Community > Computers & Technology

Topic: Vista vs. 7
Riding_Dubz Joined Wed 05/21/08 Posts: 22110	Thu 09/02/10 05:37 PM
where you put that coal in that thing to fire that bad boy up

Atlantis75 Joined Wed 12/03/08 Posts: 8581	Tue 09/14/10 11:00 PM
how about 95 98 was dope to 98 server was a pain in my azz just garbage Long live Windows 3.1!!! Did you make boot up disks for various simulator games? Allocating enough memory ? Hell, first I didn't even know what I was doing with the buffers and so on..

Torgo70 Joined Fri 06/27/08 Posts: 27387	Wed 09/15/10 06:08 AM
how about 95 98 was dope to 98 server was a pain in my azz just garbage Long live Windows 3.1!!! Did you make boot up disks for various simulator games? Allocating enough memory ? Hell, first I didn't even know what I was doing with the buffers and so on.. Haha yeah, I had boot up disks for almost every game I had.

Atlantis75 Joined Wed 12/03/08 Posts: 8581	Wed 09/15/10 11:13 AM
Xp was the best os created by Microsoft - easy to install, to configure, to troubleshoot and to use. Microsoft don t sell licence anymore but support it till 2014. So if u can run under XP instead of vista..it s a good choice if u have got an old computer. as said above, Vista is a ****!! Seven is better than Vista. U must not hesitate. Personaly, i also use Ubuntu. It s free and a good OS. I understand, that 7 is better than Vista, But since I owned Vista since day one..I am hesitant to give out 120 bucks for 7. Don't get me wrong, I have used 7 for like 6 months, although they were release candidates and I do know for fact, that it runs better than Vista. But I still think it's a stripped down Vista really and I somehow don't see the benefits to gain, since I do not have any problems running Vista at all.

mightymoe Joined Sun 11/19/06 Posts: 37362	Wed 09/15/10 11:24 AM
i liked xp, i always thought it was the best system...but vista always sucked, i had it in one system and will never have it agian... i have 7 now, and as long as you have 4 gigs or better of ram, 7 is the best i have seen... it does look like an updated version of vista, but way more stable and less of the security protocols/issues i had with vista.

sweetestgirl11 Joined Fri 09/12/08 Posts: 30087	Tue 09/21/10 07:20 PM
XP X64 was supposed to overcome the 4GB RAM barrier but it has compatibility issues with hardware and software so it is self limiting. Windows 98 you could mix and match RAM like having two sticks of 64MB and one 128MB of RAM but XP and XP X64 as well as all later flavors of Windows you must use the exact same RAM in all slots. Vista was a tweaked version of XP 64X with a lot more added to it. It likewise can use more than 4GB of RAM. When Windows 3.1 came out FAT 16 was the bee's knees in computing because it was not Unix or Novell. Windows 98 came out FAT 32 became the new "disk storage standard." When XP Came out NTFS was the storage standard now adopted by windows. If I remember how this works for example FAT 16 means that the Bits are addressed in clusters of 16 BYTES by 16 BYTES. A FAT 32 system then it 32 BYTES by 32 BYTES. NTSF is 64 Bytes by 64 bytes. XP is backwards compatible. when you are running a system like Vista or 7 you are in a 64 bit environment. I am not sure if Vista and 7 are NTFS or not. I have yet to build another machine. If the progression remains true then clusters in Vista and 7 are 128 by 128 meaning a new format for the hard disk. The disk is formatted to arrange the addressing of the information pathways in an OS appropriate method. In all reality it only has to do with the format of the hard drive. I got a real old computer with windows 3.1 and DOS 6.8 on it. It is a 200MHz dinosaur! My 3.4 GHz XP machine is SO much faster! I have Vista Home Premium. Like it a great deal and utilize different size RAM sticks in my slots - always have - never been a problem biggest thing with Vista is it's size so the laptop users of the world united against it (at the time laps weren't that big) but I like/ have a big machine & run Vista fine. It took a lot of patching MS prolly released it too early (oh HOW unusual is that ) most of the VALID complaints at the time that I heard about VISTA were coming from people who's machnes were really too small to be running it But muscle - puter people such as myself are good - especially with the releases of 2 SPs and an additional 160+ patches Admittedly it took MS awhile to get it running seamlessly, but at this point I run it smooth as silk. It's beautiful on this machine. Only remainig bug is the quality of files on back up to a clean install. Auto backup saves in fragments so, forexample in my music files the art is saved spearately from the actual music and media player didn't detect them all on the conversion. Even tho they were fragmented Ubuntu picked up everything fine as as I can tell at this point - the back up & restore functions better than it did on XP I've spent a little time on 7. It's also slick - I'm hoping we continue t osee improvements in the functionality and ease of use of the system maintenance; an MS specialty - especially continued improvements in the back up & restore ya, it's popular to hate Vista but I've never been one to jump on a bandwagon. I like it fine

lpk Joined Tue 09/07/10 Posts: 6	Wed 09/22/10 10:19 AM
win7 is vista with xppro drivers.

jsarnett Joined Thu 10/07/10 Posts: 63	Thu 10/07/10 06:36 PM
Vista had problems with compatability with pretty much all other programs plus it used twice as much space in a computer than 7. All around 7 is a better program.