Windows 7 market share closing in on XP

Anyone still running XP is a techno goof and should be stripped of all "tech" status if they claim they are one!

I ran with XP for the longest time and tested Vista and 7 extensively and skipped Vista all in all because of the incompatibilities. 7 needs to be DeFacto.......PERIOD.

But......I also understand that you can't teach old or dumb dogs new tricks.

*Anyone who thinks they NEED to be running Windows 7 should have their opinions ignored as being quite bogus.



* - Except the gamers who must have newer DirectX

All it boils down to, is personal preference. Me I like both windows xp and 7. I hate vista. But its just my opinion.


"Running Windows 7 Home Premium x86"

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:

---

*Anyone who thinks they NEED to be running Windows 7 should have their opinions ignored as being quite bogus.



* - Except the gamers who must have newer DirectX

---

I second that. I am still running XP only because I don't want to have to buy a copy of 7. (I do have a hacked version of 7) I also don't like some of the way a few things are in the GUI. Mostly it is made for the less intelligent to be able to navigate through menus. Don't get me wrong. 7 does have it's strong suits.

Originally posted by defgod:

---

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:

---

*Anyone who thinks they NEED to be running Windows 7 should have their opinions ignored as being quite bogus.



* - Except the gamers who must have newer DirectX

---

I second that. I am still running XP only because I don't want to have to buy a copy of 7. (I do have a hacked version of 7) I also don't like some of the way a few things are in the GUI. Mostly it is made for the less intelligent to be able to navigate through menus. Don't get me wrong. 7 does have it's strong suits.

---

i swtiched from xp to seven on an old pentium 4 computer and noticed it was running faster so when ahead and installed winodws 7 on every comp at the house best choice ever made

From a tech standpoint, are we all goofs because we can't update an entire office environment to 7? You must not be aware how long it took to get everyone to XP from Windows 2000!

Personally, I still have XP at home for the same reason a user stated above. It hasn't been convenient for me yet to completely format and start from scratch on my PC at home. As for work, well, you're tied to what you have until you MUST replace your existing machine.

All I have to say is that anyone running XP better make sure they take extra steps to protect themselves. XP is a fine OS as long as the users keep it secure. I suppose this goes for Windows 7 and other OSes but modern OSes have better security.

im running xp because it is fricken paid for.i dont have security problems,or any other problems for that matter.when i update my computer i will update my os.i can stand being a techno goof if the original poster can stand being a loud mouth idiot.

i have both win7 ultimate 64 & xp pro on 2 different computers. need the xp because of a data recovery program that won't work in win7.

I'm very curious who our ONE Mac user is LOL.

It is a lot more than personal preference...

Win2K = Doesn't work with more than 4GB total ram.
XP86 = Same problem as Win2K
XP64 = Doesn't have drivers for new parts.
Vista86/64 = Unstable and slow
Win7x86 = Same problem as XP86
Win7x64 = The only option for a modern system that Microsoft offers.

Sure, there are still the various *nix OS's (including OSX), but those don't play games and the software support is rather lacking in many fields.

BTW...you can set the taskbar so it is identical to the old XP taskbar...and you improve performance in the process.

Originally posted by hearme0:

---

Anyone still running XP is a techno goof and should be stripped of all "tech" status if they claim they are one!

I ran with XP for the longest time and tested Vista and 7 extensively and skipped Vista all in all because of the incompatibilities. 7 needs to be DeFacto.......PERIOD.

But......I also understand that you can't teach old or dumb dogs new tricks.

---

I am an "old dog" and wiser by a long shot. I suppose some of us don't feel we "NEED" to have whatever Windows 7 or it's upgraded hardware have to offer. Many of us don't have to be on the cutting edge of technology to be able to brag to our techno babble friends. I've been building and repairing computers for 25+ years but have never been on the leading edge. I let fools like you spend the excess money first then I jump in when prices become reasonable.
Oh by the way, out of the 6 computers I own/run I do have two new Toshiba Satellite Pro laptops that came from the factory with XP AND 7 because Toshiba was smart enough to know some people want high end but have different needs and likes. Too bad more manufacturers hadn't taken that stance.

