Mailbag: Rating Vista SP2, a Leaner Windows 7, More
Readers share their thoughts on Vista, including how SP2
stacks up and what it might mean for Windows 7:
Ladies and gentlemen, Windows 7 is Vista SP3. It's OK, breathe.
If Vista SP2 rocks, imagine it on Red Bull and Mountain Dew after just winning the lottery!
I have been using the RC version of Vista SP2 for four days now and it makes a big difference for me. All of my programs load quicker and boot times are faster. Being the avid gamer that I am, I generally notice performance, compatibility and stability changes faster than the average user. Anyone still having issues with Vista needs to have their computer checked by someone who knows what they are doing as there is a good chance that person's issues are self-inflicted.
Vista is not a good choice for the average user as it tends not to be user-friendly. After installing Vista, there are a few system services that need to be turned off as it helps with resource usage and speeds up the OS considerably (UAC, System Restore, SuperFetch, ReadyBoost and Volume Shadow Copy). Turning off these functions freed up 40 percent of my RAM and slowed my initial processor and hard drive usage by more than 75 percent -- not to mention I freed up several gigs of hard drive space.
Speaking of turning components off, Windows 7 will apparently let you do that to even IE. And Marc thinks he knows why:
Of course you realize that Microsoft has really done nothing more than add a switch to make the iexplorer.exe executable user-accessible. It's the same with WMP and the other applications that will be "de-selectable."
All the underlying code is still there. The APIs are still there.
All Microsoft has done is make it possible for it to leave users (and, more importantly, clueless legislators) with the impression that it has unbundled whatever the EU (or DoJ) asked it to unbundle. Since one can upgrade to another version of Windows 7 with a simple upgrade of the license key, Microsoft no longer needs to distribute multiple kinds of media, and it gets to sell these upgrades without profit-taking by the middleman. It's all smoke and mirrors -- the EU gets what it wants, users get what they want, Microsoft gets what it wants. There is more than one way to skin a cat.
And Charles thinks he there might be a correlation between a story about the Gates family being Apple-free...and something else:
Regarding the article on Bill Gates banning the use of iPhones in his premises, it should be noted that on the same day that hit the Internet, there was another article on a former Taliban mullah getting up to-speed online with an iPhone. Is this irony or cause and effect? If the latter, which is the cause and which the effect?
Tell us what you think! Leave a comment below or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on March 11, 2009 at 11:53 AM