Vista was meant to be a completely new OS
Actually it isn't
It is still the same core but new features. Windows 7 potentially might become what Vista was meant to be, a completely new OS.
Performance wise, Vista is a downgrade not an upgrade.
Feature wise, Vista is en par with XP when it comes to the usefull features beside DX10 which MS just does not want to have outside of Vista. Lets see how much MS likes the fact that CG 2.0 supports geometry shaders as well
And you are actually seriously wrong.
Microsoft ALWAYS advertised Vista as the new Windows that will be faster than XP. Whenever this point was mentioned they clearly stated that Vista will be faster.
And 1.5 to 2 times slower on high end machines means not faster to me but a step towards stone age. (C2D E6600 2x3Ghz, 8800GTS SC, 2GB RAM, Rating 5.8)
Vista SP1, meant to solve some of this problems, didn't even adress them. So Vistas next hope is SP2 due to somewhen in the further future (end 2008 spring 2009, who knows)
MS did a seriously wrong decision when they decided to cut all the featuers that made Vista outstanding just to throw it half baked on the market.
No WinFS, still bound to that trashi stone age API etc. Even the so called new great driver model is not of much use as WHQL still cause straight bluescreens in different cases. So much to the "new better" world lol.
Vista to me is a beta for Windows 7 but I don't consider it a serious OS. Its the 2007 reincarnation of Windows ME. Useless, instable, causing a lot of problems and definitely not worth the money a license would cost.
I do not even have it installed although I've 3 free licenses simply because that piece of shit does not even correctly recognize my broadcom onboard LAN nor my wireless pci card. Thats no OS, thats a collection of smaller and larger problems and new ways to annoy users!
Actually it isn't
It is still the same core but new features. Windows 7 potentially might become what Vista was meant to be, a completely new OS.
Performance wise, Vista is a downgrade not an upgrade.
Feature wise, Vista is en par with XP when it comes to the usefull features beside DX10 which MS just does not want to have outside of Vista. Lets see how much MS likes the fact that CG 2.0 supports geometry shaders as well
And you are actually seriously wrong.
Microsoft ALWAYS advertised Vista as the new Windows that will be faster than XP. Whenever this point was mentioned they clearly stated that Vista will be faster.
And 1.5 to 2 times slower on high end machines means not faster to me but a step towards stone age. (C2D E6600 2x3Ghz, 8800GTS SC, 2GB RAM, Rating 5.8)
Vista SP1, meant to solve some of this problems, didn't even adress them. So Vistas next hope is SP2 due to somewhen in the further future (end 2008 spring 2009, who knows)
MS did a seriously wrong decision when they decided to cut all the featuers that made Vista outstanding just to throw it half baked on the market.
No WinFS, still bound to that trashi stone age API etc. Even the so called new great driver model is not of much use as WHQL still cause straight bluescreens in different cases. So much to the "new better" world lol.
Vista to me is a beta for Windows 7 but I don't consider it a serious OS. Its the 2007 reincarnation of Windows ME. Useless, instable, causing a lot of problems and definitely not worth the money a license would cost.
I do not even have it installed although I've 3 free licenses simply because that piece of shit does not even correctly recognize my broadcom onboard LAN nor my wireless pci card. Thats no OS, thats a collection of smaller and larger problems and new ways to annoy users!