Windows 7 vs XP

[bigwater]

You pay $3 for a cup of coffee?

[Anvil3]

You pay $3 for a cup of coffee?

who are you refering to?

[bigwater]

Sorry... should have quoted him.

$120 in 5 years isn't overly burdensome in costs. That is the amount of time between RTM dates for XP and Vista. It is 8 years if you consider Windows 7. That is less than 40 coffees in that period of time.

[Joe Gronlund]

Running Windows 7 Ultimate final now (Best OS Ever in my years of running it), and will be running one of the new Mac Mini's with Snow Leopard, modified in December, if not earlier..

So i will have the best of both worlds both setup on my desk

[Wayne Luke]

You pay $3 for a cup of coffee?

I don't personally since I work at home. However going to a good coffee place it is going to cost you that much at least for coffee for the day. If I am out and decide to stop in at "Panera Bread" or "Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf", I'll spend at least that much if not more. My point is that I really don't see the cost of the cost of the OS as prohibitive. You can go to Wal-mart and buy a new computer for $349.00 with Windows Vista.

[MRGTB]

After 2 days with Vista on. I'm back with XP again and should have taken the advice of half my mates who have removed Vista that came with there PC's to put XP on. After trying it yet again, like a stupid fool asking for more punishment - it isn't for me. Give me XP Home/Pro/Media Edition any day of the week. It's the last time I'll be installing Vista from now on (ever), it has to be one of the worst O/S Microsoft have ever produced. No wonder they've created Windows 7 to kick it into touch.

I pity anybody who bought a computer with Vista on it. And the title of this thread is apt (Windows 7 v's XP), and not Vista. Which is about right!

[veenuisthebest]

It's the last time I'll be installing Vista from now on (ever), it has to be one of the worst O/S Microsoft have ever produced. No wonder they've created Windows 7 to kick it into touch.

I pity anybody who bought a computer with Vista on it. And the title of this thread is apt (Windows 7 v's XP), and not Vista. Which is about right!

Thats sad you (and many others) don't like Vista at all, I really wonder WHY. Personally I got NO problems with Vista. I got my Dell Studio 15 with Vista x64 SP2 pre-installed, been using it heavily since couple of months and I love it.

[jmurrayhead]

Thats sad you (and many others) don't like Vista at all, I really wonder WHY. Personally I got NO problems with Vista. I got my Dell Studio 15 with Vista x64 SP2 pre-installed, been using it heavily since couple of months and I love it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista

I've experienced many of the issues listed in the above link, myself.

[MRGTB]

Thats sad you (and many others) don't like Vista at all, I really wonder WHY

Because I'm old enough to have virtually tried nearly every operating system MS have ever released. I'd personally say Windows 2000 Pro was the best operating system ever by MS. With XP a close second. XP was the first O/S that started the new eye-candy thing off with MS. And if truth be said it was not well recieved at first as a Windows 2000 replacement using the same NTFS file system, You can't really compare XP to Windows 98SE or ME, because they both used the less stable Fat32 operating system.

I do like the look of Vista, as well as some of it features. But there is a hell of a lot more that I dislike about it. Maybe it's just me, but when I download updates via MS Updates. I always get errors with updates not installing, and I'm shown some kind of module error code. Although they do eventually get installed after many tries later. I never get stuff like that with XP.

You always know with Vista at some point you'll get a error, be it an IE error or what ever else it throws at you. I never get any errors with XP. Previously before the format last week. I've been running XP for about 2 years without one single error happening. for me eye candy comes second, stabilty comes first. And Vista is not as stable as XP on my machine, not by a long way. Yet my computer specs dictate that Vista should run perfect without any problems on my custom built machine in all it's glory. If only that were true!

[Ryan Ashbrook]

You always know with Vista at some point you'll get a error, be it an IE error or what ever else it throws at you. I never get any errors with XP. Previously before the format last week. I've been running XP for about 2 years without one single error happening. for me eye candy comes second, stabilty comes first. And Vista is not as stable as XP on my machine, not by a long way.

Quite the opposite with me. XP was always giving me errors, whereas Vista rarely does.

I'm not going to say it never has, but it's a very rare occasion and the error is usually something bad I did.

[MRGTB]

Well maybe XP runs so stable on my system because I use all the drivers that came with all hardware installed designed for use with XP. And on the MS Updates site, I always hide all driver updates MS offers me to use to update the ones already installed from the disks that came with the hardware itself.

[veenuisthebest]

Maybe it's just me, but when I download updates via MS Updates. I always get errors with updates not installing, and I'm shown some kind of module error code. Although they do eventually get installed after many tries later. I never get stuff like that with XP.

Its got to be some problem with the installation then or some process conflicting. The updates are as smooth as butter for me. NEVER EVER had a problem.

[beishe8]

Its got to be some problem with the installation then or some process conflicting. The updates are as smooth as butter for me. NEVER EVER had a problem.

Hmmm... Same with me... 2 million files could cause some problems but they don't.

[Quillz]

Because I'm old enough to have virtually tried nearly every operating system MS have ever released. I'd personally say Windows 2000 Pro was the best operating system ever by MS. With XP a close second. XP was the first O/S that started the new eye-candy thing off with MS. And if truth be said it was not well recieved at first as a Windows 2000 replacement using the same NTFS file system, You can't really compare XP to Windows 98SE or ME, because they both used the less stable Fat32 operating system.

I do like the look of Vista, as well as some of it features. But there is a hell of a lot more that I dislike about it. Maybe it's just me, but when I download updates via MS Updates. I always get errors with updates not installing, and I'm shown some kind of module error code. Although they do eventually get installed after many tries later. I never get stuff like that with XP.

You always know with Vista at some point you'll get a error, be it an IE error or what ever else it throws at you. I never get any errors with XP. Previously before the format last week. I've been running XP for about 2 years without one single error happening. for me eye candy comes second, stabilty comes first. And Vista is not as stable as XP on my machine, not by a long way. Yet my computer specs dictate that Vista should run perfect without any problems on my custom built machine in all it's glory. If only that were true!

Speak for yourself. I've never gotten any BSODs or errors at all with Vista, because for me, it's far more stable than XP ever was, which gave me multiple BSODs and other system errors in the years that I used it.

[Wayne Luke]

Well maybe XP runs so stable on my system because I use all the drivers that came with all hardware installed designed for use with XP. And on the MS Updates site, I always hide all driver updates MS offers me to use to update the ones already installed from the disks that came with the hardware itself.

This would explain it. Vista has a new driver model and while it can reuse a lot of XP drivers, they are unstable and troublematic.