I have several machines running Windows 7 and I have a number of issues with it. My biggest complaint is the fact that you do not have the align to grid option on any folder after the desktop. I have several folders where I manually arrange the icons and then lock them in place with the CTRL + Close Window (X). Windows 7 has no way to do that like Windows XP does. I voiced this concern during Windows 7 beta testing and was told it was removed by design. I also have apps that I use that will not run on a 64 bit operating system and doesn't work well with the Windows 7-32 bit version(company's out of business so there isn't a newer version).

I, for one, am happier overall with Windows XP than I am with Windows 7. All things being equal XP is faster, doesn't have UAC, and it's paid for. Windows 7 has a higher hardware demand and is prettier, but for an average user it doesn't offer them a thing over XP. I am not a gamer so I can't speak to the benefits that Windows 7 provides to that community.

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:

---

*Anyone who thinks they NEED to be running Windows 7 should have their opinions ignored as being quite bogus.



* - Except the gamers who must have newer DirectX

---

And with that retarded mentality..............anyone who thinks they "need" a car instead of a bike or walking should be ignored. Anyone who thinks they "need" a phone instead of a pigeon should be ignored, anyone who thinks they "need" medication instead of natural remedies or letting GOD take his course should be ignored.

It's about ease of use, practicality convenience and simply staying current so SHUT IT!

As for those that stick with older OS's because of financial limitations......well, that goes without saying. BUT.....those turning down copies of Win 7 for XP or rolling back new computer installs to XP are a breed of their own........one that should be exterminated from the tech world.


To SProdigy---Again......those that stick with XP for financial reasons........such as people without jobs, or a substantial income or companies waiting for their new fiscal year are clearly an exception. Explaining THAT exception to ANYONE means there is a learning and reasoning disability present.

To VirgilB---The "Align to Grid" feature within folders was merely replaced by the "group by" which is more flexible and still, generally unused by most. No one used that "align to grid" in the folders!

Anyone OPTING for XP and using lame excuses like the "align to grid" feature should be banned from using a computer and required to pay people like me to come fix your sh*t. Good GOD.........mindless, complacent sheeple are everywhere.

Originally posted by hearme0:

---

Originally posted by xnonsuchx:

---

*Anyone who thinks they NEED to be running Windows 7 should have their opinions ignored as being quite bogus.



* - Except the gamers who must have newer DirectX

---

And with that retarded mentality..............anyone who thinks they "need" a car instead of a bike or walking should be ignored. Anyone who thinks they "need" a phone instead of a pigeon should be ignored, anyone who thinks they "need" medication instead of natural remedies or letting GOD take his course should be ignored.

It's about ease of use, practicality convenience and simply staying current so SHUT IT!

As for those that stick with older OS's because of financial limitations......well, that goes without saying. BUT.....those turning down copies of Win 7 for XP or rolling back new computer installs to XP are a breed of their own........one that should be exterminated from the tech world.


To SProdigy---Again......those that stick with XP for financial reasons........such as people without jobs, or a substantial income or companies waiting for their new fiscal year are clearly an exception. Explaining THAT exception to ANYONE means there is a learning and reasoning disability present.

To VirgilB---The "Align to Grid" feature within folders was merely replaced by the "group by" which is more flexible and still, generally unused by most. No one used that "align to grid" in the folders!

Anyone OPTING for XP and using lame excuses like the "align to grid" feature should be banned from using a computer and required to pay people like me to come fix your sh*t. Good GOD.........mindless, complacent sheeple are everywhere.

---

I won't stoop to name calling when someone doesn't agree with my opinion. I will simply say that we disagree.

Originally posted by hearme0:

---

To SProdigy---Again......those that stick with XP for financial reasons........such as people without jobs, or a substantial income or companies waiting for their new fiscal year are clearly an exception. Explaining THAT exception to ANYONE means there is a learning and reasoning disability present.

Anyone OPTING for XP and using lame excuses like the "align to grid" feature should be banned from using a computer and required to pay people like me to come fix your sh*t. Good GOD.........mindless, complacent sheeple are everywhere.

---

Wow, where do I begin with this and not flame on your comments? Apparently you've never been involved with ENTERPRISE IT. Having worked in both the retail and enterprise IT paths, I can tell you it's a lot easier for you to make your comments when you're fixing your neighbor's computer or forcing them to upgrade via a new PC.

In no way would anyone with logical IT knowledge spend $100+ to upgrade an XP or Vista PC of 3-4 years age up to 7. For the extra cost, you could get twice the PC AND the new OS. That my friend, is financially smart. Has nothing to do with hardship, but common sense. If something isn't broke, why fix it?

