Quote:
Originally Posted by djgreedo
Since they are the same OS under the hood, the RAM usage is almost identical. Win7 is slightly more efficient, but not noticably in my experience.
I agree with that to some extent. Vista was a bit too structured in places, but overall I find that once I got used to Vista it was much easier to use than XP. I don't think I've ever used the 'jumplists' in several months of using Windows 7. I'd really like a taskbar somewhere in between Vista's and 7's.
This I don't understand. I ran Vista on several systems, some with as little as 512MB RAM, and never had a speed issue. My main PC during the time I ran Vista had 1GB RAM and was a very modest laptop. It ran super smooth with the aero interface active (and did not have a dedicated GPU either).
My current computers are no faster with Windows 7 than they were with Vista (though I think my laptop boots slightly quicker).
I agree. I still turned it off because one of my most used apps feels the need to fiddle with the Program Files directory...
I assume Vista SP2 will have the same UAC (since 7 is mostly Vista SP2 under the hood).
It all depends on your hardware and software I suppose. Did you build your own PC while your friend bought one pre-built? I found that my home-built PC had a few issues but my laptop (main PC) never had any problems. The issues could always be traced to a hardware driver or a conflict between two bits of hardware.
I half like it, half want the original back (which I know I can sort of get from the settings). I really want some apps to have multiple tabs while keeping the compact width.
I pretty much agree, however I like Vista more than 7 so far. 7 has a few things I find really useful (dragging windows to the side of the screen to get them auto-sized, etc.), but I'm frustrated by the instability I experience using the same hardware and software as I used with Vista (my media center PC has developed a tendency to stop playing videos halfway through, for example). I shouldn't judge a beta (or RC) though.
So you've subjected some poor soul to OS X? Shame on you!
What do you miss from Linux when running Windows? Dual booting is a real turnoff for me. I love the freedom to jump between apps, play a game for a while, sync my Zune, etc. without having to reboot.
|
When I'm in Windows I miss Linux's (Ubuntu's) package management. I love how I can install a package from a central repository and the system will update that along with the system. I miss the ridiculous amount of options that can be had on Linux, from something simple like the look of the desktop, to a choice of desktops. I can run Gnome, KDE, Flux whatever takes my fancy at any particular time. I miss the Gnome menu system, which is for me the most efficient of all the OS's. It's so simple, everything is grouped together and in plain English. I miss Linux's (Ubuntu's) handling of file systems and its recognition of file systems. Ubuntu can recognise and format every filesystem I throw at it. Win and Mac have troubles (although Mac should be a lot better considering what it's built upon).
Like I said before, they all have their pro's and cons. Me, I'm quite happy dual booting Ubuntu and Win7 for the moment. I'll take a look at what Snow Leopard brings (mostly speed from what I've read), but I don't think I'll be splashing out again on a shiny new mac, I'm over that now.
PS. On Vista I was using >900mb ram just to get to the desktop (Didn't use the SP, just the first iteration) on Win7 I'm using >=1gb with full desktop, 3-tabs in Firefox, 6 instances of Word open in Office 2007, Soulseek, Utorrent, Antivir and Windows Media Player open playing a video. Maybe the Vista SP's did some kind of miracle when it came to ram usage, but I'd already given up on Vista by that point.
And yes I did build this PC, but that wouldn't account for much when Win7 runs so smoothly and Vista was a hog. Same hardware, different OS, world of difference in my eyes.