fixitman04;1435784 said:
is it a real upgrade over vista?
IMHO, hell yes. Vista is like walking down the sidewalk and getting face to face with someone, you got right to go around, he goes that way too, so you go the other way and he does too. It's always in your face an aggrivating LOL
mkIIIman089;1435801 said:
It is a bit faster and uses less resources than Vista does. IMO it's a bigger incentive to move from Vista to 7 than XP to 7.
Poodles: How do you think bugs get on in the 1st place?? By RUNNING an executable! More often then not UAC will stop it before it does anything to your system as long as the user is reading the dialog. You talk about the extra burden of Windows 7 but then recommend running an additional firewall application... which is, somehow resource free?
One more note on 7 is that I have seen on several occasions (although not tried it myself) from reliable sources that it scales well, and runs very usably even on Atom based netbooks with as little as 1GB of RAM.
From asshats clicking on the wrong thing and dowloading dumb crap (email, pr0n, ect). You're also comparing apples to orange here as the page file for Win7 is MASSIVE compared to XP meaning you have plenty of overhead to install a firewall if needed. I never ran one with XP or 2003, I leave it running in 7 cause it's easy to disable if needed, but I have a hardware firewall as well. XP has a firewall as well...
IJ.;1435815 said:
Think I'll wait for SP1 then upgrade, I played around with 7 on my new box and can't say I'm overly impressed XP is far snappier at much the same settings on the same hardware.
7 is a bit of a hog, but definately better than Vista (see a trend here?). If you like lean and mean XP (or even better, 2003) is a better choice, but I like many of the features of 7 and have the power to run it (and it's faster than my old box with 2003 on it, and it would probably be faster still with 2003 on the enw hardware).