Windows 7
-
Is anyone else following its progress?
I didn't switch to OS X because I thought Windows was awful, I just didn't like how antiquated and unintuitive XP is (and Vista isn't really any better in that sense). Ultimately, OS X allowed me to do extensive multitasking with extreme ease -- I actually got rid of my second monitor when I switched because it just sat collecting dust.
I, for one, am immensely excited about Windows 7 and have every intention of purchasing it (after seeing the customer-base reaction upon release, of course). I think the UI improvements, the revamped taskbar, and the locational-window-modifiers are absolutely awesome and could very well compete with OS X in terms of multitasking ability. -
QUOTE (Governor @ Nov 5 2008, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Is anyone else following its progress?
I didn't switch to OS X because I thought Windows was awful, I just didn't like how antiquated and unintuitive XP is (and Vista isn't really any better in that sense). Ultimately, OS X allowed me to do extensive multitasking with extreme ease -- I actually got rid of my second monitor when I switched because it just sat collecting dust.
I, for one, am immensely excited about Windows 7 and have every intention of purchasing it (after seeing the customer-base reaction upon release, of course). I think the UI improvements, the revamped taskbar, and the locational-window-modifiers are absolutely awesome and could very well compete with OS X in terms of multitasking ability.
I have also been reading about this.
I have not made a switch to Mac yet, but I was deeply considering it.
This does sound like a step in the right direction and if they deliver on some of their promises I can see Windows 7 doing very well. It can steal as much thunder as you can from OSX mac world, and Linux.
I just want windows to be able to run for long periods of time without getting bogged down. From my experience with OSX it seems to stay fast long after you install it. With windows, the average user will notice a slow down almost from day one heh.
-
I've ran Vista (sp1) for over a week, and the highest use of memory has been 52% (of my 4 GB). My processor is a quad core 3.4 GHz intel, so that is rarely ever used up past 30%. Vista, all-in-all, has done wonders with sp1.
-
QUOTE (Jedd @ Nov 5 2008, 12:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I've ran Vista (sp1) for over a week, and the highest use of memory has been 52% (of my 4 GB). My processor is a quad core 3.4 GHz intel, so that is rarely ever used up past 30%. Vista, all-in-all, has done wonders with sp1.
I'm sure SP1 was a big step up for Vista, and I bet SP2 will be leaps and bounds better than SP1, but it doesn't change the fact that the core system has unnecessary inefficiencies that Windows 7 will address. That's why Windows 7 is due to be far faster and actually have lower requirements than Vista.
Example: Vista doesn't decrement the graphic resources provided to hidden and idle applications. That's awful. -
I agree completely gov. I'm just commenting on KP's comment. Vista can run for a period longer than it should be expected to with out bogging down the system.
This discussion has been closed.
← All Discussions Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!