How is Windows 7 better than Vista?

[wits]

I don't understand how 7 is better than Vista. Sure it does look better, but thats all I hear people say when they say 7 is better. No one ever gives details of what exactly was wrong with Vista. I've heard some people say it had stability issues, but wouldn't that have been solved by service packs and updates?

Can someone please explain what was truly wrong with Vista?

[Draek]

Uses less resources, it actually runs decently on 1 GB of RAM.

[Hotbeef!]

I dont know, I never really used Vista.

I do like Windows 7 more than I like XP

[Scared]

Can someone please explain what was truly wrong with Vista?

Early on the driver support was terrible, performance was a bit poor as well but after a few updates, driver revisions and especially the service pack Vista is perfectly fine (although still a touch more performance intensive than one would like, but not terrible).

[imeem]

boot time in windows 7 is faster than vista. Also my friend switched from vista to 7, he claims that it gave him better fps in games.

[Masterclown]

Windows 7's UAC is far less invasive compared to Vista.

One thing about Windows 7 that I ABSOLUTELY LOATHE is the VirtualDirectory, which is very difficult to get around. 99% of the programs out there are not affected by it. Unfortunately, I have to support my company's LOB accounting/inventory system which craps itself because of..."VD". Also, I wish the Snipping Tool had Print and Rotate functions built into it, but otherwise no complaints.

[Shape]

/User eXperience.

[dibarra2004]

How is Windows 7 better than Vista?

Desktop Slideshow.

Such win!

[Herolegend25]

Vista is not as bad as people make it out to be, but it did have some problems. In it's first few years, it had a lot of crashing issues and low stability, but it was later fixed with updates.

Though just those first few years stuck with anyone that bought Vista during those times and told everyone they knew about those problems. Then those people told others, rinse and repeat. That is the main reason for it's repetition.

Really, the only thing bad about Vista is that it's a resource hog compared to 7. Windows 7 runs faster with a lower hardware requirement, and games run better too.

[wits]

It seems most of the problems could have been fixed in updates. I mean was it really necessary for them to release a new OS less than 2 years later?

[Kahrandras]

vista came out as a buggy piece of ♥♥♥♥

they seem to have fixed most of it now

i really liked xp. i found it ran all of the things i wanted it to without having to ♥♥♥♥ with any options. install and go.

It seems most of the problems could have been fixed in updates. I mean was it really necessary for them to release a new OS less than 2 years later?

it is if they don't want to be known as producing ♥♥♥♥ products. which their competitors will gladly brand them as

[Aemony]

I don't understand how 7 is better than Vista. Sure it does look better, but thats all I hear people say when they say 7 is better. No one ever gives details of what exactly was wrong with Vista. I've heard some people say it had stability issues, but wouldn't that have been solved by service packs and updates?

Can someone please explain what was truly wrong with Vista?

Truly wrong? The OS uses generally too much resources for every little thing. That about the only remaining reason why Vista is worse compared to 7.

Windows 7 is basically an optimized upgraded more secure faster build of Windows Vista. The kernel wasn't changed much and Microsoft called it Windows NT 6.1 because they wanted it to remain compatible with most existing drivers for Vista, Windows NT 6.0, but underneath all new eye-candy Microsoft threw in a lot of optimizations and upgrades which resulted in a faster OS.

Windows 7 is the spiritual successor from Windows XP in practically every way. Sure, people's 'hate' against Windows Vista these days are misguided and not warranted because as you say most flaws has been fixed with the service packs and updates, but haters gonna hate.

But where Windows Vista had a terrible launch with low device and driver support (not the fault of Microsoft but of OEMs and device makers) and pretty much too high requirements and riddled with bugs and stability problem Windows 7 had an almost flawless launch. Drivers existed, the public beta rooted out almost every bug (Windows 7 was better usable in Public Beta than Vista) and the whole operating system just rocked in comparison with it's prequel.

[x_rast_x]

My main gripes with Vista:

When I upgraded to Vista none of my drivers worked anymore, spent days getting the HP printer I had at the time to work again (since HP's stance on drivers is they'd rather you buy a new printer than update their drivers, but that's a whole different story. I use a Brother printer now and am very satisfied with it)

Vista's UAC was way overzealous. Security is important but popping up the UAC dialog whenever you did anything more advanced than scratch your ♥♥♥ was annoying and probably did more harm than good since it conditioned people to disregard it.

