Windows 7: First Look

[caravel]

There are a few bugs in Vista but there are worse ones in XP (like bluescreens, still haven't had one in Vista).

1) A "bluescreen" isn't a bug.

2) I've had this copy of XP running now for about 3 years and never seen a BSoD yet.

3) Seeing a BSoD isn't a problem in itself it's usually an indicator of an underlying problem, usually related to defective/overheating hardware or buggy device drivers.

4) BSoDs in XP are disabled by default, the OS reboots. I have always disabled the reboot option and have still never seen a BSoD on any XP machine except where defective/overheating hardware or buggy device drivers were the culprit. Usually the former and usually memory in particular.

5) There is no evidence to show that there are somehow "more bugs in XP than in Vista".

[Husar]

1) A "bluescreen" isn't a bug.

No, it's just the OS saying that it cannot solve a problem without restarting.

2) I've had this copy of XP running now for about 3 years and never seen a BSoD yet.

I didn't see them often but Earth 2160 for example created one everytime I shut down the game, think it was a graphics driver issue but Vista just restarts the driver in that case, not the whole system, I call that an improvement.

3) Seeing a BSoD isn't a problem in itself it's usually an indicator of an underlying problem, usually related to defective/overheating hardware or buggy device drivers.

Yes.

4) BSoDs in XP are disabled by default, the OS reboots. I have always disabled the reboot option and have still never seen a BSoD on any XP machine except where defective/overheating hardware or buggy device drivers were the culprit. Usually the former and usually memory in particular.

Some people report problems with Vista that I haven't had either.

5) There is no evidence to show that there are somehow "more bugs in XP than in Vista".

But I constantly see people claim that Vista is worse anyway, maybe next time I should just demand objective proof for that. Though I'm perfectly aware that counting bugs in an OS is some kind of almost insolvable task.
Besides, I said worse bugs, not more

[caravel]

I didn't see them often but Earth 2160 for example created one everytime I shut down the game, think it was a graphics driver issue but Vista just restarts the driver in that case, not the whole system, I call that an improvement.

I call it a problem with the game or graphics card drivers. And I'd rather know about this than have the OS just restart the driver. It's a cheap and dirty fix and doesn't help if the crash is in the middle of playing a game either.

Some people report problems with Vista that I haven't had either.

Hardware.

But I constantly see people claim that Vista is worse anyway, maybe next time I should just demand objective proof for that. Though I'm perfectly aware that counting bugs in an OS is some kind of almost insolvable task.
Besides, I said worse bugs, not more

I'm not saying one is more bugged than the other. I'm referring to the fact that people often refer to Vista's increased stability over XP as some sort of justification for having it, whereas there is no evidence that Vista is more stable than 2K, XP or 2K3. In fact if Vista was more stable I'm sure that may more companies would have switched to it for workstation use.

[seireikhaan]

Gah. I can never figure out what these people are talking about half the time with how good a new OS will be when I can't see it in action. I'll see when it comes out.

[LeftEyeNine]

AMD has released beta Catalyst drivers for Windows 7, which is not even beta yet.

[CountArach]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they try to get Vista right first?

[KukriKhan]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't they try to get Vista right first?

LOL. Fix an already-sold product, when you can sell an altogether new product?

Commie.

:) j/k o'course, CA.