Posts: 8,536
Threads: 70
Joined: Dec 2006
(12-25-2009, 08:33 PM)Strika link Wrote: your all ignorant.
NEVAR.
(12-25-2009, 07:01 PM)Hitman link Wrote: lol a 64bit XP is shit... atm Vista SP2 is the best 64bit OS you can get, its more compatible to things than Windows 7.. altho im pretty sure that W7 will get the same hardware/software support updates etc once its service pack 1 is out.
Vista was kinda incompatible with hardware since its first service pack, after that it just rocked.
Didn't have any problem yet with my x64. D:
|
Posts: 189
Threads: 48
Joined: Oct 2009
12-26-2009, 11:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 12-26-2009, 12:51 PM by Future)
I used Windows XP SP2 until last summer, when I switched to SP3.
Any newer operating system is bigger, more complex, takes more memory, is slower, and have less Service Packs that makes to have more bugs. Being more complex, is harder to find the bugs to repair them. Not all companies released new software versions which are compatible with Windows 7.
So I prefer always better to use an older operating system, even if my computer supports even Windows 7.
I agree, Windows 7 is the future, and I will switch to it later, maybe when it will have at least one service pack.
Stability depends by how you use it.
By installing only several programs from reputable companies, it remains stable. But if you repeately install and uninstall hundreds of shits found on internet and filesharing networks, cracked software (which may contains viruses), and dezactivate antivirus which don't let you to download a crack, is obviously that any Windows will not work properly anymore!
The only truly stable operating system is MS-DOS!!
|
Posts: 8,536
Threads: 70
Joined: Dec 2006
(12-26-2009, 11:18 AM)Future link Wrote: I used Windows XP SP2 until last summer, when I switched to SP3.
Any newer operating system is bigger, more complex, takes more memory, is slower, and have less Service Packs that makes to have more bugs. Being more complex, is harder to find the bugs to repair them. Not all companies released new software versions which are compatible with Windows 7.
So I prefer always better to use an older operating system, even if my computer supports even Windows 7.
I agree, Windows 7 is the future, and I will switch to it later, maybe when it will have at least one service pack.
How is Windows 7 slower than XP? It surely isn't to me. And by the way, instead of people that keep saying "XP is better than 7", maybe you guys should try updating your hardware once. All I've noticed by now is people who say XP is better, are usually the ones with more crappy computers. Just look into it. (note: I'm not speaking to you, Future, but in general)
I'm running Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit, and haven't had a single problem yet, again. Not to mention there's other guys on here too that haven't had a single problem.
XP is ancient, get over it.
|
Posts: 161
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2007
(12-20-2009, 11:39 PM)Cave link Wrote: Win7 is the, best os ever.
|
Posts: 1,815
Threads: 69
Joined: Jan 2008
(12-26-2009, 11:30 AM)Maka link Wrote: How is Windows 7 slower than XP? It surely isn't to me. And by the way, instead of people that keep saying "XP is better than 7", maybe you guys should try updating your hardware once. All I've noticed by now is people who say XP is better, are usually the ones with more crappy computers. Just look into it. (note: I'm not speaking to you, Future, but in general)
I'm running Windows 7 Professional, 64-bit, and haven't had a single problem yet, again. Not to mention there's other guys on here too that haven't had a single problem.
XP is ancient, get over it. Its faster because it doesnt have the shitty aero like in w7,ofc u can disable it, but that doesnt make it faster than the lite xp im using. XP ISNT ancient, if it was ancient then it would be like windows 98, but now, majority of the world is still using it. XP SP3 is perfectly good, I dont see a reason on why ur hating on it
its like CS and CSS, what the most ppl like, and why they like it.
|
Posts: 8,536
Threads: 70
Joined: Dec 2006
(12-26-2009, 01:55 PM)Strika link Wrote: Its faster because it doesnt have the shitty aero like in w7,ofc u can disable it, but that doesnt make it faster than the lite xp im using. XP ISNT ancient, if it was ancient then it would be like windows 98, but now, majority of the world is still using it. XP SP3 is perfectly good, I dont see a reason on why ur hating on it
its like CS and CSS, what the most ppl like, and why they like it.
Where am I hating on it? That must be the worst comment you've made in the entire topic, really.
And lol at blaming stuff on the aero theme. And yes, you can indeed disable it.
And XP is ancient.
|
Posts: 1,550
Threads: 108
Joined: Nov 2008
12-26-2009, 02:44 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-26-2009, 02:47 PM by g3344)
(12-26-2009, 11:18 AM)Future link Wrote: Any newer operating system is bigger, more complex, takes more memory, is slower, and have less Service Packs that makes to have more bugs.
dumbest post ever...Let me explain:
XP Release: October 2001
XP SP1: September 2002
XP SP2: August, 2004
XP SP3: March, 2008
7 Release: October 2009
time now: December 2009
So if we look at the *perfect* record of Services packs from the *perfect* OS, you will see that Windows 7 *shouldn't* need an SP for another year yet. So that argument you made, is pretty useless. It's like saying "OMG A NEW GAME HAS A BUG IN IT!!?!?! WTF!?!? SHIT GAME I NO BUY TILL BUG FIX".
The more Services Packs, the more bugs that were in there in the first place.  (stop crying bitches, i know some SP's don't fix bugs as such, but add something instead)
Oh and PLEASE don't put another OS down UNLESS you have tested/used that OS!
|
Posts: 8,536
Threads: 70
Joined: Dec 2006
(12-26-2009, 02:44 PM)Jordi link Wrote: Oh and PLEASE don't put another OS down UNLESS you have tested/used that OS!
Right there.
|
Posts: 1,550
Threads: 108
Joined: Nov 2008
(12-26-2009, 11:18 AM)Future link Wrote: Any newer operating system is bigger, more complex, takes more memory, is slower
Oh and, takes more memory? I ran a test yesterday, I had a clean install of Vista 64, and a clean install of W7 64, both on the same machine. Windows Vista, older than 7, took up around 1.7GB of RAM without running any programs, W7, the newer one, took up 500MB of RAM.
Also "A newer operating system is bigger".
HOLY FUCK!!?!? WTF!?!?!? YOU MEAN, THEY MADE AN OS THAT HAS MORE THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE!?!?!?!? WHAT THE HELL!!!??! WHO WOULD MAKE A SOFTWARE SEQUEL TO SOMETHING, AND MAKE IT HAVE MORE STUFF IN!?!?  oll:
Have you ever tried writing a large text document? The more you put in, the bigger it gets 
Would people really spend 150 bucks on a new OS that is the same as the old one? No? Wonder why 
|
Posts: 1,810
Threads: 80
Joined: Nov 2007
Come on, it's Future 
It's funny to see how 90% of the help topics turn into a neverending discusion with a crapload of arguments  Still I agree, and I say the same I said before: if you got an old PC, better stay with XP; if you got a new and/or powerful machine, Windows 7 > Vista > XP. (No, not because I read it on those crappy biased "statistics", it's because I experienced it myself.)
|
|
![[Image: memberd.png]](http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/9002/memberd.png)
![[Image: Screw_Up_PC.gif]](http://nurnonsens.nu.funpic.de/sig/Screw_Up_PC.gif)
