[nonoitall]

It is not Microsoft fault or problem if your NVIAP (not very important application or program) does not work.

Unsupported != unimportant. Importance is in the eye of the beholder.

I can get to and from work just fine with my civic. I'm not lacking turning wheels by sticking with it. But if I clung to my civic if Nissan released their GTR for the same price, I would fully expect everyone to call me a fool.

What if Nissan made structural changes to their vehicle that prevented it from driving on any dirt roads? Also, if I already have XP, it costs me $0 to keep it. It does not cost me $0 to upgrade to Windows 7. Therefore, they are not the same price to me at all.

I'm not in the minority on that opinion, there are millions of people happy with XP because it works. It's fine you want the latest and greatest, but please stop with the arrogant snobbery that everyone who doesn't think like you is a buffoon.

QFT.

 

[koko]

I don't think that there are A LOT of new features on Win7, since Win7 built on Vista. I don't know about the performance though, I'll say my opinion as soon as I try it.

I hate Vista, but I have a good memories with it, cleared GOW on it, cleared TimeShift on it.

 

[Xtreme2damax]

Well if your school has MSNDAA, you have a MSDN subscription or you are enrolled in a school with a .edu address you can get Windows 7 for free or a hugely discounted price.

Who the heck pays full price for Windows?

Anyways it seems Windows 7 is significantly cheaper than Vista and XP were anyway, the features, performance enhancements, and improved stability is more than enough reason to upgrade. If running that odd application or game which is no longer supported is that important to you, dual booting more than suffices.

When I started using Vista, I kept XP on a secondary partition and dual booted in case something didn't work. A dual boot configuration is simple to set up and will ease any concerns if a particular application or game happens to not work.

No one is trying to cram anything down anyone's throat, we ask that you try it for a while before bashing or denouncing it, you may come to like it just as I have. I followed the XP bandwagon around for a while like all the other sheeple who bashed Vista and now 7 based on others opinions. Most of these people never tried Vista or 7 and just took others word as Gospel that Vista/7 sucked. Most of the people who were having problems would rather blame the operating system for their troubles than faulty or unstable third party drivers and applications. The fud started amongst a small group and spread like the plague, with more and more believing the opinions of the Pro-XP, Anti-Vista/7 group.

I was one of these people for a while, I then broke free and decided I was capable of trying and deciding for myself instead of taking others word for it. After using Vista as my primary operating system for a while I grew to love it and finally got rid of my XP partition. Seven has took every bad aspect of Vista, fixed it, improved it, and made it better. Snappy and responsive is not an overstatement, Windows 7 is way faster than Vista was on old hardware and can be considered on par with XP.

There is really no valid excuse for people to stick with XP, other than a few legacy applications and games which don't run, a dual boot is more than a sufficient remedy for this problem. Less so of an excuse if you have new or high end hardware more than capable of running Vista or Seven smoothly. Now businesses on the other hand have an excuse to stick with XP, most businesses are even still using a pre-XP operating system due to the fact they use custom applications or embedded solutions. It would be very costly for businesses to hire someone to upgrade said application for compatibility, some solutions or systems are so customized that even an upgrade is impossible. Besides that taking a hit on costs, you have to factor in the costs for businesses to train their employees to use the upgraded software which is not cheap.

We can't decide for you or "force it down your throats", it is ultimately up to you to try it for a while and decide for yourselves. It's your opinions and reasoning and no one other than yourselves can do anything to change it. I and others are just merely laying down the road map, it is your choice to take the correct road now that we've provided our feedback, opinions, and other information. You have your own reasons and opinions as do we, it however doesn't mean any side is any more correct than the other.

This whole XP bandwagon is amusing in a sense, reminds me of how friends have to get an iPod just because their friends have one and won't try or buy another better MP3 player which has more features and is more durable since they take others word that Apple/iPod is the best and can not decide for themselves.

 

[SCHUMI_4EVER]

I agree with everything ya said X2DM just that people on older hardware that can't take full advantage of all the new features in 7 (which is currently Paratech's position) also have no reason to upgrade at least for the moment.

