Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Would you recommend friends to use XP or Vista?

<< < (5/6) > >>

housetier:
I would take their money and recommend linux, which will receive about as much vendor/technical support as windows XP.

Innuendo:
I noticed that Windows 7 is over 4GB. Bill Gates have mentioned that good operating system doesn't need to be more than 700mb.-NewsAndHistory
--- End quote ---

Windows 7 is only over 4GB if you add together both the 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The latest version of Windows 7 I have checked (build 7137 32-bit) is only 2.38 GB on the install disc.

Bill Gates also mentioned that no computer in the world needs more than 640KB of RAM, too. Things change.

OldElmerFudd:
Sorry MrCrispy but no one should be using Win7 yet on anything but a testbed machine - it is time limited and you won't be able to upgrade to the final version when it is released (or downgrade to anything else). Only time will tell if it lives up to the current impressions in the final release and we have yet to see if they have really improved software compatibility (given that for most people XP mode won't work) and better hardware compatibility than Vista.

<snip>

Having now spent time with it I don't mind the new Windows Explorer - in fact it has many benefits over XP's. I also like the way common user folders have been broken up to make data storage both more easily organised and separable from the OS partition - not that many systems come installed that way or any helpful clues are provided within Vista for the average user.
-Carol Haynes (May 11, 2009, 04:15 AM)
--- End quote ---

NewsAndHistory...

I'm running XP Pro SP 2/3 on all my machines. When what was eventually released as Vista was first proposed by Redmond, it was an entirely new OS in enough ways to be a breakthrough. Vista as released was nothing like that, only slightly more secure, prettier to look at, and intensely demanding on hardware. Now, I'm glad I never switched over. Windows XP is getting long in the tooth, but it works and will do until Windows 7 is released and enough time has passed for the inevitable problems to settle out before I change.

So I would recommend you run XP unless you have a very new computer with at least 3-4 gigs of RAM. When Windows 7 appears as a stable release, that's the next step. If you want to try Linux, Ubuntu 9.04 is a good bet for a user-friendly experience. Whatever you decide, I encourage you to:

A - "Download" from a reliable (read legitimate) source and verify your download is not corrupted.
B - Burn an .iso disk in case a re-install is needed.

BTW, Bill Gates also said no one would ever want anything more than Windows 3.11, IIRC.

hth
2 penny Ron

Tekzel:
I would recommend Vista to friends if they have at least 4 GB RAM, and to enemies if they have 2 GB RAM or less.
-Curt (May 09, 2009, 04:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
My laptop "only" has 2GB of ram, and Vista runs very smoothly here... and that's running stuff like Eclipse, Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server Express et cetera. For "normal user" needs I expect it would run just fine with 1GB and some component tweaking.

There's a few things here and there I don't like. You might want to browse the Vista Immersion Experiment thread :)
-f0dder (May 10, 2009, 07:58 AM)
--- End quote ---

I was going to take exception to that comment myself.  In my experience Vista runs fine in 2gb of ram.  Its at 1gb that you start getting some issues due to low memory.  I equate running Vista in 1gb to running XP running 256mb.  Yes, its doable as long as you don't run much in the background.

I was a late comer to Vista, on purpose.  After SP1 I went ahead and upgraded and generally did not regret the move at all.  However...

About 3 weeks ago, I put Windows 7 RC1 on my machine on a test partition and the Vista install lasted about 3 days.  I never went back.  I am so in love with Windows 7 I sleep with the DVD I made.  I love it so much, I also installed it on my Netbook.  And it runs like a CHAMP.  Aero and all.  I may even get 2 disks on release day if I can afford it.  I have never been a huge fan of Microsoft, but they did well with this one.

Regarding not liking Explorer, I am not a huge fan either, so I use Q-Dir.  Which I love.  They even have a 64bit version.  Why does that matter?  Heck, it probably doesn't, but I like the idea of running 64 bit software. haha.

In conclusion, I am in love with Windows 7.

Edit: Oh!  Forgot to mention UAC.  On Vista, it lasted about 10 minutes and then had to go.  Most annoying thing ever.  I haven't even touched it on Win7.  Works much better.  Oh yea, Libraries.  Love them.  Ok, thats enough out of me.

f0dder:
Regarding not liking Explorer, I am not a huge fan either, so I use Q-Dir.  Which I love.  They even have a 64bit version.  Why does that matter?  Heck, it probably doesn't, but I like the idea of running 64 bit software. haha.
-Tekzel (June 22, 2009, 05:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
It really doesn't matter much for a file manager, except for running 64bit shell extensions... but you can usually install 32bit versions of those even on 64bit systems, and keep using a 32bit file manager.

Edit:[/b] Oh!  Forgot to mention UAC.  On Vista, it lasted about 10 minutes and then had to go.  Most annoying thing ever.  I haven't even touched it on Win7.  Works much better.  Oh yea, Libraries.  Love them.  Ok, thats enough out of me.
-Tekzel (June 22, 2009, 05:06 PM)
--- End quote ---
Remember to crank the UAC lever all the way to maximum on Win7, otherwise it's not safe at all. Then repeat after me: UAC has never been annoying, shoddily coded 3rd party software is annoying :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page