Linked by David Adams on Wed 29th Oct 2008 20:51 UTC, submitted by Jeremy13
Windows Loyd Case over at ExtremeTech attended Microsoft's technical briefing of Windows 7 and can't help but compare how the new operating system will be better than Vista. Key features are better user support, stability, performance, and many other things. Sounds like a broken record? Probably, but Microsoft learned a lot after Vista launched, and they'll be careful not to repeat a lot of the same mistakes twice.
Thread beginning with comment 335600
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Slambert666
Member since:
2008-10-30

I have been running vista ultimate on my MSI wind notebook for a couple of months now.
When I installed it I expected it to suck badly but strangely that did not happen.
Boot time is about 1m20 Seconds, MEM usage about 500 Mb (including AVG free and Spybot S&D), battery life is about 2h30. Wake from sleep is less than 5 seconds. Nothing in vista is disabled or tweaked for performance (full Aero on and superfetch).
UI is not super snappy but not worse than XP home.

I tried to install a number of different OS'es on this machine and the status was:

Opensuse 11 (fail, no network, no sleep)
Ubuntu 8.04 (fail, no network, no bluetooth, no sleep)
OpenSolaris (ok, slow as a dog, battery 1h only, no sleep)
FreeBSD (failed install).
XP (ok, wireless LAN unstable after wake from sleep)
Vista (ok, errors in eventlog but no visible problems).

Jens

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I have been running vista ultimate on my MSI wind notebook for a couple of months now.
When I installed it I expected it to suck badly but strangely that did not happen.
Boot time is about 1m20 Seconds, MEM usage about 500 Mb (including AVG free and Spybot S&D), battery life is about 2h30. Wake from sleep is less than 5 seconds. Nothing in vista is disabled or tweaked for performance (full Aero on and superfetch).
UI is not super snappy but not worse than XP home.

I tried to install a number of different OS'es on this machine and the status was:

Opensuse 11 (fail, no network, no sleep)
Ubuntu 8.04 (fail, no network, no bluetooth, no sleep)
OpenSolaris (ok, slow as a dog, battery 1h only, no sleep)
FreeBSD (failed install).
XP (ok, wireless LAN unstable after wake from sleep)
Vista (ok, errors in eventlog but no visible problems).

Jens


Ignoring the technical stuff. You put a 2 year old £300 operating system on a £350 computer, rather than put a
the cutting edge free 8.10 Ubuntu out errm today?? and thats without any kind of Office applications lol perhaps you should get £350 Microsoft Office for it as well ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

According to Phoronix's test suites 8.10 it seems its following the trend of Vista ;) in slowing down. I would stick with a slightly older version of Ubuntu than 8.10...

Reply Parent Score: 2

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Ignoring the technical stuff. You put a 2 year old £300 operating system on a £350 computer, rather than put a
the cutting edge free 8.10 Ubuntu out errm today?? and thats without any kind of Office applications lol perhaps you should get £350 Microsoft Office for it as well ;)


What are you talking about? I have more licensed os'es than hardware to run it on. I do however agree that paying retail, would probably change what OS is installed on the wind...
As for office I use go-oo or star office (free for windows in case you don't know) on most machines.
If fact Right now I'm writing on the wind (1 gb ram) running vista ultimate, chrome, go-oo and opensuse 11 in virtualbox started and the system is still running fine.

Jens

Reply Parent Score: 1