How MS improved shutdown times in Windows 7

energy80s

Really? I was just pointing out how stupid your post really was. As has been posted above, computers are all about applications and not about Operating Systems. Vista has been such a crap system (only surpassed by Windows ME) that until a viable alternative to XP comes out, you would be mad to leave it.

robt_2

energy80s wrote: »

Really? I was just pointing out how stupid your post really was. As has been posted above, computers are all about applications and not about Operating Systems. Vista has been such a crap system (only surpassed by Windows ME) that until a viable alternative to XP comes out, you would be mad to leave it.

So you are ignoring the fact that Vista uses RAM that would otherwise be sat doing nothing to preload your precious applications, and that W7 does exactly the same.

Same old uninformed nonsense. Fair enough :rolleyes:

Edit: Looks like I'm not the only one in this thread telling you that you are wrong.

debtworrier

isofa wrote: »

I've never understood why my Mac (OS X 10.4) boots and shutsdown so quickly, yet my XP install takes several minutes to boot (and a couple more until all the services have started, usually time to make a coffee) and often an age to shutdown.

I found a really good little free application "Ccleaner" http://www.ccleaner.com/ (yes there really are two "c"s at the beginning) which scans through the computer and finds all the leftover cruft that accumulates when programs are uninstalled etc. My pc was definitely a bit nippier after running it, and I now run it again every couple of months or so.

energy80s

robt wrote: »

Edit: Looks like I'm not the only one in this thread telling you that you are wrong.

Nope, you seem to be sat alone!

isofa

debtworrier wrote: »

I found a really good little free application "Ccleaner" http://www.ccleaner.com/ (yes there really are two "c"s at the beginning) which scans through the computer and finds all the leftover cruft that accumulates when programs are uninstalled etc. My pc was definitely a bit nippier after running it, and I now run it again every couple of months or so.

Yep, been using it since it was invented many moons ago There are several similar on OS X such as Onyx.

[Deleted User]

energy80s wrote: »

As it stands, XP with service pack 2 is still the most stable "recent" OS that Microsoft have released.

Actually, I've found Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008 to be the most stable Operating Systems I've used from any vendor, both at home, on the move and at work.

And you seem to have missed the point about PC's - they are there to run third party applications on - not operating systems. The extra processing power and memory are there to be called upon for those apps, not to get the base system up and running.

Well, the O/S is the most essential piece of software on a PC to make it function at all, that's even before you decide how you are going to use it.

old_codger1

anewhope wrote: »

Bloated Vista, I'm assuming you've reviewed the layers that make the operating system right down to the source code, or you've tried to run it on an underpowered machine.

If a PC will run another operating system quite happily and at acceptable speed then, by definition, it's the operating system that runs slowly that is at at fault.

[Deleted User]

old_codger1 wrote: »

If a PC will run another operating system quite happily and at acceptable speed then, by definition, it's the operating system that runs slowly that is at at fault.

I disagree.

Different operating systems cater towards different needs. New features will usually come with an increased overheads, no matter what platform they are on. It becomes very much an Apples and Oranges comparison when you take a very narrow view like that.

isofa

I guess the best way to compare is to compare an OS with the same (or virtually the same) features and see which performs best on the same hardware. (e.g. a featured flavour of Linux vs OS X vs Windows).

Obviously Windows 98SE is going to run many times faster on a Core 2 Duo chip than Vista, but then it doesn't have half the functionality of Vista.

Similarly Mac OS 9 rockets along on the final old PPC PowerMacs, quicker than OS X, but it's not so fully featured.

old_codger1

anewhope wrote: »

Different operating systems cater towards different needs. New features will usually come with an increased overheads, no matter what platform they are on.

Like what? The tens of thousands of viruses windows suffers from? That's the kind of 'feature' most people can do without, tbh.