XP vs Vista vs Windows 7 Which operating system to go for?

[olson]

Support has officially ended from Microsoft for all versions of Windows XP (including x64 Edition). I would expect software developers to drop support for any Windows XP operating system in the next generation of software if they haven't already. Windows Vista is fully capable but Windows 7 would be ideal if there's no rush. Also if you buy Vista now most places have an offer for a free upgrade to Windows 7.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 both use DirectX for the default interface which slows down any OpenGL application (e.g. Max). Disabling the Aero interface will restore some performance lost by the DirectX interface. In theory anything that runs in Vista will run in Windows 7 because the kernel and frameworks are the same. Cheers!

[ThomasTheToolman]

Is there actually a hugh or even any performance differences between Windows XP 64bit and Windows 7 64bit when using Maya? I am to buy myself Windows 7 64bit in the future, still working with XP 64bit. I am really happy with the XP 64bit OS. What are the benefits when switching to Windows 7 64bit? Will the daily workflow with new OS and other applications be faster?

[olson]

Is there actually a hugh or even any performance differences between Windows XP 64bit and Windows 7 64bit when using Maya? I am to buy myself Windows 7 64bit in the future, still working with XP 64bit. I am really happy with the XP 64bit OS. What are the benefits when switching to Windows 7 64bit? Will the daily workflow with new OS and other applications be faster?

Virtually no change in rendering performance and some loss of OpenGL view performance if Aero is left enabled. Nothing wrong with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition if you already have it and your software works with it but it would be a waste to buy it now when there are options that still have support. Cheers!

[tuna]

some loss of OpenGL view performance if Aero is left enabled

The performance loss is negligible (~.5 fps).

[ThomasTheToolman]

Virtually no change in rendering performance and some loss of OpenGL view performance if Aero is left enabled. Nothing wrong with Windows XP Professional x64 Edition if you already have it and your software works with it but it would be a waste to buy it now when there are options that still have support. Cheers!


Ohh, it´s good to know that I don´t need to switch to a other OS.
Windows XP x64 SP2 works also pretty well with recent applications.
I can assemble all my perceptions in a rush with the apps I use nowadays. So I don´t need to upgrade my other applications like Max, PS, ect.

There is actually no real reason to switch also not when it won´t be supported anymore.
Further updates for Windows XP x64 SP2 I don´t need neither, because SP2 fixed all issues. I would say XP 64bit SP2 is the most stable and best OS what microsoft ever programmed. I tryed Windows 7 x64, purchased Vista Ultimate x64, but installing the newer OS toke me longer and needed a lot diskspace. The workflow wasn´t really faster, quite the opposite.

I really appreciate all your suggestions, olson.


Thanks for coming out!

[salmonmoose]

Support has officially ended from Microsoft for all versions of Windows XP (including x64 Edition). I would expect software developers to drop support for any Windows XP operating system in the next generation of software if they haven't already.

Thanks largely to the rise of the Netbooks, and it's inclusion in Windows7 XP is now supported until 2014.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Thanks largely to the rise of the Netbooks, and it's inclusion in Windows7 XP is now supported until 2014.

Do you know if XP 64bit is also supported by microsoft till 2014?
I guess software developers will support Windows XP x64 users as well in the future, hopefully...

Doesn´t Windows 7 has a engine implemented that will support XP applications, I think it called virtual XP modus or so? Software developers could then still develope forward for XP environment. Isn´t it?

[Szos]

While I love XP, at this stage in the game there is absolutely no good reason not to go with Win7 since, let's face it, it is the future.

[vlad]

...
Windows Vista and Windows 7 both use DirectX for the default interface which slows down any OpenGL application (e.g. Max)...!

Max has been on DX since the last 3 or 4 versions. But it's only stable in DX9 so far. You'll benefit from OGL only if you work more often with high polycounts in wireframe mode.

[salmonmoose]

Do you know if XP 64bit is also supported by microsoft till 2014?
I guess software developers will support Windows XP x64 users as well in the future, hopefully...

Doesn´t Windows 7 has a engine implemented that will support XP applications, I think it called virtual XP modus or so? Software developers could then still develope forward for XP environment. Isn´t it?

I'm not sure XP64 has ever really been supported - it always seemed a bit like a stop-gap measure.

The more business like versions of Windows 7 allow you to run a virtual copy of XP, it's a pretty seamless experience, putting icons in your start menu and everything, although you still have to wait for XP to boot - I wouldn't want to use 3D software through it though.

[olson]

Max has been on DX since the last 3 or 4 versions. But it's only stable in DX9 so far. You'll benefit from OGL only if you work more often with high polycounts in wireframe mode.

My bad, I'm not a Max user and figured it was like most other 3D applications. At least that's the case with Maya, Houdini, and other OpenGL applications.

http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_9/

That's where I originally read about the cause of OpenGL performance loss. Cheers!

[ThomasTheToolman]

I wouldn't want to use 3D software through it though.

I wouldn´t either.
Just thought about software developers.
If they programming for XP environment ahead XP users don´t need to upgrade to Windows 7. I could use my XP 64 OS as long as software developers support XP.

For example. Now I use 3DS v9 64bit and XP 64. Just imagine I will upgrade in the next years to a newer version of 3DS. It wouldn´t be nice if Autodesk then doesn´t support XP 64 anymore, because they only will support Win 7. I really would like to stay with XP 64 and many more people as well. But if software developers like they at Autodesk or others doesn´t programming anymore for xp 64, instead just for Win 7, I would be forced upgrading to Win 7 or I have to stay with the apps I have right now.

I mean, I get everthing done with the Setup I have now and I don´t see a really need to upgrade anything, even not Win 64, neither 3DS 9.

I think it is really disgusting from microsoft how they treat there customers. The first 1-2 years they care much, but as soon as a new OS has to be sold, they kick old customers in the ass. What a topsy-turvy world!

[tuna]

I think it is really disgusting from microsoft how they treat there customers. The first 1-2 years they care much, but as soon as a new OS has to be sold, they kick old customers in the ass. What a topsy-turvy world!

Microsoft extending support for XP until 2014 means they will have supported that OS for 13 years!

XP64 was basically a stop-gap for a decent 64bit workstation OS release badly needed throughout all industries that needed it. It is based off Server 2003, and is still supported, although they will not release any service packs for them as of 2008. That means it was fully supported for 5 years.

