Windows 7

b3n wrote: Windows 7 is a lot better than vista. But I still just dont see the need to upgrade from xp.xp does everything I need. I dont care that they moved all the control panel icons about. Or removed the word start form the start menu. I haven't seen one improvement in vista or 7 that would warrant me switching. Come to think of it I dont even remember why I changed from 2000.

Could the fact you're using an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue in certain pretty important areas be one reason?

XP has a massively flawed security and network model.

toastyghost wrote: b3n wrote: Windows 7 is a lot better than vista. But I still just dont see the need to upgrade from xp.xp does everything I need. I dont care that they moved all the control panel icons about. Or removed the word start form the start menu. I haven't seen one improvement in vista or 7 that would warrant me switching. Come to think of it I dont even remember why I changed from 2000. Could the fact you're using an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue in certain pretty important areas be one reason? XP has a massively flawed security and network model.

IMO 2000, XP, vista and 7 are all just NT in successively shinier coats. All the changes seem to be just to make windows "easier" to use. I dont need to click on three different confirmation dialogues to run a program. Tell me why I shouldn't be using "an 8 year old OS held together with spit and glue"?

I'm running windows 7 pro (64 bit). No problems as yet.

I have been using Windows 7 for 8 or 9 monts, ar the begining of October becoming legal, and then I have been using Windows 7 Pro 64 bits.
It runs pretty smooth.
For the one that don't like Vista and like 7, belive me when I'm telling you, it's the same thing, even though M$ guis said that they write it from scratch. Vista in Windows 6.0 and 7 is 6.1.

Windows 2000 was a vertty good and stable OS ( actually it is Windows NT 5.0 ) but because it is very old it isn't being supported anymore, so no error reapiring, no service packs. Windows XP ( NT 5.1 ) is good because there still are users that don't have more the 1 GB of RAM, which is a minimum requirement for Vista to run decently. I had Vista on a Dell Inspiron 1501 with 1 GB of RAM ( 128 MB were dedicated to the video card on board so remained only 892 MB of RAM available ) and in the first 2-3 days afther installation it didn't runned as smooth as XP ran, but afther it optimized itself it was smoother than XP. Thinking that XP had a minimum RAM requirement of 64 MB, 1 GB seems perfect for XP to run flawleslly.
From my point of view Windows Vista ( NT 6.0 ) was just a marketing research, to see how people would react to a new interace and a new core. ( it's the same problem that was with XP when 2000 or 98SE were the popular ones ) Unfortunatelly the reaction wasn't that good so they started to modify it by to create something with a better appeal.

Windows 7 = Vista SP3

Apart from booting where drivers can be loaded simultaneously instead of one after the other, speed, memory, and performance all remain exactly the same as under Vista.

levyte357 wrote: Windows NT 4.0 was pretty sturdy.

Maybe the box you put it in was, but the OS certainly wasn't.

Trying to use it as a web server it was more often down than up, which is where Windows hosting got it's bad name from as being unstable.