As silly as this may sound, I'm not going to risk it. I'm happy with my good old XP and I'm going to damn well stick with it.

Abedeus:

thedrop2zer0:

Abedeus:
I would use Vista.

If it wasn't buggy, slow and if it would actually be an improvement. I'm using it at my school computer and thanks to the "advanced" settings, I have 33MB of space on my user, so I can't install Firefox. And "new" Internet Explorer hangs up every 5 minutes if I open more than 6 pages.

It's just a terrible, terrible system.

Perhaps it's just the actually computer you're using that's terrible. I use Vista on my home desktop and laptop, and both systems run flawlessly.

Not really. Dual Core @ 1.8GHz, 1 GB RAM and GeForce 5600. Okay, the graphic card isn't good. In theory even my laptop (1.6GHz dual core, 512 RAM and integrated graphics) should run Vista. But I paid extra for downgrade to XP and it works better.

Any program that doesn't work well on exceeded Minimum requirements is bad optimized.

It really depends on the graphical settings that your school has Vista set to. If that video card is pushing the lower spectrum of the system requirements, but Vista is running with all of the graphical bells and whistles turned on, of course it's going to run terribly.

My home computers have excellent graphic cards and even I have all the graphical options turned off in Vista. They may be pretty, but they are unnecessary and use extra recourses that could be used for something else.

Vista in general just needs a little tweaking by the user to run very well. But once it has been tweaked, it runs great. Better than XP ever did for me, at least.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Let's see, occasional BSOD's or unintuitive systems?

Oh, and the latter costs me more in money, resources, time and patience.

When they stop supporting XP, I might go to Linux.

Have they already forgotten what WYSIWYG stands for?

How the hell does that make any sense. Instead of learning a variation of something you know you'll go to the trouble of learning a complete unknown. Add to that if you are looking for user friendliness and a less steep learning curve, It sounds more like you're in the market for a mac.

The whole idea that the problems with vista have to do with the UI is bizarre, it is premised completely on the XP system, and I actually found it much more intuitive than any Windows system that has come out yet. The argument that "I learned windows in the mid nineties and demand it not change for the better or worse" is just unintelligent.

The reason Vista has been "abandoned" has absolutely nothing to do with the UI. Vista had huge stability issues; the system often failed to recognize administrative users, which, when paired with the security features of the system, made it near impossible to complete a number of tasks; The software management systems conflicted with updating / uninstalling / reinstalling frequently (I had a bitch of a time getting Photoshop CS3 on my Vista system)

Pain in the ass. I did end up switching back to XP, but I regret losing the Vista Interface, it was really solid. I have not checked out the new windows OS right now, but if it can give me the stability of XP with the UI usability improvements offered in Vista, I would recommend it easily.

But I will have to wait until the Gold Master release to form a final opinion.

God... "New versions of Windows are too hard to learn." My eyes roll.

I can't wait to get the new install. From what I hear, it's more efficient than Vista. And doesn't bug out as much. Or it won't when it's an official OS.

I hate Vista...

Eggo:

Sylocat:
I didn't refuse to upgrade because of any user-friendliness issue or even the bugs. I just refused to spend however much money they want on something that would be obsolete in fewer years than I can count on the fingers of one hand of a man suffering from advanced leprosy.

They didn't even have time to start making Vista-exclusive games before the next version of Windows came out.

Yeah, that's why I follow the "skip a system" rule. I didn't buy the PS1, I got the PS2, and I'll wait until the PS4 comes out before I start playing the PS3 games I missed in the meantime. I didn't get the first Xbox, and after three fucking RRoDs I got my money back on the 360. I'll wait for the 720 now. And so on.

Good morning blues:

Sylocat:
They didn't even have time to start making Vista-exclusive games before the next version of Windows came out.

They didn't make Vista-exclusive games because doing so would be sabotaging your sales in a market where Vista has less than 20% of the operating market share while XP has almost 70 nearly two years after Vista's release.

Yeah, that was kind of my point.

I also think that comparing the lifespan of a computer, which will cost a couple thousand dollars if it is to last for several years, to that of a console, which costs mere hundreds, is disingenuous at best, and that is coming from a dyed-in-the-wool PC gamer.

Good point.

Quick question - does Windows 7 come in 32 and 64 bit versions like Vista does? I currently have the 32-bit version of vista and have 4gb of ram which means 1gb isn't being used at all. I'm thinking about upgrading. Just not sure if I should get vista 64-bit or wait for Windows 7.