 

[Xtreme2damax]

I might be able to understand if the hardware was at or slightly above the minimum to run XP, I believe someone posted they had Windows 7 running quite nicely on a Pentium 3, 667 MB of Ram, and a Radeon 9500.

When you think about it, Windows 7 doesn't require much more power than XP, and XP's requirement could of also been underestimated like the requirements for Vista were.

I can equate to the cost reasoning especially if you are unable to take advantage of MSDN, MSDNAA, or the discounts available to students enrolled is a college, tech, or vocational school.

 

[Spyhop]

Guy at work just put Win 7 on his 300 dollar netbook and it runs like a champ, even with aero glass on. You would have to have horribly dated abysmal hardware to not be able to run win 7.

 

[PsyMan]

To conclude what some fellows above said, here is an example:

Guy with legacy system (Single core CPU, 512MB DDR RAM, AGP DirectX 9 card) uses PC to play DirectX 9 (and older) games, use the Internet, code, write docs, compose music and draw/edit images.

If that guy decides to pay and upgrade to Win7 most of his games will break cause there is no actual WinXP/98/etc compatibility for them. He will have to use the "Windows XP mode" which requires 2GB of RAM so he will have to spend about 90 Euros to buy the expensive RAM.

After that he will realize that some of his games still won't work cause of driver issues. He won't be able to use newer drivers cause his old GFX card is no longer supported so he will end up getting a newer one with at least DirectX 10 support (more money needed).

After that he will realize that some of his really old devices are no longer supported either (since Vista) and no drivers exist for those devices. So he will have to buy more stuff.

After that he will finally try the "Windows XP mode" but it won't work cause his CPU lacks virtualization so some of his software won't work anyway.

The story will continue with more minor (or even major issues).

The guy will realize that he spent all that money for a couple of helpful, yet minor features and a neat user interface update.

The guy will roll back to XP to get his stuff working while storing 7 in a closet until he gets a new PC, wondering why the heck he got an AGP GFX DirectX 10 card since it won't do much good for the stuff he already owns and it won't be compatible with his new PC.

 

[Paratech]

Why spend money on a new OS if the current computer works?

By that logic I'm a moron for not going into debt to own the newest car, newest computer, newest everything?

How about I'm happy with my PC and don't see the need to get a quad core yet, I'm happy with my '99 Ford Contour, and IMSHO it's stupid that it's ok to call people names because people are happy with what they have? Maybe some of us don't want to spend money when what we have is working for us.

And why the frag should it bother anyone so much that they resort to personal attacks and name calling? Maybe you realize we have a point, can't accept the truth, and just get angry that not everyone has to have the latest and greatest tech?

It's fine if people want the latest and greatest tech, but please respect the fact not everyone wants to follow that path.

It's not like anyone here is telling people to buy Win XP vs Win 7, we're just saying we don't need to buy a new OS at the moment.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

there are features back in Win7 that were missing from Vista.

To conclude what some fellows above said, here is an example:

Guy with legacy system (Single core CPU, 512MB DDR RAM, AGP DirectX 9 card) uses PC to play DirectX 9 (and older) games, use the Internet, code, write docs, compose music and draw/edit images.

If that guy decides to pay and upgrade to Win7 most of his games will break cause there is no actual WinXP/98/etc compatibility for them. He will have to use the "Windows XP mode" which requires 2GB of RAM so he will have to spend about 90 Euros to buy the expensive RAM.

After that he will realize that some of his games still won't work cause of driver issues. He won't be able to use newer drivers cause his old GFX card is no longer supported so he will end up getting a newer one with at least DirectX 10 support (more money needed).

After that he will realize that some of his really old devices are no longer supported either (since Vista) and no drivers exist for those devices. So he will have to buy more stuff.

After that he will finally try the "Windows XP mode" but it won't work cause his CPU lacks virtualization so some of his software won't work anyway.

The story will continue with more minor (or even major issues).

The guy will realize that he spent all that money for a couple of helpful, yet minor features and a neat user interface update.

