Originally Posted by mhufnagel /forum/post/17028246
The two things that stand out for me is that SLI/Crossfire does make a big difference while the extra RAM doesn't make any difference. As of now 64 bit OS's aren't really needed. At least for gaming.
Originally Posted by lwright84 /forum/post/17061271
XP was great, glad it's gone though. Nearly 10 years later and it's still inconsistent and inefficient as ever.
Vista was like a beta that improved overtime. Within two years (give or take) Vista became a superior OS to XP. The kinks were worked out, drivers stabilized, performance improved, etc. Too bad it received so much negativity for those first few years and kept potential users away. It really is a great OS.. leading to..
7. Windows 7 is absolutely fantastic. You can tell they took all their good ideas from Vista and improved them, and then added in user feedback and suggestions plus other adjustments from in-house. If Vista was the beta, 7 is the RTM of Microsoft's vision of their future OS. I've been running the x64 version of 7 on my work PC since the official beta and have upgraded to RC and then did a full install for the RTM two weeks ago. Other than a few expected hiccups, it has ran absolutely flawlessly. There is nothing that would bring me back to XP.. especially since 7 has virtual XP support (which works well for anything not-resource intensive such as games or editing software). Also, the compatibility mode that 7 offers has worked 95% of the time without issue. It does have a familiarity with Vista, but it also stands on it's own.
There's really no reason to stick with XP with the exception of legacy apps\\hardware\\periphs or stubbornness. 7 is an improvement in practically every way.
Originally Posted by mhufnagel /forum/post/17061728
Yes, and people had the honor of paying MS to own this beta program. And Windows 7 is now the end result of years of testing.