Linked by Kroc Camen on Sun 9th May 2010 12:34 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 423375
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A family member bought a top-of-the-line computer with Vista a couple of years ago. The specs of the machine were amazing for the time, and still competitive today, but she was constantly frustrated with the slowness and instability of Vista.
She probably had junk running in the background or hadn't updated the system past SP1.
Windows 7 is a little better for older machines but on something new there is really no difference. I have machines with XP, Vista and 7 and my opinion is that upgrading from Vista to 7 is a waste of money unless you are running an older single core machine. There are plenty of benchmarks that support this assertion. Upgrading from XP is worth it though for the security and aesthetic improvements.
Speaking of Vista the screenshot on that post is clearly Vista and not 7. Not only does it have the older taskbar but the root drive in the explorer Window is labeled Vista. That blogger has zero experience running Vista or 7 and is not in a position to make comparisons. This story should be removed.
Actually it probably is Windows 7.
You may notice the task bar still has the show desktop button that didn't exist in Vista. Also, Vista had a much darker task bar. To make the Windows 7 taskbar look like that, select Properties and select 'Use small icons', and change 'Taskbar buttons:' to 'Never combine'.
About the drives: just because C is the standard root letter, doesn't mean it has to be. It very well could be the E drive is root.





Member since:
2005-06-29
I would tend to agree with you here; as great as Windows 7 was in my nearly 10 months evaluating it, Ubuntu is still a better fit for me. Granted, if I bought a new computer with 7 pre-installed I wouldn't remove it, but I don't foresee me buying a copy of 7.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've noticed major differences between the two, mostly under the hood. Remember, the UI is only a small fraction of a modern OS. On my test computer, Vista was dog-slow and had some stability issues. This was with SP1. With the Windows 7 Beta and RC, my system was much faster and more stable. The only issues I had with 7 was an incomplete bluetooth stack and driver support for a 10-year-old MP3 player. Even XP had issues with that device.
Another example: A family member bought a top-of-the-line computer with Vista a couple of years ago. The specs of the machine were amazing for the time, and still competitive today, but she was constantly frustrated with the slowness and instability of Vista. Once 7 was released to retail, I suggested she give it a try. Another family member bought her the copy and I installed and tweaked it to her preferences. She was absolutely floored by the difference; she now has a pleasant experience every time she uses her computer, as opposed to the constant frustration under Vista.
Again, I wouldn't run 7 as a main OS unless my computer came with it preinstalled, and even then I'd run Ubuntu and Haiku side-by-side with it. But it's only the second version of Windows I can faithfully say I really like (Win2K being the other one). Microsoft finally got it right, in my eyes.