>>19892708
because when it came out there were like 5 programs that didnt work for it.

My only issue was Falllout had graphical issues, but its whatever. Hating Vista is just "cool"

>>19892725
>Implying Vista wasn't a nigh unusable piece of shit when it came out
>Implying it wasn't buggy as hell
>Implying that you didn't need at least 2GB, if not 4GB to run it well, a huge amount of RAM at the time
>Implying a bunch of cheapass OEMs didn't sell Vista machines with 512MB-1GB of RAM and stuffed with preloaded shitware

Vista got better after a couple of service packs, but fuck, it was awful at first. W7 is superior in every way.

If you think an OS which crashes every 5 minutes is good, then sure, go ahead and use Vista.

I've been on Vista Ultimate for a couple of years so don't really know if I am missing out on anything on Win7... mostly because Vista hasn't been giving me shit, At one point I did wanted to upgrade but then decided "if it isn't broke, don't fix it." It runs how I want it to, so yeah.

So what am I missing out on win7?

for the first 6 months or so vista was unusable. mainly because of it's file transfer speeds. they are still somewhat fucked in windows 7 too actually. microsoft have announced they're fixing them in windows 8

>>19892743
when i first used Vista, my main machine had 512M ram

it ran quite well, only a few old games didn't work as well as they did in XP, c&c generals and ut2004 could still hit 100fps vsync (yay crt). what's to complain about?

XP master race reporting in.

>>19892807
a taskbar with movable buttons

i thought it would be useful, but i never ended up moving them

OH WELL

>>19892807

Not a whole lot. Snap is nice, the taskbar changes are pleasing, not enough to be worth the upgrade though.

>>19892839
>Vista ran well
>On 512MB RAM
...the fuck? Were you coming from a 200mhz Celeron with 64MB of RAM running XP or something? Vista ran like SHIT on 512MB of RAM unless you did some serious culling, and even then it didn't run well.

>>19892807
dx11

Win7 is not much better than Vista SP1, apart from few visual tweaks (taskbar progress), it's same shit other wrapping.
Vista still has 3 things better than 7(out-of-the box or by registry tweak):
-you can reorder icon how you please (custom ordering)
-disable fullrow select in details view (with registry tweak)
-always visible sort headers

You don't have this in Win7, but I'm working on a clean and complete solution, hope to get it done by monday.

>>19892765
>crashes in 5 min
If it's SP1 and still crashes, you may need new motherboard bios. Believe it or not, it is very likely the cause (bios SLIC etc.).

When I got this laptop(ghasp!) with preinstalled vista (GHASP!) it took over a minute to even get into the userchoice screen and then a few more to actually get everything running. I updated it to sp2 for about 3 hours, since then it runs perfect and fast. I saw win7 on a pc of my friend and there is really no difference I should care about but an uglier hud.

Aside from system popups and many slow updates everywhere, lots of programs disappeared into the void, through they was still in the task manager.

>>19892872
512M ddr2-667
geforce 7600gt 256M
amd athlon 64 3500+
IDE system drive

went back to XP until i got more ram *only* because i multitask a lot, it ran very fast otherwise

also, i never did try the service packs, i went from xp to 7 later (still stingy on saving ram for multitasking), and now i run ubuntu (from minimal, naturally)