The big Windows 7 lie

I can simply say one thing.

I can simply say one thing. If you are new to computer and only familiar with calculator or paint program (Probably you can suggest your 5 year old child), then u can go for so-called Ubuntu (I'm hearing this name for the 1st time in my life). I can assure you, ubantu will need 100 decades to compete with Windows 7. I've already tried so-called some open-source OS and I found myself screwed up. My sound card stopped working, my modem crashed, my pen-drive didn’t not responded (I’ve used a pen drive from a renounced company, but it was not compatible with that OS, so compatibility issue???? far far far behind that windows) and finally I came up with a scrap. So, I again formatted my Hard-drive (Have given me lots of pain to format with NTFS format) and re-installed Windows again and I got my breath back.

So, my suggestion to all the people in this blog is that, pls don't try to play with such OS and use Windows. I don't want to comment on Mac, because, I haven’t used it yet because of its high pricing.

So, my suggestion is if you want to buy an economical as well as High-performing State-of-the-art OS, then go for Windows 7... not Mac and don't even try any Open-source OS like ubantu.

This guy is pretty much a

This guy is pretty much a nonsense-talker.
Facts: My Vista Home Premium (OEM) kept crashing with AV programs, games, DOS BOX, inadequate registry cleaners, etc. After switching to Windows 7 about a month ago, I've installed and tested 6 AV programs, 3 reg. cleaners, and plenty of games--nothing has crashed, screwed up the OS, gave a blue screen, etc. My laptop loads in 30-45 seconds and programs are flying. I only had to uninstall and reinstall Skype. AVs that work smoothly so far are Avast, Kaspersky 2010 (the Technical Release has been just approved), ESET NOD 4.

If you have Vista do not waste your money on Windows 7

I think Vista was and is a great OS. All of you people have been brain washed in think it was not. Remeber when Windows 2000 Pro. came out everyone hated that.

Talk about compatibility I have a Dell 4400 that ran Vista fine to get aero thou I did have to upgrade the video card but hey the computer is from 2001 and Vista came out in January 2006

As far as Windows 7 RC now that is an OS that is all over the place and it is nothing more than Windows Vista Second Edition. If you have Vista do not waste your money on Windows 7.

Also Aero is better in Vista.

Windows 7 - Pro & Con.

Windows 7 is pretty. Aside from requiring a DVD rather than only a CD, Windows 7 installed easily. Also, unlike Windows XP, it will read and partition larger than 131 GB hard drives if they are not already formatted and/or partitioned.

And a nice feature, Windows 7 installed all my drivers. A nice feature is with two open windows you can drag one all the way to the left the second all the way to the right and each would self size so they are side by side with each taking up half the page.

Unless you are into a pretty desktop, I have not found any other advantages. I have found a number of disadvantages.

Microsoft appears to be making changes just for the sake of making changes even if the old is better. Instead of a quick launch, Windows 7 has a couple of folders. You can look into the folder for any open programs and/or web sites.

The old was better. To select your window just click on the little rectangle on the bar at the bottom of the page. That is easier than going to folder to find them since it saves a step.

Window 7 help files are inadequate. I don't know why Microsoft feels they need you to go to their web site to find the answer to something common. It is not that help text files would require much space.

Remember System Restore. Don't search in help because it is not there. You must go to the control panel and find it with difficulity in one of the sub-directories.

The bad is Windows 7 does not have nor allow Outlook Express and for mail you can download Windows live mail or some other mail program. Say you have three email accounts. With Outlook Express, you could create a folder C:/E-mail and 3 sub folders Name1, Name2, and Name3.

Windows live mail creates many dozens of folders, subfolders and sub-subfolders in the folder C:/E-male/Name1. If you have C:/E-mail/Name1, all three accounts go there. Or else, you can put them all in E-mail/Name2. You cannot put each account into their own folder.

That is fine if you only have a few e-mails. However, good luck if you wish to import 3,000 email you have saved over 5 years. You can import, but you cannot read them until you find and copy them into the correct folder. There are a dozen inbox folders and a dozen sent folders, etc. They are in sub-sub- subdirectors and you have no way of knowing which is the right one because there are no dates and the names are random letters and numbers. It took me an hour just to find and transfer imported mail for just one account.

Windows 7 was free for a year and new so I was excited. However, after a week, I went back to the simpler and better Window XP.