It's comments like this that help me make a nice buck or two on the side, fixing the problems that "know-it-all's" create when they "fix" someone's computer!

As for saying businesses are waiting for their fiscal year or don't have the money, you couldn't be more wrong. The company I worked for had over 2000 computers on their network. That's a princely sum for enterprise licensing, but how about all of the other headaches that come along with upgrading EVERY machine on the network?

We're talking about the time required to not only upgrade each individual machine, but the time that individual employees will be down without a machine and then the problems that could arise if a critical piece of software does not work on the new OS, or does not work as intended. It's a time sink, which means a money sink; business can not operate!

It has nothing to do with ignorance of upgrading and I can assure you that if you told anyone within our IT department that security would be an issue, they'd laugh in your face. It's a very slow process and one that IT departments will only follow through with as they replace old equipment and have the opportunity to bug test the new software; a process that will occur over several years, not OVERNIGHT.

hearme0, watch the offensive comments or i will ban you.

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

It is a lot more than personal preference...

Win2K = Doesn't work with more than 4GB total ram.
XP86 = Same problem as Win2K
XP64 = Doesn't have drivers for new parts.
Vista86/64 = Unstable and slow
Win7x86 = Same problem as XP86
Win7x64 = The only option for a modern system that Microsoft offers.

Sure, there are still the various *nix OS's (including OSX), but those don't play games and the software support is rather lacking in many fields.

BTW...you can set the taskbar so it is identical to the old XP taskbar...and you improve performance in the process.

---

I know this. I just didn't want to start an argument. So i kept my mouth shut. :)

Originally posted by ddp:

---

hearme0, watch the offensive comments or i will ban you.

---

Why warn, just delete the post.

d likes to give the benefit of the doubt:a quality not seen often enough in this day and age.

People still run XP because it has a smaller footprint, less of a resource hog and doesn't need a boatload of RAM.

Win7 is by far the best M$ OS to date. Unfortunately if you have a single CPU, very little RAM it's a waste of time. I run Win7 on my desktop but would never consider installing 7 on my Dell XPS 140.

When M$ stops supporting XP in 2014, I'll use the Dell as a doorstop.

I liked NT but it doesn't support USB. Besides it's yesterdays news.

Jeff

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

People still run XP because it has a smaller footprint, less of a resource hog and doesn't need a boatload of RAM.

Win7 is by far the best M$ OS to date. Unfortunately if you have a single CPU, very little RAM it's a waste of time. I run Win7 on my desktop but would never consider installing 7 on my Dell XPS 140.

---

Thank you. This is the ONLY reason to remain on Windows XP, if you have a very old computer. Everyone else is just afraid of change or does not want to pay to upgrade. Windows 7 is a superior OS and I have yet to hear a real argument that can refute that.

Originally posted by Jeffrey_P:

---

People still run XP because it has a smaller footprint, less of a resource hog and doesn't need a boatload of RAM.

Win7 is by far the best M$ OS to date. Unfortunately if you have a single CPU, very little RAM it's a waste of time. I run Win7 on my desktop but would never consider installing 7 on my Dell XPS 140.

When M$ stops supporting XP in 2014, I'll use the Dell as a doorstop.

I liked NT but it doesn't support USB. Besides it's yesterdays news.

Jeff

---

I have actually installed Windows 7 on modest systems with Single Core and 2GB ram with what would be considered a lower end video card (but enough to support areo) and it runs just as well and in some cases better than XP did on the same system. For example I have installed it on my fathers Inspiron 9300 with a single core intel processor at 2Ghz, 2GB Ram and a Radeon X300 video card. Runs great. The only thing it does that would be considered "bloat" is take more hard drive space.

Even after all the comments I really haven't read a REAL REASON to install it. Just so I can say I have it? Why? I don't care about the cost of the OS so again WHY do I need it? I mean real resons when you do reply please.

Originally posted by soupy51:

---

Even after all the comments I really haven't read a REAL REASON to install it. Just so I can say I have it? Why? I don't care about the cost of the OS so again WHY do I need it? I mean real resons when you do reply please.

---

You need reasons?

