I partially agree with you that xp is a bit better for games, and uses slightly less resources, period. It never ceases to amuse me how people whine that vista and 7 use more resources, specially more ram. Of course it uses more ram, at least if you have 2 or more gb of ram they don't just sit there, theyre being cached so windows gets more responsive. I've seen a screenshot of the task manager of server 2008 r2 that on idle was using 92gb of ram, and you think it was slow because of that? :)
Vista was always a finnicky business to discuss, after all it was a spanking new OS, and no one can deny that from vista onward bsod's just began diminishing a lot when compared to decaying xp, but with sp1 it recovered from the awful state vista was when rtm, and sp2 kinda made it a somewhat stable package, but perhaps it was a little too late as 7 was already knocking on doors. Even though 7 did manage to right many wrongs of vista, there were small things that I just couldn't forgive, like the oh so useful explorer status bar, the extermination of classic start menu, among other bits and pieces. Which reminds me, and I usually don't go and recommend software, but this thing is great, the true comeback of the classic menu, well you got to see it, give it a try and let me know what you think. You can find it here: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/index.html On Jun 10, 10:30 am, "THEfog ." <[email protected]> wrote: > I would take xp over vista anyday, but I would also take 7 over xp anyday, > vista sucks a lot harder than xp. > > THEfog > > On 10/06/2010 6:44 PM, "tribaljet" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Perhaps it borders the irrational, and yes I'm aware of the numbering, > but maybe its because I prefer the performance and stability of a > windows 2000/2003/2008 than their counterparts. They're based on the > same kernel, just upside down :) > > On Jun 10, 9:30 am, Oscar Lundqvist <[email protected]> wrote: > > > It's funny that you say that yo... > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
