Hate windows 7

The main reason it got slammed was the driver support issue. A completely new driver stack (particularly for sound) meant that many companies hadn't got their shit together in time. A lot of people recieved messages such as this hardware isn't supported. Of course there were work arounds...
 
StrangleHold said:
lol. Your right. Vista was to XP as ME was to 98. Over bloated memory hog crashing pig. 7 should have been a SP for Vista for free. We all got ripped off.
Click to expand...

Haha yea you are right.Microsoft was planning to rip us off since Windows 95 and hey...they made it :D

My opinion is that every operating system is good if you know how to use it properly.

But I remember back in the days of Windows Millennium...maaaan...every time I would turn it on,the damn SCAN DISK would start for no reason xD
Windows ME (mistake edition) rules because Windows ME had Multiple Errors :D!

I am probably the only one who still uses Windows XP. :P




Cheers!
 
S.T.A.R.S. said:
I am probably the only one who still uses Windows XP. :P
Click to expand...
wrong. And getting ready to repopulate XP onto the D630 when I get t fixed in a bit . I do not see the point of the newer systems unless you absolutely need DX10 and 11, are on a SSD, or have hardware that for whatever reason does not support XP. and if it works on XP, 70+% of the time it can be made to work of 2000. 2000 for the win!
 
2000 was the best OS microsoft ever made. XP/Vista and 7 just piggy backed off of it. From what I understand the main dude that worked on 2000 was helping to develop Vista. But half way through it became such a mess he walked. 2000 was developed by a central group of people working together. Vista had different groups of people working separate from each other and then tried to come together, didnt work, lol.

Should have learned from ME. By taking 98/98SE and trying to load features from 20000. Turned out to be over bloated and a driver screwup. Some 98 drivers would work, some would not and some companies didnt even have ME drivers yet when it was released. Vista was really like the same thing all over again.
 
StrangleHold said:
Vista was really like the same thing all over again.
Click to expand...

Haha, tell me about it. Someone I know well first had a machine with ME on it, and then that one died when Vista was the only thing available. Poor guy! Got both of the 2 worst versions of Windows, IMHO. Fortunately, he's now happy on a machine running 7.
 
wolfeking said:
wrong. And getting ready to repopulate XP onto the D630 when I get t fixed in a bit . I do not see the point of the newer systems unless you absolutely need DX10 and 11, are on a SSD, or have hardware that for whatever reason does not support XP. and if it works on XP, 70+% of the time it can be made to work of 2000. 2000 for the win!
Click to expand...

Are you sure we do not know each other :D ?


Oh come on guys lol.You can't say that Windows Vista is as bad as Windows Millennium was.Windows Vista is great OS and it's not EVEN CLOSE bad as Windows ME was.Vista was just different and when it came it was a small shock for the hardware,but other than that Vista is great.

You guys should realize that programming an OS is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT and EXHAUSTING job.When Microsoft made Vista,that was their first attempt to completely rechange everything and make something new and better and since there was a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of code differences,it is completely logical that first NEW OS technology did not turn out so well and that's completely normal.Later they made many fixes,fixed problems they found as time was passing and it becomes better and Windows 7 is a perfect example of that.

Every NEW product VERY RARELY turns out GREAT on the first try.
So come on...give Microsoft a break.They do a great job and they have made MANY operating systems and many of them are VERY good plus they make many other things too.




Cheers!
 
wolfeking said:
Other than on here, 99.9999999% sure we don't. Unless you are from Commerce, GA, USA, Roanoke, VA, USA, or Rockingham county, NC, USA, or one of several military bases through Italy and Germany.
Click to expand...

Too bad. :D
People who like older operating systems are at the extinction lol.I NEED YOU!!!:D
Nah I am just kidding :D (dammit I don't who am I kidding :mad::D )



LoL cheers man!:P
 
I am sticking to the older systems as long as I can. 2000 is the end of my line unless I need something newer. game under 7 on my desktop though, as 2000 never had a 64 bit. :(
 
S.T.A.R.S. said:
Oh come on guys lol.You can't say that Windows Vista is as bad as Windows Millennium was.Windows Vista is great OS and it's not EVEN CLOSE bad as Windows ME was.Vista was just different and when it came it was a small shock for the hardware,but other than that Vista is great.
Click to expand...

