I guess thats what I am experiencing. It's still funny how XP users who now switch to 7 see a huge difference to many things thats were already like that in Vista, yet they don't hate it because it's not labeled Vista.
Well there is definitely truth to people switching to Windows 7 thinking it is better than Vista. Because... well it is. A lot of people jumped on Vista when it first started coming out and due to Microsoft mishandling everything from the beginning; those people just stuck with Windows XP SP2/SP3 because it was proven to be better in the end. Now Windows 7 is out, those XP SP2/SP3 people are switching over since Microsoft has handled Windows 7 way better. It's on par with Windows SP2/SP3 and even on older systems it runs way better than Vista ever has/will. I've actually been running XP SP3 and Windows 7 x64 dual booted trying a lot of things out. I do use a lot of old applications that have better support under XP but now that XP mode is out; it's virtually pointless to run XP SP3. Granted, SP3 in my mind does load faster than 7, uses less overhead (200-400 MBs after latest updates on SP3) and generally will run stuff faster. Regardless, Windows 7 is the bastard child of Vista and XP. It works. It runs a lot of stuff now flawlessly and just as fast as XP SP3. I think Microsoft did their customers right in making an OS that caters to both sides of the fence. It's just disheartening knowing that Vista was basically an open beta for Windows 7 :-( In conclusion, Windows 7 rocks as we all know and acknowledge. If Microsoft has learned anything it is not to beta test an OS again. Although, Windows 98 ME technically was beta testing for XP however that OS rocked in my opinion. But that's just personal preference
Vista was horrible from the start. It was not planned well, tested adequately internally, and certainly not up to par on the quality of the coding. Anyone remember the IP stack code when the first release of Vista hit the market? How about those XP to Vista upgrade scripts- yeah those worked like a charm, especially in 100+ workstation environments. How about that security? Plastic wrap provided better protection. A lot of things were fixed, improved, added to Vista to make it stable, but it was a pretty frustrating process to pay $200+ to beta test software and have half the features that were supposedly to come with it end up on the cutting room floor. The biggest thing they did with Win7 was the open beta. Get the majority of the issues out of the way with primarily technology knowledgeable people before paying customers and the majority of the public will bother to try it. It is very solid because of this. While I am somewhat disappointed about the difficulty of dealing with XP workstation upgrades, or rather the lack thereof, the security advancements alone will make support so much easier. You can probably see what I'm focusing on when I look on the new features of Win7. The little extras are nice, but I want advancements that will make my job easier and keep end-users happy... or at least keep them from doing anything but the least amount of damage possible. And to HSChronic, yeah, having a root shell in a Windows environment is SUCH a needed addition. One more step towards Linux!
this is wrong comment lawk the looks might be same in places as vista like windows aero etc but for example i had vista on my computer for 2 week it lagged my computer down so much it was pile of crap the first day i installed it it was quite fast granted but the detriotion over time was stupid. (2 week period) at the end of the 2 weeks my comp was lagging that much it was at a stand still (nearly) i had windows 7 since may experince no promblems and no lagging. after my s**te experince with vista and this wasnt vista sp1 i shifted bk to windows xp then in may moved to win 7. yoour wrong lawk this OS is nothing like vista never will be get over it crikey. IT NOT LABELED VISTA BECAUSE ITS NOT VISTA. oo and for the record i have win 7 installed on the exact same system as vista was installed.
My penis is 42% smaller than average says study . By the end of a simulated two-year period, it decreased more than 330% and disappeared. Darn, these statistics when you got two data points and try to fit a spline through it.