XP is now almost 9 years old and Windows 7 is proving to be a very good release to upgrade to if you're coming from XP especially. There are thousands of improvements.

[ThE_JacO]

I wouldn´t either.
Just thought about software developers.
If they programming for XP environment ahead XP users don´t need to upgrade to Windows 7. I could use my XP 64 OS as long as software developers support XP.
XP was old already when it came out, and Vista, I don't care what people say, is architecturally and technologically an abortion that was downfeatured, years late, and largely a dud.

OS, like software, change and get better, offer more possibilities, and implement new technologies that can involve anything from memory management to disk access (the former win7 does a lot about, the latter MS remains stuck in the stone age).
Win7, while still antiquated and desktop/office centric in many regards, is a much better OS than vista and a good deal more modern than anything since NT4. Possibly the firs MS OS really worth upgrading to since win2k.

You're honestly simplifying the reach and impact of an OS as a host, and the development process of apps such as what we use.
You should be happy XP might finally not be the target platform for developers anymore. It's often as fun and convenient as developing with your feet firmly nailed to a large block of concrete that's just been thrown overboard from the titanic the moment after the impact.
And the sooner software and users move away from broken relic OS', the sooner MS (and their various technology teams) can stop making their OS and frameworks even crappier than they are for the sake of retrocompatibility.

I think it is really disgusting from microsoft how they treat there customers. The first 1-2 years they care much, but as soon as a new OS has to be sold, they kick old customers in the ass. What a topsy-turvy world!
You might never have worked with other Operating Systems in the same price range then.
Far from me wanting to defend MS, but the lasting value of their OS and how long they supported their operating systems and the backward/forward paths far surpasses anything any other vendor ever did.
Their insistence on retrocompatibility and long term support is actually one of the chief reasons of why their OS roadmap has been stalled and slow for so long.

For this one time, win7, they are actually making the first decent move in a decade, and people complain? Move on! :)

[ThomasTheToolman]

Microsoft extending support for XP until 2014 means they will have supported that OS for 13 years!

Yes, that is a long run. But it doesn´t change the fact that I will get forced to upgrade someday.

XP is now almost 9 years old and Windows 7 is proving to be a very good release to upgrade to if you're coming from XP especially. There are thousands of improvements.

What are those improvements? As I tried Win 7, I didn´t recognized any improvement. More the other side, I think it is based on Windows Vista and buying Vista was a waste of money for me.

Win 7 still needs a lot of HDD Space, allmost thrice as much as Win XP 64.
It uses for it self over 800MB RAM, more than thrice as much as Win XP 64.
2 times longer to install Win 7 as for Win XP 64. And what do I get after all? Nothing more than a little modified Vista. Thanks for so much improvement!


And what is coming next, Windows 8, 9, 10??? For how long do you buy Win 7 untill you get forced next time to upgrade? Do you not ask yourself before buying a new OS? I do ask myself!

Microsoft doesn´t improve the OS anymore, all they determine is bring up some move in the economic system, that is the only really good mprovement.



For this one time, win7, they are actually making the first decent move in a decade, and people complain? Move on! :)

The same question to you, Raffaele. What are those improvements that makes it worth to "move on" for Win 7?

I´m really wondering to read this suggestion from you!

[danlefeb]

For this one time, win7, they are actually making the first decent move in a decade, and people complain? Move on! :)

People will always complain. I enjoy the workflow in Windows 7 over XP, so I prefer using 7. Much faster search, different way to use the task bar, better x64 support, etc. It takes a bit to get used to if you're coming from XP, but then new workflows often take some time to get used to. I know it took a while for me to get used to using my Wacom tablet for everything. Anyway, Vista was a disaster but from what I've seen so far, Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. It's been very stable for me thus far.

Yes, that is a long run. But it doesn´t change the fact that I will get forced to upgrade someday.

Don't you get forced to upgrade OS eventually anyway? By 2014, you think Autodesk will still support their software on XP? Autodesk doesn't even support their own software that long.... :D

[ThomasTheToolman]

Much faster search, different way to use the task bar...

Ohh, what are those for a hugh improvements!?!?!?
I even don´t use MS search function and the taskbar what XP has to offer is basicly still the same as Vista and Win 7.

...better x64 support, etc.

Now we make nails with heads!
What do you mean by saying that?
It sounds more like you have readed this somewhere!?



Don't you get forced to upgrade OS eventually anyway? By 2014, you think Autodesk will still support their software on XP? Autodesk doesn't even support their own software that long.... :D

That´s what I mean with: "What a topsy-turvy world!"

[olson]

Ohh, what are those for a hugh improvements!?!?!?
I even don´t use MS search function and the taskbar what XP has to offer is basicly still the same as Vista and Win 7.



Now we make nails with heads!
What do you mean by saying that?





That´s what I mean with: "What a topsy-turvy world!"

If you don't like buying Windows every few years for no other reason than software support and you don't care about stuff like Aero, then use Linux. Programs for Windows often reply on application frameworks that change when the operating system does. The reality with Windows is you must upgrade the operating system to use new software at some point because software developers will use newer API as they are available.

If you want to use old versions of Windows on old hardware with old versions of software nobody is saying you can't. Point is if you don't already have some license of Windows and you're buying a new system, get Windows 7 instead of an operating system that has no support. Cheers!

[ThomasTheToolman]

@ olson

You bring up the points and I like you stay impartial when doing that.
Thanks for that.

It is allmost the same problem as with the question: "Should I buy a Quadro or a GeForce?"
There aren´r really hugh improvements and "new" doesn´t allways mean better especially not for the last 2 years with graphics cards and OS. Graphics card offer more power, but otherwiese they need more energie and get bigger ect., same is for OS.

[aglick]

I will add that Win7 seems to be slightly better then Vista (and definitely better than XP) at keeping things nice a smooth under heavy multi-threaded multitasking.

We are guessing that it's due to the improvements made in Windows 7's new thread scheduler. (http://www.techeta.com/2009/05/windows-7-to-leverage-hyper-threading-performance-enhancements.html)

[ThomasTheToolman]

I will add that Win7 seems to be slightly better then Vista (and definitely better than XP) at keeping things nice a smooth under heavy multi-threaded multitasking.

You say Win7 is definitely better than XP but you can not explain why?
What the hell is "heavy multi-threaded multitasking"???
Could you please explain this in a little bit more detail?
Yes? No?
I think NO, because you aren´t able!