BS. its exactly the same. ME was nothing but a continuation starting with a good 98, then with the updates of good 98SE, then tried to dump features from 2000 on to of it. It was over bloated and a driver nightmare. Vista was more of the same, taking a great OS 2000. First making it look like a disneyland OS calling it XP. Then dumping extra features on it calling it Vista. Turned out the same, a over bloated and a driver nightmare. Both done the same way.


S.T.A.R.S. said:
You guys should realize that programming an OS is an EXTREMELY DIFFICULT and EXHAUSTING job.When Microsoft made Vista,that was their first attempt to completely rechange everything and make something new and better and since there was a LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT LOT of code differences,it is completely logical that first NEW OS technology did not turn out so well and that's completely normal.Later they made many fixes,fixed problems they found as time was passing and it becomes better and Windows 7 is a perfect example of that.
Click to expand...

These are not new OS technology. 98 through ME wasnt nothing but a continuation of 98. XP/Vista and even 7 is nothing but a continuation of 2000. Its called being lazy and being afraid of a new generation of OS because of backward compability.

S.T.A.R.S. said:
Every NEW product VERY RARELY turns out GREAT on the first try.
So come on...give Microsoft a break.They do a great job and they have made MANY operating systems and many of them are VERY good plus they make many other things too.
Click to expand...

No you got it backward, the first product as far as OS are usually the best ones, hence 98/2000. Its the extra BS they keep adding to them and calling it a new OS that keeps giving them trouble and they have to have updates and SP to make it stable.




[/QUOTE]
 
Bigger OS with more features = more bugs and problems.
That's completely normal.To me every Windows OS is good.

I think you people complain too much lol.If everything new is so bad then don't buy them and make your own lol.:D
 
S.T.A.R.S. said:
Bigger OS with more features = more bugs and problems.
That's completely normal.To me every Windows OS is good.

I think you people complain too much lol.If everything new is so bad then don't buy them and make your own lol.:D
Click to expand...

I don't agree. I used to work as an avionic engineer with the airforce. We did upgrades frequently as we slowly installed better technology. For example a EPERB beacon that deploys at certain inputs (e.g. MkIV ejection seat deployment, accelerometer ranges). The technology used Satellites to triangulate position anywhere on the planet. In 1995 that was good going.

The code around that had to be written, as when the aircraft was built it was not even considered possible.

Big system, lots of new features and it had to be perfect. Inevitably we set them off accidentally (e.g. accelerometer calibration). $40K a throw back then.

With Windows, some of it was just sloppy, but nothing to do with size.

Rubbish quality hardware (compared to today - and i mean quality not speed nor ability) meant that even a good OS would crash, corrupting hard drives, Windows getting the rap. And Vista certainly had no excuses in that department.... but ME may be.

Anyway even though I understand probability, its quite easy to ensure you don't create problems when you control ever thing (like hardware). But this was never the case back in the early days.
 
Last edited:
vistakid10 said:
Windows 7 is faster than Vista, but not massively faster.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I am not entirely sure of the exact code improvements that MS implemented in Windows 7, but what I do know is that it just feels faster than previous versions of Windows. Programs run at just about the same speed, but the OS itself is more responsive. Even on my Core 2 Quad rig, XP system functions (opening the start menu, switching programs, etc.) will randomly lag. This happens very rarely on my lower-specced Pentium Dual-Core rig running a Win7-modified version of Windows 8 Developer Preview.

StrangleHold said:
ME was nothing but a continuation starting with a good 98, then with the updates of good 98SE, then tried to dump features from 2000 on to of it. It was over bloated and a driver nightmare. Vista was more of the same, taking a great OS 2000. First making it look like a disneyland OS calling it XP. Then dumping extra features on it calling it Vista. Turned out the same, a over bloated and a driver nightmare. Both done the same way.
Click to expand...