Vista took a long time to boot, compared to XP and Windows 7.

Windows 7 is a lot better. It boots faster, UAC is way less annoying, and I like the new start menu and task bar (even though they took a while to get used to). My main gripe with it is Windows Media Player 12 - they took out the tag editor completely and the library support is so glitchy (or at least was, I haven't used it in ages now)I went back to Winamp for managing my audio collection.

[Baron_Fel]

Early on the driver support was terrible, performance was a bit poor as well but after a few updates, driver revisions and especially the service pack Vista is perfectly fine (although still a touch more performance intensive than one would like, but not terrible).

pretty much this.

[Yiffles]

It seems most of the problems could have been fixed in updates. I mean was it really necessary for them to release a new OS less than 2 years later?

Wasn't the kernel reworked significantly enough to make it a new OS?
I think Microsoft should have taken on to Apple's idea of super-cheap upgrade editions. I think Leopard users got Snow Leopard for $35, because it was mainly focused on kernel improvements and making the system run better, rather than add new things for the end users.

Also, I just installed Windows 7, replacing XP. I haven't really used it enough to give my verdict on it, though I do find it rather unusefull that I can't dock a toolbar to the top of the screen.

[VividNinjaScar]

Vista was bad before the service packs, now it is great. Vista now is better than XP ever was. With that being said, 7 is just miles ahead of Vista. I don't know how to explain it, but everything comes together. From the interface to the new features they added. For example, I can't use XP anymore because I've gotten so used to maximizing my windows by dragging it to the top of the screen.

[BS_1]

I never had any problems with Vista, so going to Windows 7 didn't seem that much different to me. Maybe it's just bad memory though, I did use Vista since beta and 7 since beta. :p
Desktop Slideshow.

Such win!
But Vista has Dreamscene!

I miss that feature. :(

[devilsrefugee]

It seems most of the problems could have been fixed in updates. I mean was it really necessary for them to release a new OS less than 2 years later?

they say win7 is what vista should have been.

[MADDOGGE]

Vista was a pos when it first came out between the alpha condition of the coding, horrible file system and the lousy 3rd party driver support. don't know how they thought that was ready to ship. It was also visibly slower than XP on everything I dealt with. After the 3rd party people got off their asses and started to make drivers for it and MS put out the first SP, I though it turned into a very nice stable OS. but nothing spectacular. certainly nothing to warrant switching from XP.

Window7 I fell in love with during the open beta. It was everything I liked in XP and everything Vista wasn't fast easy to use very compatible with my older games. It was made for todays hardware and had proper drivers most of the time if not Vistas woked until they did. I liked the desktop. The only disappointment for me is that more wasn't done in the Games Explorer with customization to make it a nice place to visit. Even Steams library has more function that Games Explorer has with no update in sight. Win7 was worth switching from XP.


PS: It never hurts to keep a legacy single core rig with 98/XP on it though if you are an old time gamer.;)Nothing is 100%

[spacebug]

Going from 7 back to Vista, I find a lot of things are easier to find and more intuitive in 7 than Vista. Mostly things like the names of settings in the Control Panel.

Also, my husband's Vista machine used to keep deciding to do things in the background while we were watching a DVD on the computer and making the DVD chug. Pretty sure he was using default install, never had that issue with 7!

Basically, 7 is Vista with a lot of the crinkles ironed out.

[cructo]

win7 is win.
cwutididther

[Anlashok]

I had to get a new hd which just arrived today and while I was at it decided to also order Win7 Ultimate to replace Vista 64 Ultimate. I am in the process of reinstalling games now from Steam and have already gotten my main programs installed and Win7 customized to how I like. I did notice it boots faster and the one game I briefly tried loaded faster. That's really all the things I have noticed thus far having only had it installed a total of 3 hours so far lol ;)

btw, someone was talking about service packs a little ways up the thread and I was just reading Win7's SP1 is now out to vendors and will be released to the public on Feb 22 I believe?

[Blackops]

Going from 7 back to Vista, I find a lot of things are easier to find and more intuitive in 7 than Vista. Mostly things like the names of settings in the Control Panel.

Also, my husband's Vista machine used to keep deciding to do things in the background while we were watching a DVD on the computer and making the DVD chug. Pretty sure he was using default install, never had that issue with 7!

Basically, 7 is Vista with a lot of the crinkles ironed out.

