UltimateSilence

Why Windows Vista (SP1+) is Better Than Windows 7

38 posts in this topic

Using your run of the mill USB keys, 1-4GB, I've lost 3 of them. They kick the bucket while being used as a dedicated ReadyBoost device. Gone so far that they either stop being detected by any computer, get detected as a generic USB device of some sort or can't be formatted. This is both on home and work computers. I've used 3 different types of them. I didn't try other methods like a CF yet.

edit: All my experience is with Windows 7 ReadyBoost.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using your run of the mill USB keys, 1-4GB, I've lost 3 of them. They kick the bucket while being used as a dedicated ReadyBoost device. Gone so far that they either stop being detected by any computer, get detected as a generic USB device of some sort or can't be formatted. This is both on home and work computers. I've used 3 different types of them. I didn't try other methods like a CF yet.

edit: All my experience is with Windows 7 ReadyBoost.

Tripredacus,

According to the PC enthusiast magazines (CPU, Maximum PC), this sounds like what they say eventually happens to solid-state drives: they simply wear out after so many write/erase cycles.

USB keys (and CF cards) are a similar flash memory technology, so I'd speculate that that's what happened to your flash drives. And I should be prepared to find my CompactFlash card dead one of these days. To judge from the blinking light on the CF reader, the contents of the ReadyBoost drive get accessed, I would say almost continuously.

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can someone agree that win Vista is better then the win 7??

challenge someone to list 7 reasons why Windows 7 is better than Windows Vista. Actual reasons. “Features” like Aero Snap, Jump Lists, and the new taskbar do not necessitate an entirely new operating system, so they don’t really count. Those could easily be implemented into Vista

It doesnt know what is talking about at all - cause most of the reasons is fighting back is almost the same he ask you to not include in your "list 7 reasons".

Here are more then 7 reasons (and just for you to know i had vista sp2 x64 before windows 7 and it was a good os but 7 is better:

1. UAC big improvements

2. Much better HCL - Hardware computability list

3. Better DWM with no lagging

4. Stable during multi tasking

5. SSD Trim and computability

6. Fast start menu search

7. Faster LAN between computers

8. Better FPS in most games

9. Guest mode

10. XP mode

11.Better pricing

12. No memory leaks

13. Windows 7 make the x64 works finally!

14.Better Visualization computability

15.More secured!

what do you think? :thumbup

Edited by energydream2007
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. no, UAC is broken and a security whole: http://www.pretentiousname.com/misc/win7_uac_whitelist2.html

4. Vista is also stable, very stable! i only had 1 BSOD (because of faulty RAM).

6. same like in Vista ;)

7. it is the same. Both use SMB 2

9. ?

12. no, for me Windows 7 uses much mroe RAM compared to Vista (much higher paged pool usage)

14. no the VPC is broken crap. VMWare or Virtualbox are better and work on Vista, too.

15. no, because of 1.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. no, UAC is broken and a security whole: http://www.pretentiousname.com/misc/win7_uac_whitelist2.html

4. Vista is also stable, very stable! i only had 1 BSOD (because of faulty RAM).

6. same like in Vista ;)

7. it is the same. Both use SMB 2

9. ?

12. no, for me Windows 7 uses much mroe RAM compared to Vista (much higher paged pool usage)

14. no the VPC is broken crap. VMWare or Virtualbox are better and work on Vista, too.

15. no, because of 1.

Well its not true. UAC have been improved and if you using with standard user its works good.

yes vista is stable but in general and not per man specific vista was not stable as 7

they are using smb2 but i did check it and vista was slower access

*guest mode is the answer for xp steady state.

14 - i know im using vmware offcourse but it doesnt metter

15 - 7 has good security patches and updates all the time

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. your pints are all not true. You don't understand the UAC. Read the link again and see how wrong it is ;)

4. Windows Vista and 7 perform the same. xperf tells me this.

9 steady state was only part of the Windows 7 Beta and was removed ;)

14. where is it better? you posted a PR marketing phrase and nothing more.

