Hate windows 7

[spynoodle]

@S.T.A.R.S.:
I see where you are coming from, and I completely agree with the fact that most people do not need super-fast rigs, but I feel that you need to further define what you mean by using a computer "improperly." In my time using XP, I've found that if a program with high CPU utilization (Flash Plugin, Dolphin Gamecube Emulator, etc.) hangs, XP will often become unresponsive when I try to manually end the process, thus forcing me into restarting the explorer.exe process. Yes, it fixes the problem, but I much prefer how Windows 7 handles unresponsive programs: by actually closing the program. Yeah, it does that stupid "checking for solution" thing, but I really don't care. Here's the way I see it: I'd much rather use Windows 7 than put in the extra time needed to use Windows XP "properly," for no actual benefit.

@wolfeking:
What's wrong with an OS "just working?" I don't see any real advantage in having to struggle with everything when it's completely unnecessary.

 

[wolfeking]

@wolfeking:
What's wrong with an OS "just working?" I don't see any real advantage in having to struggle with everything when it's completely unnecessary.

Where did I say it was an advantage to "struggle" with it? your putting words in my mouth. If you have to think it might not be so obvious, but is no more of a struggle.
I would always much prefer an OS that takes a piece of thought than one that a 2 year old retard could pick up and use. That and one that does not take 30GB to properly use, aka Vista/7.

 

[Dngrsone]

As with any tool, everyone has their personal preferences.

Part of that is due to personal knowledge-- if you don't know what each bell and whistle is for then having them is useless, if not downright counterproductive.

Part is due to the tasks at hand-- if all you need the machine for is surfing the internet and watching lolcat videos, then having the ability to rapidly crunch database numbers or access three and a half terabytes of storage is not really necessary nor missed.

If you write programs or web sites, then having access to a mulitude of platforms or browsers is a very necessary thing and so you might need 8GB of RAM and the ability to run a few virtual machines at the same time.

Part is due to the insatiable need for some people to feel superior to others-- [decorum prevents me from typing what I really want to illustrate, but I'm sure that a judicious amount of imagination can fill in the details here]: "I spent more money, therefore it's better"; "I can hack your dead badger"; "I'm smart enough to use this system".

My point is that this argument accomplishes very little other than to allow several egos to bump against each other with lackluster results.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

Where did I say it was an advantage to "struggle" with it? your putting words in my mouth. If you have to think it might not be so obvious, but is no more of a struggle.
I would always much prefer an OS that takes a piece of thought than one that a 2 year old retard could pick up and use. That and one that does not take 30GB to properly use, aka Vista/7.

Wow 30 GB? Why that much lol?

 

[spynoodle]

Where did I say it was an advantage to "struggle" with it? your putting words in my mouth. If you have to think it might not be so obvious, but is no more of a struggle.
I would always much prefer an OS that takes a piece of thought than one that a 2 year old retard could pick up and use. That and one that does not take 30GB to properly use, aka Vista/7.

Okay, I see what you mean. Everyone has their own personal preference when it comes to interface.

 

[wolfeking]

Okay, I see what you mean. Everyone has their own personal preference when it comes to interface.

exactly. Despite what may be underneath, I would much rather use 2000 as it is less bloated. But that does not mean for everyone it is better.

Wow 30 GB? Why that much lol?

Because not everyone can stay below 16GB of data and programs and such. On my D630, just running windows 7_64 bit, Chrome, the Nvidia drivers, real temp, and FAH I am running 13.9GB. If you installed 2 games,then your already over 30GB, so yea.

 

[novicegeek]

I agree in one respect. When you've been used to XP (and it has been our friend for a while), Windows 7 has a very different interface from XP (as well as other previous versions). I think it's just a matter of getting used to something new. You have to give it time. You'll eventually adjust. Then they'll come out with a new version and you'll hate it just as much (lol).

 

[tech savvy]

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.

Well, that is true, in hardware. Software may be a different story though.

 

[wolfeking]

looks at the 6 series recall and netburst. Sure it works for hardware.

 

[tech savvy]

looks at the 6 series recall and netburst. Sure it works for hardware.

That's it, just that, two things?

Dude, I swear that you was going to come back with something more then that.

Your previous statement makes no sense. Old technology is superier to new technology?

What's the point in new technology, when supposedly older technology is better?

 

[LVhometoday]

Hi,
Is their a way to go back to xp windows and outlook express from W-7?
I've had this W-7 abput 4 months and I've had more problems then I had
with xp for 8 years.Maybe I'm wrong but I'm convinced it not moving ahead.
I'd like some comments on this.

Microsoft is going to stop supporting XP soon, so learning to use W7 is probably a good idea, especially if your work involves computers. Windows 7 Quick Steps is the book I used to learn, it is available from Amazon. If you really want XP back, you can still buy copies at ebay, or you could use the XP install CD that came with your computer.

