Don't get me wrong, I don't think they did the right thing with vista, but it was a step in the right direction. Before windows 7, there are some situations where vista did perform better than xp, gaming though performed 90% worse. Now with windows 7, there is absolutely no need to recommend vista as 7 supersedes vista in every conceivable way. With gaming, most games run faster in 7 than xp, it's not one or two. Only really old or weak hardware shows xp as having better performance.
You're right, I got carried away. But if you want to bash or praise something, you better be able to back it up. But the fact that no netbook came with vista and now they come with 7 should say something about vista's resource usage. On 30 Dez, 15:00, PL4YaH <[email protected]> wrote: > Nah I remember Vista was pretty laggy @ Home Premium. Even I used Task > Manager to bring down some resources. Trust me, I used Win 98 for 5 > years Windows XP for 8 years, Windows Vista 6 years and Windows 7 for > 1 year.I admit, Vista can be faster than Windows 7 sometimes. Its > rare :P > > On Dec 30, 4:36 am, Derp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Vista Home Basic isn't that bad. Uses less resources than Windows 7 > > Home Premium. > > > On Dec 30, 5:39 am, PL4YaH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I don't get it. lol jk > > > > Anyways Vista was one of the worst OS ever made. I even prefer using > > > Windows 98 than Vista I mean seriously. Vista makes your pc lag and > > > slow. Idk what microsoft put in Vista but when Windows 7 was released. > > > All the stuff that makes Vista slow & lag dead & gone. Not all of them > > > but most of them are dead & gone. Vista also has one of the worst > > > gaming performance i ever seen. I think I recall having Windows 98 > > > once and played GTA Vice City with a nice FPS (24-30). When I switched > > > to Vista, GTA VC lags like hell(10-20). Idk why though I think > > > microsoft ran out of ideas when they first even think about having > > > another OS after XP. Windows Vista is just for looks, Not > > > performance. > > > > Hence Viscrap :) > > > On Dec 30, 3:24 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > well, put it simple.... Windows Vista + Crap Software = Viscrap... :) > > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 3:07 AM, PL4YaH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Lmao. I was once a XP user too. I remember I had a Koobface virus (The > > > > > facebook virus) lol I used the Anti-Malwarebytes & AVG & it still > > > > > didn't get removed. Anyways, Whats a Viscrap? Sounds like a funny > > > > > program. > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:51 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > lol , i was once a XP users even after Viscrap launch..i do not > > > > > > dare to > > > > > > touch Viscrap...lol....it's like an HIV in Windows world... > > > > > > > but also, at the launch of Win7, after RC2 release, XP died on me, > > > > > indected > > > > > > with baddass virus and all my XP system make is a xP face...lol... > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 2:48 AM, PL4YaH <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > True. No disagree's there. XP is not a very good OS to be safe. > > > > > > > > On Dec 30, 2:46 am, AngelicTears <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > XP may be winning in terms of performance...overall XP is > > > > > > > > lightweight > > > > > and > > > > > > > > good performing OS, but despite that, XP is indeed a nesting > > > > > > > > place > > > > > for > > > > > > > quite > > > > > > > > a lot of viruses and worms..even with most up to date and state > > > > > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > art > > > > > > > > Antivirus engine..XP kernel is quite vulnerable to attacks and > > > > > > > > that > > > > > means > > > > > > > > major let down...although, i have to say while win7 might not > > > > > > > > beat XP > > > > > > > > performance, it does have huge performance boost over > > > > > > > > Viscrap..with > > > > > newer > > > > > > > > tech compatibility with todays computing, id say it does feel > > > > > > > > more > > > > > > > superior > > > > > > > > to XP...but generally, if in terms of computing alone, and > > > > > > > > everyday > > > > > task > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > computer, subtract gaming in that equations, then any Linux > > > > > > > > distro > > > > > will > > > > > > > do > > > > > > > > the job...it does perform well in everyday task and again if a > > > > > > > > person > > > > > not > > > > > > > > into heavy gaming, linux is recommended... :) > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 9:53 PM, PL4YaH <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I searched up Windows XP vs Windows 7 in gaming performance > > > > > > > > > and I'm > > > > > > > > > very surprised that Windows XP beats Windows 7 in a long shot > > > > > > > > > with > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > gaming performance. I always thought Windows 7 beats the rest > > > > > > > > > of > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > OS but I guess i was wrong. I just switched to Windows 7 > > > > > > > > > because > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > modded drivers works better on that OS. > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 6:42 pm, Derp <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > GNU/Linux would be a better alternative in that case. Most > > > > > distros > > > > > > > > > > perform better than XP, better security than Windows 7, and > > > > > > > > > > it's > > > > > > > known > > > > > > > > > > for stability. > > > > > > > > > > > On Dec 29, 9:26 am, MAD_BEAST <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > if you are wondering why installing WIN on a machine with > > > > > > > > > > > </= > > > > > 512MB > > > > > > > > > > > ram is because WIN7 is safer, WIN XP is a nest of viruses > > > > > > > > > > > and a > > > > > > > > > > > formated OS every 3 months, and IM NOT TALING ABOUT IGP > > > > > > > > > > > gaming > > > > > just > > > > > > > > > > > saftely and stability > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > > > > > -- > > > > > 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS > > -- 9xx SOLDIERS SANS FRONTIERS