I only used Vista for a few months early in its life span and I really enjoyed it and found it very intuative once Id got use to it. The only reason I went back to xp was that Razer were very slack about releasing 64bit drivers for my sound card, and I got fed up with not being able to use it fully. Now there are drivers Im tempted to go back but I have so much installed it would be a nightmare.

Eggo:
Unless you are [H]ard like I am, I haven't met very many people who are dyed-in-the-wool PC gamers who have spent a couple thousands of dollars (what's a couple? $3000? $4000?) for any of their systems to last for several years.

How much "hardcore" PC gamers pay for their systems is moot. A $600 PC is going to run like complete ass and only get worse as time goes on; within a year, it will be considered so thoroughly obsolete that you might as well chuck it and buy a new system, if it isn't right when it's purchased (which, if you want to play games on it, it almost certainly is). A $600 console is considered appallingly expensive, but it's going to last until the next generation, which is going to be at least three or so years.

Eggo:

I find the Vista/Windows 7 opflow to be far more efficient than XP's.

By the way:

Windows key
type in net
hit down arrow twice to select "Network and Sharing center" (for me anyway)
enter
click on "Manage Connections"

that takes less than 10 seconds and only one mouse click; good luck with that and XP

Ok - windows key, network connections... wow, that takes less that 2 seconds, with no typing or searching involved and only 1 mouse click :p

To be honest, most of the current hate against Windows Vista comes from its poor early performance before drivers were developed for it, and plain ignorance. Apparently, once optimised and configured it is very fast, clean and easy to use, it doesn't slow down over time as XP does, and its UI is all pretty.

Now, I would like to know why it doesn't come out of the box optimised, why it doesn't make it clear to users how to turn those 'are you sure' messages off, and why they felt it necessary to move everything around in the start menu. I mean, it's the first OS in a long time to change things so radically without there being a good reason - everything from 98 to XP all had the same basic layout, bar the graphical tweaks, it's what people are used to, how they use the computer - why the hell change it? Why not include and option to use the classic layout? Hell, that would have probably bumped their sales some.

Despite all this mistakes and quibbles, the one that does it for me is, upon releasing SP1 for Vista, finally making it run games faster than XP, they let people know that their next OS is on its way. What? Since when does it make good business sense to let your customers know that their expensive program is in fact already rapidly becoming obsolete? How long have we had XP - it's been absolute AGES, but t hey are already announcing a successor to the successor, before it's even entered widespread usage? Absolute genius.

I'm not a proffesional user. I'm not an expert. I'm a slightly above average when it comes to computer knowledge (being able to work out my drivers, reinstall Windows, work basic hardware, etc.). I mostly use my PC for gaming, Internet, Office (2003, of course) and some other work related stuff.

I never used Vista. I don't see why I would want to. I've yet to hear a truly good reason to upgrade to Vista from XP. The only semi-decent reason so far is DX10, but even that's not that important.

The thing I'm wondering about is, why would I want Windows 7? Is there any reason for me to upgrade? And I mean a practical reason. Not some technical mumbo-jumbo or promises of a golden future. I mean honest-to-god plain-to-see benefits to my daily activities.

If the answer is "No, no immediate benefits" then Windows 7 will likely suffer the same fate as Vista. Making new a OS for no better reason than to make some money isn't going to work anymore. OS isn't cheap and most users don't want to throw money away on something that won't help them and might even make their lives harder with issues such as lacking backward compatibility, alien UI and such.

Eggo:

Jandau:
The thing I'm wondering about is, why would I want Windows 7? Is there any reason for me to upgrade? And I mean a practical reason. Not some technical mumbo-jumbo or promises of a golden future. I mean honest-to-god plain-to-see benefits to my daily activities.

Practical reason? You won't have enough memory in a year or two to run games in XP32 and good luck getting hardware/software support for XP64.

Is that practical enough?

See, now that's a good argument...

...except I won't have to worry about it at least until the next generation of consoles sine I've noticed that techincal advances in games tend to slow down to a crawl with each new console gen. My machine with XP can match the technological level of 360 and PS3, so therefore I'm set. I bought my computer a year ago, and even then it was no big deal, but it ran most current stuff on high settings. Fast forward about a year and NOTHING has changed, and I don't see it changing untill the next console generation.

So, any other practical reasons?

Eggo:

My colleague Jason Perlow has been playing with Windows 7, and he hates it. The sad thing is, all the things he hates are improvements, in my opinion, which just goes to show that you really can't please everyone. But what's sad to see is that every setting Jason describes as broken is in fact easily customizable so it works the way he wants it.