This is another major improvement that I have seen in Windows 7. There isn't random bloat all over the place. For example, having web search built into the Vista Start Menu was rather stupid. No one ever uses it. Times that I have used Vista, I've always found simple tasks such as connecting to a network to be much more daunting than in XP or 7. Not that it's godawful, but it's just simply not as good. In an argument over operating systems, I would have to say that it really comes down to XP or 2000 vs Windows 7, because Vista really has nothing to offer over Windows 7. Yes, Vista still works fine, but Windows 7 works noticeably better.

Personally, I would still take Windows 7 over XP or 2000, because there are definitely code improvements in 7 that can be seen at even a mediocre spec level, not to mention the fact that it automatically defragments. I agree that XP and 2000 are nice because they are less bloated, but from a usability standpoint, 7 is far better.
 
Last edited:
In its day 98SE was a good OS. But overall I like 2000 and 7 the best. Xp was pretty good. To me XP was kinda of a Love/Hate thing.
 
spynoodle said:
Yes, Vista still works fine, but Windows 7 works noticeably better.
Click to expand...
noticibly better. Maybe you notice something that I do not, but on my systems other than basic operations, vista works just as good as 7, with little if any difference in speed.
It appears really to me that M$ is catering to the lowest common denominator, meaning making it so that even a retard with an IQ of 3 could use their system. Add some complication and I might support them a little more.
I agree that XP and 2000 are nice because they are less bloated, but from a usability standpoint, 7 is far better.
Click to expand...
to me this is BS. the only thing that makes 7 better to the average user is that it just works. You do not have to think about it. But then again americans programmed it, so since they can't think why assume anyone can?
To me 2000 and XP is far more usable than 7/vista. But we are all welcome to our own opinions.
 
wolfeking said:
To me 2000 and XP is far more usable than 7/vista. But we are all welcome to our own opinions.
Click to expand...

They are all 100% useable and you can do everything on all of them if you know how.The differences is that on newer operating systems you can get things done easier and faster.
So will you use Windows XP or Windows 7 to do same things really depends on person's taste.

Windows XP for example would sometimes lag or hang if you did something improperly.Microsoft saw that many people of course do many things improperly and that they complain that OS sucks because it hangs and lags a lot.Of course OS does not suck...users suck.So Microsoft used that HUGE advantage to make OS like Windows 7 which will work always no matter how improperly you do things and will not freeze at all.And that my dear people makes Windows 7 so different from other previous operating systems and ALSO makes people think that Windows 7 is better in EVERYTHING while it's not better in everything 100%.But of course it is enough that people just think that and that automatically means the following:

Microsoft earns a LOT more money for not so much work.

As for the stability between Windows XP and Windows 7,all I can say is that at the end that always depends on your knowledge.




Cheers!
 
you missed the two words that mattered there. TO ME 2000 and XP are better. I can do things on them easier than I can on vista/7. But no one cares, cause everyone thinks that just because it is new that it is better and will always be better.
 
wolfeking said:
...everyone thinks that just because it is new that it is better and will always be better.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.Tell me about it...every day I hear and see people using the NEWEST things all the time and when I ask them why they MUST always use the newest things,they say:

"Because it's the best."

And when I ask them why it's the best and what's the difference,they in 99% cases say:

"Ummmm..."

LoL :D

Also what I hate is that majority thinks they know a lot about computers and programming just because they use Windows 7 from the difference of those who use Windows 2000 or Windows XP.And the funniest thing is that they do not even know anything about computer or/and programming,but they THINK (know) they do just because they use Windows 7 (which is currently the newest OS).

LoL :D

My computer is almost 15 years old and I get things done on it (such as making great computer programs which I sell for nice money) a LOT more than people with 8 core processors.

Why?

Simply because my knowledge is a lot bigger than theirs lol.

So STABILITY,SPEED,MONEY PROFIT and so on depends on KNOWLEDGE.

People usually laugh to me because I use 15 years old system and old XP OS,but they do not even realize that right now I can be spying their computers with the program I made on my "15 years old computer".

So "HAHAHA" to them :D

I always let them think they are SMARTER than me,but in fact it's completely opposite.And THAT'S the point.:D




Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top