All I can read in this article is just marketing arguments without any detailed facts!
Like I sayed, it is all abou marketing in this thread and it is disgusting!

[vlad]

You say Win7 is definitely better than XP but you can not explain why?
What the hell is "heavy multi-threaded multitasking"???
Could you please explain this in a little bit more detail?
Yes? No?
I think NO, because you aren´t able!

All I can read in this article is just marketing arguments without any detailed facts!
Like I sayed, it is all abou marketing in this thread and it is disgusting!

If you dont know what multi-threading or multitasking is, it must mean that you probably dont need it. To that extent, and since you seem to be allergic to software updates, may I suggest a nifty little OS that has a minuscule footprint, is totally unobstrusive and lightning fast, will run on 16mb of RAM and will only take about 8mb on your HDD. It's called DOS. The only problem is that you have to type in everything. But if you type fast, that shouldnt be a problem...

BTW, how old are you?

About multitasking and multi-threading, think windowS and more than one core-cpu ;)

[aglick]

Sounds like Thomas-The-Tool needs a nap...the little guy's getting cranky. awwww.

[tuna]

If you dont know what multi-threading or multitasking is, it must mean that you probably dont need it.


He probably does "need" it, it's just he's ignorant of it, and nobody wants to help inform him because of his attitude about the whole thing. (It's probably just best to let him do whatever he wants instead of arguing irrational arguments about computer support and OS install times or whatever the latest random reason is.)

[ThomasTheToolman]

Sorry, but it is a real shame to see some peoples talking that Win7 will be a better choice but they aren´t able to explain in detail why. I know about Multithreading and Multitasking, but i don´t think it is depending what OS you are using to use this futures. To be able to use Multithreading is depending from what CPU you have and Multitasking on how much RAM you have.

It has really nothing to do with the OS!

You don´t work much with the OS, no, you work the most time with a specific application.
While working with 3DS or Maya or other applications there is no benefit from features a OS might has to offer. Isn´t it?

[vlad]

Sorry, but it is a real shame to see some peoples talking that Win7 will be a better choice but they aren´t able to explain in detail why. I know about Multithreading and Multitasking, but i don´t think it is depending what OS you are using to use this futures. To be able to use Multithreading is depending from what CPU you have and Multitasking on how much RAM you have.

It has really nothing to do with the OS!

You don´t work much with the OS, no, you work the most time with a specific application.
While working with 3DS or Maya or other applications there is no benefit from features a OS might has to offer. Isn´t it?

Why the hell do you think it's called the OPERATING SYSTEM then? :surprised

[ThomasTheToolman]

Why the hell do you think it's called the OPERATING SYSTEM then? :surprised

You don´t need the search engine neighter the taskbar a OS has to offer to operate a specific application!

[aglick]

It sounds like Tommy boy has all the answers already.

i can't understand why he would waste his time around here...

[tuna]

You should just go read a bunch of lists of why there are a ton of improvements over XP. Some off the top of my head are: much more stable driver model, proper support for SSD drives and TRIM commands, excellent tablet features built in (great if you actually use a tablet in slate mode), general UI improvements (breadcrum navigation / pinning menus, fast start menu search), much better security and enforced folder structure (stop installing .ini files into c:\ like win98 dammit), etc etc etc.

I "use the OS" like a lot of people do. I don't have XSI fullscreened 24 hours a day as often I use the computer for other things!

[ThE_JacO]

Sorry, but it is a real shame to see some peoples talking that Win7 will be a better choice but they aren´t able to explain in detail why. I know about Multithreading and Multitasking, but i don´t think it is depending what OS you are using to use this futures. To be able to use Multithreading is depending from what CPU you have and Multitasking on how much RAM you have.
Or possibly not everybody has the time to write thousands of words worth of posts to explain the basics of computer science :)
As for multithreading depending only from the CPU, sorry, not the case. Thats very simplistic.

OS, frameworks, compilers and compile platform accessories all make a considerable difference for how you write for multithreading.
If the framework you write against doesn't provide you with decent tools for thread management it will be a nightmare or even impossible to do a lot of things that with a decent framework (which is often tied to the OS) are trivial.
The same goes for memory management. When you write at a low enough level you will do some explicit memory management, but even then the relationship between applications and operations like paging in and out, reallocating and caching, are left to the OS.

Particularly in those regards win7 is light years ahead of XP. Caching and paging alone and how safely it will perform the swaps are a lot better than anything MS has ever done before.

Without getting onto the touchy and controversial subject of security, vista also has abysmally bad networking (and XP was only slightly better only because it was more primitive) and a terrible ipv6 socket management implementation, network throughput caching is inefficient to the point where it's slower than not having any, and socket and port management, especially with UAC enabled, are a major headache, not to mention you need a number of patches just for vista to resolve half decently DNS and NIS requests (IE: ADLM will not license properly if you set the license server pointer with a name, you need a static IP, unless you patch it)
Win7 does a lot to make that better.

It has really nothing to do with the OS!
That is factually wrong I'm afraid :)

You don´t work much with the OS, no, you work the most time with a specific application.
While working with 3DS or Maya or other applications there is no benefit from features a OS might has to offer. Isn´t it?
You work with the OS all the time.
Memory, disk access, hardware abstraction and access, deployement, and a number of other things all depend on the OS. If those are lacking, applications and data handling can be unstable or sluggish or both, and hardware vendors can only write drivers as good and safe as the OS allows them, something else that was (not very successfully) made better in vista, and is a lot better in win7 (still nowhere near the level of security and versatility of what you can do in Linux though).
In XP a very small bug, and there's tons in every driver even for expensive hardware, can easily bring down the house. Safety and containment got tons better in those regards in the 11 years that passed between when the architectural decisions for xp were made and the release of win7.

[vlad]

You don´t need the search engine neighter the taskbar a OS has to offer to operate a specific application!

Just try this simple test :
In Windows Explorer, delete your Windows folder.
Now start any application.

[ThomasTheToolman]

I am really appreciative for all the points you bring up, Raffaele.
But does all this important features really need a OS that eats so much resources and need so much diskspace?

I mean Vista was allready hugh and didn´t fit on one CD anymore.
Win7 also need one hole DVD to fit and if it is installed there are over 4GB diskspace gone just for the OS.

