Quote:
Originally Posted by problemedchild
Windows 7 has a smaller footprint than Vista AFAIK.
|
How much smaller then? Somehow with Vista's current footprint I can hardly see how they would manage to make it smaller to make a visible difference between them (by visible I mean a gig or two... not a couple hundred megs).
Quote:
Originally Posted by problemedchild
For you Vista haters out there, have you guys tried Vista? Granted, the launch wasn't very smooth, but you can't fault Microsoft when OEM's shitty drivers are causing a majority of the crashes and problems Vista had. It just seems like that the majority of the people saying Vista sucks heard it from a friend, who heard it from another friend that knows something about computers, who read about it online at 4chan of all places.
|
Not my case. The earliest version of Windows I remember starting from was 3.1, and 2000 was the last product that I was fully happy with. It run fast, didn't use 800MB of memory when you boot into it for the first time, and lastly, didn't take the user using it for an ass.
A heavy sigh follows everytime when I boot into Vista just to play a game, grrr DX10...
Speaking of Windows... didn't M$ mention a kernel rewrite at some point? Or will it share the same fate of WinFS?