yeah...bad assumption about preloaded crap apps.
I'd rather spend "hours" downloading crap that is superior to bundled crap rather than spending "hours" deleting, uninstalling or purging preloaded crap.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Windows 7 Beta Outperforms XP and Vista
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
yeah...bad assumption about preloaded crap apps.
I'd rather spend "hours" downloading crap that is superior to bundled crap rather than spending "hours" deleting, uninstalling or purging preloaded crap.
BladeVenom
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,707
I can't believe MS fanboys are still kissing Vista's butt. Even now that it's more mature those tests show it's no better than XP. And the first year it was out it outright sucked and lost almost every benchmark test I ever saw. Not to mention slow transfer speeds, slower games, worse battery life, poor drivers, loosing files, etc.
Joe Average
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,459
Uhmmm... he's talking about preloading applications into RAM because of Superfetch - he's not talking about the stuff included with the OS (aka "Bloatware" on OEM machines, everything that's installed except the OS itself) like Wordpad, etc.
Reading is fundamental, folks...
Actually the first test shows in the article linked by hardocp that vista is faster then xp. XP is over 5 years old by the time vista came out. Wow really fair comparision. Vista has caught up to xp and is now starting to surpass xp in performance(especially in games), stability, drivers, etc. Now here is something to think about bladevenom xp basically had every single one of those problems you listed compared to windows 2000 and 98 when xp was released.
SamuraiInBlack
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2003
- Messages
- 5,771
To be honest, I just wasn't impressed by Vista. I saw no real reason to move over to it that I would personally benefit from.
Windows 7 thus far, does sound promising however. I may end up dual booting both (keep XP for older game compatability)
Windows 7 thus far, does sound promising however. I may end up dual booting both (keep XP for older game compatability)
Yes reading is fundemental..
It was actually about bundled apps and NOT "preloading applications into RAM" as you seem to believe
Lets re-follow the flow shall we...
which was in reply to:
Which was in response to:
So the topic intiator goes on abt windows being a giant bundle of apps
TechieSooner: Replies with the assumption that users like having such applications preloaded as opose to spend hours download crap to use their PCs
ICOM replied to this again on the topic of downloading/stripping/deleting/uninstalling applications
Not once was that entire chain todo with preloading and RAM. It was todo with application/feature bloat of an OS.
So yer Reading is fundemental... you should try it
I was addressing TechieSooner's comments to JosiahBradley...They'd rather not spend hours downloading crap just to use their PCs. I didn't interpret that comment as an issue with pre-loading data into RAM.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
Might want to look up the release dates on other version of Windows.
95, 98, me, 2000, xp, vista all came out over a 12 year period. 6 OSes in 12 years. Windows 7 is either late 2009 or early 2010, which is 3 years after Vista. Other then XP -> Vista, MS has never gone more ~3 years without releasing a major revision, and usually it's closer to 2.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
On this point... Most users dont ever uninstall any of that crap.
So it's give them more junk than they need, or not enough? I think users prefer having more than they need...
Arcygenical
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2005
- Messages
- 25,066
Hmm, I might actually buy this OS. Vista was, IMO, a pointless upgrade. Windows 7 actually brings something worthwhile to the table - more speed. That's worth it IMO.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows
Unfortunately, unlike back as recently as 2000 when XP was released, incompetent idiots now vastly outnumber the technically competent on the Internet, resulting in endless floods of whining that they can't figure out the most basic functions. As the Internet grows the competent:incompetent ratio will continue to drop.
Think back to something like Windows 95, or even before. What percentage of people on the Internet were technically competent? Those that weren't into computers didn't even know what the Internet was back then. Now all these people that couldn't figure out how to access the Internet if their lives depended on it simply jump on to their favorite forum and bitch endlessly that the P3 they bought back in 1998 sucks at running Vista.
This. So tired of idiots crapping over Vista.
Unfortunately, unlike back as recently as 2000 when XP was released, incompetent idiots now vastly outnumber the technically competent on the Internet, resulting in endless floods of whining that they can't figure out the most basic functions. As the Internet grows the competent:incompetent ratio will continue to drop.