This is how it feels to me. My mom has Vista 32-bit and her machine just feels really sluggish and incomplete to me. I'm on Win7 64-bit so I guess the speed difference would be pretty obvious.

[Baron_Fel]

This is how it feels to me. My mom has Vista 32-bit and her machine just feels really sluggish and incomplete to me. I'm on Win7 64-bit so I guess the speed difference would be pretty obvious.

depends entirely on the machine. Vista with an SSD would be much faster than Windows 7 on an HDD.

[marie pavie]

Can someone please explain what was truly wrong with Vista?
Over all, nothing was wrong with Vista, mostly, it just got a bad rap. As to W7, as far as I know there's very little change from Vista.

[Scared]

I'm dreading the day that MS makes the 'new' control panel the only control panel. One of the first things I do with Vista/7 is set the control panel back to the classic (or rather, large/small icons instead of category). It is 501% easier to find what I want with the icons.

[Anlashok]

I honestly did not mind Vista64. It always seemed to work well for me and I never had the issues a lot of ppl have brought up here, but Win7 does seem to work a bit faster to me from what little I have gotten to play around with.

[T@F]

As I see it,vista came out with many bugs and probs.
They did get fixed but took quite a long time though.

As the saying goes first impressions last.

Where as win7 came out and the only prob they had was drivers.
also i find win7 seems to run better,but i did not wait on vista for sp1 ect ect.
As i un-installed it within a month and made up my mind i hated it.

Yet win7 first install not had any probs so got more respect from me.

[real4xor]

I got both. Well, got the win7 upgrade kit with my Vista.

Vista doesn`t seem to recognise my network drivers, Windows 7 does.
Really makes installing the whole darn thing anew a much easier process.
Although it still takes "ages".

The main difference between the 2? Well, visually nothing, but windows 7 does seem to run smoother.
I like putting everything on classic & cheap azz resources setting, although it doesn`t really matter. Stuff runs slick either way.
:( But windows 7 does lack the ultimate extra`s Vista had.

[iBMe]

There's nothing wrong with Vista, and there hasn't been since service pack 1.

[Kahrandras]

I'm dreading the day that MS makes the 'new' control panel the only control panel. One of the first things I do with Vista/7 is set the control panel back to the classic (or rather, large/small icons instead of category). It is 501% easier to find what I want with the icons.

the new one is a pain in the ♥♥♥♥ing ♥♥♥ and i agree with this post

[HellJumper]

/User eXperience.

I see what you did there :)

[spacebug]

Yes. The direction Microsoft are taking with a lot of things is annoying. Like the way they now hide the menus in a lot of their applications (Like WMP and whatever they're calling MSN Messenger these days) unless you hold down the alt key.

:o

[Anasazi]

Windows 7 starts up faster, uses resources differently than Vista and more efficiently, has much better built in driver support, better file exploring systems...

[kaydee]

I've been using Vista x64 Ultimate since the very first release.

At first it had countless problems with drivers and unsupported devices. Not to mention that the system req. was also high for that time. This is the cause of people leaving Vista and went for XP.

After their SP, it has gotten better.

Now, I have no problem playing games and whatnots (as long as the program isn't written in 16 bit). System is more than stable (PC has been on for 4 days and no problem launching resource hogging games).

Some people say Win7 is what Vista supposed to look like, and some poeple say Win7 is Vista point 5.

Vista ultimate has Dreamscene, so it beats background slideshow, since you can put almost any kind of movie clips as your background.

I never had to format my PC after the initial install.

High performance system requirement is the only con of Vista.
If you have more than 2GB ram (which was rare at the time of Vista release) and enough HDD space vista was very useable.

Even now, Vista beats Win7 gaming by a few margins, by offering higher frames per second, although the FPS difference is something about 3~15 FPS depending on game title. More information can be viewed from techie sites.

Google Vista vs Win7.

[Anlashok]

I took your advice and googled vista vs. win7 gaming and the very first link I checked showed Win7 doing better for gaming?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/page12.asp

[kaydee]

I took your advice and googled vista vs. win7 gaming and the very first link I checked showed Win7 doing better for gaming?

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/page12.asp

1. http://www.erodov.com/forums/vista-beats-windows7-gaming-benchmarks/18762.html

Windows7 may be the new hot OS in town but Vista continues to remain the best operating system you can have for gaming. In tests recently run by Hexus.net on the similarly priced graphic cards Radeon HD 4870 1GB and GeForce GTX 260 896MB the GTX 260 outperformed the HD 4870 in combination with the MS Vista OS when compared to simlar configurations with Windows7.

