ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:

feinicks Wrote:When you consider that it is Vista's successor, then that itself is a hype. People loved (still love) Vista for its interface. 7 has taken that a step further by offering better performance.

Not particularly - I don't recall so much hype about Vista really.

feinicks Wrote:Also, though no one here is doing it, it is unfare to compare 7 to XP. XP is old. 7's true potential will be realised once the core count goes beyond 6 core (which are supposedly to arrive by year end).

Win7 is keeping kernel modifications to a minimum as MS plans to keep driver compatibility with Vista.
Old means absolutely nothing really.  I can name plenty of old products which work far better than newer ones.  But I'm not here to debate about Win7 vs XP - that's your choice :P

Assassinator Wrote:

ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Not particularly - I don't recall so much hype about Vista really.

I do. A lot of negative hype. I clearly remember people saying how poo poo it's going to be cause the beta takes 1.5GB of memory just to run or something (in the age when not even enthusiasts had more than 2GB of RAM).

feinicks Wrote:7's true potential will be realised once the core count goes beyond 6 core (which are supposedly to arrive by year end).

Sounds like bullchocolate to me.

You realise for running windows and stuff, more cores does not really equal fast. A E8500 would run windows better than a Q6600 (same price) in 9 situations out of 10. Most of windows stuff is still serial. Neither is windows so hard to run that it would need something the power of a 6 core processor to run properly. An Intel Atom can run Windows 7 fine.

I should make this clear, by linking you to the article which says this... if I can find it...

* feinicks digs through his bookmarks...