I've used 7 as my sole OS since about March. It's great, it's just a faster version of Vista with a few extra tweaks and much better driver support. It uses a bit more RAM than XP, but nothing noticable if you've got 4 gigs of RAM. I guess it might hurt your performance in some programs if you only had two, same as with Vista..Sup wrote:
Finally a normal response.ghettoperson wrote:
Arrogant is defined by Wikipedia as "Having excessive pride in oneself". Arrogance would be claiming that I could write a better one. In any case, I don't think it's terrible - I said that more to get a rise out of you - but it is an old OS, and Vista and now 7 are it's replacements, and are much better, now that their bugs have been fixed. I like XP for a long time, but after using Vista and 7 it feels dated and look terrible.
You tried Windows 7? You like it? How would you compare Microsoft's latest OSs?
quite a bit worse tbh.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I don't think it has much better driver support tbh.
What's 7's compatability like? With the majority of games that is.ghettoperson wrote:
I've used 7 as my sole OS since about March. It's great, it's just a faster version of Vista with a few extra tweaks and much better driver support. It uses a bit more RAM than XP, but nothing noticable if you've got 4 gigs of RAM. I guess it might hurt your performance in some programs if you only had two, same as with Vista..Sup wrote:
Finally a normal response.ghettoperson wrote:
Arrogant is defined by Wikipedia as "Having excessive pride in oneself". Arrogance would be claiming that I could write a better one. In any case, I don't think it's terrible - I said that more to get a rise out of you - but it is an old OS, and Vista and now 7 are it's replacements, and are much better, now that their bugs have been fixed. I like XP for a long time, but after using Vista and 7 it feels dated and look terrible.
You tried Windows 7? You like it? How would you compare Microsoft's latest OSs?
well you can run XP in it...M.O.A.B wrote:
What's 7's compatability like? With the majority of games that is.ghettoperson wrote:
I've used 7 as my sole OS since about March. It's great, it's just a faster version of Vista with a few extra tweaks and much better driver support. It uses a bit more RAM than XP, but nothing noticable if you've got 4 gigs of RAM. I guess it might hurt your performance in some programs if you only had two, same as with Vista..Sup wrote:
Finally a normal response.
You tried Windows 7? You like it? How would you compare Microsoft's latest OSs?
I mean native to the OS. I plugged a Win98 joystick in and it worked through plug and play, which was something that only worked occasionally on Vista, even with the correct drivers installed.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I don't think it has much better driver support tbh.
My touchpad drivers wouldn't work in Win7.ghettoperson wrote:
I mean native to the OS. I plugged a Win98 joystick in and it worked through plug and play, which was something that only worked occasionally on Vista, even with the correct drivers installed.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I don't think it has much better driver support tbh.
What version of Windows 7?Miggle wrote:
My touchpad drivers wouldn't work in Win7.ghettoperson wrote:
I mean native to the OS. I plugged a Win98 joystick in and it worked through plug and play, which was something that only worked occasionally on Vista, even with the correct drivers installed.GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:
I don't think it has much better driver support tbh.
They worked on both xp and vista.
Ultimate x64.Sup wrote:
What version of Windows 7?Miggle wrote:
My touchpad drivers wouldn't work in Win7.ghettoperson wrote:
I mean native to the OS. I plugged a Win98 joystick in and it worked through plug and play, which was something that only worked occasionally on Vista, even with the correct drivers installed.
They worked on both xp and vista.
Look at the bottom right corner. What version is it?Miggle wrote:
Ultimate x64.Sup wrote:
What version of Windows 7?Miggle wrote:
My touchpad drivers wouldn't work in Win7.
They worked on both xp and vista.
it doesn't say anything, but I believe it is build 7600.Sup wrote:
Look at the bottom right corner. What version is it?Miggle wrote:
Ultimate x64.Sup wrote:
What version of Windows 7?
You brought in WMP on OSX so I compared iTunes on Windows, how is that not fair?Uzique wrote:
im talking about wmp for windows (native) versus itunes for osx (native).
same specs.
itunes loads faster on OSX than wmp loads and operates on windows.
wtf are you talking about it takes 10-15 seconds to load on a mac. i have a 150gb media library on this laptop and it's still instant...
i didnt bring in "wmp on osx" at all, learn to read.Winston_Churchill wrote:
You brought in WMP on OSX so I compared iTunes on Windows, how is that not fair?Uzique wrote:
im talking about wmp for windows (native) versus itunes for osx (native).
same specs.
itunes loads faster on OSX than wmp loads and operates on windows.
wtf are you talking about it takes 10-15 seconds to load on a mac. i have a 150gb media library on this laptop and it's still instant...
WMP is instant on my computer so thats certainly not true. And as soon as you click the iTunes icon its instant? It sure isnt for our mac and its brutal (to the point that I only use iTunes for syncing my iPod) on my regular computer (which has higher specs than the mac).
If you were referring to Windows then you need to learn to write actually.Uzique wrote:
i didnt bring in "wmp on osx" at all, learn to read.Winston_Churchill wrote:
You brought in WMP on OSX so I compared iTunes on Windows, how is that not fair?Uzique wrote:
im talking about wmp for windows (native) versus itunes for osx (native).
same specs.
itunes loads faster on OSX than wmp loads and operates on windows.
wtf are you talking about it takes 10-15 seconds to load on a mac. i have a 150gb media library on this laptop and it's still instant...
WMP is instant on my computer so thats certainly not true. And as soon as you click the iTunes icon its instant? It sure isnt for our mac and its brutal (to the point that I only use iTunes for syncing my iPod) on my regular computer (which has higher specs than the mac).
and my macbook is instant with itunes and everything else; 4gb, intel 2.4ghz. easy.
i beg to differ on the non-pro macbooks being "average". their performance far outdoes any windows-equivalent.
When all you refer to is OSX it is a fair assumption that you're referring to running WMP on OSX. I see nothing saying you were using Windows, only OSX.Uzique wrote:
it's still significantly slower than itunes is on osx (snow leopard), and crashes with all sorts of stupid plug-in problems, and periodically goes unresponsive or bugs out in a multitude of ways. i've lost count of the times ive 'closed' wmp, only to carry on hearing my music in the background because the wmp.exe process refuses to die. have never had a single problem with itunes on osx, ever. it's just that general feeling of stability and rapidity that gives the user a feel of a better experience.
Beats me.Ty wrote:
That's an actual commercial? Who the fuck did they pay to come up with that mess?
Now lets see if Ty's attempt to re-rail the thread is a success...Ty wrote:
That's an actual commercial? Who the fuck did they pay to come up with that mess?