2. http://www.guru3d.com/article/windows-7-vs-vista-vga-game-performance/3

Above you can see (lower two lines) the GeForce GTX 285 in Vista (64-bit) and Windows 7 (64-bit). Then the upper two lines are a GeForce GTX 295 again in both Windows 7 and Vista.

All tests have been performed on the same hardware (same PC actually) with the same 190.38 WHQL driver. Far Cry 2 was one of the very few titles where, for multi-GPU setups, Vista was a teenie weenie bit faster.

For the Radeon HD 4890 and 4870 X2, performance is also dead on in Windows 7 compared to Vista. Mind you guys that there will always be random fluctuations after a restart or whatever that can influence the performance a tiny bit. Benchmarking is not an exact science. So a 1 or 2 FPS offset is considered to be normal.

Look @ this chart: http://www.guru3d.com/article/windows-7-vs-vista-vga-game-performance/9

I was afraid that with the coming of a new OS we'd see a performance drop just like we had with the transition from Windows XP to Vista, but if anything, Windows 7 VGA performance is as good as Windows Vista with the obviously occasional random fluctuation in performance here and there though.

The FPS difference isn't much, also all the FPS are above 60, so it ain't going to bother you playing games.

[Aemony]

1. http://www.erodov.com/forums/vista-beats-windows7-gaming-benchmarks/18762.html

2. http://www.guru3d.com/article/windows-7-vs-vista-vga-game-performance/3

Look @ this chart: http://www.guru3d.com/article/windows-7-vs-vista-vga-game-performance/9

The FPS difference isn't much, also all the FPS are above 60, so it ain't going to bother you playing games.

Kaydee, I like you, you often have great posts and arguments. However this time I really need to :rolleyes: at your post. Can you please give some actual up-to-date comparisons that are relevant?

1. The test here is all the way back from when Windows 7 was in public beta. So they are comparing a two years old operating system with one still in beta, much less been shipped, and which driver support was still pretty young.

2. Now in this they use the RTM version of Windows 7, but it's still two months before Windows 7 actually shipped.

Comparing an operating system still being developed on and not even having been shipped yet with an 'veteran' with two years optimizations and driver support is... well, just flawed. And then using those comparisons in a thread almost one and a half to two years later to strengthen ones argument is... Useless, I'd say.

Nvidia, ATI and Microsoft has in no way slept during the last years, optimizing the drivers and the OS, resulting most likely in a faster OS for gaming than the old build of Windows 7 you try to get across as being slower than Vista for gaming.

---

Vista ultimate has Dreamscene, so it beats background slideshow, since you can put almost any kind of movie clips as your background.


http://www.door2windows.com/windows-7-dreamscene-activator-activate-dreamscene-in-windows-7/

Yeah, it's not like Windows 7 doesn't have the option to install it >__< Without even actually owning the Ultimate version as well, to boot.

[jikl]

I had a computer once that ran on Vista, and holy balls it lagged hard.

Then I upgraded it to windows 7, and everything was perfect.

[Crab]

Because Windows 7 is more Mac-like? (new taskbar) :P
Sorry, just had to say it. Actually, compared to Mac OS X, the new taskbar's annoying in that unrefined sort of way.

Well, one difference is that with Windows 7, they didn't want to have everyone get used to Vista like they did XP. People still won't switch from XP because everything's now built for it exclusively. The longer the OS is out, the harder it'll be for people to switch.

[kaydee]

Can you please give some actual up-to-date comparisons that are relevant?

In fact, after the official release of Win 7 and countless amounts of patches and hotfixes, Win 7 beats Vista in almost every aspects... /sob

If you see the comparison dates, any comparisons of those two OSes and the posted dates are all 2009's. There are no "the latest" benchmark of those 2 OSes dated in 2010 or even in 2011.

1. The test here is all the way back from when Windows 7 was in public beta. So they are comparing a two years old operating system with one still in beta, much less been shipped, and which driver support was still pretty young.

2. Now in this they use the RTM version of Windows 7, but it's still two months before Windows 7 actually shipped.

Comparing an operating system still being developed on and not even having been shipped yet with an 'veteran' with two years optimizations and driver support is... well, just flawed. And then using those comparisons in a thread almost one and a half to two years later to strengthen ones argument is... Useless, I'd say.

