Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
I've had that misfortune when my laptop arrived (Vista). I'll stick with my custom build of xoblite. (I use it party so my *nix boxes are similar and partly because I love it.)
That's Vista, what about W7, which is the point of discussion of trying?

"I was talking about the new Aero (like Aero Peek) and the new Taskbar."
I don't use a "taskbar" style shell in XP--or any other OS since Windows 98 was released.
So why is that?

"And disabling threads and stuff to gain more performance are just myths."
Do you really think that? O_o
Yes. From my experience of trying disabling services, it does nothing.
Shutting down programs helps if you're low on memory.

"I've found that disabling services doesn't do anymore than give you headaches."
Yea? And? Do you have a point? (Hint: You not reading the documentation and understanding the requirements for your machines doesn't change the reality for the rest of us.)
My point being that those services are there for a reason.
If you find yourself using something in the future which requires that service, it usually fails in some spectacular unknown way. So you have to enable the service again.
What's the point? Just leave the service enabled. It's not like it hinders performance.

"This is more about the eco system itself rather than the OS."
Indeed? (See the old, buggy network stack implementations Microsoft used to provide for an example of how the OS contributes to "the eco system".)
Don't shoot the messenger...

"But it didn't have native bluetooth functionality."
Well... it is just an OS. You would still need the hardware.

"No need for drivers in Windows 7, because it's built-in."
You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?
Well, yes and no. Sort of.
What I do know is this: In windows 7, all you need to install is the drivers for your bluetooth hardware. Then there's an add device guide which adds your bluetooth devices.
And in previous Windows, 3rd parties usually installed some additional bluetooth software and things.
Again, just the messenger here.

"All I'm saying is, try it before you hate it."
Well, that is advice but I do get what you are saying, but you've also been saying, more or less, that Windows 7 is some worthy improvement while saying that "Window 8" may actually be the one to bring new stuff the table. What I'm implying here is you shouldn't spend money on nothing.
For Vista -> Win7, there are big gains.
For XP -> Win7, there may seem to be less gains.
Is it worth the current amount of money that it costs? I don't think so. And I certainly wouldn't give off the impression that you should upgrade. All I do is tell of the changes in Windows 7, especially over Vista.

Anyway, you've missed the point entirely. If Windows Vista was a step down and Windows 7 is a step up you've only made a lateral move. With that in mind, why move from XP? Why pay good money to upgrade and get nothing?
Because Vista provided good things that XP didn't have. But it also added things that were a downside, such as resource hungry and sluggish.
But the latter was fixed in Windows 7, thus it becoming known as Vista 2.0, Vista as it should have been.
I'm not going to try to list things that are better in Vista, partly because I know it won't add anything worthy to the discussion, partly because there's lists all of the web and partly because different individuals will find different things better.
But the best reason to upgrade? Because XP is antique by today's standards. Had Vista not been so bad at launch, it would have been a good idea to upgrade to it from XP, but alas, that was not so. So let's give another chance to Win7. Even though just moderately better than XP (or not, depending on how you see it), at least it's more modern, secure and will allow easier upgrade paths in the future and will be supported longer.

"As things grow, they become more slow"
"but W7 did the other way"
"it become faster"
"breaking the trend that everything new must be slower"

Now you are just being silly. Windows XP runs well on ancient (current standards) hardware. Windows Vista needed serious hardware to run poorly. From all account Windows 7 runs only a little better on similar hardware. It didn't magic anything. It didn't break any such trend--not that such a trend even exists.
At least it shows that Vista didn't need to be such a resource hog. If they made Vista as Win7 in the first place, the new OS would still run on ancient hardware. That's good, isn't it?