1. Better Security
2. Better Support for modern hardware. (If you have a computer that is 6+ years old this may be irrelevant but if you have a computer from the Vista era or newer this is plenty relevant)
3. XP is End of Life (meaning hardware and software vendors are phasing out support for XP as well)
4. Advanced Features to allow for easier sharing of media and files with other computers.
5. Support for modern software

Of course most people cannot see past the GUI to realize the advantages. While the core functionality of Windows 7 may be the same as XP there are many advantages to installing it. Many of the users I support at the school district felt the same way about Windows 7 thinking there was no advantage. Now after using it they find it much easier and more efficient to connect to the devices that help them teach and easier to collaborate with other teachers and students compared to an old OS such as XP.

Thanks for the info but if I have no problems, share everything I need to share, run all the software I need to run, have never had a virus or been hacked, hardware works with what I do. 6 networked computers running at any given time with no issues. Why do I need it again?

its going to be quite some time before software manufacturers phase out xp support.not when you still see 98 supported.

Originally posted by soupy51:

---

Thanks for the info but if I have no problems, share everything I need to share, run all the software I need to run, have never had a virus or been hacked, hardware works with what I do. 6 networked computers running at any given time with no issues. Why do I need it again?

---

Well you probably don't need it then, and any amount of convincing probably would be a waste of time anyway. If you still want to use a Windows OS, you might want to at least plan on learning how to use a newer version before 2014 when Microsoft drops support for it. I tested Vista on my system and hated it, Windows 7 is superior to both xp and vista IMO. I use win7 x64 and linux.

Originally posted by aldan:

---

its going to be quite some time before software manufacturers phase out xp support.not when you still see 98 supported.

---

It has already begun to happen. For example some software titles are going 64bit only. Look at Adobe CS5.. You need 64bit Vista or Win 7 to run Premiere and After Effects. This trend is increasing as there are other softwares that will not run on XP too.

As far as soupy goes I suspect he will say anything to cut Windows 7 down. I mean I never said you couldn't do some of the things Windows 7 does in Windows XP... It is just easier to do and especially for the typical computer user. I mean who would want an OS that can better manage itself, make it easier for it's users to work and keep their data safe with new built in features like enhanced back up options, or simple GUI making it easier to find the programs and files on your somputer and keep them organized and shared by the type they are with a couple clicks. Why would anybody want that?

Originally posted by soupy51:

---

Thanks for the info but if I have no problems, share everything I need to share, run all the software I need to run, have never had a virus or been hacked, hardware works with what I do. 6 networked computers running at any given time with no issues. Why do I need it again?

---

If you are using a bunch of outdated old rigs then you don't need Windows 7...but then you don't need XP either...those should run just as well (probably better) on Windows 2000, or better yet, Linux. What do you do with 6 computers when none of them can do CAD, games, or video? If you give me a good idea I might build about a dozen systems from the old parts in my attic...right now the closest thing to a use I can think of is as a dedicated PIC flashing machine (running Linux, not windows). Well, that and recycling the bits off the boards for projects as needed (I've already removed the timing crystals, connectors, headers, heatsinks, and caps from everything socket 7 and below).

This will be my final reply so all of you can move on to more important things. My statement was made to get responses to prove my point. 90% or more of the users in the world today don't use or own Adobe CS5, Premiere, After Effects or Light Room and aren't running a design business so don't run AutoCAD or have a need for it. I personally use Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements for my photo and video work and am quite happy. When I look at bobiroc's system it is obvious he has uses WAY beyond what the millions of average home users would ever have. I mean how many families with a computer have a need for a 300GB Raptor? My 500GB 7200RPM drive captures video just fine with no dropped frames so I need better hardware and OS why? Don't answer that because I don't.

bobiroc, just so you know I do run Windows 7 on 2 brand new high end laptops but basically because that is what is on ALL new machines. It is fine and there are some nice features and some inclusions that make me wonder what Microsoft code writers smoke during their break. Shortly the OS of choice will change to Windows 8 and then 9 and then Windows X I suspect. When you buy new you have no choice and either get used to your rammed down your throat OS or spend a lifetime complaining (find me a happy Vista user). But unless your machine won't run at all and you NEED something new this whole upgrade to stay cutting edge is, IN MY OPINION, an ego thing and a waste of money many people don't have and don't need to spend. I'm not upgrading to keep AMD, Intel or Microsoft in business because there are already plenty of people doing that for them.