The guy will roll back to XP to get his stuff working while storing 7 in a closet until he gets a new PC, wondering why the heck he got an AGP GFX DirectX 10 card since it won't do much good for the stuff he already owns and it won't be compatible with his new PC.

except....

xp mode can't really run any games.

 

[Xblade]

If Microsoft weren't totally cashing in on their monopoly and would stop ripping everyone off we'd still be on Windows XP.

It would be much simpler to just upgrade the godamn OS than create a new one every time they want to cash in again.

Greedy skanks.


Rocking my XP, and rockin it good.

 

[Spyhop]

If Microsoft weren't totally cashing in on their monopoly and would stop ripping everyone off we'd still be on Windows XP.

It would be much simpler to just upgrade the godamn OS than create a new one every time they want to cash in again.

Greedy skanks.


Rocking my XP, and rockin it good.

How DARE Microsoft make a product and sell it. Those commies!

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

i have to admit it, the Windows 7 kernel itself is far more stable then XP's.

 

[Princess Garnet]

Guy with legacy system (Single core CPU, 512MB DDR RAM, AGP DirectX 9 card) uses PC to play DirectX 9 (and older) games, use the Internet, code, write docs, compose music and draw/edit images.

I know we're all enthusiasts here, but that isn't what I would call a legacy system.

I don't even consider my Pentium III (socket 370), 512MB (SDRAM), and 4xAGP/8xAGP (GeForce 4 MX440/Ti4200 respectively interchangeably) Dell Dimension 4100 quite as a legacy system, although, maybe it could be one. It runs Windows XP just fine. No, it doesn't play any games within the last few years, encode movies, or even play HD YouTube videos, but it runs just fine.

The definition of legacy is loose (often used interchangeably with obsolete or outdated), but I'd say legacy stuff is stuff you won't find too much anymore, or stuff that's seriously pushing along only by using horribly outdated software itself. Pentium IIIs and Pentium 4s/early Athlons are not exactly legacy, and don't have to do that. Just because it's single core, AGP, and DDR(1) doesn't mean it's legacy. It's in our (enthusiasts and the modern aftermarket's) past, yes, but it's easy for us to be that far ahead to think they are, but, they're not. Most PCs stay in play for ~5 years, and after that, most even find new life with less demanding owners, children, etc., so I'd say anything within 10 years isn't "legacy". That's just my definition though.

As for the matter at hand, OS wars by fanboys are fun to watch. Use what you want and shut up. What does it really matter what someone else is using? It's preference. End of. I guess some people just get a rise out of belittling something they know is still a valid option (it's proven by the fact that they give it quite the attention), which is pathetic really.

For reference, I have pretty much completely stopped using my Windows XP partition. Within the last four months, I've booted into it maybe 5 times, and only for a total of maybe an hour or two total over those few months. I'll still use Windows XP on my older system rather than the OEM Windows 2000 disc it came with that I was going to at some point (it'll be upgraded from Windows 98SE), but besides a few personal quirks (no Windows XP look, and yes, I do want it), I'm really liking Windows 7 better in almost every way, and will use that on my main PC now. I've never really tried Windows Vista out for myself, but I have no reason to now. It's, honestly, just as much of old news as Windows XP is going to be (this is just my opinion).

In XP if you rename a file automatically the entire thing including extension is highlighted for removal and renaming, in Vista and I am sure 7 as well only the name part is selected and the extension is left unselected.

Ughm, no? I've never had Windows XP include the extension when I go to rename it, unless the extension was already shown (which should only happen if either it's an unknown extension, or you have it set to always show it). Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, because not even Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, etc. did that.

 

[n_w95482]

Ughm, no? I've never had Windows XP include the extension when I go to rename it, unless the extension was already shown (which should only happen if either it's an unknown extension, or you have it set to always show it). Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, because not even Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, etc. did that.

I think he's referring to when you set Windows to always show extensions. Vista/7 do what he described.

I finally got around to putting 7 RC on my Pentium 3 machine, but instead of using my 1.4 GHz Tualatin, I swapped it for my 600 MHz Coppermine EB and underclocked it to 300. It took about an hour to install the OS and get to the desktop, much better than I anticipated. It took roughly three and a half minutes to reach the desktop on a fresh boot, and another two or so for the CPU to settle from 100%. Aero was reasonably usable on it too. I have been unable to run the Windows Experience Index on it yet, at 300 MHz it stops at the Aero test and says it took too long. At 600 MHz it stops at the hard drive test with an unknown error.

