• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Heard Vista sucks. Does Windows 7 NOT suck?

Muse

Muse

Lifer
Yes, the ultimate noob question. I've never used Vista or Windows 7. Lots of experience using Windows starting with 3.1, then 3.11 for Workgroups, Win95 OSR2, some Win98 and Win98SE, NT 4.0, XP Pro.

I'm buying a laptop and wonder how significant is Windows 7 vs. Vista Home or Home Premium.
 
Pretty much since service pack 1 for vista, vista is not as bad as everything that is out there. there are 2 reasons for most of that FUD ..

1) most of it is based on vista when it first came out which then yes it as crappy.
2) most people have either not a) used it personally b) have not updated to sp1 or 2.

But as it stands now, vista is alot better now that it was before.

The other thing you can look at too is who ever you are getting the laptop from they may have an upgrade program in place to go from vista to windows 7 for free or very little cost Example

But all around yes Windows 7 is more polished vs vista I find.
 
I just installed vista on my xp machine (dual boot) and I really don't see the big deal. Sure it takes a lot more memory and space to run but its not THAT bad. Turn off that annoying UAC and it feels like I'm using a better looking version of XP. I just installed SP2 but I haven't really looked into it.
 
windows 7 is a great OS, runs very well on older under-powered hardware too (I have run the 32bit RC on a ibm T40 with 768mb ram and it is as nimble as a well tuned install of XP). I have been using win 7 RC 64bit on my video edit workstation for a few months now and it is fast and stable. Highly recommended OS!
 
Originally posted by: VinylxScratches
Vista is horrible on laptops IMO. Windows 7 runs a lot better from what I hear.
Click to expand...

Depends on the laptop in question,I have Vista x86 on my Dell laptop runs fast and very stable,Vista x64 on my main PC as well again runs fast and solid,I also have Win7 RC on my other PC again no real issues apart from a few drivers missing(HP's fault not Win7).

Basically lot of FUD was spread about Vista in the early days, its a great OS if you have decent hardware to run it,Win7 tweaks a few things and is better for low spec PCs,however both Vista and Win7 are very good operating systems in their own right IMHO.




 
I presently run 3 machines on my home LAN. My laoptop is a T60 Thinkpad with Vista Ultimate/SP2. My main machine is home built with XP Pro/SP3. My newest system is running Windows 7 RTM, Ultimate.

I find the fastest boot/load is the laptop with Vista. The slowest is the XP. The Windows 7 is in between. All three are exceptionally stable and steady. Each has 2 GB of RAM.

All are 100% up to date. None of them "suck."
 
I like both but prefer Vista. I cant stand the superbar.

I had to laugh at the title: Heard Vista sucks. Does Windows 7 NOT suck? ...made me think "I heard if I forward this email Bill Gates will send me a check" 😛

(just poking fun OP)
 
Most of the "Vista is crap" stuff being tossed around is indeed FUD. There may have been some truth to it when Vista was first released almost three years ago -- but it certainly hasn't been true since SP1, and since 3rd-party vendors got off their asses and released proper drivers. I've used Vista since the it was first available to MSDN members 3 years ago, and have used 7 since the beta and RC. 7 does have some nice little usability tweaks -- e.g. the "super" bar and Aero Peek -- but as often stated, it is effectively a tweaked Vista.

It just seems to be considered "cool" to sling FUD about Vista, but spread positive word about 7. It's silly, because there is little significant difference between the two. Heck, you could probably re-release a Vista SP2 install disc with graphics and logos replaced with those from Windows 7... and most users would be very happy with it.

I'm not saying this as a Microsoft fan, either. I'd much rather be using Linux, if it weren't for the fact that my job involves primarily Microsoft software and tools -- and so it's better for my career to keep my knowledge high in that area. But let's keep comments meaningful, and based on actual recent experience with the products involved... rather than slinging FUD about products that we haven't used, or haven't used recently. Okay? (Yes, that request will almost certainly be ignored. But that won't stop me from at least making it.)
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I like both but prefer Vista. I cant stand the superbar.

I had to laugh at the title: Heard Vista sucks. Does Windows 7 NOT suck? ...made me think "I heard if I forward this email Bill Gates will send me a check" 😛

(just poking fun OP)
Click to expand...

My view also. I prefer Vista to Win7, and Vista's run well on every machine I've put it on, laptops included.
 
I like vista more than 7 for a number of reasons. Performance wise, they're identical to me. Granted, I run fast computers.

