atifsh if you're using vista sp1 as the source data sample for how much ram it takes up, here being 800+, then 430 to 450 is a lil off from what xp takes up w/out mp11 and ie 7. unless you're talking about windows 7 taking up less ram than vista sp1. you didn't post anything on the mem usage other than percentage of 512mb of ram on that. Though since 50% of 512mb is 256 then I think you're adding the xtra 5-10% and coming up w/ 430 to 450 as compared to 800+ mb on vista sp1. Still it's taking more than a whole stick of 256 mb of ram than xp.
What's to jump up about? Some xtra features? Because if responsiveness is the best they could offer I'm more than satisfied w/xp right now if you know what I mean.
Also you said> well installation is faster then of XP's on a test xps200 i have here, yet to install windows 7 Are you referring to the installation results from the attacments? Must be because you haven't installed it yet on there. Did you yourself rate the installation times that it took on the pc you have it on now w/the other 2 window os? That being xp and vista sp1? I know it'll be quite a pita to install and uninstall to find out, but I guess from experience you could tell?
This is interesting because now one really could gauge the bs behind newer os from ms. If bells and whistles is essentially the main selling point here, which it does seem it is, besides a lil more response time, then why bother? Then again any link or post to the eye candy? That'll really put things in perspective.
Comment