How does the future will look like, will the next OS need 10GB disk space or even a Blu-ray Disc to fit on?


It really doesn´t seems to be futuristic to me, neighter progressive, if things start to get bigger and bigger again. That is the only complaint I just wanted to throw in here.
Should I be sorry for my attitude? OK, I am for your guys!

[ThirdEye]

I am really appreciative for all the points you bring up, Raffaele.
But does all this important features really need a OS that eats so much resources and need so much diskspace?

I mean Vista was allready hugh and didn´t fit on one CD anymore.
Win7 also need one hole DVD to fit and if it is installed there are over 4GB diskspace gone just for the OS.

How does the future will look like, will the next OS need 10GB disk space or even a Blu-ray Disc to fit on?


It really doesn´t seems to be futuristic to me, neighter progressive, if things start to get bigger and bigger again. That is the only complaint I just wanted to throw in here.
Should I be sorry for my attitude? OK, I am for your guys!

Honestly that's not a big problem if the OS is responsive and runs fast. Give me a 10gb fast OS over a 50mb slow one any day of the year. HDD capacities are measured in terabytes now, this is no 1995 anymore. I've been using Seven for months, it's the best MS OS i've ever used by a huge margin (and i've used 95, 98, ME, 2k, XP - both 32 and 64 - and Vista 64).
If you want something stable, fast, light and unexpensive get Linux: it's great.

[danlefeb]

Ohh, what are those for a hugh improvements!?!?!?
I even don´t use MS search function and the taskbar what XP has to offer is basicly still the same as Vista and Win 7.
I commented on those because those are the biggest changes you'll see in day-to-day work. I wish I didn't have to search for files on my computer...must be nice! And if you think the Windows 7 taskbar is the same as the XP taskbar then you've obviously never used Windows 7. :) It's about streamlining your workflow...but then again, I'm the type of guy that loves shortcuts. Not for everyone, I guess.


Now we make nails with heads!
What do you mean by saying that?
It sounds more like you have readed this somewhere!?
No, I mean that I've used XP x64, Vista x64 and Windows 7 x64, and programs that take advantage of x64 capabilities like Photoshop and Maya run better on Windows 7 x64 than on XP x64 or Vista x64.

As others have said, it sounds like you have your mind made up. If you don't want to upgrade, then don't...no one is forcing you. Linux works great as an alternative to Windows. But you started by asking what operating system is better between XP, Vista and 7. A majority here have agreed that 7 is the best out of those. If for no other reason than it's stable and 7 is what they'll be updating and optimizing software/hardware, etc. for in the future over XP. I wouldn't knock it 'til you've tried it. :)

[ThomasTheToolman]

Honestly that's not a big problem if the OS is responsive and runs fast. Give me a 10gb fast OS over a 50mb slow one any day of the year. HDD capacities are measured in terabytes now, this is no 1995 anymore.

Yes, I totaly agree in this point.
Diskspace isn´t really a problem anymore.
But there are many other reasons.
One for example: The more files a OS need to install and to operate with, the more speed is needed to read all the files on the disk. The speed of HDDs haven´t change for years, still 7200rpm is mainstream...

Maybe SSDs will fix this problems, but just imagine the cost of to produce them.

[tuna]

Yes, I totaly agree in this point.
Diskspace isn´t really a problem anymore.
But there are many other reasons.
One for example: The more files a OS need to install and to operate with, the more speed is needed to read all the files on the disk. The speed of HDDs haven´t change for years, still 7200rpm is mainstream...

Maybe SSDs will fix this problems, but just imagine the cost of to produce them.


This isn't really how the OS works (constantly reading files in /Windows from the HDD, it will store things in memory). Also HDD speed has been increasing since they were made. More data density on platter = faster drives, it's physics.

[ThirdEye]

Yes, I totaly agree in this point.
Diskspace isn´t really a problem anymore.
But there are many other reasons.
One for example: The more files a OS need to install and to operate with, the more speed is needed to read all the files on the disk. The speed of HDDs haven´t change for years, still 7200rpm is mainstream...

Maybe SSDs will fix this problems, but just imagine the cost of to produce them.

Fact is Seven feels faster than XP here, even if XP was a lighter OS. That's the only thing i care about.

[ThomasTheToolman]

And if you think the Windows 7 taskbar is the same as the XP taskbar then you've obviously never used Windows 7. :) It's about streamlining your workflow...but then again, I'm the type of guy that loves shortcuts. Not for everyone, I guess.

You might be wondering, but I used 7 allready. I like the design of the tollbar, but I don´t like how much code is needed to bring up this little extra features. I also love shortcuts!



As others have said, it sounds like you have your mind made up.

I know I will upgrade one day for sure, but I hope for some more changes MS will come up with and I am really excited about what comes.



Thanks for coming out!

[ThomasTheToolman]

This isn't really how the OS works (constantly reading files in /Windows from the HDD, it will store things in memory). Also HDD speed has been increasing since they were made. More data density on platter = faster drives, it's physics.

You´re right, but the OS isn´t the only one what installs and needs more data to operate, specific applications will do this as well while they get bigger and bigger...

Do you remember as Adobe Reader 7 came out first time?
It was a mess waiting for till it started.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Just try this simple test :
In Windows Explorer, delete your Windows folder.
Now start any application.

I know what you mean.

Thanks for coming out!

[ThomasTheToolman]

That's the only thing i care about.

Like most peoples...

[ThE_JacO]

Yes, I totaly agree in this point.
Diskspace isn´t really a problem anymore.
But there are many other reasons.
One for example: The more files a OS need to install and to operate with, the more speed is needed to read all the files on the disk. The speed of HDDs haven´t change for years, still 7200rpm is mainstream...

Maybe SSDs will fix this problems, but just imagine the cost of to produce them.
That isn't the way it works.
A large part of the files that take up disk space will never be used, certainly not by the apps, and HDD speed hasn't been the bottleneck for a desktop/workstation OS for a long time, nor it looks like it will be anytime soon.

As for how much space in memory, how do you calculate how much it takes? By looking at the task manager? If you look at the memory footprint including pages and caches then you're looking in the wrong place, and 64bit OS take more memory (xp64 too) in general because a number of libraries need to be loaded up twice, both in 32 and 64bit flavours, to ensure retrocompatibility.
That's another thing win7 does better than vista or xp64, by allowing a virtualized xp64 to be loaded only if needed, and by being much more intelligent in how it manages and loads services, and loading less than vista ever did.

