Need an OS for my pc!! !!

Page 3 of 5 [ 79 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

27 Mar 2011, 8:12 am

The claim that Windows 7 is not faster than Vista is completely without merit and in fact this is one of the primary selling points of 7 and should be obvious to *most* users, there's an exception to every rule. We've been through this before in these forums, but one thing I've noticed about computer people is they tend to get opinionated to the point where they ignore empirical evidence and rational debate. This is one of the reasons engineers don't tend to run companies or have political careers and it's a shame.

Last edited by MyFutureSelfnMe on 27 Mar 2011, 8:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

27 Mar 2011, 8:14 am

Asp-Z wrote:

As I said before, I have a computer with lower specs than the OP (with more RAM, though, and I suggest the OP upgrades the RAM too) and it runs Windows 7 Ultimate fine, and that's with anti-virus and firewall in the background. It also has a 40GB hard drive, which makes no difference to the performance unless the computer runs out of RAM and needs to use virtual memory.

Yes, but the problem is that your perception of fine is subjective. You might have a very low criteria for satisfaction.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

27 Mar 2011, 8:16 am

Fuzzy wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Yes, but the problem is that your perception of fine is subjective. You might have a very low criteria for satisfaction.

I think it's more likely there's an issue with the installation of 7 for those who are complaining about it. Performancewise it should tend to fall somewhere between Ubuntu 9.10 and 10.04, except disk access which is clearly faster in Ubuntu or any Linux. The person/people complaining about 7 may have taken the 'upgrade disk' path.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

27 Mar 2011, 8:52 am

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:

Fuzzy wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Yes, but the problem is that your perception of fine is subjective. You might have a very low criteria for satisfaction.

Exactly. Windows installs are very temperamental at the best of times, but I have a clean install.

And my definition of fine is high. I keep all my computers well maintained to keep performance up, and when my MacBook (which serves as my main machine) slows down even a tiny bit, I'm always on top of it. I'm the kind of guy who monitors every little process going through my systems. I do not have low standards when it comes to good performance.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

27 Mar 2011, 9:37 am

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:

Fuzzy wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Yes, but the problem is that your perception of fine is subjective. You might have a very low criteria for satisfaction.

Orwell? No, he purchased a laptop. My experience is very very limited, a few minutes on my brothers new laptop, and while I was very stymied by everything being roundabout (I had to rename 50 files), performance wise it seemed fine.

What really bugged me however was the windows partitioner in vista. You really have to drill down menus to get to it, and then its hardly a friendly experience compared to parted in linux.

I agree that the upgrade path for any OS is a poor way to do things. Start fresh always.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Mar 2011, 3:22 pm

superboyian wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Orwell wrote:

JoeSchmukapop wrote:

Does windows 7 really need a super powered computer?

Yes. It is not any faster than Vista. In particular, Windows 7 will always run like absolute sh** unless you have discrete graphics.

Not true. Windows 7 just turns off the flashy animations and effects if you don't have a good graphics card. It won't harm performance.

That's true but it can still run pretty slow especially if the OP has 40GB of hard drive unless the OP decides to switch to classic mode then it should be no problem.

Nope. Even on classic mode, 7 was painfully slow on my old laptop. It runs fine on my new one, but that's a quad-core beast with a high-end graphics card.

Quote:

"MyFutureSelfInMe"]The claim that Windows 7 is not faster than Vista is completely without merit and in fact this is one of the primary selling points of 7 and should be obvious to *most* users, there's an exception to every rule. We've been through this before in these forums, but one thing I've noticed about computer people is they tend to get opinionated to the point where they ignore empirical evidence and rational debate. This is one of the reasons engineers don't tend to run companies or have political careers and it's a shame.

No, Win7 really was not a significant performance increase over Vista at all. I ran both on my older laptop at various times (clean installs for both), and they were indistinguishable (and terrible) in performance. I recall seeing benchmarks that didn't find any significant difference between Vista and 7.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

MCalavera
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,442

27 Mar 2011, 4:27 pm

MyFutureSelfnMe wrote:

I always thought Windows 7 was basically Vista but without its glitches and bugs.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

27 Mar 2011, 7:41 pm

MCalavera wrote:

I always thought Windows 7 was basically Vista but without its glitches and bugs.

As far as I am able to tell, it's Windows Vista with a new taskbar and Aero Snap.

