New Windows phobea

[bendixG15]

Okay, with Windows 7 now in the news, we are going to read the same old bitching crap that started with DOS upgrades.
I just can't take it any more

Its the same with new eye candy
Its slower.....Its bloated
Drivers don't work
They took away my favorite whatever
yaday yada yada ....................................

See you all in 6 months

[Xylob the Destroyer]

...Its the same with new eye candy
Its slower.....Its bloated...

I've got my XP and Vista machines all set up to look like Win2K...
Start > Settings > Control Panel > System > Advanced > Performance > Settings > Adjust for best performance > Apply > OK
Not exactly the same road for Vista, but gets the same results.

I hate the Fisher-Price/Playskool interface in XP & Vista. Turn it off and whaddaya know, yer PC runs faster!

[Super Warrior]

Screw Vista and windows 7.

Its all about Win XP!

[Supreme2k]

I hate the Fisher-Price/Playskool interface in XP & Vista. Turn it off and whaddaya know, yer PC runs faster!

But it's perfect for my laptop!

[lordsmurf]

XP, thanks.

[yoda313]

I actually like the vista skin better than the xp skin.

However I leave both pcs with the default skins on them. I just like them so sue me!

[MeDiCo_BrUjO]

It looks better in vista, but the eye candy comes with a high resource price to pay.

PC's run faster in XP.

[gll99]

Are they expecting this OS to replace Vista or co-exist with it? If it's going to be a replacement it sucks for those who bought Vista expecting it to last. If it's more like a Vista upgrade then is it like forcing Vista users to buy what might be essentially a service pack with a bit of extra candy. I'm just glad I didn't rush to buy Vista until we see how this new OS goes.

Is Window7 really the name they are going with?

[yoda313]

I'm sure win7 is not the final marketing name.

I bought my pc with vista preinstalled. I bought it for the power and even upgraded. I got vista so I could do newer stuff that my xp computer was too slow to do. I didn't buy it SPECIFICALLY for Vista EDIT - ok this is not entirely correct - I bought it so i would be able to run future programs that would be vista only - so in a sense I did buy it for vista but not just vista - I did need a newer more powerful machine and accepted vista with it. Though having Media Center bundled with Vista premium was a nice bonus.

I would consider upgrading to Win7 and not feel cheated. Since I did not buy a retail package of Vista I don't feel like I went out of the way for it. I was going to buy a new computer when I did and it happened to have vista on it.

[Super Warrior]

It looks better in vista, but the eye candy comes with a high resource price to pay.

PC's run faster in XP.

Yeah its sad how a Vista comp can take a fancy dual-core CPU, and make it run like a friggin' Celeron!

Sometimes i think its a conspiracy to force the market to buy more high-end junk. Computers got a little too fast too soon years back, to the point where even cheap entry-level comps on the market can run 90% of programs Fast in Win XP. Thus hardware companies probably aren't selling anywhere near as much tech as they used to prior to around 2005.

Afterall why buy that fancy Pentium or dual-core, when a budget priced Celeron or AMD processor can more than handle all the average(non-gaming) users needs?

With this new hog-like operating system known as vista however, it practically FORCES anyone who wants to use it, to have to go out and upgrade everything in order to have run it decent.

So the same modest hardware that would run blazing fast in XP, will slow to a crawl in Vista. Such trash i wonder why anyone bothers.

[zzyzzx]

I'm still using Windows 2000.
I'd still be using Windows 95b if the USB support actually worked.

[Supreme2k]

Super[/url] Warrior]With this new hog-like operating system known as vista however, it practically FORCES anyone who wants to use it, to have to go out and upgrade everything in order to have run it decent.

And it's just a friggin' OS! I can see needing better hardware to run the latest games or video/graphic-intensive apps, but the OS is just a shell. As I said before, Apple and MS need to take a page from their portable divisions and streamline them down to reasonable sizes and requirements.

[stiltman]

Yeah and look at how bloated Linux has gotten the last 2 years.

[Midzuki]

Yeah and look at how bloated Linux has gotten the last 2 years.

Ditto.

[lordsmurf]

Super[/url] Warrior]Yeah its sad how a Vista comp can take a fancy dual-core CPU, and make it run like a friggin' Celeron! Sometimes i think its a conspiracy to force the market to buy more high-end junk. Computers got a little too fast too soon years back, to the point where even cheap entry-level comps on the market can run 90% of programs Fast in Win XP. Thus hardware companies probably aren't selling anywhere near as much tech as they used to prior to around 2005. Afterall why buy that fancy Pentium or dual-core, when a budget priced Celeron or AMD processor can more than handle all the average(non-gaming) users needs?

So true.

The hardware became fast enough to please most people, so new computers have indeed slow at a slower pace. Even systems made as far back as 2001-2004 are still quite decent for average users, able to copy and create DVDs, edit photos, send e-mail, etc.