You confuse better memory management and caching making use of all available resources with a larger obtrusive footprint, you're fundamentally reading the wrong things.

[ThomasTheToolman]

OK, I trust your words, you have convinced me, Raffaele.

But I really would prefer to be able getting all this more performance and technologies without the need of that much diskspace, memory needs ect.

Much things what comes with Win7 or even with XP 64 I do not need to work in 3D applications. Why doesn´t MS produce a OS just for my needs? Such a OS wouldn´t need that much diskspace and memory. There are a bunch services and extras running and installs as standart I don´t need to work with 3D applications.

Win7 is surely a nice OS, but it isn´t made for Artist, it is made for mainstream.
I am afraid of what is coming next, like I said, maybe the next OS dosn´t even fit on a DVD anymore?!?

If MS would produce a OS what is perfecty made for Artist, they wouldn´t make much money anymore, I guess. But that´s just what I would prefer and I know many peoples feel the same way.

Unfortunately we have to be happy with that what we get from the company called Microsoft, even if we aren´t "really happy" with it...

[tuna]

But I really would prefer to be able getting all this more performance and technologies without the need of that much diskspace, memory needs ect.

Much things what comes with Win7 or even with XP 64 I do not need to work in 3D applications. Why doesn´t MS produce a OS just for my needs? Such a OS wouldn´t need that much diskspace and memory. There are a bunch services and extras running and installs as standart I don´t need to work with 3D applications.

Win7 is surely a nice OS, but it isn´t made for Artist, it is made for mainstream.
I am afraid of what is coming next, like I said, maybe the next OS dosn´t even fit on a DVD anymore?!?

If MS would produce a OS what is perfecty made for Artist, they wouldn´t make much money anymore, I guess. But that´s just what I would prefer and I know many peoples feel the same way.

Unfortunately we have to be happy with that what we get from the company called Microsoft, even if we aren´t "really happy" with it...


You should really try out linux as it is as customizable as you are requiring it to be (under what criteria, nobody yet knows!). I suggest something easy at first, such as Gentoo. You will love it.

[ThirdEye]

OK, I trust your words, you have convinced me, Raffaele.

But I really would prefer to be able getting all this more performance and technologies without the need of that much diskspace, memory needs ect.

Much things what comes with Win7 or even with XP 64 I do not need to work in 3D applications. Why doesn´t MS produce a OS just for my needs? Such a OS wouldn´t need that much diskspace and memory. There are a bunch services and extras running and installs as standart I don´t need to work with 3D applications.

Win7 is surely a nice OS, but it isn´t made for Artist, it is made for mainstream.
I am afraid of what is coming next, like I said, maybe the next OS dosn´t even fit on a DVD anymore?!?

If MS would produce a OS what is perfecty made for Artist, they wouldn´t make much money anymore, I guess. But that´s just what I would prefer and I know many peoples feel the same way.

Unfortunately we have to be happy with that what we get from the company called Microsoft, even if we aren´t "really happy" with it...

I agree with Tuna, from your description what you're looking for is Linux. I've used Ubuntu for a while and liked it, maybe you want to give it a try.

[aglick]

I think it's fair to say that In order to get the most from any computer or OS, one must understand the basic principles of its operation. It also helps to learn about the features and learn how they are designed to enhance the user's experience.

I see little benefit -indeed, likely lots of frustration- for novice (or non-technical) users who switch from Windows to Linux in the hopes of an easier, more efficient or more trouble-free computing experience. For these people, switching to linux probably won't provide any of this. It's quite possible that they will reach their limits of understanding and/or patience far more quickly than would be required to set up, optimize and become comfortable (efficient) running Linux on their desktop.

And for those people who might switch to Linux because it uses less memory at boot up, or takes up less space on the hard drive - we'll...they will probably be sorely disappointed when these things don't bring them the level of computing zen they sought after.

I like Linux - got nothing against it...but one should understand all the implications for using it before abandoning another OS.

[trv06kviper]

I love Linux but man, oh man, be prepared to look at some code when something doesn't install right or have issues (which WILL happen). Sudo -get will become your best friend and linux forums will be your bible. For ease of use and overall 3D apps, Windows hands down, XP and Win 7 (Vista was a mistake). OSX honestly, shouldn't be a choice, but thats just my opinion.
If your really feeling awesome dual boot linux and XP or 7. Best of both worlds and you won't have to regret having to settle for one. Just another option figure I put it out there for you.

[tuna]

I see little benefit -indeed, likely lots of frustration- for novice (or non-technical) users who switch from Windows to Linux in the hopes of an easier, more efficient or more trouble-free computing experience. For these people, switching to linux probably won't provide any of this. It's quite possible that they will reach their limits of understanding and/or patience far more quickly than would be required to set up, optimize and become comfortable (efficient) running Linux on their desktop.

And for those people who might switch to Linux because it uses less memory at boot up, or takes up less space on the hard drive - we'll...they will probably be sorely disappointed when these things don't bring them the level of computing zen they sought after.

I like Linux - got nothing against it...but one should understand all the implications for using it before abandoning Windows or OSX.

This is exactly why I think he should jump head first into Linux, so he can see how things are when he gets everything he's asking for. It's certainly a big tradeoff for (usually) not much gain, and I'm betting he will sort of chill out a bit once he realises all of this (and learn something in the process).

(the Gentoo part was sarcasm)

[olson]

I think it's fair to say that In order to get the most from any computer or OS, one must understand the basic principles of its operation. It also helps to learn about the features and learn how they are designed to enhance the user's experience.

I see little benefit -indeed, likely lots of frustration- for novice (or non-technical) users who switch from Windows to Linux in the hopes of an easier, more efficient or more trouble-free computing experience. For these people, switching to linux probably won't provide any of this. It's quite possible that they will reach their limits of understanding and/or patience far more quickly than would be required to set up, optimize and become comfortable (efficient) running Linux on their desktop.

And for those people who might switch to Linux because it uses less memory at boot up, or takes up less space on the hard drive - we'll...they will probably be sorely disappointed when these things don't bring them the level of computing zen they sought after.

I like Linux - got nothing against it...but one should understand all the implications for using it before abandoning another OS.

