pcgeek2471
Solid State Member
- Messages
- 9
Should We Stay With Vista and XP or switch to Windows 7
Windows 7
- Thread starter pcgeek2471
- Start date
I personally wouldn't put it as clear cut as the above for XP. If it's a case of Vista then sure, switch straight off - 7 is basically what Vista should have been in the first place, far far better.
If you're planning to switch from XP and you've got a system with fairly modest specs though - my advice would be to stick with it. XP's requirements are far less than Vista and 7 and as such you may find your system doesn't perform quite as well. I disagree with 7 being far more stable than XP ever was - XP is a rather mature OS now, has gone through a lot of security and stability fixes and as such is rather stable. I'm not saying it's unstable, but 7 just hasn't been around long enough for anyone to make that comparison fairly.
cavemangrinder
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 1,540
- Location
- USA
Well, Windows 7 is actually pretty stable from what I've seen so far (been using if for months now). I installed it on a old Toshiba laptop and its been running fast and without hiccup. Windows 7 is a different ballgame than what I've seen with Vista, I woudn't say it's "what Vista should have been", I have been hearing that alot and I think it's inaccurate. If this were the case, we might say that Windows XP is what Windows 2000/ME should have been. In any case, I recommend that if your computer meets the Windows 7 requirements and you want to upgrade your system, go for Windows 7. You gain system performance through better system resource management and you'll have more Microsoft support, as Windows XP will slowly start to dry out. I have Windows XP installed on my main rig at the moment, but I have Windows 7 Ultimate on the way from Microsoft
I agree - my point was more along the lines that for machines that don't meet the requirements, XP is still a good and stable choice.
The problem with Vista is that Microsoft tried to shove loads in it, ended up taking a lot of it out again because they couldn't release it on time and subsequently ended up with a rather bloated, slow and resource hungry OS. 7 doesn't add too many new features, but is much better on the performance / resource usage front - hats off to Microsoft for listening to people moan and concentrating on slimming the thing down rather than add yet more bloat. This does mean though that in my mind it is undoubtedly what Vista should have been, no properly designed OS should be bloated and unnecessarily resource intensive - and this is what Vista was, and 7 fixed.
I wouldn't say the same thing about 2000/XP at all. In fact, 2000 was in many ways my favourite Microsoft OS - it had all the useful add ons of XP but without the hand holding utilities and the fisher price task bar. As such it was a bit like XP pro with the bloat stripped out, and did run noticeably faster as a result. I'd still be using it now if they hadn't discontinued support long ago! ME - well that's a completely different ball game. Biggest load of crap to be put on a disk since DOS 4!
pcgeek2471
Solid State Member
- Messages
- 9
Thanks For Your Help Im Gonna Save Up Crimble Money to buy it
since im running a hp compaq 6720s
with 1 gb ram and 2.00mhz processer
since im running a hp compaq 6720s
with 1 gb ram and 2.00mhz processer
