I don't know that's why I ask.
Printable View
I don't know that's why I ask.
Behavior's a bit different. And so am I.
It seems pretty much the same to me, even though others seem to think it's an improvement.
There hasn't been a dramatic change in Windows since Windows 95 hit the market, but v.7 does some things noticeably faster, and configures some things differently. So it's like 95 ->98. If you considered that to be 95 SE, this will probably strike you the same.
Even thought they are the same, I will probably buy it. Why? Because I need to buy Vista, so I might as well buy 7 when it comes out instead :p
well,
ive had a quick play around with it and,
i have to say as it stands right now,
"Yes it is just Vista with a new task bar "
jmo.
I think it's very similar, perhaps a polished version of Vista as I'm not sure they've actually implemented any major O/S changes (that were supposed to be in Vista) like WinFS etc
Others?
PS. This must be history repeating itself!! http://www.techzonez.com/forums/show...ight=microsoft
I haven't seen anything in vista or 7 that I actually want or need. There is some fluffy stuff I quite like but it's pretty useless from a computing angle - just a waste of CPU power, like aero, desktop background switching. One thing I can see might be desirable to some people is the parental controls feature in Vista which is much more granular than previous attempts at such a thing. The black screen of death thing is a deal breaker too, that don't happen with XP.
I'm noticing a faster startup and less memory used overall. I'm also finding tweaks to the overall end-user experience eliminated a few annoyances with Vista.
Vista should called 'Windows-oops!'