Any reason to recommend Vista over Win7?

L

Lepard

Gawd
Joined
Jul 28, 2004
Messages
540
In what circumstance would you recommend Vista (SP2) over Win7?
The only thing I can think of is the classic "look".
What reasons, if any, would you have?
 
If someone already owns a Vista license, and is unable to purchase a Windows 7 license. Vista was nowhere near as bad as it was made out to be, but 7 is superior.
 
only if by 'vista', you mean server 2008 :p

win7 is the first ms os to pull me away from linux, so no
 
The only reason I can think of is to save money. If you already had a copy of Vista it is certainly useable, no need to rush out and get 7. I can't think of any other reason. If buying a new Windows OS, 7 is the only one to get imo.
 
If you have gobs of memory, I think Vista's superfetch is more aggressive which makes programs load a little faster. Other than that, Windows 7 is better in every way.
 
Well I can recommend it this way, if you already own Vista and have a high end computer and don't want to spend money on 7, don't, because you won't see any performance boost.
 
zaxour said:
If you have gobs of memory, I think Vista's superfetch is more aggressive which makes programs load a little faster. Other than that, Windows 7 is better in every way.
Click to expand...

Vista does have a more aggressive Superfetch, but that doesn't mean it'll open apps faster, only that it'll only use up the free RAM faster and grind the HDD a little harder, compared to 7. Once everything is loaded into RAM, they'll perform the same. The only reason they made the change was because of all the complaints about how Vista thrashed their disk. I guess they like to stare at the little activity LED.
 
zaxour said:
If you have gobs of memory, I think Vista's superfetch is more aggressive which makes programs load a little faster. Other than that, Windows 7 is better in every way.
Click to expand...

On vista, my PC is unusable for gaming for the first 10 minutes or so while the harddrive pre-loads everything at the start. If you were planning on turning on your PC for a quick game, might as well have lunch first after switching it on.

It's still the same for Win7, but seems to take less time. It only got playable after i upgraded to a Quad processor and a second harddrive.
 
How do you explain, then, I have an athlon x3 430 system with Vista installed as an HTPC and it opens firefox IMMEDIATELY when I click on the taskbar icon, vs Windows 7 takes about 2-3 seconds to open on my 3.2 GHz q6600. WD6401AALS and 8GB mem on my q6600 rig and Seagate 1.5 TB drive with 4 GB of ram on my x3 system. Wonder if there's some kind of tweak to make Win7's superfetch more aggressive?
 
zaxour said:
How do you explain, then, I have an athlon x3 430 system with Vista installed as an HTPC and it opens firefox IMMEDIATELY when I click on the taskbar icon, vs Windows 7 takes about 2-3 seconds to open on my 3.2 GHz q6600. WD6401AALS and 8GB mem on my q6600 rig and Seagate 1.5 TB drive with 4 GB of ram on my x3 system. Wonder if there's some kind of tweak to make Win7's superfetch more aggressive?
Click to expand...

The configuration differential of these two systems has the potential of being so vast that this comparison alone is not reliable as a basis for measuring the performance of Superfetch on Vista vs 7.
 
NoForgiveness said:
The configuration differential of these two systems has the potential of being so vast that this comparison alone is not reliable as a basis for measuring the performance of Superfetch on Vista vs 7.
Click to expand...

QFT.
 
The only reason is money. If you have a legit copy of Vista and don't want to purchase Win 7, then Vista is pretty decent on good hardware. If you have Vista and Win 7 sitting side by side, there is no question that Win 7 is the better choice. That being said, I had a quite decent experience with Vista. Seems like it got a bad rap because of early growing pains. But it turned out to be quite solid in the end.
 
I expect to be flamed heavily for this, but here's my take:

Windows 7 doesn't allow classic display of the control panel which I believe is a significant step backwards, the new interface they have designed is extremely convoluted and cumbersome and pretty much forces you to rely on Google searches to figure out how to set anything properly.

When people say that Windows 7 is superior I wish they would cite specific facts that bring them to this conclusion. The biggest change from a user's perspective is simply a slightly modified UI, which is irrelevant in my opinion. You will not need to give administrative privileges quite as often, but this was never a significant issue with Vista, and I believe the negative image regarding giving admin privileges is a testament to the success of Apple's negative advertising campaign more than anything else.

I believe the improved performance you may see in benchmarks are really just the result of different default settings for when services should run, etc. If you have mastered your Vista installation then you can change these things manually and see the same performance...although this is not a simple process because there are so many things poorly configured in the default Vista install. It took me at least 2 weeks of dedicated tweaking to get the performance and responsiveness of Vista on top of the line hardware to a level that was not irksome to me (Note: I am not suggesting everyone go "disable everything!", but there are a lot of things that should be disabled, for example you don't need to do a full virus scan of your hard drive every day as is the default...and there are so many other things like this that will hog your resources I couldn't list them)

I always find it funny that before 7, anyone who complained about poor responsiveness in Vista and suggested certain tweaks would be instantly shut down and told that it was perfect as it is...despite the ravingly poor public image that Vista had. Now that 7 has come out, people rave about the improved performance compared to Vista...haha!