Many of the comments here prove everything that is wrong with society today. Marketing people prey on the weak and keep corporations in business by making people THINK they have to be faster, bigger and newer. We have become a disposable society because nobody is ever happy with what they have. Many have bells and whistles they never use but will gladly sing their praises and point out the glitz and glitter because they don't want to seem silly for owning them just to be "up to date and cool".

I've been doing this for over 25 years and still have an OLD machine with DOS on it. Why? Because it is fun to see how far the computer world has come and how we used to have to be SMART to own and use a computer. Now all you need is money (less than way back when) because the OS makes it easy. That is a good thing but in my own stubborn mind only up to a point.

So thanks for all your input and please understand, I'm not against progress, just those not filling my wallet telling me it's time to waste my money once again on an UPGRADE!!

my sentiments exactly.nuff said.

I am happily running an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ [socket 939] with XP Pro sp3,1024MB DDR PC3200 SLI 8800GS Alpha Dog Edition GPUs.

When XP is no longer supported, clamwin is a useful anti-virus program.

I also have another computer with win7 installed,used for Folding@home project/client though I have to run the clients minimized as win7 does not allow an easy route to add as a service which XP does.

my 2¢

Originally posted by soupy51:

---

This will be my final reply so all of you can move on to more important things. My statement was made to get responses to prove my point. 90% or more of the users in the world today don't use or own Adobe CS5, Premiere, After Effects or Light Room and aren't running a design business so don't run AutoCAD or have a need for it. I personally use Photoshop Elements and Premiere Elements for my photo and video work and am quite happy. When I look at bobiroc's system it is obvious he has uses WAY beyond what the millions of average home users would ever have. I mean how many families with a computer have a need for a 300GB Raptor? My 500GB 7200RPM drive captures video just fine with no dropped frames so I need better hardware and OS why? Don't answer that because I don't.

bobiroc, just so you know I do run Windows 7 on 2 brand new high end laptops but basically because that is what is on ALL new machines. It is fine and there are some nice features and some inclusions that make me wonder what Microsoft code writers smoke during their break. Shortly the OS of choice will change to Windows 8 and then 9 and then Windows X I suspect. When you buy new you have no choice and either get used to your rammed down your throat OS or spend a lifetime complaining (find me a happy Vista user). But unless your machine won't run at all and you NEED something new this whole upgrade to stay cutting edge is, IN MY OPINION, an ego thing and a waste of money many people don't have and don't need to spend. I'm not upgrading to keep AMD, Intel or Microsoft in business because there are already plenty of people doing that for them.

Many of the comments here prove everything that is wrong with society today. Marketing people prey on the weak and keep corporations in business by making people THINK they have to be faster, bigger and newer. We have become a disposable society because nobody is ever happy with what they have. Many have bells and whistles they never use but will gladly sing their praises and point out the glitz and glitter because they don't want to seem silly for owning them just to be "up to date and cool".

I've been doing this for over 25 years and still have an OLD machine with DOS on it. Why? Because it is fun to see how far the computer world has come and how we used to have to be SMART to own and use a computer. Now all you need is money (less than way back when) because the OS makes it easy. That is a good thing but in my own stubborn mind only up to a point.

So thanks for all your input and please understand, I'm not against progress, just those not filling my wallet telling me it's time to waste my money once again on an UPGRADE!!

---

Let me get this straight soupy, you have an old machine running DOS because it makes you feel smart, you have four networked computers running XP at any given time, two high end laptops running windows 7, and your playing the devils advocate. I can see your new to these forums, but you need to wake up and smell what your shoveling. The bullsh*t meter just got maxed out with your last post.

well you would of busted the bullshit meter but for the fact that you never said anything.

To llongtheD AKA donaalfian: I suggest you learn to read and comprehend. You obviously are one of the people I mention and haven't been around long enough to see what has happened in this multi-billion dollar industry. I can take criticism quite well especially when I look at the source and the manner which it is applied.

Originally posted by soupy51:

---

To llongtheD AKA donaalfian: I suggest you learn to read and comprehend. You obviously are one of the people I mention and haven't been around long enough to see what has happened in this multi-billion dollar industry. I can take criticism quite well especially when I look at the source and the manner which it is applied.

