Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Apr 2009 23:44 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows It's something lots of people here on OSNews have been waiting for. It's something we've talked about, something we've theorised about, and something we've declared as the future for Windows' backwards compatibility - and now it's here, and official. Over a month ago, Microsoft bloggers Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrott have been briefed by Microsoft on a technology for Windows 7 called Windows XP Mode. Available as a free download for Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate users, it's a fully integrated and licensed copy of Windows XP SP3 in a VirtualPC-based environment, with full "coherence" support. In other words, it's Microsoft's variant of Apple's Classic environment, and it's coming to Windows 7, for free. Near-instant update: The Windows 7 RC will indeed be available publicly on May 5. TechNet/MSDN will get it April 30.
Thread beginning with comment 360510
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Still worse than XP...
by naranha on Sat 25th Apr 2009 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still worse than XP..."
naranha
Member since:
2009-02-25

I still prefer WindowsXP over WinVista even though I have a quick machine with 8 gigs of ram. I rather run XP with 3 gigs of ram than use Vista with 8. I just had so many bad experiences with it. Most important reason is, that XP still feels a lot snappier and faster.

For example this happened recently:
While running Vista win explorer showed a strange behaviour, i could not click on files, open them etc. Then the machine hung and I needed to reboot. Vista was not able to read the NTFS filesystem anymore. I started Linux and I was able to browse the filesystem and back the important stuff up. I started from Vistas recovery cd and ran chkdsk, this nearly took 4 hours and there was a lot of fixing. Still the MBR was gone and somehow not fixable. Additionally I was not able to mount the drive in linux anymore. I reinstalled Vista on a new drive, but I gave up as the first bluescreen appeared while installing the SP1. Now I'm back to XP and I will stick with it for as long as possible. At least it makes me somewhat independent from microsoft terrible update packages, since only real important updates will show up in the future.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The only way I can see happening what you described is if you had a bad driver, or gave permission to install shady software. Vista doesn't just crap out like that for no reason. Or, a faulty hard drive. considered that one?

It's not XP we're talking about.

Edited 2009-04-25 13:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Still worse than XP...
by naranha on Sat 25th Apr 2009 13:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Still worse than XP..."
naranha Member since:
2009-02-25

Could have been a driver problem, even though i was using the newest chipset(intel p35)/gfx(nvidia gf8000gt) drivers. The harddrive physically still works, just that i can't access the ntfs-partition anymore. I didn't have any spyware/virusses installed.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Still worse than XP...
by darknexus on Sat 25th Apr 2009 20:46 in reply to "RE[4]: Still worse than XP..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Thom, I know you find Vista and/or Windows 7 to be the best thing since sliced bread, but it doesn't always work so well for everyone. Whether it's a crappy driver or not doesn't really make a huge difference in the end for the person having the trouble, does it?
And, that being said, some of the drivers included with Vista itself must be extremely buggy--certainly possible, as they're still developed by the hw manufacturers and MS just includes them in Vista. I had an Intel ICH8-based internal audio chip that repeatedly caused a blue screen in Vista, and that was with the driver included with Vista itself. There are no driver updates for this particular card.
In some situations, the argument over whether it's Vista or a driver is meaningless. It reminds me of the argument I here from a lot of Linux users that Linux doesn't crash, Xorg or the desktop environment might crash but the kernel does not. In the end, it's irrelevant, and all part of the same whole to most people.
Further, how bad must the Microsoft driver certification procedure be if such drivers make it through their screening? With the number of problems Vista can have and if, as you say, Vista doesn't have problems and only the drivers do... I think Microsoft better bump their driver QA a bit, especially for drivers that are included as part of a default installation.
You can't blame everything on Vista or Microsoft, but you can't blame everything on bad drivers either.

Reply Parent Score: 3

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You are describing a hard drive failure. Even if it is working now, it is just a matter of time before it dies again. I would highly recommend getting a new one, and until you do back everything up as rigorously as possible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Still worse than XP...
by darknexus on Sat 25th Apr 2009 18:37 in reply to "RE[4]: Still worse than XP..."
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

You are describing a hard drive failure. Even if it is working now, it is just a matter of time before it dies again. I would highly recommend getting a new one, and until you do back everything up as rigorously as possible.

Not necessarily. I've seen similar things happen to NTFS filesystems, although in my case it was in Windows XP. Basically, if you're unlucky enough to have to reset or power off the system right as NTFS is closing a write to its master file table (mft), it can bring the filesystem down under the right conditions. It can also cause other interesting things if the MFT becomes just a bit corrupted due to this, e.g. used clusters end up being marked as free, causing random disappearances of files and/or folders, or portions of the pbr to be erased.
It could also be a failure on the motherboard, with the IDE or SATA controller crapping out (not sure which connector that drive used), or it could be the Vista motherboard drivers are buggy as hell. It could even be an unlucky power surge just at the wrong time that overloaded the surge protector and fried a portion of the OP's hard drive, I've had that happen once as well. That required a low level format of the disk before it would work properly again, as certain areas had to be zeroed out before they could be written to. This could explain what happened with your mbr, and the blue screen afterwards although that could very well be your motherboard drivers as well.
This is not a clear case of hard drive failure by a long shot.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Still worse than XP...
by kaiwai on Sun 26th Apr 2009 03:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Still worse than XP..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I still prefer WindowsXP over WinVista even though I have a quick machine with 8 gigs of ram. I rather run XP with 3 gigs of ram than use Vista with 8. I just had so many bad experiences with it. Most important reason is, that XP still feels a lot snappier and faster.


So let me get this staight, you are basing your assessment of Windows 7 on Windows Vista even though there have been reports after reports, articles after articles showing a dramatic decrease in memory usage, improvement in performance over Windows XP on the same hardware. So rather than looking at facts you resort to lying to justify your decision - interesting to see that honesty is a rare commodity on this forum.

Reply Parent Score: 2