tuning itself, and it doesn't know what to fine tune itself for in one freaking day. Get a clue.
 
I'll keep my PC free of Microsoft's protected process DRM. Vista, Win2K8 and Windows7 all have these root kits and I don't allow software to run on MY PC that I don't know what it is doing. If I want to play DRM'ed media I'll buy a media player.
WinXP playes Blu-Ray media just fine without protected process. No need to bloat my PC with additional DRM in Microsoft's new OSes.
 
panhead said:
I'll keep my PC free of Microsoft's protected process DRM. Vista, Win2K8 and Windows7 all have these root kits and I don't allow software to run on MY PC that I don't know what it is doing. If I want to play DRM'ed media I'll buy a media player.
WinXP playes Blu-Ray media just fine without protected process. No need to bloat my PC with additional DRM in Microsoft's new OSes.
Click to expand...

Well have fun with XP a decade from now because DRM isn't magically going to go away.
 
I have had Vista 64 on my gaming rig for over a year and it is bar none the most stable OS I have ever used. Cost me all of $80 for home basic OEM non-upgrade. That is darn near the price of an X-Box 360 game these days.

I also put Vista Ultimate 32 on my Acer Aspire One. Cost me all of $65 for the upgrade. If you can't afford that you should get a job :p
 
I think the whole thing is kind of a moot point. If people want to stay on the cutting edge of hardware, 7 is going to be the only reasonable 64-bit choice. Already most machines today have 2-4 gigs of ram, with enthusiasts as much as 8; can't really take advantage of it with XP. Staying with XP also limits developers' hands; anandtech did an article a while back on supreme commander and crashing due to the 2 GB limit.

BTW, if you have an issue with Vista you really don't want to see in 7, take a look at the Engineering Windows 7 Blog. They seem to take comments and emails quite seriously.
 
i tried vista 64bit on my gaming pc for about a month. but since i don't even have a dx10 videocard i got no real benefit. i switched back to xp and have been happy with it.

the number one thing i couldn't stand about vista is the fact that it takes so many clicks to do anything. it is super annoying. and that stupid network copy bug with vista. i am sure it is sorted by now, but it literally would take twice as long to transfer a few gigs over my network to my vista box versus an xp box.

lastly, for me at least, when you have an xp box and a vista box sitting right next to each other it is very easy to see the defeciences in vista. maybe it is b/c i am so use to xp and know how to do pretty much everything i need in a matter of seconds, but vista seems to hide things in strange places. it just seems very counter-intuitive.

i just have this feeling that win7 wil not be any better than vista. xp for me all the way, for now.
 
Man, amazing how things change in this IT world. I remember picking Win XP back in early 2002 for around $75 after some store credit and student discount and finally got rid of Win98 at long last. Over 6 years later, my home and career have been based upon this OS for the most part and its been a big learning experience from seeing XP being used and trashed from Joe the porn surfer to multimillion dollar business at my current job.

For me, I have gotten a good 6 years outa XP and its done very well for me and give two thumbs up. But i've pretty much "mastered" XP for my usage and I wanna try something new and different so instead of "poo poing" Vista without any hands on knowledge other then computer store kiosks, im going 64bit Home Premium with my new build and look forward to starting a new OS chapter. :cool:
 
Forget vista, wait until windows 7. I am using windows xp x64. Its more than enough to hold me over until then. Directx10 is a waste so far. Barely any differences between 9 and 10 plus directx10 is really slow still compared to directx9. Vista is just too big and bloated for my tastes. Windows Xp is way more straight to the point without the crap in the middle(bloat). I heard you can't get full sound quality also dolby digital with vista also because of the protection. Vista has bad backwards compatibility also. Seems like all the menus were dumbed down even further in vista. I already have 4GB of ram detected so why even switch. Theres no convincing reason to switch to vista either. Just more drm protection and all that to make things worse. More sluggish games. The negatives outweigh the positives.
 