Think back to something like Windows 95, or even before. What percentage of people on the Internet were technically competent? Those that weren't into computers didn't even know what the Internet was back then. Now all these people that couldn't figure out how to access the Internet if their lives depended on it simply jump on to their favorite forum and bitch endlessly that the P3 they bought back in 1998 sucks at running Vista.
TechieSooner
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2007
- Messages
- 7,601
It's just on the Internet???
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
Industry-leading security, stability, and a vastly improved interface were pointless? I switched to Vista when SP1 came out and never looked back, it's a great OS, and vastly superior to XP providing ample RAM is supplied.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
No, it's worldwide, but information travels fastest over the Internet. Since there are now a flood of incompetent people, it results in a flood of incompetent complaints.
I'm pleased to see some positive information on W7. So far...
I've got Vista on a couple lap tops. They're fine but I only use them for piddly stuff. It would be pointless to replace XP64 on my primary gaming box with any version of Vista.
I do plan to move to W7 but I wait a few months after it's released. Meh, I really don't get too excited about operating systems anymore. I see them as nothing more than a base to run the programs (games) that interest me.
I've got Vista on a couple lap tops. They're fine but I only use them for piddly stuff. It would be pointless to replace XP64 on my primary gaming box with any version of Vista.
I do plan to move to W7 but I wait a few months after it's released. Meh, I really don't get too excited about operating systems anymore. I see them as nothing more than a base to run the programs (games) that interest me.
Wooo Beta OS runs better than XP and Vista! Bullshit!
I hate it when they compare things like this.
I was on the Vista beta and it actually ran on my friend's 1.1GHz system great. The final? Ran like total piss.
Reports like these piss me off to no end because of the usual bullshit information they spread.
I hate it when they compare things like this.
I was on the Vista beta and it actually ran on my friend's 1.1GHz system great. The final? Ran like total piss.
Reports like these piss me off to no end because of the usual bullshit information they spread.
computerpro3
LightningRod
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2003
- Messages
- 8,702
Sure, if you play minesweeper and use notepad. Try actually doing something with your PC (using over 4gb of ram perhaps
) and watch your beloved XP32 fall to it's knees in a hard drive churning apocalypse of hourglass-spinning, soft-locked doom.jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
vista is a joke thats why windows 7 is being made so soon. win ME was a joke and thats why it diddnt last long either.
kudo's to the small amount of people who enjoy using vista but news flash, most dont like vista and MS knows this and therefore created windows 7
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
edit: o and i use vista premium edition more then xp as thats what im using at work "and hate it"
Am going to have to agree with this as well. I was one of them until I gave Vista an honest try on my own computer. I would work on other peoples machines, get frustrated and say its F#$CKING VISTA. Honestly, it wasnt Vista really, it was my lack of understanding and dealing with Vista. I still dual boot XP and Vista and rarely see my XP side. As you can tell from my sig, I am not running a screaming machine, just an average gaming machine with some "dated" parts.
People just need to get over it, its the way of life for the time being. Get a new OS ever few years or just stay on the system you are on and stop bitching.
Linux maybe a really stable OS. It may have great developer support. It may do somethings better than Windows, but it still cant play the games I want and it still wont end up and the majority of peoples systems until it become mindless to install. Or as mindless as windows. All that line coding and what not you can keep. My Vista install has yet to crash on me and I game daily and websurf quite often. I burn DVDs, rip CD and DVDs quite regularly. I run bit torrent almost 24/7. My system is more than an expensive paperweight. Oh, yeah I have yet to get a single virus, bot or bug on it. So it must be pretty secure as well.
So whats up with the last paragraph, you might ask? Just getting tired of hearing how better Linux and Linux like distros are. Until they can do everything a Windows system can, they cant compete.
Fine is not always enough. One would expect it to be better all around, functionality and performance wise.
Because XP gets the job done I would not make a pointless change. Especially when running on older hardware, and at this point I would not get Vista anymore. Maybe after Win7 hits retail, it could be a good chance to let go off XP.