The crux of Jason's complaint is simple: "I learned how to use Windows in 1998. Don't change a thing." Here's his main argument in a nutshell:

"I find it difficult to believe that Windows 7 was created to be easier to use than Vista - if anything, they've introduced a number of UI changes that make the system much harder to navigate, particularly if you've never used Vista and are going direct to Windows 7 from Windows XP, which is the path that many users will experience."

Yes, there's a learning curve. And if you insist on using those techniques you learned back in the last millennium with software that was designed differently, you will be frustrated. But I believe that an open-minded XP user who actually takes a few minutes to learn how the new UI works will be more productive very quickly. The secret is breaking old habits and developing new ones. Let's take all three of Jason's examples and work through them.

For those playing around with the Windows 7 beta, what do you guys think? I haven't assembled a test bed yet for W7, so I can't vouch for anything at the moment. If I remember right though, the same conclusions above also held true for the new Ribbon UI in Microsoft Office. And Microsoft ended up being pretty successful in that venture, heh.

I'll admit immediately: I do not like Windows Vista's interface at all. Call it conservatism if you like, but I will dispute that vehemently, because I've been following another set of user interfaces for several years now, those being the X Window System's KDE and the Linux command line, and for the seven or so years that I've been using them, along with a few ventures into Fluxbox and GNOME, I haven't yet found an interface that displeased me as much as Windows Vista's one does. It cannot be said seriously that I cannot adopt new UIs; in fact, these days, I pick them up in minutes. It's just that Windows Vista has what I consider to be some serious design annoyances, as does Windows XP, and indeed, every version of Windows.

Also, I'd like the Ribbon UI in MS Office a lot more if they combined it with a standard menu system as well. There was no need to radically alter it so much while at the same time eliminating the system which people had become accustomed to. Yes, it may be more efficient for some people, but even as much as I can pick up new interfaces, I don't like it aesthetically, I don't like it functionally and while I wouldn't want it to be removed completely, I'd like if at least they'd give us both the choice of menu-based and ribbon-based. Not that it makes much odds to me, because I'm sticking with OpenOffice.org anyway. It just pisses me off in college, where computers are slowly moving towards Office 2007.

the jellyman:
I have to say, I think 'Windows 7' is a pretty feeble name. Can't it be... pff I don't know... Windows elite, or peanut butter jelly windows or something?

It's a hell of a lot less effete than "Vista", to be perfectly honest. If you're picking on Win7 because of its name, then I'd say that's a pretty weak position to be in, even as much as I dislike Vista. Anyway, no operating system has yet beaten the king of all cool operating system names: XTS-400. Best name ever.

The_root_of_all_evil:
Whoa whoa whoa...

The minimum requirements for running Windows 7 are a PC with a 1 Ghz processor, 1GB of RAM, 16 GB of disk space, 128MB of video memory and support for DX9 graphics.

A 16 GIG install? That's not an OS, that's a Tesco Express.

As much as I've complained of this in the past, I do have to note that your average Linux installation with KDE or GNOME needs 512MB of RAM and at least 2GB of HDD space to run smoothly. Some of my installs run closer to 6GB.

That said, Fluxbox runs well, albeit slowly on my 600MHz Celeron with 64MB of RAM and a 20GB hard drive, with a 4MB ATI Rage 3D. OK, you can't run Firefox without it becoming a boggy mess, and you can forget about OpenOffice.org, etc., but it's still useful for something.

Eggo:
It's like Half Life 2 recommending 4GBs of space when it actually only takes up 3.4GBs. But HL2 is a game, not a Windows OS.

And yet, Half-Life 2, being a game as it is, would run more quickly on my now-long-obsolete Athlon 64 3000+ system with 512MB of RAM and a 6600 GT graphics card than Windows Vista would. That's pretty embarrassing.

Eggo:
Although I don't know why anyone who has the luxuries of posting on an internet forum, especially a couple thousand times and contemplating whether or not to purchase an OS which will probably cost around $200 or even more would actually care about hard drive space in the realm of 15GBs. That's about 15 cents right there.

I can post on The Escapist with that 600MHz Celeron I was talking about above. The sort of computing power which would cost about fifteen quid today. The OS point is well made though.

Eggo:
We no longer care about games and other programs taking up more than 128 MBs of RAM (oh noes!) because our standards of computing have moved on from since it was 1998. Why can't the same be true for our perceptions of an OS?