15. and Vista not? *rofl* YOu get updates till 2017 for Vista :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8. Better FPS in most games

This is untrue!! On the same machine the fps measured with fraps are practically identical! The problem lies in the hardware sold in 2006-2007 that was so under-powered for Vista and hardware sold in 2009-2010 that ran 7 just fine! I am a gamer and just for testing I did a 7 install - dual boot with Vista - on the same machine purchased in 2007 with the following configuration:

1. CPU core duo E6400 default frequency;

2. motherboard Abit AW9D with Intel 975x chipset;

3. 4 * 1024 mb ram DDR2 - 800;

4. Geforce 7600gt default clocks;

5. 500 gb hdd, dvdrw.

In NFS MW, Carbon and HP - I play lots of simulators - fraps shows identical performance! The problem lies mainly in the ram department: most computers were sold in 2006-2007 with 1 gb of ram and as Joe did not known anything about pc's he bought the machine with Vista capable sticker on it and started complaining about poor performance! On computers with 4 gb and more of ram Vista X64 and 7 X64 have near identical performance! I removed 2 gb of ram and performance plummeted immediately in both OS, with 1 stick left the games were unplayable.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

finally someone who doesn't believe every marking nonsense MSFT posted all the day :thumbup :thumbup :thumbup

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows Vista is DirectX 11 compatible. Direct2D and DirectWrite were both back ported to Windows Vista...

only for Vista SP2. if you're using Vista RTM or SP1, DirectX11 can't be installed on those versions.

IMHO, Vista was barely a PR nightmare in early 2007. a couple of SPs for Vista afterwards, seemed to have ironed out some of its serious problems.

I still use Vista but with SP2 on my mom's Dell Inspiron 640m laptop and it runs fine. maybe adding anohter 1Gb RAM stick to her laptop (to make it 2gb) will

boost the performance since it came with 1gb of ram installed

Edited by erpdude8
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the way Microsoft has poorly supported Vista (and Server 2008). Both should have got SP3. Plus, MS won't support the following on Vista SP2:

- IE10

- Visual Studio 11

- .NET Framework 4.5

- Windows Management Framework 3.0 (PowerShell 3.0, WMI and WinRM 3.0)

- Kinect SDK

- Paint.NET 4.0 (because its developer is an MS fanboy)

Wish Microsoft supported Vista better.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-Improved keyboard shortcuts for those of us who use the keyboard a lot

This was one of my absolute favourite, favourite, favourite things I discovered about Windows 7 when I was keeping up with the leaked builds during development. I almost cried with delight.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xpclient

You should still be able to run all of these in Vista with some tricks. I found this post on a Polish forum where someone managed to run IE10 Preview in Vista by just copying the files manually.

ie10_vista_jpg_300x300_q85.jpg

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@xpclient

You should still be able to run all of these in Vista with some tricks. I found this post on a Polish forum where someone managed to run IE10 Preview in Vista by just copying the files manually.

tomasz86,

Wow, no kidding!? You can simply copy the IE10 files over to Vista, and it will work? That sounds so MS-DOS. :thumbup

This is amazing. But, doesn't IE10 have to get "installed" in some way? I can see the method working if you launch IE10 directly (from a shortcut that you manually created, or in Windows Explorer), but what happens if you click on a link in a Windows Help file, or on a link in an e-mail? In those cases I have to think that Vista would use the "official" installed version of IE, right?

Very interesting!

--JorgeA

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate the way Microsoft has poorly supported Vista (and Server 2008). Both should have got SP3.
An FYI (and as an opinion only) - Vista, 2K8, and Win7(?) were the last to have x86 versions. 2K8-R2 and anything newer tends toward x64 apparently due to marketing of new hardware. They just don't want to bother anymore (IMHO). XP was lucky to get an SP3.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JorgeA

He simply said that he'd copied IE10 files from Windows 7 where it had been first installed :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.