Because XP gets the job done I would not make a pointless change. Especially when running on older hardware, and at this point I would not get Vista anymore. Maybe after Win7 hits retail, it could be a good chance to let go off XP.
If you see no real reason to move to Vista, then you may see no real reason to move to W7. Its essentially the same OS, just tweaked for better performance with some new eye candy in the way it deals with like file types and pictures.
I would tend to agree with those that have said that W7 is probably what Vista was supposed to be, before MS screwed it up. Not to say they wont do it again with W7
jonneymendoza
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2004
- Messages
- 6,395
im about to try vista at home for the first time when i build a i7 rig but will also have xp installed as well. im only trying vista just because of dx10.
i wonder how many people would have moved to vista had xp have dx10 in it?
i wonder how many people would have moved to vista had xp have dx10 in it?
These tests are rigged by not showing you the details of each test. All office programs will be similar speeds on all 3 window os's. Its when you start going full load on the cpu or graphics card that makes the differences. Someone should do a real test with a bunch of games benchmarking and other number crunching tests. Do stuff people really like to see go faster. A lot of things they tested in this review weren't really taxing on the cpu and other hardware except the hard drive.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
I just ran a handful of benches comparing 64-Bit XP and 64-Bit Vista if anyone wants to take a look. I did a mix of synthetic, gaming, and real world tests.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1381631
Vista comes out on top for the most part.
http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1381631
Vista comes out on top for the most part.
4saken
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 13,236
only in your imagination.
Fixed that for you.
Vista is an Windows Me like speedbump on the road, it was avoided by the majority that could and will be quickly forgotten.
greenfrogman
Ad Blocker - Banned
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2009
- Messages
- 387
Vista is an for the most part is compete new OS (Win me was based off win 98 was made to fill an gap the only good thing it had was its plug-in-pray worked very fast when it did not do the BSOD)
windows 7 seems quite fast even thought its in my VMware box, but may allso have something to do with my CPU clocked at 3.3ghz, 8gb of ram and raid 0 but my vista works very well on it been the first VM i used on this new pc i built back up new mobo and cpu
windows 7 seems quite fast even thought its in my VMware box, but may allso have something to do with my CPU clocked at 3.3ghz, 8gb of ram and raid 0 but my vista works very well on it been the first VM i used on this new pc i built back up new mobo and cpu
It is not about buying it is about having.
Case in point.. myself!
Up until the end of the year I was running a AMD 2500+ plus 1 GB of RAM. No issues with XP SP3 but tried Vista and it died. Even though the 9800 pro did a fine job in Aero.
Ok folks just stop the vista is better, no XP is better nah nah nah nah nah crap...
Vista had the same problems XP had when it came out, driver and app compatibility. This was also compounded by UAC since many software required admin access (same issues as if you try and run on a limited account in XP)
It has since improved with SP1, just like EVERY MS OS in the last decade. Drivers and software are catching up and thus many Vista problems are history. Most user experiences are fairly good with Vista now.
Now for you Vista guys... Do benchmarks make a better OS? Well they better be 25% better or more, which I have seen few benchmarks exceed this for Vista vs XP. Do features make an OS better, sure!
Though there are some need home features I have seen used like content control etc I only really notice 2 features that I use and see as a great addition. 1. Volume management and expansion on the fly and the awesome start search bar (Though Vista really needs it with all the millions of shortcuts that are installed by default)
There still are problems with software compatibility/performance with Vista, yes even new software that was released when Vista was out.
That said, which OS is better for you depends on what you need and want, some people may still like XP depending on which apps/games they use/play. I think this is becoming a smaller number with each day but still true none the less.
Vista had the same problems XP had when it came out, driver and app compatibility. This was also compounded by UAC since many software required admin access (same issues as if you try and run on a limited account in XP)
It has since improved with SP1, just like EVERY MS OS in the last decade. Drivers and software are catching up and thus many Vista problems are history. Most user experiences are fairly good with Vista now.
Now for you Vista guys... Do benchmarks make a better OS? Well they better be 25% better or more, which I have seen few benchmarks exceed this for Vista vs XP. Do features make an OS better, sure!