I've argued this point before. I'll leave Fluxbox, FVWM and the rest out of this one and concentrate on KDE and GNOME. Both include capabilities for modern graphical support, with the latest versions of OpenGL, et cetera. Yes, it's a lot harder to program games for Linux or other UNIX-based operating systems, but KDE and GNOME even work on systems far less powerful than Windows Vista. All of the eye-candy would likely work on that single-core Athlon 64 I note above, including three-dimensional windows using Compiz.

I'm still going to get Windows 7, but I'm not fully in support of it. The so-called "craputers" that you state would have been very desirable a few years ago, and I know perfectly well that computer prices are coming down, but the computers most people purchase are not at all appropriate for Windows Vista, even when they're brand-new.

Eggo:
I'm not sure why you're drawing correlates to consoles since they're running at extremely low resolutions and on 3-4 year old graphics architecture. If your computer can match that, I really hope you paid less than $400 for that thing.

What actually matters is PC GPU architecture is headed for a massive upheaval at the end of this year and again next year and your 32-bit Windows OS will not be able to keep up.

Whatever; I'm not interested in spending too much time convincing people who have already made up their closed little minds.

First of all, no need to insult me. I just don't see this big upheaval you're talking about.

I mentioned consoles because almost no game is made today that exceeds the console hardware. Very few games push the envelope of PC hardware.

I'm glad that there is a major hardware revolution around the corner, and if you're right then it IS a good reason. But right now it just sounds like promises of a golden future I mentioned earlier.

i must be crazy, i see nothing wrong with vista, after the first hour

see i'm one of the few who likes vista. I didn't buy it per se, it came with the pc, and at first i shouted and screamed and tried to choke to choke the monitor to death, and then i got used to it. Sure some games don't play on it... but when i think about the number of games that died when xp appeared that stopped being a problem. I now prefer the interface, the security... generally everything other than its power consumption... but this is price we pay for more powerful software.

And from what i've seen on windows 7, it looks like a polished vista. Could be good, but i doubt it'll warrent a buy.

If I may contribute to this ongoing debate of Vista vs XP and why I will be getting windows 7 (courtesy of my university).

I loved XP after SP2, it worked a treat. I used it up until last semester when I discovered I could download Vista for free thanks to my university being part of the MSDN Academic Alliance.

Vista worked fine for me for a while, then developed a severe allergy to my graphics card. Despite this I didnt want to switch back to XP because I had found myself becoming fond of Vista's little improvements and refined look. Once you get past the initial stage of turning off UAC and telling vista what you want it to do and what you dont. It becomes a very easy and intuitive OS.

So Windows 7 I believe while not only being a brand new system (Vista was based on XP and therefore did inherit a certain lack of finese) that will be able to run much more smoothly due to far more cleanly code. Will infact be such a vast improvement that it will finally be a microsoft product I would consider paying for.

Now to deal with a couple of posts that concern me.

Richard Groovy Pants:
So we'll hate Windows 7 because of its UI or learning curve? Huh?

For the record I dislike Vista because I'm a mid end pc user and Vista consumes way too much resources for little benefit, and no matter what you say won't change my opinion about it because I tried both OS's on the exact same system and I saw the differences for myself.

Its actually a bit of a myth. Vista doesnt consume a huge amount more than XP, if you turn off some of the fancy features it can run on almost any machine. It has smart RAM usage, so while you arnt running anything windows will soak up your RAM, but when you open a new application it will release it to allow your programs to run smoothly.

Richard Groovy Pants:

Why would I need 4 gigs of ram? 2 fits my needs already. The only thing that could be bottlenecking my graphic card here would be my CPU or heck even my monitor but those aren't.

It could be your motherboard, I made the mistake once of buying a really cheap motherboard and it wouldnt run any of my favourite games well. No matter how fast your graphics card or CPU are, if your motherboard has a slow bus speed, it will bottleneck everything. If you are experiencing slow loading times this may be because windows is using the paging file on your hard drive to supplement the RAM. HDD are much slower than RAM, so this may explain laggy gameplay or long loading. To fix this. I would either upgrade your RAM, or get more modules (try to keep all your modules the same size)

Ok thats all for now. Stay happy!

I only use Vista because of DX10 and the quicker start up time, but those are enough to keep me using it...

I dont know if its just me, or does anyone remember when XP first came out, and the amount of criticism that it got? Mind you its nowhere near the criticism that Vista has had, but sooner or later we will HAVE to move onto a new os.
And as much as it would pain everyone (including myself, cause i love my XP) progress needs to be made. But alas MS have failed in Vista and its still to early to judge MS7.