---

First of all it's obvious I offended you and for that I apologize.
However, I did read your posts, maybe you need to re-read them. You spent all this time making the case that few really NEED to upgrade because it was just a marketing scheme, meanwhile your running win7 on two "high end" Toshiba laptops. Sounds like "the man" got you to upgrade anyway, lol.
Well I better get, just saw an advertisement for some high end laptops and it's got me under a spell. I think I'll get two.j/k

llongtheD: If you are as truly intelligent as you THINK you are, you probably realize that if anyone purchases a new laptop/desktop they are going to get Windows 7 as the OS with no option. If you don't understand that sometimes people NEED a new laptop (which I did) and I did state that in my long post that you seem to dislike so much, then I can only assume your IQ matches the current Windows version number. "the man" didn't get me to upgrade, a dead motherboard did and it is almost cheaper to buy new laptop than to find the proper motherboard for a dead one. But I didn't need to tell you that because you know EVERYTHING!

Originally posted by soupy51:

---

llongtheD: If you are as truly intelligent as you THINK you are,you probably realize that if anyone purchases a new laptop/desktop they are going to get Windows 7 as the OS with no option. If you don't understand that sometimes people NEED a new laptop (which I did) and I did state that in my long post that you seem to dislike so much, then I can only assume your IQ matches the current Windows version number. "the man" didn't get me to upgrade, a dead motherboard did and it is almost cheaper to buy new laptop than to find the proper motherboard for a dead one. But I didn't need to tell you that because you know EVERYTHING!

---

Well I certainly didn't mean to get you all riled up soupy. Yes I do know that just about any new computer you buy now is going to have win7 on it. And yes it's probably cheaper to buy a new laptop than to replace the motherboard, so why not get two while your at it. If you like xp, great use it on your new laptops since they came with both versions. I guess I thought your argument that upgrading to win7 was just a marketing scheme, and most who did were the victims of clever marketing sounded a little off. I have a newer computer myself and for me windows 7 suits my purposes better.

llongtheD: One laptop for me and one for my wife because she uses software that she has to use to run an embroidery machine and XP is the last OS it works on. I swap out her drive when we go away and she runs Windows 7 at that point. Mine runs Windows 7 since I need to know it for my customers sake.

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

It is a lot more than personal preference...

Win2K = Doesn't work with more than 4GB total ram.
XP86 = Same problem as Win2K
XP64 = Doesn't have drivers for new parts.
Vista86/64 = Unstable and slow
Win7x86 = Same problem as XP86
Win7x64 = The only option for a modern system that Microsoft offers.

Sure, there are still the various *nix OS's (including OSX), but those don't play games and the software support is rather lacking in many fields.

BTW...you can set the taskbar so it is identical to the old XP taskbar...and you improve performance in the process.

---

Windows X86 OSes based on the NT Kernal starting with 2000 can support more than 3.25GB of ram you just need hardware that supports Physical Address Extension (nearly every x86-64 Supports PAE) and a Patch file to remove the PAE Breaking code deliberately put into place by MS due to licensing concerns.

Originally posted by DXR88:

---

Originally posted by KillerBug:

---

It is a lot more than personal preference...

Win2K = Doesn't work with more than 4GB total ram.
XP86 = Same problem as Win2K
XP64 = Doesn't have drivers for new parts.
Vista86/64 = Unstable and slow
Win7x86 = Same problem as XP86
Win7x64 = The only option for a modern system that Microsoft offers.

Sure, there are still the various *nix OS's (including OSX), but those don't play games and the software support is rather lacking in many fields.

BTW...you can set the taskbar so it is identical to the old XP taskbar...and you improve performance in the process.

---

Windows X86 OSes based on the NT Kernal starting with 2000 can support more than 3.25GB of ram you just need hardware that supports Physical Address Extension (nearly every x86-64 Supports PAE) and a Patch file to remove the PAE Breaking code deliberately put into place by MS due to licensing concerns.

---

The code is also there because of the massive driver conflicts that are caused by turning it on.

XP is a solid OS. Stick with it if you are pre-multicore processor with less than 2 gigs of ram.
If you have multicore with 4 gigs of ddr3, it is faster to be on win7. I never was a fan of service packs since they always killed performance. I never put sp1 on xp and wont put it on 7 either. I'll trust a 3rd party to do the securing and not monkey code hotfixes that gum up a clean running OS.
Wish 7 kept cascading task management but ill just type the app name in the start bar. I fricken hate this "run as administrator" garbage. Should be a way (there probably is) im always super user and im never prompted to do silly things like delete system32 and all its contents.

...but hey, i understand safeguards for the computer illiterate.