On the whole I agree that 7 is a better choice simply because the default settings are tweaked better, if you can stomach the worse UI. However I do not agree with everyone that 7 is some amazingly awesome new OS. I think that the popularity of reviews are mostly due to people being so disappointed with Vista, that any slight (no matter how slight) improvement was wondrous news...there are so many people beholden to using Microsoft operating systems that people wanted a reason to justify the new version being good.
 
Last edited:
Stuh505 said:
I expect to be flamed heavily for this, but here's my take:

Windows 7 doesn't allow classic display of the control panel which I believe is a significant step backwards, the new interface they have designed is extremely convoluted and cumbersome and pretty much forces you to rely on Google searches to figure out how to set anything properly.

When people say that Windows 7 is superior I wish they would cite specific facts that bring them to this conclusion. The biggest change from a user's perspective is simply a slightly modified UI, which is irrelevant in my opinion. You will not need to give administrative privileges quite as often, but this was never a significant issue with Vista, and I believe the negative image regarding giving admin privileges is a testament to the success of Apple's negative advertising campaign more than anything else.

I believe the improved performance you may see in benchmarks are really just the result of different default settings for when services should run, etc. If you have mastered your Vista installation then you can change these things manually and see the same performance...although this is not a simple process because there are so many things poorly configured in the default Vista install. It took me at least 2 weeks of dedicated tweaking to get the performance and responsiveness of Vista on top of the line hardware to a level that was not irksome to me (Note: I am not suggesting everyone go "disable everything!", but there are a lot of things that should be disabled, for example you don't need to do a full virus scan of your hard drive every day as is the default...and there are so many other things like this that will hog your resources I couldn't list them)

I always find it funny that before 7, anyone who complained about poor responsiveness in Vista and suggested certain tweaks would be instantly shut down and told that it was perfect as it is...despite the ravingly poor public image that Vista had. Now that 7 has come out, people rave about the improved performance compared to Vista...haha!

On the whole I agree that 7 is a better choice simply because the default settings are tweaked better, if you can stomach the worse UI. However I do not agree with everyone that 7 is some amazingly awesome new OS. I think that the popularity of reviews are mostly due to people being so disappointed with Vista, that any slight (no matter how slight) improvement was wondrous news...there are so many people beholden to using Microsoft operating systems that people wanted a reason to justify the new version being good.
Click to expand...

Change control panel to use small icons... this is pretty much the classic view is it not? That's what I use and I have no problem finding anything...
 
Stuh505 said:
I expect to be flamed heavily for this, but here's my take :snip:
Click to expand...

Someone already mentioned classic view, but damn, that is just a nit pic...

As for performance, I can't say I have noticed people "raving" about how much better Windows 7 performs over Vista.

TBH I have noticed no difference in performance, perhaps for someone on an entry level PC there might be a difference, but I have had Vista and Windows 7 loaded on my modest laptop as well and I was impressed by the performance of BOTH operating systems.

I stopped tweaking years ago when I discoved XP ran better with the default settings as apposed to tweaking the shit out of it.

TBH I think Vista was purely a victim of bad press, I didn't upgrade to Vista for ages (I upgraded only about a month before SP2 came out) because of all the bad publicity, and was frankly shocked at how awesome it was, people compared it to ME, I say those people never used ME, Vista was a great OS.

Windows 7 is better, and I can't understand people who can't adapt to a new UI, especially when it is more efficient to adapt than to stick to your old and antiquated bullshit classic start menu, I especialy hate it when people think that everyone should use the classic start menu, guess what, the new start menu is good! try it out!

There is no good reason to recommend Vista over 7, 7 has a better UI, lots of cool new crap, and DX11
 
-If you prefer the older WMP interface, MS raped the shit out of the new one.

-Explorer shortcut system that is actually useful, ie does not scroll with the file tree.
 
Anybody who has Windows Vista already and is looking for a way to save money should stick with Vista.

If you're going to have to buy a new OS anyways, you might as well go with Windows 7.
 
Stuh505 said:
Windows 7 doesn't allow classic display of the control panel which I believe is a significant step backwards, the new interface they have designed is extremely convoluted and cumbersome and pretty much forces you to rely on Google searches to figure out how to set anything properly.
Click to expand...
Just search for whatever you want to do with Start Menu search. If you want to change TCP/IP settings, type "tcp". If you want to change mouse sensitivity, type "mouse". And so on and so forth.

I honestly cannot recall the last time I actually opened the control panel. I hit the Windows key, I type in what I want to do, I launch the appropriate control panel applet.
 
Yep, I completely disabled all of my desktop icons and shortcuts on Win7. I am into typing in the name of the app I need real quick and boom it's there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top