when u have not installed an Iolo product , your OS might boot up slower. Install it , and it'll not boot up the next time
I think the article wasn't really wrong after I re-read it... Here's the part: I did a simple test myself... I booted up one of my friend's laptop which I installed with Win7 recently (previous OS was Vista) and immediately run the task manager as soon as it got into desktop. I felt it takes longer time for the CPU usage levels to go down do relative idle as compared to Vista (no exact timing here... just what I felt). However, here's the catch: in Win7, you don't really need to wait for the CPU to go all the way down to start using the PC... I noticed that once your desktop is up, it takes just another 3-4 seconds for the firefox from click to be up and usable, despite the CPU spiking at 70-80% usage and HDD notification light blinking like mad; and there is no apparent lag... I'm guessing Win7 selective startup (if I remember the feature name correctly) does its job very well, spreading the loading of the processes over longer period of time, hence you can start using the PC without waiting for everything to load... Thus, the problem here is simply with the definition of 'fully usable' used in the article. If you define usability by the CPU load as per the article, then it might be true that Win7 may be slower... But, if you take a more practical definition of 'usable', I think Win7 is definitely faster than Vista, overall... Hence, my opinion about this Iolo company: they simply wanna sell more of their whatever optimizing crap (iolo: "Even Win7 will need our stuff as well, blah2")... Win7 is simply more efficient and leaner than Vista, full stop. Sigh... Semantics... PS: If you notice the size of the Vista ISOs and Win7 ISOs, you can tell that Win7 cut down a lot of Vista's bloat. All editions of Win7 from both 32-bit and 64-bit platform can fit into 1 single-layer DVD (total size: about 3.5GB). Individually (one platform only), Win7 ISO is about 3GB. A Vista ISO that contains one platform only (either 32 or 64-bit) is already 3.5GB.... Overall verdict: Win7 > Vista
All depends on your hardware as well. For those people who are still stuck with single core processors and heaven forbid SDRAM or DDR1 memory, yeah it's going to be a bit slower. But even 1:30 seconds is crazy stupid. I can get boot to my desktop in 20 seconds for me there is no 2-3 second delay to use firefox. But i also have a Phenom II X550 and 8 gigs ram.
I used my friend's super budget laptop... I did a Vista installation in her laptop before, so I kinda know what it feels after Vista Ultimate clean install. However, Win7 clean install definitely takes the cake... It simply feel faster... FYI, her laptop is using some low-end Intel Core 2 Duo (T5250 if I'm not wrong) and 1GB of RAM. For my laptop (Lenovo T400 running Vista x64), it takes about 3-4 minutes to be 'fully' usable since I got tons of crap to load, especially some vital utilities from Lenovo (power manager, switchable graphics, HDD protection, the control buttons utility... I already uninstalled the rest). On clean install, it is almost instantly though. I'm still keeping myself from upgrading to Win7 for academic reasons: I simply can't afford getting my sole programming environment to fail on me in the middle of semester (I've read about Visual Studio failing under Win7). Probably, I'm gonna go with Win7 during the December break, lol....
Just for fun i just timed the boot process with a stopwatch. I started the timing with the end of POST and stopped it after all autostart progs (FW, AV, etc.) got loaded. Time needed from POST to All Done: Precisely 34 seconds. This confirms my subjective feeling of ~30 seconds almost to the second. Vista used to boot equally fast. As for Vista in general; as has been proven by the Mojave Experiment i think there is a lot of psychology in play. Hearsay, popular belief, person C repeating person B repeating person A, that seems to be the real cause for Vistas bad name. The reason why im so convinced of that is because i myself approached Vista with an open mind in order to form my own opinion based on what i experience first hand, and quite frankly i could not notice any of the things so many people talk about (like lagging, instability, etc.) at all. That is also why i still have a real hard time comprehending why 7 is suddenly considered to be 'so much better', because i myself am, just like with Vista, not touched by the hype and popular opinion, and from what i have seen so far by first hand experience i honestly could not say that i notice any worth-mentioning differences in the way the system itself generally behaves/works/functions/etcetera. To me it just seems that microsoft has learned from the Mojave Experiment and pulled off Win7 accordingly...
I agree with your view here... Psychology really does skew one's judgement significantly. However, FYI, I actually like Vista as a OS for a individual PC, not for a network (my university is having a lot of problem with their Vista PCs). The only thing that I feel annoyed about Vista is basically its bloat. It simply has too much stuffs that people don't actually use, hence its resource-hungry, laggy reputation. However, if you have adequate hardware to back Vista, it is actually good.... In fact, really good (as some of the hi-specs PC owner here might agree). Vista scales up very well with the hardware. However, Vista does not down-scale nicely with hardware. In a mediocre or budget PC, it simply sucks big time, and since majority of PC users are casual users who often ends up with those PCs, Vista reputation went down to the drain basically... Win7 fixed that problem with a much, much better resource management. So, those who will benefit a lot from Win7, IMO, would be the budget PC and laptop users. Thus, I believe that those with relatively high-specs PCs would see very little improvements... That, I can testify... A week ago, I installed Win7 in another friend's Dell laptop, but this one is older: almost 4-yr-old. It is also a budget laptop, even for its time... So, it was seriously low specs: Intel Core Duo, 512MB RAM. With Win7, it runs even faster than on its original XP...