ZenfoldorVGI said:
Unless you want to play games, in which case you have to do so without DX10 or DX11(some games do, and will require these in the future). If you are looking for a basic OS to run on a computer, XP is cheaper since you probably already own it, but it doesn't give you much better performance than Win7, and it also lacks many security features, and soon the support will drop for it. For 49.99 you can upgrade to a much better OS. If you don't care about features though, just get a free OS off the internet, and see how that works out for ya. Sounds to me like a lot of people are just trying to find an excuse not to upgrade, like they do with ever new OS, console, or whatnot. Windows 7 is an Xbox 360. If you aren't interested in a feature rich enviroment, improved graphics, or any other improvements, just go download a NES emulator for free. Doesn't hurt that the 360 is 49.99 for a limited time though.
...no, XP is not BETTER than Windows 7. It might be cheaper, and easier to get(assuming you already own it), but calling it better is like saying the PS1 is better than the PS3. The PS3 can play every game the PS1 can with BC, and it also plays, ya know, PS3 games, and has a shitload more modern features, support, and games. It's like that. Win7 can do everything XP can do, and better, without being slower, and has a shitload of modern features that XP doesn't nor ever shall offer. Gamers will own Windows 7. If you just use your computer as a netbook, might as well have the blackberry OS for all that matters. |
Honestly I probably would switch over to Ubuntu, but unfortunetly my computer has to support game play due to my wife wanting to play MP games with me. It's a no option. So I will be using Windows. I'm also not happy about Wine game support, it's relativly haphhazard. I also don't believe I should be paying a regular fee(Cedega) for the privilage to buy a game and to play on a Linux distro.
As for the other use I don't need windows, I do need more memory effiency. In my worst cases I typicly have about 12 active applications running(that's worst not average). When I tried it a test version Vista I pretty much didn't like the performance I was getting. So I went back to XP. If Win7 handles the memory usage better I would be more than willing to look at it. So far it's CPU usage is better than Vista wich is a plus.
... to follow up with your last comment. I believe better is equivlent to the values of an individual.
Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.
