Will you be upgrading to Windows 7?
Posted 12 June 2009 - 05:14 AM
Posted 12 June 2009 - 06:37 AM
Been testing it on my laptop, work PC and home PC, and havent had ANY of the problems I had with Vista, and its so much quicker etc etc, people should learn by how good W7 is to how pathetic vista REALLY is!
This post has been edited by Maleko: 12 June 2009 - 06:38 AM
Posted 12 June 2009 - 09:23 AM
Posted 12 June 2009 - 07:43 PM
Have you ran both 98 and XP on the same system? If so, how is the performance of 98 compared to XP? It's been almost 10 years since I last used it.
This post has been edited by -X-: 12 June 2009 - 07:45 PM
Posted 13 June 2009 - 12:32 AM
So far, I'm not impressed with the DRM that's been included with Vista and later MS products. I don't have Blu-ray. I have DX9 videocards that run as fast as I'd like in SLI, so DirectX10 is not important to me. I still use CRT monitors with analog connectors. Why on earth would I buy an OS that requires new hardware when what I've got is perfect for my current needs?
NT 5.2 is currently a very stable and mature server platform. XPx64 is built upon it, and is also very stable. It may not receive another official service pack after SP2, but I'll continue to work on an update pack for it as long as I continue to use it.
Posted 13 June 2009 - 07:59 AM
98 boots up and shuts down a lot faster.
Applications start and run slightly faster on 98 but not as many are 98 compatible.
once they're both tuned up, internet speeds are about equal.
Both will run for several days continuous. After a couple of days, 98 starts to lose stability.
Out of the box, a 98 install is fast but unstable. It needs a lot of upgrading and tweaking to make it a stable and reliable system. IMO, the results are worth it. 2K is stable out of the box but sluggish. It needs tuning to reach its speed potential.
When I do upgrade my hardware, I'll probably run the same operating systems I am now. IMO, an OS should be a platform that runs your software and interfaces with your hardware, nothing more. Beyond that, it should stay out of the way. AFAIC, the newer operating systems don't meet that requirement and are moving in the opposite direction. I don't need an OS that uses more disk space than all my software combined. That's not an upgrade. It's a big waste. If MS won't produce an OS that meets that simple requirement, I'll keep using their old ones. When that's no longer possible, I'll move to another OS like Linux.
Posted 16 June 2009 - 07:38 AM
Posted 16 June 2009 - 08:40 AM
at work we will hopefully upgrade from XP to 7, as long as our computer centre doesnt force Vista upon us... for having matured for one year or whatever bull.... (hopefully we will get rid of all those users with local admin accounts on the way)
Posted 16 June 2009 - 08:51 AM
Actually, VMware's virtual desktop looks very promising and you can control the permissions to the applications so that the user's only have user rights but can run the app with admin rights if needed.
Posted 16 June 2009 - 01:37 PM
We have at least one person in every department that has sort of a "1st level support" clause in their job description. They keep a lot of work away from "internal services".
I can see them having an admin account for the machines in THAT department.
But the normal user with admin rights? sorry, the situation as it is is total chaos. nobody asks IT about what they install on their machines, in contradiction to the written rules. that IT doesnt come down hard on them upon discovering that doesnt help either.
Posted 16 June 2009 - 01:46 PM
Oh and we have permission to yank out all of the crap (Google Earth, toolbars, Skype, etc) if we even see it on their systems. I love the security officer!
This post has been edited by Mordac85: 16 June 2009 - 01:47 PM
- ← IE8 can't perform full or quick edit in MSFN!
- The Poll Center
- Is there a diff between coke and pepsi? →