Though there are some need home features I have seen used like content control etc I only really notice 2 features that I use and see as a great addition. 1. Volume management and expansion on the fly and the awesome start search bar (Though Vista really needs it with all the millions of shortcuts that are installed by default)
There still are problems with software compatibility/performance with Vista, yes even new software that was released when Vista was out.
That said, which OS is better for you depends on what you need and want, some people may still like XP depending on which apps/games they use/play. I think this is becoming a smaller number with each day but still true none the less.
oROEchimaru
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,662
if its not slow and unresponsive, with thousands of uneeded prompts even after uac is turned off... i'm down!
if it doesn't require the admin to have to run everything a second time as an admin, i'm down!
if they keep treating advance it users as retards they are going to shoot themselves in the foot.
if they don't give dev tools to driver makers quicker ... bam shot in the foot.
if it doesn't require the admin to have to run everything a second time as an admin, i'm down!
if they keep treating advance it users as retards they are going to shoot themselves in the foot.
if they don't give dev tools to driver makers quicker ... bam shot in the foot.
maleficarus
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 744
Your joking right? Differences of .1 of a second and 1 second is not noticeable period LOL
ivandurago
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,307
^qft
I think I literally only had one blue screen between vista x86/x64.
Vista is not perfect/great, but it runs stable, (sorta) fast, and its aesthetics are alright.
oROEchimaru
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2004
- Messages
- 4,662
computer might be fast, but all the unneeded prompts slows you down.
if you have to finish a computer program lets say that has data on the network (your files that you'll move back and forth for example, ftp etc)...
1. lets say your computer takes 1 second longer with xp to do 60 seconds of work... CPU CYCLE WISE than vista
2. vista might give you 1-10 prompts every time you try to do something with file transfers on your network... with changes, with admin tools.
3. which one is slower? the clunkier older windows xp, or the super fast vista with dozens of prompts even with UAC off on an admin account?...
vista. because it requires extra bullshit
if you have to finish a computer program lets say that has data on the network (your files that you'll move back and forth for example, ftp etc)...
1. lets say your computer takes 1 second longer with xp to do 60 seconds of work... CPU CYCLE WISE than vista
2. vista might give you 1-10 prompts every time you try to do something with file transfers on your network... with changes, with admin tools.
3. which one is slower? the clunkier older windows xp, or the super fast vista with dozens of prompts even with UAC off on an admin account?...
vista. because it requires extra bullshit
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,910
it isnt that close, Vista has been out for... 2 years now on jan 30th, that is MS normal release cycle about every 3-4 years a new OS, XP was just out for so dam long (7 years?) people got used to it.... windows 7 will be out likely just before the 3 year period.
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,910
Um, server 2008 IS vista, right down to the kernal build.. Vista SP1 = Server 2008, just has %90 of the vista (desktop user) stuff turned off.. so go into Vista services and disable almost everything and you now have Server 2008!
MrGuvernment
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 21,910
ya but your not %95 of the suer base out there who doesnt know what Winamp is, or what firefox is, and just wants to plug in their computer and go and be done with it! not turn on their computer, try to play a movie or music file and be told they need to go find a program to play it..
I like media player, it works fine
i like IE, it works fine for me!
and it does for most people, sure if you want more you can go download other options, but why bother if what you has just works fine for your needs.... do most people need winamp and a media library crap installed... no.. do most people need firefox, since most people dont even know what plug-ins are or do.....and would just install so many it would fubar firefox.
So soon, AGAIN, look at MS time line of release, this isnt "so soon" this is in line with their typical release schedule of OS, just because XP was out for 7 years, doesnt mean thatthe next OS will be out in 7 years and Vista is NOTHINGGGGGGGGGG like ME was, windows ME was windows 98 with windows 2000 icons added because windows 2000 came out and home users thought it was a buisness OS... so they needed something to appeal to the Home user market.
See above, it was avoided due to bad press and people not in the know, who would rather jump on a wagon and chant with the other then think for themselves!