View Single Post
Old 04-11-2010   #44
SysTaMatIcS
Registered Member
 
SysTaMatIcS's Avatar
 
Last Online: 10-14-2022
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 10,467
Thanks: 14,136
Thanked 4,244 Times in 2,547 Posts
Groans: 186
Groaned at 198 Times in 120 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mr_j View Post
I did not try windows 7, but I read about it on wikipedia(if that counts as anything) I did not like the description, I am sticking with windows xp as far as possible(the new direct x may no longer be compatible with vista though )

anyway from what I rad, it still needs quite alot of ram compared to xp and system resources...lachou

now from vista to windows 7, I would recommend that, because I heard it uses less system resources.
win 7 is wayyy faster than xp, and on a fast machine the experience would be amazin! you cant stick to xp , upgrade you wont regret it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by P337 View Post
I didn't check on the whole thread, but anyway, specify. Additionally, Windows 7 runs fairly good on 512 MB RAM. It's related with the ways of use.

If possible, I'd recommend the upgrade. After all, those are Microsoft products initially meant for easy use.

Furthermore, vista, failure? Define failure. Windows Vista was at that time, a systematical change, which, in fact, I consider it stronger than the 98-XP jump. But, even with made-easy products, people fail to know how to use it - the moment when flaming begins. Vista lacks so much, yes, but didn't fail.
yes vista is a complete failure, proof=sales , making win7 in such a short time
__________________
problems of performance appraisal is that it sucks to memorize them
SysTaMatIcS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SysTaMatIcS For This Useful Post:
RUSSIAN (04-12-2010)