|
Agree ... as a developer .. i always have a box on next generation ... just to learn .. whats up .. new APIs .. etc. Once in production; i have one in dual boot mode. But, for the none dev folks .... yes ..wait.
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder how it will perform on a single processor?
I tried to install Vista Business version into my Pentium 4 2.5GHz system and boy, the computer runs real ssllllloooowww...
Had to revert back to XP and runs fine.
I know my dual-core processor on my laptop will do just fine.
I just love the Vista's options for the file management... better than XP. For example, when you move files into a folder which has files with same name, Vista would ask you whether to replace, rename the file, do nothing, or skip... I love that! On the top of that, i like the way it renames the file (rather than seeing "Copy of...." and "Copy of Copy of..." and so forth.
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 7 is essentially designed as a successor to Windows XP UMPC, so for slow-ish NetBook systems. A lot of work has gone into it to increase peformance.
So expect really good performance on your single core CPU. It should be faster than XP.
|
|
|
|
|
If that's the case, that's great!
With Duo Core or more (processors), will be lightning fast! I'm sure.
|
|
|
|
|
if you just want the filecopy options of vista, try teracopy (i have no actions in it)
|
|
|
|
|
teracopy? on XP? if so, i better check that out.
Thx
|
|
|
|
|
yes on XP !
|
|
|
|
|
Teracopy even puts Vista's file copy abilities to shame. I even use it on my Vista systems. I highly recommend it!
Kelly Herald
Software Developer
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to install Vista to my P4, it was so slow I could stand only 2 days.
Windows 7 is working very well. As most people say it's not faster than XP but it's comparable. I can't say if XP was faster or not. Difference is minimal.
|
|
|
|
|
Had no problems with Vista, looking forward to Win 7. I hope Win 8 has a more radical UI.
|
|
|
|
|
I am already with Windows Visa, but most of my friends pointing other then the rich UI, Windows XP prof with SP2 is more better. Yes.. Its correct, I also feel some performance problem with Vista..
|
|
|
|
|
SP2? o_O
I hoped you meant SP3...
-= Reelix =-
|
|
|
|
|
Where it's SP2 or SP3, both works fine for me.
I still prefer XP with SP3 rather than Vista with SP1. Vista is very slow when viewing folders and files. It crashes most of the time when viewing folders or surfing with IE7.
In fact, if I know earlier that vista had this kind of problem. I would stick with XP Pro when I bought my Dell Laptop.
Vista's introduction ( ). Now (:-C)
|
|
|
|
|
Thirumalai M wrote: Windows Visa
Wow cool, you must be working for Microsoft. Do you you multitouch screen to program with - like Miniority Report?
|
|
|
|
|
|
So what? Stable systems don't require support.
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't booted to my Windows XP partition in months. I never used Vista in my life. I tried Windows 7 on a VM and it sucked (it felt "annoying"... like Office-Paperclip-annoying level).
Why'd I "upgrade" from Kubuntu to Windows 7?
|
|
|
|
|
Member 4134890 wrote: it felt "annoying"... like Office-Paperclip-annoying level
Almost as annoying as CP members that don't take the time to come up with a user name?
Harvey Saayman - South Africa
Software Developer
.Net, C#, SQL
you.suck = (you.Passion != Programming & you.Occupation == jobTitles.Programmer)
1000100 1101111 1100101 1110011 100000 1110100 1101000 1101001 1110011 100000 1101101 1100101 1100001 1101110 100000 1101001 1101101 100000 1100001 100000 1100111 1100101 1100101 1101011 111111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a developer, I am bound to follow my customers. Most use XP SP2, some use NT, some other versions. I want to be sure my software is compatible with their systems.
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't maintaining compatability also mean making sure its compatible with the modern, as well as the legacy? Windows Vista and Windows 7 provide some interesting compatability points themselves...namely in the area of security and compatability with how security now works in Windows since Vista.
|
|
|
|
|
When my customers start to deploy Vista and Windows 7 so will I. BTW, they are banks, and they have currently no intention to do so, because it would entail upgrading thousands of PCs and retesting all their applications.
|
|
|
|
|
We're using our favorite OS for development (personally, I'm using Win7) and to ensure compatibility with other systems we use VMs.
So, I refuse to see this statement about compatibility thing as a valid argument against using other OSes.
|
|
|
|
|
Like many others, a lot will depend upon the price. It is my feeling that Microsoft has redefined PC to be something like "Proprietary Computer" and they are the controller. Even operating systems designed for home users take away so many options from the user that we can no longer feel that we can do what we want the way we want. Email and internet options are restricting (as a security measure to protect us from hackers) to the point I wish I could cut off both operations and run my computer independent of both. However, I like being able to email friends and surf the internet.
It's too bad someone can't figure a way to include security options without forcing the user to surrender their freedom to use their computer the way they want. I'm not saying that computers in corporate networks shouldn't be restricted; I'm talking about privately-owned computers and home networks. I wish they were considered two entirely different entities and treated as such. I also wish that the software for home computers was priced for individuals who don't have large budgets and yet allowed some of the same capabilities as business or enterprise software (perhaps scaled down and easier to use).
I also would like to see development software and training programs for home users that didn't cost as much as the corporate versions. Again, maybe they could be scaled down as appropriate for home users and also not assuming that the user understood the abstract explanations found in so much of the development documentation (help files?) available.
|
|
|
|