Hate windows 7

I also use the command-line by choice. In Ubuntu as well as in Windows.

Fact: I used the command-line to repair Win 7 just last month.
 
DMGrier said:
I do use the command line but it is a choice, there is a GUI tool for just about anything including finding drivers in Ubuntu. You will notice that in the Linux community you will find some of there older school Linux users that only use command lines, I remember when I started on 8.04 when I would ask a question on line it was always a command.
Click to expand...

That's pretty common to people who leave the "novice distros" or whatever you want to call them. Ubuntu,Mint,etc. Most of the people who use arch,gentoo,etc are like that. I myself use awesomeWM a lot with a ton of CLI and terminal based apps. In windows I have a lot of linux tools added to my prompt like wget for instance. I also use cywgin,etc. Great for doing C/C++ work in windows. It all just comes down to what you as a user are used to and prefer. I do a lot of terminal work, so i used it constantly whether I'm in windows or linux.

As far as the OP, i would be using windows XP if it was still supported (hardly any support left these days) and it had some of the things I needed like DirectX and hyperthreading (that was a 7 addition right?)
Xp to me was clean and streamlined. 7 just seems like it's that rich kid with all the cool toys and nice clothes. I don't need that, I just want the basics. I'm used to OS's that take up 2.5 Gb's on install, including a office suite and any other day to day app I need, not 17-20gb's.

Just my 2 cents.
 
I totally agree with the 15-20 GB, Hell in my opinion gnome 3 or Unity is a better looking UI and has more to offer and it seems like there are more system tools installed then Windows and I believe I am using less then 8 GB of HDD space.

Not to mention system resources, currently surfing the web, listening to music and watching movies via HDMI cable from laptop to tv and using less resources the Windows 7 does at idle.
 
DMGrier said:
Not to mention system resources, currently surfing the web, listening to music and watching movies via HDMI cable from laptop to tv and using less resources the Windows 7 does at idle.
Click to expand...

Only reason for this is windows doesn't over-commit ram, nothing more.
 
bigfellla said:
Only reason for this is windows doesn't over-commit ram, nothing more.
Click to expand...

That is fine but when using some heavier open source music production software that will not even give me all the features due to MS ram hungry were as when running on a Linux box I have full features.
 
You'll have to buy a Windows XP disk. I personally prefer Windows 7 over XP and especially over Vista!
 
DMGrier said:
That is fine but when using some heavier open source music production software that will not even give me all the features due to MS ram hungry were as when running on a Linux box I have full features.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you cannot actually use them all at the same time because if you did, you will crash the OS. Its really no different. Its just creative accounting.
 
NyxCharon said:
As far as the OP, i would be using windows XP if it was still supported (hardly any support left these days) and it had some of the things I needed like DirectX and hyperthreading (that was a 7 addition right?)
Xp to me was clean and streamlined. 7 just seems like it's that rich kid with all the cool toys and nice clothes. I don't need that, I just want the basics. I'm used to OS's that take up 2.5 Gb's on install, including a office suite and any other day to day app I need, not 17-20gb's.

Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Again not exactly true. DirectX has been around since 1995 meaning almost all Windows versions can support it. Also hyperthreading is done on both the OS and the hardware, and has been around since 2002 making it well in the realms of XP.

Windows 7 has some significant changes, particularly with SSDs, memory management, driver support, network optimisation... the list goes on.

By far the best OS available if you want out of the box support for a large range of OEM hardware.
 
bigfellla said:
Again not exactly true. DirectX has been around since 1995 meaning almost all Windows versions can support it. Also hyperthreading is done on both the OS and the hardware, and has been around since 2002 making it well in the realms of XP.

Windows 7 has some significant changes, particularly with SSDs, memory management, driver support, network optimisation... the list goes on.

By far the best OS available if you want out of the box support for a large range of OEM hardware.
Click to expand...

I guess you misunderstood me. I upgraded so i would have support for the newer versions of directx.
"Direct3D 9Ex, Direct3D 10, and Direct3D 11 are only available for Windows Vista and Windows 7"
As far as the hyperthreading, yes it existed, but the feature was greatly improved in windows 7.
 
bigfellla said:
Again not exactly true. DirectX has been around since 1995 meaning almost all Windows versions can support it. Also hyperthreading is done on both the OS and the hardware, and has been around since 2002 making it well in the realms of XP.

Windows 7 has some significant changes, particularly with SSDs, memory management, driver support, network optimisation... the list goes on.

By far the best OS available if you want out of the box support for a large range of OEM hardware.
Click to expand...
Although I like Linux (especially Nyxcharon's distro, which is very good), I can't help agreeing with the fact that Windows 7 just works how an OS should. I mean, whenever I try to use Linux, I end up spending more time installing programs than I actually do using them. On Windows, you can focus more on what you're actually trying to accomplish. Yes, it uses more system resources, but with 2GB of RAM and a decent processor, it makes no difference to me.
 
This whole thing about Windows using more resources is really just nonsense. Yes if you have 512MB or RAM then certain things will be difficult on Windows, but really, Linux kernels simply allow multiple applications or processes to 'claim' or committ to the same area of memory. That way it looks like its using less resources but in actual fact, its not.
 
not that it matters for todays systems as most have much more, but if you only have a few GB of hard drive to use Linux does it better. Windows does use a lot of resources as far as non volatile memory is concerned. But I guess if you want a fix all solution then you have to commit to a lot more than a targeted solution.
 
Win7 will run on as little as a pentium 4 with 1 gig ram, and a 24 gig harddrive partition (i know, ive done it, i didnt like doing it but it does work...)

As the articles say on the VS 2010 C++ site, the only way it wont run on WinXP is if its the starter edition, however is VS Stuidio Express the starter edition?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top