I recommended Linux originally because ThomasTheToolman was complaining about fundamental design philosophies in Windows (whether he realized it or not). Doesn't matter what version of Windows you use, its still going to have the same design philosophies. Never said anything about Linux being easier than Windows! :thumbsup:

[ThomasTheToolman]

Thanks for the Tip Thomas C. & Alberto.

Linux is not what I am looking for, because it doesn´t solve my complaint neighter it offers the technologies like Win7 does, I also could not use my applications I got right now with Linux, so I would need to buy all new. I also don´t complain (you misunderstood me Luke) about fundamental design philosophies in Windows. MS wants to make money, Windows is a business with many chain links on it. That´s the main reason why MS programming for mainstream, that is important philosophie behind all, nothing to complain. It is nice to have a email prog, browser ect. what comes all right away with a OS, but for using all other apps instead of production appclications I have an Office PC from where I can surf the www, write emails, latters ect.

I can´t stop complaining about the size of Vista & Win7, - just remember - XP was able to fit on one CD, Vista & 7 need a hole DVD by now, it can not be the right direction in my opinion if everything gets bigger and bigger again, even not if the mainstream or economic system requiring that. One other thing about Hardware, the size of actual PC Cases and the size of the actual hardware have not changed for years, my pc case is even bigger today as it was 10 years ago, dual socket board start to get bigger again like the "new" SSI EEB form factor.

[danlefeb]

I can´t stop complaining about the size of Vista & Win7, - just remember - XP was able to fit on one CD, Vista & 7 need a hole DVD by now, it can not be the right direction in my opinion if everything gets bigger and bigger again, even not if the mainstream or economic system requiring that.

Yes I remember XP fitting on a CD. And I remember when CDs first came out, people thought "Why would you EVER need that much space?" I remember when the OS fit on a floppy disk. I remember when 16 MBs of RAM cost a few grand and it was absolutely insane to own that much RAM because no program could take advantage of it. I remember when CDs used to be extremely expensive, and I remember paying a few grand for my first CD-RW drive. So what?

It's not the 70s or 80s anymore. Prices have dropped, and programs get bigger because they can accomplish more. I think you're getting caught up on Windows 7 and Vista's delivery system too much. Who cares if it's delivered on a DVD if it does what you want it to do? Tons of software gets delivered on DVDs...what does complaining about it accomplish?

If you don't want a DVD, plenty of Linux versions fit on a CD. But if you don't want Linux, you don't want Windows 7, you don't want Vista, you don't want OSX then stick with XP. Just don't be surprised when the rest of the world eventually stops using XP and moves on without you. :)

[ThomasTheToolman]

If you don't want a DVD, plenty of Linux versions fit on a CD. But if you don't want Linux, you don't want Windows 7, you don't want Vista, you don't want OSX then stick with XP. Just don't be surprised when the rest of the world eventually stops using XP and moves on without you. :)

Look at all those wonderfull art here at cgsociety, most was all done within XP environment.
I wouldn´t loose anything if I don´t move with the mainstream, nobody would loose anything. ;)

[vlad]

Look at all those wonderfull art here at cgsociety, most was all done within XP environment.
I wouldn´t loose anything if I don´t move with the mainstream, nobody would loose anything. ;)

10 years ago, there was great art being done on Win98, Max 3 and Photoshop 4.
Sooner or later, XP and all the support, drivers etc will be no more.
May I suggest you take extreme care of your current hardware and make secure backups of your working software and drivers...

Frankly though, I dont understand why you're so obsessed about it.
If you cannot stand tool updates, you most clearly picked the wrong field of work.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Sooner or later, XP and all the support, drivers etc will be no more.
May I suggest you take extreme care of your current hardware and make secure backups of your working software and drivers...

I have all drivers for XP here on CD stored at a dark place and ones again on a extern HDD which I not move a lot and they will last for ever if I want to.

I use socket 1366 and socket 771. All drivers are available from manufacture sites for XP right now. I don´t see any newer hardware is coming up that doesn´t support XP anymore.
So I am pretty relaxed, there is no need to get confused in this direction right now! ;)

[danlefeb]

Look at all those wonderfull art here at cgsociety, most was all done within XP environment.

I agree with Vlad. Yes, XP was used for many great pieces of work. So were other operating systems in the past. Other OS's used to create great art include Linux, Vista and even Windows 7 has great work being done on it now. My point is that your reasoning for why you're sticking with XP because people have created 'wonderful art' with it is an irrelevant point, because it can be used for all the other operating systems that you've said you don't want to use.

So I am pretty relaxed, there is no need to get confused in this direction right now! ;)

So since you're so set on using XP for the near future, why did you even start this thread when you already had the answer in your mind? No one is forcing you either way.

I think Vlad said it best:
If you cannot stand tool updates, you most clearly picked the wrong field of work.

[tuna]

I don´t see any newer hardware is coming up that doesn´t support XP anymore.

XP will be really bad with SSD drives already.

[ThomasTheToolman]

XP will be really bad with SSD drives already.

What, a problem without solution?
Here it comes:
http://internetbestsecrets.com/2007/12/optimizing-windows-xp-for-ssd-use.html
http://www.eboostr.com

[tuna]

Er, no. Turning off your paging file, disabling browser caches and installing 3rd party "readyboost" software is not an ideal solution to how the OS handles an SSD. In fact you'd probably end up reducing performance if you do what "internetsbestsecrets.com" tells you to do.

[ThomasTheToolman]

In fact you'd probably end up reducing performance if you do what "internetsbestsecrets.com" tells you to do.

I never would listen to the article in a online magazine/blog without to read the smart comments of smarter peoples!

[aglick]

ok -

The first link posted above is from 2007. Outdated and irrelevant. (and likely inacurate to begin with)

The second link - for some Windows "optimization" utility called EbootStr appears to be a work-around for implementing in XP the very same features you say are useless and unwanted in Vista/Win7.

Dude. Maybe You should stop trying to figure these things out for yourself and just trust the advice being given here.

People sometimes possess just enough information to be dangerous. You, my friend, may be one of those unfortunate souls when it comes to computer technology.

Of course, it's likely that you're a much better artists than I am.

I'm just sayin'....it's a wise man that knows his strengths and weaknesses.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Come on! I didn´t wrote all that stuff to show you I am not a computer technician. You know better I am not. I was just trying to moderate this thread a little bit and to figure out what Win7 has to offer in contrast to XP 64! Relax Dude.