My laptop is an E8400 with 4GB of ram and a 7200rpm HD. Vista flies.

 
Originally posted by: Binky
Win7 > WinXP > Vista
Click to expand...

Depending on your goal. In honesty, Win7 > Vista > XP in terms of most everything. If you're looking for a "lightweight" OS that can fit in a weaker environment, go with XP. If you want features go with Win7. Since Win7 is pretty much released, there's no reason to get Vista anymore. But as far as Vista goes, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it as an OS (I ran it for the better part of 2 years before switching to Win7 Beta). Anyone saying Vista sucks is either a *nix/OSX fanboy or just aping the crowd that thinks it's hip to say so.
 
I want to be hip so: Vista sucks!!!!

(Haven't really used Vista, just looking forward to win7 so I can do a fresh install of windows, since my 3YO winXP, could use a reinstall)
 
I've got Vista Ulitmate and Windows 7 Ulitimate. They're about the same.

I think on high end machines it really won't make much of a difference. But on lower spec'd machines like netbooks, Windows 7 has a clear advantage.
 
My main complaints with 7 is the hand holding wizard for networking. Setting up manual connections is like trying to explain to a 3 year old what you want to do and them asking why all the time.
 
Originally posted by: Modelworks
My main complaints with 7 is the hand holding wizard for networking. Setting up manual connections is like trying to explain to a 3 year old what you want to do and them asking why all the time.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to remember most people dont know how to set up a network.
 
Microsoft is partially to blame for the anti-vista stance lots of n00bs have. Vista runs like crap on machines with 1gb of ram - they should have told manfacturers to stop being tight and add an extra gig. Add in the fact that most laptops in 2006 had a gig of ram, and that's a lot of negative press.

Vista is perfectly fine on 2gb+ memory.
 
Originally posted by: biostud
I want to be hip so: Vista sucks!!!!

(Haven't really used Vista, just looking forward to win7 so I can do a fresh install of windows, since my 3YO winXP, could use a reinstall)
Click to expand...

Is your machine Vista capable? If it's designed for XP, it probably isn't. Also, some machines are only partially Vista capable: won't run Aero. The only Vista machine I've used was for a few hours only, when I was helping my brother set up his new machine. So, very limited experience indeed. My desktops will not run Vista. My laptops will. At least one laptop will run Windows 7, don't know about the other.
 
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Microsoft is partially to blame for the anti-vista stance lots of n00bs have. Vista runs like crap on machines with 1gb of ram - they should have told manfacturers to stop being tight and add an extra gig. Add in the fact that most laptops in 2006 had a gig of ram, and that's a lot of negative press.

Vista is perfectly fine on 2gb+ memory.
Click to expand...
Well then, it might be a dicey proposition with my Lenovo T60, which has 1.5 GB. It was supposed to be Vista capable (Aero too), when I bought it and with a charge for shipping and handling I was supposed to be able to get a "free" upgrade to Vista from XP Pro. I just called Lenovo today and was told I am SOL because the warranty has run out. 😕 Oh well. I do have a copy of Vista Ultimate that I'm not using, but I figure I should save it for a desktop install. I could install it for now on the Lenovo (upgrade, I suppose), but maybe it's not smart if 1.5 GB of RAM is really insufficient for good performance.

 
Originally posted by: Muse
Originally posted by: StinkyPinky
Microsoft is partially to blame for the anti-vista stance lots of n00bs have. Vista runs like crap on machines with 1gb of ram - they should have told manfacturers to stop being tight and add an extra gig. Add in the fact that most laptops in 2006 had a gig of ram, and that's a lot of negative press.

Vista is perfectly fine on 2gb+ memory.
Click to expand...
Well then, it might be a dicey proposition with my Lenovo T60, which has 1.5 GB. It was supposed to be Vista capable (Aero too), when I bought it and with a charge for shipping and handling I was supposed to be able to get a "free" upgrade to Vista from XP Pro. I just called Lenovo today and was told I am SOL because the warranty has run out. 😕 Oh well. I do have a copy of Vista Ultimate that I'm not using, but I figure I should save it for a desktop install. I could install it for now on the Lenovo (upgrade, I suppose), but maybe it's not smart if 1.5 GB of RAM is really insufficient for good performance.
Click to expand...

How much is ram nowadays for 2GB stick for your laptop something like $30 at Crucial website,new operating system costs more then that,anyway its simple to figure out 😉.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top