| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 121167 | 2011-10-14 06:52:00 | Windows XP Sp3 versus Windows 7 | mzee (3324) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1237522 | 2011-10-17 18:48:00 | My ex has a laptop running Vista. In four years it has never given trouble, probably because she doesn't fiddle with it. :clap I TOLD all of you Vista wasn't bad! :D |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1237523 | 2011-10-17 19:16:00 | XP was good in its day but I would not go back to it unless I had a low spec machine. I was curious about the system requirements for XP which I found here (support.microsoft.com). Computers must have run on the smell of an oily rag in the days of XP. |
Bobh (5192) | ||
| 1237524 | 2011-10-17 19:32:00 | I was curious about the system requirements for XP which I found here (support.microsoft.com). And here's (support.microsoft.com) the requirements for Windows 98 (I couldn't find 95 :p). They must have been hand cranked back then :lol: |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1237525 | 2011-10-17 21:04:00 | Windows 7 hands down :D Hands - or just thumbs? :D |
R2x1 (4628) | ||
| 1237526 | 2011-10-17 21:27:00 | Hands - or just thumbs? :D :thumbs: For Win7 I think. |
Bobh (5192) | ||
| 1237527 | 2011-10-17 23:42:00 | Myself I go; Win7 Vista = XP 98 me 95 3.11 DOS 6.22 Vista looks and feels nicer than XP but is a little more annoying unless you disable UAC which then kills it's security advantage. All the performance issues were pretty much sorted a long while back and it always worked well for me. With the pros and cons I rate them about the same with XP being simpler and more straightforward and vista being more modern. I think Vista may eventually have gained some ground if 7 hadn't followed it so closely and basically made it pointless. Like wise I rate ME above 95 because it has USB support whereas only the latest versions of 95 have any USB support and even then it's dodgy. ME was a dog, but for some it managed to work quite well and had many of the features that ended up in XP, the only problem I had with it was stability, would crash at least once every 3 days even if you just let it idle that long. I think people have forgotten just how old 95 is and how little you could do with it today. |
dugimodo (138) | ||
| 1237528 | 2011-10-18 00:47:00 | My ex has a laptop running Vista. In four years it has never given trouble, probably because she doesn't fiddle with it And thats the also the reason XP got a bad rep. People fiddling, crapulating with bogus software & 'system tuners' XP can (& does) run reliably for years,ON RELIABLE HARDWARE, when people dont fiddle (or install hardware with bloated bundled software ...HP & Logitech take note...) Win7 is really Vista with a haircut. I doubt they completely re-wrote it. Still seems pretty much the same behind the new menus & GUI's. Vista got its bad rep from pre SP1 (when it had alot of issues) & being sold on grossly under-specced machines I still prefer XP , far easier to work on. Id still be running Win95 it it had USB & driver support. :badpc: |
1101 (13337) | ||
| 1237529 | 2011-10-18 01:35:00 | I didnt know XP had a bad rep? I have a laptop here with vista, piece of crap, runs fine with XP or win7 on it but for some reason vista just chuggs Would love to see a i7 running 95 on a SSD... |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1237530 | 2011-10-18 01:46:00 | Would love to see a i7 running 95 on a SSD... There's some (fixable) issues with Windows 95 running on a processor faster than 400MHz :lol: |
pcuser42 (130) | ||
| 1237531 | 2011-10-18 01:51:00 | There's some (fixable) issues with Windows 95 running on a processor faster than 400MHz :lol: What about DOS then? |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 | |||||