Windows 7 Ultimate M3 Pre-beta Build 6801 SCREENSHOTS :)

Vista takes powerful hardwares to run, there's no way around it. I would say it takes a quad core to run it smoothly. I know a lot of people will say they have good experience with Vista on a dual core, but a lot more people report performance problems with Vista on dual core. But on the other hand I think some of the Vista features are too ahead of it's time, the (mainstreme) hardware haven't caught up to it yet. But the main reason I'm not using it is that it requires driver signing, that's just bs. I hope they will fix this mistake in Windows 7. Otherwise I'll probably stick with XP as my main desktop and just dual boot play games on Win 7.
 
^ What couldn't you stand about it? Vista x64 should run so well with those specs... would be nice to have a laptop like that, I'm stuck with an Atom. :lol:

And yeah, XP x64 blows. No drivers, no programs... it's a huge hassle to actually use it.

It has nothing to do with the speed, it ran great from that standpoint. I can't stand the interface. No amount of tweaking could hide the fact that a monkey shit out the UI design and the MS dev team said "right-o lets go with that."
 
^ Oh, I see, I thought that might be the case.

Are you using the classic theme in XP by any chance? :D
 
Or maybe he has a poor video card and is running Windows Aero... or maybe he's not on SP1 yet.

But the bottom line is Vista can be speedy. They never claimed it to have low system requirements, that's why they did all the crap with the upgrade adviser or whatever it was called.

ive got a Nvidia 7500 256mb (512mb turbocache) its not fast, but its not that bad.... it can run crysis.... at low settings at like 15fps.

far cry 2 and COD4 still work pretty darn well though. Im upgrading to a 9800 gtx or GX2 soon :D (better value than the GTX280).

and as for someone who said its the User wtf? how does my use of it make the boot time slow...???

ive removed any unecesary programs from startup also...


ok maybe i was exagerating a little when i said you can get better on a P4 in XP, but vista is alot slower and hardware demanding for few features.


EDIT: oops i forgot to mention, my 2.8ghz dual core is Pentium D... so yea that might explain it a little, but doesn't redeem vistas inefficiency.
 
Vista takes powerful hardwares to run, there's no way around it. I would say it takes a quad core to run it smoothly. I know a lot of people will say they have good experience with Vista on a dual core, but a lot more people report performance problems with Vista on dual core. But on the other hand I think some of the Vista features are too ahead of it's time, the (mainstreme) hardware haven't caught up to it yet. But the main reason I'm not using it is that it requires driver signing, that's just bs. I hope they will fix this mistake in Windows 7. Otherwise I'll probably stick with XP as my main desktop and just dual boot play games on Win 7.

I have good performance on an AMD64 3200+ with 1.5gb with an nvidia 8600gtx it plays fallout 3 fine etc.
 
awdrifter said:
But the main reason I'm not using it is that it requires driver signing, that's just bs.
No it doesn't, didn't for me.

awdrifter said:
I know a lot of people will say they have good experience with Vista on a dual core, but a lot more people report performance problems with Vista on dual core.
I've had more problems with XP on a Core2Duo than I have Vista, with all of the 'pretties' turned on. o_O
 
X64 versions require driver signing, because Microsoft was getting sick and tired of bad drivers from elcheapo hardware fucking up their OS and them getting flack for it.

Bollocks :| Fuck all I install it, then. <_<
 
I am never going to forget my experience with Windoze ME.

ACHTUNG: TASTELESS JOKE ALERT!

They called it Windoze ME because several times a day, for no discernible reason, it slows down and stops...

who even bought that piece of crap??? i waited it out with 98 till XP came out,but this time my new PC came with Vista, so i had no choice :(
 
Come on, Vista isn't as bad as people say it is. It's a but of a resource hog, but it ran perfectly fine on my Athlon64 3000+ rig until it got ridiculed with spyware and what not. My friend noticed a slow down in his Vista OS as well, but it can happen to any badly maintained OS. I've had an iPod touch for a little less than a month now, and I can tell you that Apple's reliability and stability is waaay overrated.
 
Vista runs like dogshit on the Dell D830's and D430's I need to support at work.
 
Vista takes powerful hardwares to run, there's no way around it. I would say it takes a quad core to run it smoothly..

I disagree. I've tested it on my ancient Athlon XP 2800+ (not even an Athlon64) with 512 MB RAM and a 128 MB Radeon 9600 and even with all the Aero eye candy turned on it's only marginally less responsive than Win XP on my system. The only thing I didn't throw at it when testing was intensive gaming, and my setup is so old I can't do much of that anyway.
 
Vista needs quad core to run smoothly? Joke of the year... :lol::lol:

It needs far, far less. It runs superbly on a dual core system, and quite well on later P4s and Athlons.
 
I wish Vista had worked well on my computer, I liked all the visual gadgets and pretty things...:cry: However, since I had it dual-booted with XP, I hardly ever used it. When I did, it would be too slow for me. I liked it, but it also wouldn't run a lot of the programs that I use regularly. So I finally decided to get rid of Vista in favor of sticking with XP for now, until I get either a new laptop or some way to back up all of my stuff so I can do a complete wipe and put just Vista on my computer. :)

But this Windows 7 looks promising. Maybe it will turn out to be as good as it looks...Microsoft can do things right if they put the effort into developing their OS first before they release it. No more Vista/XP fiascos, please. :D
 
Top