[olson]

Come on! I didn´t wrote all that stuff to show you I am not a computer technician. You know better I am not. I was just trying to moderate this thread a little bit and to figure out what Win7 has to offer in contrast to XP 64! Dude.

This thread has lost all relevance. You're an XP zealot, we get it. Nuff' said. :shrug:

[ThomasTheToolman]

This thread has lost all relevance. You're an XP zealot, we get it. Nuff' said. :shrug:

If so, I probably readed the forum rules wrong. http://1.1.1.4/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/hmm.gif

[ThE_JacO]

This thread has lost all relevance. You're an XP zealot, we get it. Nuff' said. :shrug:
Oh come on guys :)
I agree with Adam that there might have been a case of "little knowledge..." going on, and probably a bit too much devil's advocacy (on my side too, it takes a fair amount of activation effort to get me to say ANYTHING positive about MS :p ), but the barrage of critiques that don't have snippets of useful info bundled in the post is getting a bit excessive.
We should all dial the personal knob a notch or two down.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Dude. Maybe You should stop trying to figure these things out for yourself and just trust the advice being given here.

I do trust given advices. But I didn´t read any of you here, maybe only to much BOXX words all around your avatar! And I even do not need to move on with the mainstream, just because the given advices are right.
Right?

It is just normal that you don´t suggest a lighter OS, because such a OS wouldn´t need that much more system resources and more powerfull Hardware like Win7 does. It would speak against your business if you would suggest a lighter OS. Isn´t it?

It is everybodys own decision which OS he like to work with, he wouldn´t be a zealot neighter stupid just because he doesn´t follow given advices! Especially not when it is really non essential at all.

I'm just sayin'....it's a wise old man that knows his strengths and weaknesses.

http://1.1.1.1/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif


Thanks for coming out so far... Nuff' said here.

[SheepFactory]

Windows 7 is amazing. I have zero problems with the OS. Everything runs perfect, it is stable as hell and all the new usability touches speed up my workflow considerably. I dont see why anyone would want to stick with xp.

[ThomasTheToolman]

I dont see why anyone would want to stick with xp.

I stay with XP 64 because it is a lighter OS, i doesn´t need over 3GB to fit on a disk, it doesn´t need 800MB RAM system resources just to run. it doesn´t need 15GB HDD diskspace, I don´t need to learn a new OS, I have all drivers for my actual hardware I need, I have all applications I work with for XP 64 and last but not least, I can finish all my artistic imagination within XP 64 environment for the next 3 years for sure.

I guess there are some many other reasons I forget about now...
I like to hear you´re happy with Win7!

http://1.1.1.3/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/wavey.gif

[ThE_JacO]

win7 doesn't need 800MB in memory to start-up.
Agai you confuse caching with obtrusive presence. Chances are, memory wise, it would be a lot lighter and more agile than XP. That's what people have been telling you that you keep ignoring.
For the delivery media space, do you REALLY care?
For the HDD space, again I believe you mis-interpret the impact of it, or maybe you're really concerned about 11 GB more or less of diskspace when 1TB drives are less than 200 bucks.
You can "finish all your artistic imagination" with MS Paint on windows for workgroups 3.11, I'm sure, doesn't mean it's ideal ;)

[ThomasTheToolman]

I installed Win7 on a workstation that has 24GB RAM, I opened the taskmanager and there was showen 800MB is used after a clean standart install of win7. If I installed XP 64, there was only around 250MB in use. And yes, I care about that extra 650MB RAM and also I care about the 11GB more or less, because I prefer not to have hugh data stored on a OS just for the OS, I really would prefer to have 11GB film footage or assets stored instaed, even if I have 5TB Diskspace available.

You know, it gets more and more unstable when things get bigger.
For sure, MS Paint and Win 3.1 doesn´t offer anything near XP or 7, but 7 doesn´t offer that much more as XP. The differences between XP and Win 3.1 are hugh, but not between XP and 7. So why you take this comparison between XP and 3.1? You know XP isn´t like that.

That´s what I figured out during the hole session in this thread.

Edit: For me it seems like technologie and MS have allmost reached there limit by now. MS had many years to bring up something really big, but all they come up with is Win7. What a step.

[ThE_JacO]

I installed Win7 on a workstation that has 24GB RAM, I opened the taskmanager and there was showen 800MB is used after a clean standart install of win7. If I installed XP 64, there was only around 250MB in use. And yes, I care about that extra 650MB RAM and also I care about the 11GB more or less, because I prefer not to have hugh data stored on a OS just for the OS, I really would prefer to have 11GB film footage or assets stored instaed, even if I have 5TB Diskspace available.
Again, for the last time, you were looking at completely the wrong thing. Looking at the bottom bar of the task manager says nothing about the footprint of the OS itself, particularly not in conjunction with apps running.
You're looking at a lot of cache and pre-loading that will be freed when needed.
That's why you're being told you confuse obtrusive footprint with what is a better use of otherwise unused resources.

You know, it gets more and more unstable when things get bigger.
For sure, MS Paint and Win 3.1 doesn´t offer anything near XP or 7, but 7 doesn´t offer that much more as XP. The differences between XP and Win 3.1 are hugh, but not between XP and 7. So why you take this comparison between XP and 3.1? You know XP isn´t like that.

That´s what I figured out during the hole session in this thread.
Maybe not as big, but A LOT bigger than you seem to understand (and I mean no offense with this).
If you really believe that the drivers, virtualization, threading, memory handling and framework changes aren't a big deal, then stick to the late 90s technology you're so fond of.

Of course you'll be fine, you're just missing out on better for no valid reason, and apparently no amount of discussion, reasonable or not, will change your mind :)
Just, please, stop going off on OS-related and MS-related rants from the saddle of a high horse if you don't know much about the most basic notions of computer science.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Again, for the last time, you were looking at completely the wrong thing. Looking at the bottom bar of the task manager says nothing about the footprint of the OS itself, particularly not in conjunction with apps running.

I do not only look at the bottom bar, I looked also at the website of MS and there MS write it self, Windows 7 needs much more system resources as XP 64.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb457053.aspx#ECAA
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/get/system-requirements.aspx

[danlefeb]

I do not only look at the bottom bar, I looked also at the website of MS and there MS write it self, Windows 7 needs much more system resources as XP 64

OK, so you've convinced yourself that XP is better than Windows 7. I still don't understand the point behind starting this thread is if you won't believe anything anyone else says anyway. So use XP for as long as you want...whatever makes you happy!

