Ahh Windows 7

[newls1]

your pc is blazing fast with vista? im going to call bs on that.

windows 7 is a sweet new OS. its faster than XP was and uses LESS memory. can you say win?

I have to call you out on this. Although Win7 does seem to be a better OS then Vista EVER WAS, Win7 still consumes more RAM then XP would ever demand. Now if you said Win7 uses less ram then Vista, sure......That would be mostly true, but clearly XP uses ~115mb at a desktop screen with NOTHING in the background, Win7 32 will use ~550mb, and Win7 64 will use ~750mb........ Vista uses about 1.35gb at desktop (fucking crazy!) So please tell me where your pulling your info from?

[AI James]

your pc is blazing fast with vista? im going to call bs on that.

windows 7 is a sweet new OS. its faster than XP was and uses LESS memory. can you say win?

im on vista atm and mines blazing fast, you just cant have a computer thats a piece of shit.

[Hellbound Train]

Vista Ultimate 64 bit here with no problems and its blazing fast. I guess because of the phenom 9950 with 8 gigs of ddr2 dual channel 1066 with two 500gb sata drives in a raid zero configuration. AMD Overdrive is definitely a big help to.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Hellbound Train

[AI James]

Vista Ultimate 64 bit here with no problems and its blazing fast. I guess because of the phenom 9950 with 8 gigs of ddr2 dual channel 1066 with two 500gb sata drives in a raid zero configuration. AMD Overdrive is definitely a big help to.

lol pretty much my setup

[Soulman07]

I have to call you out on this. Although Win7 does seem to be a better OS then Vista EVER WAS, Win7 still consumes more RAM then XP would ever demand. Now if you said Win7 uses less ram then Vista, sure......That would be mostly true, but clearly XP uses ~115mb at a desktop screen with NOTHING in the background, Win7 32 will use ~550mb, and Win7 64 will use ~750mb........ Vista uses about 1.35gb at desktop (fucking crazy!) So please tell me where your pulling your info from?

True, very true, My Nlite copies of XP fully optimized for gaming (no networking bs and most of sp2 removed) used roughly 65mb at idle on windows XP. Vista uses more memory because it caches a ton of programs that are frequently used to prevent long start up times. Which is why you'll see it using X amount of memory at idle. It's always working in the background from what I've seen. I haven't switched to windows 7 just yet. An as far as vista goes I haven't ran into many problems once UAC and Defender was disabled. Chance are you'll never max out the 3-4GB of memory that comes standard with vista based PC's anyway. So it using a 1/3rd of it at idle really isn't that big of a deal.

I can't think of one problem I've had on ultimate.... Except for limited driver support... But that's a sony issue.

[newls1]

True, very true, My Nlite copies of XP fully optimized for gaming (no networking bs and most of sp2 removed) used roughly 65mb at idle on windows XP. Vista uses more memory because it caches a ton of programs that are frequently used to prevent long start up times. Which is why you'll see it using X amount of memory at idle. It's always working in the background from what I've seen. I haven't switched to windows 7 just yet. An as far as vista goes I haven't ran into many problems once UAC and Defender was disabled. Chance are you'll never max out the 3-4GB of memory that comes standard with vista based PC's anyway. So it using a 1/3rd of it at idle really isn't that big of a deal.

I can't think of one problem I've had on ultimate.... Except for limited driver support... But that's a sony issue.

yup, yup...... Vista and Win7's version of XP's "prefetch" is implemented alot different on Vista/Win7. Personally, I like it alot. It was nice with XP only consuming limited ram when nothing is working in the background, but HARDWARE and SOFTWARE has come a long ways since the XP days, and I personally think that the old way of "thinking" an OS was/is a bloated POS by checking ram consumtion on startup is a thing of the past. With the prices of memory at rock bottom value, why not run a 6gb (triple channel) or 8GB (dual channel) setups now-a-days. (of course if ocing to massive levels this would be a complete different story) So if your on vista and it is taking up 1.5GB's.....who the "F" cares. As soon as you hit the internet explorer/FirFox trash to cruse the netz, that damn program is loaded so damn fast, XP could only dream of it. XP in my "thinking" still plays a vital role for slim lined absolute gaming machines though. Like the person said above, his nlited version of XP is so stripped down, that for a gaming/internet rig ONLY, that plays a nice advantage if your looking to extract every last FPS out of every game!

[Stephen]

Well I have been running a legit windows 7 for about a month(NOT BETA... RTM) and it simply fucking rules. It runs like xp but with better functionality and with looks that are better than vista(IMO). After 8 months from release date I think it will be even BETTER when drivers get worked out and bugs terminated! Windows 7 rules

edit for no questions

And don't laugh at my cpu! I haven't over clocked it since I put win7 on here but it still runs awesome

product key saved for future use

[newls1]

LOL

[meade916]

im on vista atm and mines blazing fast, you just cant have a computer thats a piece of shit.

True, mine is blazingly fast on vista too, but then again, my rig isn't a POS.....im gonna use 7 when its finalized and ready for the public because it does look nice. I installed it on the computer i scored for David (when his went down) and it looks pretty sweet. Its just mine (on vista) works flawelessly so i dont see a big need to uninstall and completely reinstall my OS -

[jbondox]

have 7 on the home computer and vista at work... 7 is awesome.