Is Windows 7 any good (as compared with XP/Pro)?
Just for the kicks me and my friend at work decided to try how little RAM Windows 7 RC1 needs to start without errors. Unmodified Windows 7 RC1 booted and worked with as little as 96MB RAM. Yes, you read that right, 96MB RAM. With 64MB RAM it wouldn't boot, but 96MB is very impressive already.
Wait, so what about Windows 7 Ultimate? Is that half-price?
After doing some searching, it looks like the "XP mode" is nothing more than marketing speak for a Virtual PC setup, which would be lame. Virtual PC is quite slow and has no 3D support whatsoever, so I have to keep an XP setup around in order to play D2X-XL and a few other games with good music.
I heard how Vista didn't work very well with certain programs and wasn't good for gaming.
I hope the new OS won't break compatibility with older games, like Doom and FS2. Doom does have a form of an SCP and graphical updates like FS2 is to FSO. I heard how Vista didn't work very well with certain programs and wasn't good for gaming.
Compatibility with ancient games is always a problem; as for Vista wasn't good for gaming, you'll have to elaborate. I've been running Vista Business x64 for over a year and it's been better for gaming than XP.
What besides UAC (which is easy to turn off) was wrong after the first little while? I agree that it should have been better tested (we got XP 3 days after it came out and it worked flawlessly), but after a few months when hardware drivers caught up it was pretty good.
Dual-boot and/or VMWare?
In short, there are several very good reasons for upgrading, and only very few points against it.
I still have that OS. It is still pretty good. I have used someone else's computer before with Vista on it a while back and it sucked that it required 2 steps to access task manager and it took up the entire screen when I pressed Ctrl+Alt+Delete, unlike XP.You can also access the Task Manager by right-clicking the taskbar in Vista.
I still have that OS. It is still pretty good. I have used someone else's computer before with Vista on it a while back and it sucked that it required 2 steps to access task manager and it took up the entire screen when I pressed Ctrl+Alt+Delete, unlike XP.You can also access the Task Manager by right-clicking the taskbar in Vista.
There's also the direct shortcut Ctrl-Shift-Escape.I didn't know that. Thanks. :)
Let's see with 10-12 computers that is still way to much for an OS update. I'll stick with XP. Maybe one day I'll install my copy of Vista that I've been using as a foot rest.
I really wish someone would come out with a nice simple OS that only installs what you ask it to and nothing more. When did an OS stat needing 50K files just as a base install? No wonder so much goes wrong. Not to mention the wasted space on backups.
Vista, aaaieee!!!
These are UPGRADE discs, designed to UPGRADE from Vista.
Common sense tells me most likely you would need Vista since that upgrade disk might depend on already installed files from Vista since it is an upgrade disk. It must mean it only contains files to put Win 7 on top of the existing Vista OS and therefore won't include all required files or that many from the Win 7 OS disk itself. This tells me that Win 7 must use Vista core files as its base and is basically Vista, but with some additional stuff added and some modifications and is called Win 7.The only difference is the upgrade validation check and cheaper license. Otherwise both versions are identical.
Common sense tells me most likely you would need Vista since that upgrade disk might depend on already installed files from Vista since it is an upgrade disk. It must mean it only contains files to put Win 7 on top of the existing Vista OS and therefore won't include all required files or that many from the Win 7 OS disk itself. This tells me that Win 7 must use Vista core files as its base and is basically Vista, but with some additional stuff added and some modifications and is called Win 7.The only difference is the upgrade validation check and cheaper license. Otherwise both versions are identical.
As far as ME goes, I've heard it was either it worked great, or was horrible (like a 50/50 chance).
...and that it made MS money on one hell of a huge ass fluke of an OS from MS...