Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X
Windows 7 seems to be receiving positive reviews.
Can someone tell me if any elements of Vista are carried over to 7, or are the two programmes significantly different?
The thought of having to learn yet another programme does not sit well at the moment.
Wearing my ex WW2 tin hat I bought from a junk market, I have to say I prefer Vista. (Gasp)
I have XP on an old Dell (Runs well), Vista on this nearly Dell new desktop (Runs like a train) & 7 on a new Dell laptop.
And I have to say I prefer Vista, I have the 7 upgrade disc for this desktop & I tried it but it wants to hold your hand to much for me (Babyware).
Vista disadvantages, it requires a minimum of 2 Gig of RAM, this has 4 Gig although Vista 32 bit will only use 3ish.
I know lots will disagree but Vista is stopping on this desktop which gets lots of use until MS no longer support it, or until the cows come home.
Now I'm going to go & hide.
Windows 7 (64bit) for me. I couldn't wait to get rid of Vista - far too sluggish. Have not any of the problems I had with Vista.
As a strictly non-expert, Windows 7 (64 bit) works extremely well. Installation was trouble-free although some old drivers may give problems. It is fast and stable.
Windows 7 is a lot better! The footprint is smaller, it runs faster and does not hog the cpu and ram like vista did. And windows 7 is alot cheaper
When I changed from XP to Vista I was completely sold. A much better, faster, more stable o/s.
Then I changed to Windows 7 32bit. I wouldn't have believed that it could be that much better than Vista. It is so much faster and so easy to adapt to.
I don't get this Vista slow & sluggish, it needs careful setting up but with 7 on this PC the boot times 7/Vista were about the same.
This almost new DELL is using 855 MEG RAM on Tick-Over. 2% CPU on 1 core. I have 4 GIG of fast RAM but Vista can only use 3ish. Eset Security Suite, A2 Full version running & Malwarebytes Full version running.
Maybe when you have had 7 on for a year or so you may find it slows down regardless of what housekeeping you do.
Having used both operating systems on the same PC Vista is better.... I feel. I don't call 800-900 Meg RAM an excessive footprint. I would be interested at the memory footprint of 7 machines memory use/CPU as my laptop & this PC use about the same. The 7 version on my lappy is the 64 bit so can use all 4 GIG.
I have two hard drives on my PC.
One has windows 7 and the other Vista. Both are 32bit and were installed in July last year and contain exactly the same software and security suites.
Vista takes approx 2 minutes to fully load and Windows 7 takes 45 seconds.
At tickover Windows 7 CPU is using between 0 and 1% and 929mb of 3GB RAM.
At tickover Vista CPU is using between 1 and 3% and 980mb of 3GB RAM.
Vista took 47 seconds to load, not counting the program 'Trojan Remover' which has a delay start on it which I allow to run once a day. 57 seconds to Firefox loaded the BBC home page (I have a Virgin 50 Meg Connection which helps the Firefox BBC page).
Just after boot Vista with Firefox running 993 Meg. Flickers just over 1% CPU usage. I don't have a password so on boot it doesn't pause though. Not a lot in it is there?
I have a Win 7 Image so I will do some
experimentation later. As I can't sit here all day as the Gas man read the meter last week. Thanks for the reply pine Man. :-)
Sorry if I disappear but my wife has been rushed into hospital so i won't be on for a while. Paul
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.