Oh, and a word of warning....I've heard rumors that the last few versions of Photoshop each require more resources than the previous version. So its probably a good idea not to upgrade if you're worried about that. :D

[ThomasTheToolman]

So its probably a good idea not to upgrade if you're worried about that. :D

Of course, I don´t upgrade this time neighter. Adobe did made me happy allready with CS3.
Just by the way, I am not the TO.
http://1.1.1.2/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/buttrock.gif

[trv06kviper]

Of course XP is going to be smaller than Vista and Win 7. Win 98 was smaller than XP, Win 95 was smaller than 98 and so fourth. Everyone swore up and down with 98 for gaming and general usage, all those same ppl thought XP was the devil, too big etc. They are all swearing by XP now. You see what I'm getting at here? :argh:

[ThomasTheToolman]

Relax man!
XP isn´t 2k or 98, neighter 95, it is XP and not even far away from 7.
I know what I´m getting here, so did people with w2k!
Maybe my mind will change when Win8 is coming, till then I drive with MY XP 64.

http://1.1.1.3/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/smash.gif

[ThirdEye]

Relax man!
XP isn´t 2k or 98, neighter 95, it is XP and not even far away from 7.
I know what I´m getting here, so did people with w2k!
Maybe my mind will change when Win8 is coming, till then I drive with MY XP 64.

http://1.1.1.3/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/smash.gif

I briefly checked a few online comparisons just googling "xp vs 7" and all the tests i've seen show that 7 is speedwise at least on par with XP for pretty much anything the testers threw at them. On the other hand 7 wins hands down when it comes to general efficiency and features, usability, security, and support for new hardware. The one and only thing i don't get is: is there anything that XP is doing better than 7? Except keeping the hdd 2% lighter of course, i already got that one. And don't start with the RAM bull because someone else already showed the taskmanager comparison was naive at best.

[ThomasTheToolman]

The one and only thing i don't get is: is there anything that XP is doing better than 7? Except keeping the hdd 2% lighter of course, i already got that one.

Sure, you say 7 is speedwise at least on par with XP.
To this you gave the answer allready!
7 isn´t better in my opinion, because it isnt´t faster as XP, but it needs more system resources and diskspace. XP doesn´t need more resources, but it is speedwise at least on par with 7.

Something is wrong with one OS, guess which will be?
I´m afraid, but 7 really need much more RAM to operate.
Take a look to the "minimum" system requirements at MS site by given links posted in the previous site.

[danlefeb]

7 isn´t better in my opinion

You never answered my questions before...so maybe if I ask more bluntly you will. You have said you tested Windows 7 and XP. You obviously already have an opinion that XP is better, for whatever reason. OK so believe what you want - use whatever OS fits your needs.

The part I still don't understand and that you've never answered is: Why? Why did you feel the need to ask the opinion of others if you're going to say they're all wrong and go your own way anyway? You started off with a legitimate question. You got some great answers from some great people. But you have wasted the time of those who have tried to help you by effectively saying that you don't care what they say and that you're going to do whatever you want to do anyway.

[ThomasTheToolman]

@ Dan

I´m afraid, but you missed the point. :)

Words about Win7 benefits are made allready enough and are regognized from allmost everybody here. What OS the better would be is the new question and I guess it all deppence on the need of peoples. If you need the Aero or other changes in Win7 to get your daily tasks done, then it probably will be the best OS for you. For me it isn´t, because I don´t think I need the changes which are included within Win7.

Any more question?

[danlefeb]

Thanks for answering. I was under the impression that you were asking which OS is best for your needs - in the same way that thousands of people here ask questions about what hardware they need for running highend graphics programs, etc. I apologize for misunderstanding. I assumed you were legitimately asking for help. But apparently you were just wanting to start a discussion about what OS is best overall and not for your specific needs....although I still don't understand why you thought that needed a thread in the first place.

[SheepFactory]

I stay with XP 64 because it is a lighter OS, i doesn´t need over 3GB to fit on a disk, it doesn´t need 800MB RAM system resources just to run. it doesn´t need 15GB HDD diskspace, I don´t need to learn a new OS, I have all drivers for my actual hardware I need, I have all applications I work with for XP 64 and last but not least, I can finish all my artistic imagination within XP 64 environment for the next 3 years for sure.

I guess there are some many other reasons I forget about now...
I like to hear you´re happy with Win7!

http://1.1.1.3/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/wavey.gif


I stay with Win 7 because its a faster OS, I dont care how many gigs it needs on the HD because i have more than enough space, Didnt need to learn a new os unless the last os you used was ms dos and it has all the drivers for my actual hardware I need. I have all applications I work with for Win 7 and last but not least I can finish my works faster in it due to all the small and big workflow enhancements in it.

It also doesnt look like ass like xp does.

Glad XP is working for you. Enjoy it.

[ThomasTheToolman]

Dear Ali.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the newest OS from MS.
You don´t have to care about HDD space, because you have enough, all good reasons why Win7 is probablly the right OS for you. XP really look like ass, yummy, I like asses... tight and round.
http://1.1.1.2/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/buttrock.gif


Like I said before, I am glad to hear you´re happy with the brandnew ultimative highend technologie based Win7! You´re probably a hero for all of us. Thanks again.

[vlad]

Isn't there an age limit to access CGTalk?
FFS.

[aglick]

this thread is kuput

[ThomasTheToolman]

this thread is kuput

NO!!!
This thread is about: "XP vs Vista vs Windows 7 Which operating system to go for?"

There is just not the one and only answer!!!

[SheepFactory]

Dear Ali.

Thanks for sharing your experiences with the newest OS from MS.
You don´t have to care about HDD space, because you have enough, all good reasons why Win7 is probablly the right OS for you. XP really look like ass, yummy, I like asses... tight and round.
http://1.1.1.2/bmi/forums.cgsociety.org/images/smilies/buttrock.gif


Like I said before, I am glad to hear you´re happy with the brandnew ultimative highend technologie based Win7! You´re probably a hero for all of us. Thanks again.


Now you are just being stupid. Thanks for coming out Thomas. Keep this up and you will go places here.

This thread is done.