Conker said:
Forget vista, wait until windows 7. I am using windows xp x64. Its more than enough to hold me over until then. Directx10 is a waste so far. Barely any differences between 9 and 10 plus directx10 is really slow still compared to directx9. Vista is just too big and bloated for my tastes. Windows Xp is way more straight to the point without the crap in the middle(bloat). I heard you can't get full sound quality also dolby digital with vista also because of the protection. Vista has bad backwards compatibility also. Seems like all the menus were dumbed down even further in vista. I already have 4GB of ram detected so why even switch. Theres no convincing reason to switch to vista either. Just more drm protection and all that to make things worse. More sluggish games. The negatives outweigh the positives.
Click to expand...

Wow, talk about being misinformed.
 
Conker said:
lol i used it for a few weeks uninstalled the 64bit version. Xp is just better overall. Just going to wait until windows 7.
Click to expand...

At least you tried it for more than a few days. You gave it a chance. So many have been unwilling to even do that.
 
Finally Day 2 of PDC - let's see if they say anything we don't already know on 7.
For the East Coast people, we're probably not going ot hear anything until well after 5 (unless they are doing live updates).
 
rndmize said:
I think the whole thing is kind of a moot point. If people want to stay on the cutting edge of hardware, 7 is going to be the only reasonable 64-bit choice. Already most machines today have 2-4 gigs of ram, with enthusiasts as much as 8; can't really take advantage of it with XP. Staying with XP also limits developers' hands; anandtech did an article a while back on supreme commander and crashing due to the 2 GB limit.
Click to expand...

My thoughts on it is....WTF is the point of having more than 4 gb? Even once you go to 64 bit, you're stuck on 32 bit programs. So one program is stuck using only 2 gb anyways and few will bother using more than that.

Enthusiasts with more than 8 gb aren't doing it for need, just want.
Supreme Commander was a horrible coded game. Hence the crashing issue.

There really isn't much need for 64 bit at home, cept for those heavy users in multimedia editing.
 
Because with 8gb, you can have a huge prefetch and not have to wait to load (m)any of your apps.
 
mryerse said:
Because with 8gb, you can have a huge prefetch and not have to wait to load (m)any of your apps.
Click to expand...

Unless it's a server still sounds like a want to me and even then I'd suggest server 2003 over Vista.
 
piscian18 said:
Unless it's a server still sounds like a want to me and even then I'd suggest server 2003 over Vista.
Click to expand...

So what if it is a want. I remember when 8MB was a lot of RAM and no one could imagine using 32MB (insert 640k myth here as well). Not everyone has to use what they have. RAM is so cheap right now that 8GB today costs what 4GB did six months ago.

few people need terabyte sized hard drives, or 20+ inch monitors, quad-cores, or 700+ watt PSU's. This site is full of people that want what they have have despite their lack of need for it.
 
well as a vista user is it okay to skip windows 7 :)
 
What Risk?? I am using XP until it doesn't work with some software I want to use, or I upgrade to a new computer(old one will stay with XP), likely in 2011 or 2012, so likely the OS of the day will be Windows7 with a service pack or two.

I don't see any point to rush out and upgrade an OS unless it is failing in some way. An OS just enables my useful programs to run. Unless it stops doing that basic job, there is no need to change it.

Heck even for free OS I don't upgrade whenever a new one is available. I dual boot Kubuntu 7.10. It does what I need it to do. It is not worth the effort of upgrading just to have the latest thing.

If I am not doing it when it is free, I am certainly not going to pay money for an unnecessary upgrade to windows.
 
mryerse said:
Because with 8gb, you can have a huge prefetch and not have to wait to load (m)any of your apps.
Click to expand...

You are correct. Don't let anyone tell you you don't need 8GB. Buy whatever ram you want. It certainly won't make Vista slower, and if new stuff coming out supports usage of more memory, like Creative Suite 4 for Vista 64 bit, then you will already be set while others will be ordering more memory to put in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top