Win7 is the future now. BEL7EVE

[.jayderyu]

Xoj said:

Naraku_Diabolos said:

Xoj said:

ugh no.

it vista make over.
installed on a celeron 2.53ghz 1.2gb ram with a nvidia fx 5500.
it ran slow and used most of my ram. leaving with only 100mb of boot.

had problems with AC 97 drivers (doesn't work well with 5.1 windows 7).

and Aero still clunky as ever.

while it a 10% improvement over vista.

i can run ubuntu with all the effects and never go down 50fps.

i am using ibm lotus symphony for office, netbeans for school proyects, banshee for music, firefox 3.5 as a power.

ps3 media server for streaming and even some windows applications with whine, i don't think i will have to return to windows in a while.

for gaming machine i think the desktop i built still faster in xp DX9 and steam.

 

That's because your specifications are not all that great. Your processor is fine, but the RAM could be higher and a better graphics card is needed. Try this:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/upgrade-advisor.aspx

i did, it even said i could run aero,  RC1 was slow =(, actually what really bug me it's sound didn't work well.

1256mb of ram it's not enough for windows 7/vista.

it ran well on the notebook with the core 2 duo, but well thats muscle.

but ubuntu flies in both machines, i am thinking of getting rid of vista in the notebook too.

OK so from a minimalist perspect of effency here is what I'm getting

 

Xoj is saying that Win7 is not as memory effecient as WinXP, but pretty descent with using CPU performance.

Zen is saying that MEM and CPU usage is better than Vista and is praising the features putting it on a higher platform than XP.

 

In both cases sounds like XP is a better solution if your not looking for feature rich enviroment. Is that about right?