This is the only link I can offer you: http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/2886/windows_7_vs_vista_cpu_memory_performance_comparis on/index.html This one uses the final RTM of Win 7, and considering MS didn't change kernel (core OS) files, This is as close to the current release of win 7 vs Vista.

When it comes to having a look at pure CPU performance, it seems that Windows 7 isn't quite as efficient as Windows Vista. As for memory, though, there isn't a whole lot of difference. On the down side you're not going to be breaking any wPrime records under Windows 7 for the moment.

On the other hand, while the CPU scores are lower, when it comes to graphics card performance we can tell from our previous articles that Windows 7 does a good job of keeping up with the older and more mature operating system; it coming out in front at times and sometimes falling slightly back.

What we're seeing today doesn't turn us off Windows 7 one bit. Once a bit of time has gone past there's no doubt we'll see CPU performance come up to or overtake that of Windows Vista. This should also result in slightly better graphics card numbers and anything else that benefits from more CPU power.

There's no reason to not be excited about Windows 7; it's the upgrade that Vista probably should have been. With that said, though, if Vista hadn't existed, then it's possible that W7 wouldn't be as good as it is now.

Another link: http://www.hardcoreware.net/windows-7-vs-vista-performance-comparison/8/
As you can see from the benchmark, in some parts (most of 'em though), win 7 leads, and the other parts, Vista.

As I've mentioned above, Win 7 is what Vista supposed to be. Not to mention that Vista and Win 7 shares the same driver structure and files, I say it's all about their kernel files and its performance.

---

Yeah, it's not like Windows 7 doesn't have the option to install it >__< Without even actually owning the Ultimate version as well, to boot.

From what I've read a long time ago, installing 3rd party patched dreamscene and other language pack will invalidate your copy of Win 7.

My other 2 cents: Heck, Still the most used OS is Win XP, and still some claiming that XP is the way to play games.

[kaydee]

I think Microsoft should have taken on to Apple's idea of super-cheap upgrade editions.

If you still have a working university email address(es) you could check the ultimate steal and dreamspark for MS programs.

At Ultimate steal, they sell Win 7 pro upgrade for 60 bucks and office 2010 pro for 70 bucks (no sure about the price) and at the dreamspark, you can get all MS dev. tools, such as VB, VC, C++ for free.

Yeah, you read it correct, free, 0.

All these if you have a working univ. email adress.

[chaplain_wu]

To summarize this thread:

Win7 is what Vista should have been. That said, its nothing terribly special if you already have Vista

[kaydee]

To summarize this thread:

Win7 is what Vista should have been. That said, its nothing terribly special if you already have Vista

Thumbs up! QFT...:cool:

[Mikeedude]

Having had all the versions of windows at some point, I would say they are all similar.
Its depends on your pc if you have an old system then vista will come out worse as it uses (on mine anyway) about 200mb more memory just idling away.
I have vista 32 bit on my gaming pc and win 7 64bit on my other pc, win 7 is a fraction quicker at loading,maybe more due to it being 64bit version and can use all my memory?

But people are quoting upgrading to win 7 and it being faster...well dur whenever I reinstall or put on a new windows on a pc it goes quicker, it hasn't got the years of rubbish thats piled on your pc when you install/remove programs.

Win 7 is a slightly better version of vista, if you want to improve your pcs performnance,get a SSD or better hardware, which will probably be cheaper than windows.

[tibetanpunk]

I do find it rather unusefull that I can't dock a toolbar to the top of the screen.

I have objectdock and it docks at the top of the screen perfectly.

[DAWeeE1]

I think it's faster than both Vista and XP.

[T@F]

For ppl who say win7 don't have Dreamscene,yes tec you're right.
But google search and there are progs out that will let win7 use it.

[ledbelly]

well, windows 7 has better speed and performance than vista. one thing i've never gotten in windows 7 - which really annoyed me in vista - is the stupid 'com surrogate' error.

[Mangr0v3]

<repost>
I dont like Windows 7.

By itself, it's a great OS. But in my opinion, Windows 7 is mostly a major move by Microsoft's marketing department. Why? Because it's extremely similar to Vista SP2.

Windows XP copped a lot of flak when it first launched, and only became the OS everyone loved (Linux and OS X people, I dont mean you) with the launch of SP2.

Vista was the same. Vista copped a lot of flak at it's launch, and it stable, working well, etc. under SP2. However the media had put out a bad public image of Vista, so everyone hated it, and didn't really give it a try.