 

[Dngrsone]

That's it, just that, two things?

Dude, I swear that you was going to come back with something more then that.

Your previous statement makes no sense. Old technology is superier to new technology?

What's the point in new technology, when supposedly older technology is better?

New technology is not always better. There's a reason why the U2 is still flying, for instance....

 

[wolfeking]

That's it, just that, two things?

Its all that comes to mind, but I your argument is that new tech is better. It is not always better.

Your previous statement makes no sense. Old technology is superier to new technology?

What's the point in new technology, when supposedly older technology is better?

no, not superior, but in some cases, well most cases will do equally as well. New OSs and New Tech is useless in 99% of cases. Games and CAD is all I see would benefit from say a SB processor over a C2Q or 1366 i7. Even then your benefit is little.

Lets stop diverging here. The thread is about windows 7, not hardware. And I am not really prepared to argue hardware. Its useless.

 

[tech savvy]

Its all that comes to mind, but I your argument is that new tech is better. It is not always better.


no, not superior, but in some cases, well most cases will do equally as well. New OSs and New Tech is useless in 99% of cases. Games and CAD is all I see would benefit from say a SB processor over a C2Q or 1366 i7. Even then your benefit is little.

Lets stop diverging here. The thread is about windows 7, not hardware. And I am not really prepared to argue hardware. Its useless.

Agreed,nuff said, lets move on. No hard feelings.

But I do agree with some. My build now, will hold me off for awhile, so no need to upgrade. Wait 5 years are so, till its worth the upgrade.

 

[DMGrier]

I personally think hardware only matters about 60%, the other 40% is the OS. Example being if I was to game I would use Windows, If I was to do music production I would use OSX and for everything else Ubuntu (opinion). Each OS can do something while using less powerful hardware then the other OS.

 

[wolfeking]

No hard feelings.

thanks.

And DM, agreed. Hardware can only do so much. and an OS can only do so much to help. Everything has a use.

 

[claptonman]

I see where STARS is coming from, but XP and a computer from 15 years ago is not enough for everyone. Not even considering gamers, there are plenty of people who use photoshop, CAD, and video editing that XP and old computers are not enough and require more powerful hardware and OSs that use more than 3.25GB of RAM. And you've said before that if a program uses more than 4GB of RAM, its coded badly. But really, if you (I'm talking to STARS) can make a 3D modeling program that uses less than 4GB of RAM for intense designs and still performs flawlessly, you'd be a millionaire. Yes, you can code programs on your computer and make money, but others make money on art and video editing, which again, require more juice.

I think $600 every 5 years for upgrades/a new computer is completely reasonable for someone who needs the specs.

 

[Hyper-Threaded]

If only 64bit winXP worked good...

I tryed it on my computer and trying to even get sound to work, games, ect, was impossible.

 

[spirit]

If only 64bit winXP worked good...

I tryed it on my computer and trying to even get sound to work, games, ect, was impossible.

Wow, XP Pro x64. That brings back memories. It was actually based on Server 2003 x64 IIRC, so it wasn't really Windows XP and I remember that software installed OK 9 times out of 10, but finding drivers was a real pain. As it was actually Windows 2003 with a pretty UI, it was never updated to SP3, so any software which required XP SP3 to run usually would not work on XPx64, as the latest service pack for XPx64 was SP2 (there were some exceptions and ways around the problem).

I had XPx64 for a little while, it was OK.

 

[S.T.A.R.S.]

I see where STARS is coming from, but XP and a computer from 15 years ago is not enough for everyone. Not even considering gamers, there are plenty of people who use photoshop, CAD, and video editing that XP and old computers are not enough and require more powerful hardware and OSs that use more than 3.25GB of RAM. And you've said before that if a program uses more than 4GB of RAM, its coded badly. But really, if you (I'm talking to STARS) can make a 3D modeling program that uses less than 4GB of RAM for intense designs and still performs flawlessly, you'd be a millionaire. Yes, you can code programs on your computer and make money, but others make money on art and video editing, which again, require more juice.

I think $600 every 5 years for upgrades/a new computer is completely reasonable for someone who needs the specs.

I see plenty of people having so damn strong hardware and guess what...all they use that computer for are things like youtube,facebook and so on...
And I am pretty sure that things like facebook do not need 6 GB of RAM memory,2 GB of video memory,quad core processors and so on lol...
And me on so old PC do a lot more and accomplish a lot more than they do.
I will never understand why people need so STRONG hardware for things like facebook lol...

If I tell them that I will give them 15 years old PC to use it for facebook,they would always say:"No no no I do not want that peace of garbage."

If I just leave the new case,but inside put my 15 years old hardware,I bet they would not see a difference while surfing the facebook,youtube,twitter blablabla hahaha!

I wonder how they would react once I tell them they are actually using 15 years old PC