So in case anyone was wondering how slow of a PC you can install 7 on, now you know .

 

[Cid Highwind]

Guy at work just put Win 7 on his 300 dollar netbook and it runs like a champ, even with aero glass on. You would have to have horribly dated abysmal hardware to not be able to run win 7.

Good for that guy, some people simply aren't early adopters. Ever heard of the product lifecycle? Here's a link. Despite most of our members at the forums being part of the innovator and early adopter groups, some of them prefer to actually get the most of what they have and simply want to wait for some feedback from close peers, and perhaps get the chance to see things working themselves. I'm sure Paratech in this case isn't a laggard either, but it would certainly be appreciated if you wouldn't sound like an overactive telemarketer trying to convince him of a second mortgage that he doesn't need.

As much as I would like to have a thread discussing the release of Windows 7, it's respectless crap like this towards the people who are not immediately jumping the bandwagon, with good reasons, that can get threads like this locked time after time. If someone is spreading FUD, sure, go ahead and disprove what someone else spreads out as facts, because if there's one thing I hate it's misinformation. But stick with the facts, and don't tell someone what he should purchase or not, it's not your right to do so.

 

[gamefreak94]

Your Radeon 9700 is helping a lot though. I have an old Pentium III 525MHz (which I mainly use for long downloads) machine with 256MB, an ATI Rage AGP 4MB AGP 2x card, and XP Pro SP2 installed......it fails to run even RocketDock (with lowest icon quality) without jerking.......and YouTube videos (on standard quality) exhibit a one second pause after every 6-10 seconds of running smoothly (even if it's completely buffered).

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Well in that case, if you want the best of your current hardware, UPGRADE TO WINDOWS 7.

it is far better optimised in both Kernel and API level's to provide for better experience overall.

 

[n_w95482]

Your Radeon 9700 is helping a lot though. I have an old Pentium III 525MHz (which I mainly use for long downloads) machine with 256MB, an ATI Rage AGP 4MB AGP 2x card, and XP Pro SP2 installed......it fails to run even RocketDock (with lowest icon quality) without jerking.......and YouTube videos (on standard quality) exhibit a one second pause after every 6-10 seconds of running smoothly (even if it's completely buffered).

Fine, I'll go toss in my 16 MB Vanta .

 

[Hard core Rikki]

gamefreak, tried win7 on that hardware? Results could be interesting.

Spoiler

Its possible to bypass the minimum 512 RAM check at installation with a hex edit

 

[Princess Garnet]

Ah, after seeing your results, I may try putting Windows 7 on my Dell Dimension 4100 PC, if only to try it. Unfortunately, the GeForce 4 (neither) are DirectX 9, so neither supports Aero, so I wouldn't see how well it'd really be able to do running Windows 7 "fully" (by the way, I have heard of a "hack" that let's Aero run on the GeForce 4 specifically from a comment on a blog by a user who sounded to know their stuff, and they mentioned it could be found via Google, but I've found nothing, and it would be interesting to try if it's true). I bet that 512MB RAM is actually holding things back more than the CPU. That's the one thing I've hesitated most with about trying it on mine. It has only 512MB.

Also, quit teasing me with that Tualatin. I'm still bothered that I want one and don't have one. The CPUs are dirt cheap last I knew, but the adapters are rare or expensive. I'd rather not build a PC up from scratch around one either. If I could drop it into my Dell via and adapter and BIOS flash (many have done it), then yes, I would. The adapters are just so rare, and then when you do find one, it's expensive. Funny enough, years ago, the adapters were plentiful and cheap, and the CPUs weren't rare, but they were very expensive (more expensive than a better performing Pentium 4/Athlon CPU of the time). I should have grabbed an adapter back then, and then a CPU now. I'm sorting thinking of grabbing a CPU now while they're still cheap in case I come across an adapter down the line.