Last Monday I took delivery

Last Monday I took delivery of an iMac 24", 3.06GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB of DDR3 and the ATI 4850 HD 512MB graphics chip. I've since installed a copy of XPSP3 under Parallels for testing the sites I design and also under Bootcamp so I can play games that are Windows only and take full advantage of the graphics card* without having the extra overhead of running 2 operating systems at once. Everything there seems to be working as expected, so I'm pleased with that.

Then I start noticing all the hype about Windows 7 and after having used Vista on a friend's machine (which came with Vista installed) I thought to myself "there's no way it could be worse, or even as bad as Vista was". So I downloaded the new RC and installed it under Parallels. Installation went ok but I have to admit I was really disappointed when it loaded fully for the first time. It felt like half of the OS was missing. It looked to me like they'd taken Vista and stripped it down, including some of the visuals, and all the reviews I've read seem to think this amazing. I'll have some of whatever they're putting up their noses!

Seriously though, this reminds me of all the hype surrounding that awful Godzilla movie with Matthew Broderick, all bark and no bite. I haven't touched Ubuntu yet but I look forward to testing it out as a VM. Notice that I haven't been shouting about OS X, but to be honest, anyone who has ever used it knows it blows Windows out of the water for both performance and user experience, anyone who claims otherwise is just in denial (or could be some kind of masochist), plain and simple.

* Somebody will surely point out that this is a mobile graphics chip and not a "real" gaming chip, so before anyone does I'd just like to say piss off, every game I've played on it I've played at maxed out settings and resolution and it hasn't dropped a single frame. But I will say it really was about time Apple pulled a decent graphics chip out of the bag.

Rambling over. Phew!

Cheers,
Robert

we know seven is vista tweaked microsoft told us that already

i really don't know who is bribing you but vista rocks xp as we have learned was rubbish all along i loved xp until i got vista and vista is a much superior product and guess what 7 runs with vistas kernel (pay attention Microsoft already said that) but a bit faster ask any hardcore gamer or programmer or graphic designer who uses windows xp ? or vista ? and they will say vista every time and if you don't like user account control guess what you could turn it off and in case you are wondering i hate Microsoft but you cannot take it away vista/7 really rocks xp is just about obsolete it was great for it's day but we now need machines that can utilise SSD etc and huge amounts of ram maybe you should try vista on a decent spec laptop and then post a constructive comment

If you want Vista to perform, go x64 quad-core

If you want to get true performance out of Vista, go x64 and get the hardware to run it. I'm running Vista Ultimate 64-bit on a HP Pavilion Elite d5100t ATX with 8GB RAM (2GB dedicated to the 1GB GeForce 9800GT video card for a total of 3GB VRAM), Intel Core 2 Quad Q9550 2.83GHz 1333MHz FSB CPU, x64 motherboard that's all SATA (NO IDE controller ... IDE is DEAD!), and SATA II hard drive, among other hardware, including an LG BD-RE drive. And, for God's sakes, get rid of Norton anything! That's the #1 performance killer on any PC. I can throw anything at this beast and I can't get the CPU fan to ramp up past its slowest idle. My system's Windows Experience Index is 5.9 across the board and this thing just flat flies. If you want good performance, buy the hardware. You're not going anywhere with Vista or Windows 7 in 256MB of anything.

Windows 7 is NOT faster than

Windows 7 is NOT faster than Windows Vista. People *feel* it is, but in reality Vista runs just the same.

Look at the services and default configuration, Vista will run just the same way when the configuration has been changed - minus the UAC options. This is Mojave experiment on a whole new level. By the way did anyone check the NT version number? ;-)

I have had a tweaked Vista install run well on 512MB RAM as a VMWare Workstation guest on an HP Pavillion t3245.uk with Athlon64 3700+. I've done the same with Windows 7 - there is NO practical difference.

This is coming from someone who vowed not to buy a new Windows machine since the failure that was a buggy initial XP release.

P.S. (K)Ubuntu 8.10 isn't that great. All the glitz and glamour makes it damn well RAM-hoggy compared to a Debian Lenny install with KDE 3.5. That said I still use it ;)

msconfig fixed vista's startup kludge

I used the msconfig program on my new Vista Premium laptop and disabled 75% of the startup programs that I will never use and why waste resources. On startup my Vista now acts a lot like XP and is a pleasure to use. Finding some of the settings in Vista gets to be a pain and after doing them 10-20 times I am getting used able to finding them in the odd places Vista wanted them to reside.