Windows 7 launched. It's extremely similar to Vista SP2, but it has a new UI, a tamed UAC, and several other features, and guess what? Everyone loves it. Even with it's ridiculous pricing ($470 for Ultimate full? Really?) everyone seems to love it.

And I'm over here in my little corner, silently screaming 'Why?!'. Vista was a red apple, Windows 7 is a green apple. They're both pretty much the same, but for some reason everyone hates the red one and likes the green one.

Remember the Mojave experiment? Microsoft showed a group of people Vista, pretended it was their next OS, and suddenly those people liked it. I think Windows 7 is just Mojave but on a much larger scale.

Both of the OS leaders, Microsoft and Apple, both didn't add much new stuff into their current operating systems. Apple advertised "0 new features*" for OS X 10.6 'Snow Leopard', which added Exchange support into Mail.app, and that was about it, apart from all the work under the hood. It's codename is also similar to that of it's predecessor, 'Leopard'. It's not that different. Microsoft didn't do too much to Windows 7 - it's version number is 6.1 (Vista was 6.0), indicating a minor revision - but they still charge their ridiculous prices.

If Windows 7 was free, I would be up for it. Even if it was $30, I would grab it. Problem is, the cheapest way to get it non-OEM is Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade for $150-$200, with the Windows 7 Student Offer at $50. And that's one licence. The Snow Leopard upgrade is $40 here, and a family pack for 5 computers is $70. To upgrade my house to Windows 7 would cost about $500. There is no way I'm paying that (or my parents) for not much of a difference.

That's why I dont like Windows 7. I'm not paying that much for a marketing move.

[/rant]
</repost>


In short, it's not much better.

[T@F]

Mangr0v3 if you have vista then maybe it's not worth the upgrade for the price you would have to pay out.
But many ppl also just have xp so tec it's a better upgrade for them.

I had both vista and win7.
Vista came with my computer but i hated it,so i installed my orig retail xp instead.
Then win7 came out,i was a bit flush at the time so i bought it.
Best buy for an op system yet imo.

[lucid enigma]

Win7 > Vista because Win7 = Vista++
Microsoft have always worked like this.
One OS (95, 2000, Vista) is innovative and fails due to so many bugs and problems.
The others (98, XP, Win7) are the previous OS as they should have been!

The moral of the story, Don't buy Win8, wait for Win9!

[MADDOGGE]

Well I lived through DOS/95/98/ME/XP/Vista and now Win7. Win7 was the first OS I bought retail instead of just settling for it like I always did when I bought my next box store rig. I liked it so much I wanted it immediately. I saw a real difference between Vista and Win7. It wasn't all marketing. vista is certainly a fine stable OS now but it wasn't alway. As for XP it was fine for it's time and hardware. I still have a single core legacy I run itand 98 on but it's long since time to move on otherwise.



Win7 > Vista because Win7 = Vista++
Microsoft have always worked like this.
One OS (95, 2000, Vista) is innovative and fails due to so many bugs and problems.
The others (98, XP, Win7) are the previous OS as they should have been!The moral of the story, Don't buy Win8, wait for Win9!Very true.;):D

[Anlashok]

<repost>
Everyone loves it. Even with it's ridiculous pricing ($470 for Ultimate full? Really?) everyone seems to love it.



I just ordered MS-WIN7-ULT64 for $209.00?

[Baron_Fel]

Windows 7 wasnt a massive leap forward but it definitely features enough improvements over Vista to be a new OS.

[AlphaFox]

Has anyone said 'Because it has a 7 in it' yet?

[Mangr0v3]

I just ordered MS-WIN7-ULT64 for $209.00?

http://dicksmith.com.au/product/XS8099/ms-windows-7-ultimate-mst3579

469.00 AUD = 468.812 USD (http://www.xe.com/ucc/convert.cgi?Amount=469&From=AUD&To=USD)

And that's about a cheap as it gets at retail.

[Arrowslinger]

I have Vista 32 and 7 64 on a partitioned drive, like night and day about to delete vista :P

[Cap.]

I have Vista 32.

I hate it.

[rotNdude]

There are many reviews that were done when Win7 was in beta and RTM. Here is a couple of those many reviews:

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0

http://www.winsupersite.com/article/faq/windows-7-faq.aspx

[mitch79original]

it just is, is that new?