WIN 7
#3 Guest_
Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:05 AM
Win 7 are great. Only fucking sound drivers are driving ME crazy !
Noob ... drivers are ok, as long as u don't buy gypsy components.
for ex.: I bought at TV Card 5 years ago & now i have win7 x64 installed and the drivers are working normally. So i don't see where is the problem with the OS(only excuse for hate over win7). But of course if u have Perp's PC, then rather than upgrade i suggest downgrade to win95 .
But to come at sound: i can say audigy SE works normally, although i'm missing the graphical-user-interface u get in winXP. Other than that i can still play with sound settings, like EAX, 3D stereo sound,...
#5
Posted 17 November 2009 - 09:22 AM
Hey can you post that link for audigy drivers? With vista I couldn't make my 5.1 working.yeah, it took me some time to find drivers for audigy for an older computer also, but they're out there. just use the vista drivers, they work for win7 in most cases. win7 is definitely not a failure !
#6 Guest_
Posted 17 November 2009 - 11:50 AM
I guess it's another way of Microsoft "cashing in" or pocketing people's money.Windows 8 is in development now and due to be released soon enough.
Not to mention that both Vista and Windows 7 are build on the same obsolete 12 year old kernel.Wonder why operating system piracy has increased in recent years.
But despite all that Windows 7 seems to be a better Operating System.
#7
Posted 17 November 2009 - 11:59 AM
WHAT?! http://css.setti.inf...tyle_emoticons/default/icon_e_confused.gifNot to mention that both Vista and Windows 7 are build on the same obsolete 12 year old kernel.Wonder why operating system piracy has increased in recent years.
#8 Guest_
Posted 17 November 2009 - 12:11 PM
#10 Guest_
Posted 17 November 2009 - 01:44 PM
BTW...
Linux kernel will be used for Google Chrome Operating System which could be up for downloading within a week.
But this OS will not be good for gaming
#11
Posted 17 November 2009 - 06:47 PM
Why? What benefits would you expect from a completely new kernel? What are the flaws of the current kernel?Indeed is a new updated version of Windows NT kernel, but after all these years Microsoft should build a new kernel from ground up instead of updating the old one with each Windows release.
Do you know why? I wouldn't be pressing you so much if your comments sounded like you knew what you were talking about. Now you just post some crap that you've read on some random board.Linux kernel will be used for Google Chrome Operating System which could be up for downloading within a week.
But this OS will not be good for gaming
I haven't updated to W7 myself yet but I'm glad to skip Vista altogether when the time for update comes.
#12 Guest_
Posted 17 November 2009 - 08:21 PM
Why? What benefits would you expect from a completely new kernel? What are the flaws of the current kernel?.
You must be joking right?
If you look past this nice GUI both Vista and and Win 7 have you will see the actual mess it is under it.
Vista first was released for security just like Win7 is now for performance.
Do you know why? I wouldn't be pressing you so much if your comments sounded like you knew what you were talking about. Now you just post some crap that you've read on some random board.
heh I would like to see Google Chrome OS run Crysis... I bet it's not going to happen though.
#13
Posted 17 November 2009 - 10:23 PM
k1ller meant that you don't have a clue about what you're talking about. Could you describe for example in more detail than "it's crap" what's wrong in the kernel.You must be joking right?Why? What benefits would you expect from a completely new kernel? What are the flaws of the current kernel?.
If you look past this nice GUI both Vista and and Win 7 have you will see the actual mess it is under it.
Vista first was released for security just like Win7 is now for performance.
You could maybe compare it to Linux kernel and tell which parts are better in Linux kernel.
I shall join this discussion by saying that Linux kernel is crap. Everybody else saying otherwise must be joking.
#15 Guest_
Posted 18 November 2009 - 12:53 AM
The main downside of the Vista's kernel v6.0 it's it's famous memory leak where often this leads to huge amount of kernel memory usage.
I used Vista almost since release date and I can't say how many times I had this issue and how many times my PC crashed because of this memory leak.
This was what forced me to switch from 32-Bit OS(2GB DDR) to 64-Bit OS and 4GB system memory.
Not only that but it seems that MS with Win 7 is pushing more and more towards to 64-Bit arhitecture since Vista can run on 2GB of system memory but it can only do so much until it hits it's limmits.
2GB of ram for XP is more than enough and there is no need to switch to 64-Bit platform under XP but Vista and Win 7 on 2 GB ram are struggeling on basic tasks.
Now don't tell me that's not something wrong with this.
The kernel is "the bridge" that enables the software(mainly the OS) to talk to the hardware and there are few changes from Vista's kernel to Windows 7 kernel(v6.1) and I think there are no big improvements but just some minor changes which explains the same system requirements between the two.
Revie after review after review you see how great Windows 7 is but I think this is just the hype created around the relief of ditching Vista.
#17
Posted 18 November 2009 - 09:02 PM
To which kernel memory leak are you referring to? Link would be nice.The main downside of the Vista's kernel v6.0 it's it's famous memory leak where often this leads to huge amount of kernel memory usage.
Welcome to the 21st century.2GB of ram for XP is more than enough and there is no need to switch to 64-Bit platform under XP but Vista and Win 7 on 2 GB ram are struggeling on basic tasks.
What lead you to this conclusion that there are only minor changes? Or do you mean that because the system requirements are about the same you think that the kernel is about the same? Do you know what "correlation does not imply causation" means, put that in Google where you got rest of the crap that you are posting.The kernel is "the bridge" that enables the software(mainly the OS) to talk to the hardware and there are few changes from Vista's kernel to Windows 7 kernel(v6.1) and I think there are no big improvements but just some minor changes which explains the same system requirements between the two.
Yeah, the cake is a lie. http://css.setti.inf...tyle_emoticons/default/icon_e_confused.gif It's very annoying to read posts by people who don't know what they are talking about. It takes about 5 minutes to Google all sorts of kernel improvements for W7. Then anyone can go on babbling shitloads of stuff about these without understanding a word.Revie after review after review you see how great Windows 7 is but I think this is just the hype created around the relief of ditching Vista.
I hear DirectX 11 really rocks in W7.
#18 Guest_
Posted 18 November 2009 - 09:46 PM
Welcome to the 21st century.2GB of ram for XP is more than enough and there is no need to switch to 64-Bit platform under XP but Vista and Win 7 on 2 GB ram are struggeling on basic tasks.
Moving to 64 bits has its penalties: 64-bit applications consume more memory and typically run slower.
I hear DirectX 11 really rocks in W7.
Betewwn DX 10 and DX 11 it's not the same big leap like it is between DX 9 and DX 10.
Here are two big improvements in a Win 7 kernel:
Virtualization
Touchscreen display
Now I bet these will be used by about 0.5% of win 7 users.
Both are nothing more than a horse dick.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users