It is built on the same underlying architecture as Vista. It's somewhat unrealistic to expect it to be drastically different in any respect.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

bigbadbeast2007
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 268

27 Mar 2011, 8:14 pm

Orwell wrote:

MCalavera wrote:

I always thought Windows 7 was basically Vista but without its glitches and bugs.

it's vista with a GIANT service pack.

MyFutureSelfnMe
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Feb 2010
Age: 47
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,385

27 Mar 2011, 10:03 pm

Quote:

Yeah you posted a link to that benchmark here once and I questioned it then. On a high end PC there may not be a huge difference (PC world reports 10-20% depending on what you're doing), but Vista is effectively useless on a low end machine; 7 is at least use-ful. With a gig or less of system memory the difference reaches orders of magnitude. I still acknowledge Linux is ahead of the curve on performance and MS may choose to rest on its laurels after praise re: 7

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

28 Mar 2011, 11:42 am

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

I really think Windows 7 might be too much for this system if you want it too run without slowing down. Also consider what you plan to use the computer for.

I have a computer with lower specs than this one running Windows 7 Ultimate just fine.

I'd like to know your definition of "just fine".

As in, it lets me use Office, check my e-mails, and browse the net at a perfectly reasonable speed. Obviously you can't expect to do anything crazy on old hardware, but for your basic computing needs, it's fine.

You can do that on anything, and certainly don't need Windows 7.

Last edited by Biokinetica on 28 Mar 2011, 12:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Mar 2011, 12:07 pm

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

I really think Windows 7 might be too much for this system if you want it too run without slowing down. Also consider what you plan to use the computer for.

I have a computer with lower specs than this one running Windows 7 Ultimate just fine.

I'd like to know your definition of "just fine".

You can do that on anything, and certainly don't need Windows 7.

By that logic, you don't need a computer at all, just use your phone :roll:

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

28 Mar 2011, 12:24 pm

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

I really think Windows 7 might be too much for this system if you want it too run without slowing down. Also consider what you plan to use the computer for.

I have a computer with lower specs than this one running Windows 7 Ultimate just fine.

I'd like to know your definition of "just fine".

You can do that on anything, and certainly don't need Windows 7.

By that logic, you don't need a computer at all, just use your phone :roll:

Exactly; you see why you're not helping?

I think there is a fundamental question that still hasn't been thoroughly investigated: Does the OS really have to be Windows 7, or windows at all?

After that's taken care of, this should be the outline for the sequence of decisions.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Mar 2011, 12:26 pm

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

Asp-Z wrote:

Biokinetica wrote:

I really think Windows 7 might be too much for this system if you want it too run without slowing down. Also consider what you plan to use the computer for.

I have a computer with lower specs than this one running Windows 7 Ultimate just fine.

I'd like to know your definition of "just fine".

You can do that on anything, and certainly don't need Windows 7.

By that logic, you don't need a computer at all, just use your phone :roll:

Exactly; you see why you're not helping?

Eh? You're making no sense.

Point is this: if you're gonna get Windows, you might as well get the latest version. If you do a clean install, it runs fine on the OP's hardware as long as the RAM is upgraded. If you say stupid thinks like "well there's no point getting Windows 7 if you just want to use the internet", then you can get rid of the computer altogether, so that's a fallacy.

Biokinetica
Toucan
Toucan

Joined: 8 Dec 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 266
Location: Vulcan

28 Mar 2011, 12:41 pm

Makes perfect sense so long as you know what you, yourself are saying. The first problem is your synonymization of "windows" with "computer". That's obvious, so working off your scaffolding, that leads us to the logic you're using, clearly stated by yourself: no windows -> no computer. That's stupidity.

You act like Windows 7 is the only option available. The tasks you're talking about can be accomplished by any platform, and most of them are better at it than Windows. Linux is the 400-pound gorilla in the room on that front, and there are dozens of distributions to choose from. And the main point of using any Linux distribution is that they're all less resource intensive than Windows. I really don't think you should be talking about "logical fallacies", because you clearly don't know what they look like.

Asp-Z
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Dec 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,018

28 Mar 2011, 12:45 pm

Biokinetica wrote:

I never said no Windows = no computer, I said that if you're saying you don't need a better version of Windows for basic computing, then you can say anything.

Of course the OP could install Linux, but since s/he had to make this thread, it's fair to assume s/he isn't very computer literate (no offense intended), so it makes more sense for the OP to install Windows rather than learning a whole new OS just to use this computer.

Page 3 of 5 [ 79 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Need an OS for my pc!! !! Post Reply New Topic

Need an OS for my pc!! !!