Posts by Mark Sanchez3

And here is a quick little comparison from 2009:
http://cd-burning-software-review.toptenreviews.com/

crimsonfalcon67 said:Even Nero isn't sluggish if you don't clutter it up with junk you don't need.
I’m running Nero 8—just the Nero burning ROM and Nero Express installed, nothing else. It launches way faster than Ashampoo (which I also have on my machine)

I’ve never had an issue where Nero failed to burn a disc properly, whereas Ashampoo has definitely let me down. 🙂

And I honestly have to agree with that.🤣

Noah Miller6 said:Ashampoo Burning suite 9
isn't just an alternative; it's actually superior to Nero

I second this.

Paul Morgan74 said:;Man, whatever. I have no idea why people won't shut up about it... "Oh, a new build just dropped!" "The new build is absolutely incredible!" Just constant nonsense..

Well, what do you expect? They're fanatics, give them credit for their passion!
Look, don't even bother with those builds, because you'll just end up confused. There is zero point in constantly reinstalling everything just because of minor tweaks. Seriously, I'll say it again: wait for the full version to be released. Leave the builds to the people who actually know why they're downloading them.👍

Timothy Taylor42 said:Here is a preview of what Windows 8 will look like

http://windows8center.com/

I can hardly wait for Windows 10...

Taylor Campbell4 said:It’s such a shame they don't allow upgrades between builds...

That’s the biggest tragedy of all... honestly.🤷

Heh
I’ve actually been using this since before it even hit the market!
I’m loving every bit of it, despite all the nonsense my friends have been feeding me. They love to parrot whatever half-baked rumor they hear online and act like experts, even though most of them haven't even touched a PC in their lives.
There’s no way Windows 7 is replacing my Windows Vista setup anytime soon, but sooner or later, I'll probably end up running a dual boot anyway.👍

Taylor Campbell4 said:As far as I can tell, Windows 7 handles files and processes completely differently than Windows Vista. Because of that, XP and Windows 7—which basically pull similar performance numbers—are significantly faster than Windows Vista when it comes to basic user tasks.😁

I personally read in a magazine that this pre-release version was stable enough for the week, so I went ahead and installed it (grabbed it straight from the Microsoft site), and the system seems solid so far.
That said, I still don't think this jump in quality compares at all to what we saw when XP launched. Now, that was a truly great operating system, and it still holds up today.

It feels like with these newer systems, even with things like Microsoft applications, they try to "improve" stuff or tweak the UI, but it just ends up being more complicated in the end. I don't know...
I'm not exactly obsessed with Windows 7, but I'll stick with it. (I skipped Windows Vista because it drags so much; I usually run standard office hardware rather than high-end rigs, and I really have no desire to buy new hardware just to compensate for a bad OS.)

👍
Fair enough, everyone should pick whatever works for them. I like Windows 7 too, and yeah, it operates differently than Vista, even though Microsoft claims they share the same core. I'm planning to grab a retail version of Windows 7 (the kind you find in Best Buy), but it won't be my only OS; I'll be dual-booting it with Windows Vista.🙂
I think that'll be the best way to go.😍

Joseph Thompson26 said:I'm running Windows 7 RC1 on my laptop, and honestly, it feels pretty unpolished.

For instance, when I hook up to a projector using duplex mode—showing the same image on both screens—the laptop resolution defaults to whatever the minimum requirement is for the projector. It’s not a total dealbreaker, but it’s pretty stupid when you end up with huge black bars on the left and right sides of your screen. Windows Vista handled this perfectly.

Another more serious issue happens during bootup. Windows 7 boots fast, but basically, the Start menu, taskbar, and desktop fail to load. You just get stuck looking at a black screen with File Explorer open. If I manually navigate to C>Windows>explorer.exe within that window, then the system finally finishes loading "normally." Anyone have any ideas on why this is happening?

I don't have anything against Windows 7, but I think it's better to just wait for the final release before hitting the BitTorrent sites. 🤷
Plus, once SP2 rolls around, maybe that'll actually breathe some life into Windows Vista.👍

Douglas Phillips4 said:http://windows7news.com/2009/04/13/w...english-leaks/
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=131481

It could be a hoax. 🤷

Better to wait until Microsoft releases the official specs, then everyone can swarm the torrents.

placidgull21 said:Look, corporations over in Western countries have already started logging the IP addresses of anyone downloading movies, music, or even software via torrents. They track them down and then give them a choice: pay up or face a judge. We’re lucky enough to be a bit behind the curve when it comes to those kinds of laws, but in five to ten years, we could easily find ourselves in the same boat. Sure, tracking IPs is always an option, but given how things are run in this country...

That won't be happening here for a long time. I have a buddy in Germany who used to download all those great freebies online through torrents, and after a while, he got hit with a massive bill—over $3,000—and obviously, he had to cough up the cash.

Nathan Gray4 said:I’ve been running this for a few days now and I'm honestly pretty happy with it. I set up a dual boot with Windows XP and Windows 7, though I can't even remember the last time I actually booted into XP 🙂

Everything I've installed so far has worked just fine. I haven't had a chance to test out any games yet, but I'm hoping they run smoothly too 🙄

If things don't work, just use a compatibility mode! 👍

Jesse Jones15 said:Would this work on my old desktop? It's a Pentium 4 2.4 with a gig of RAM.

I'm running Windows Vista Home Premium on an older machine with 2 gigs and an AMD Athlon 3000 (2.0GHz), and even with all the visual effects turned on, it runs smooth as silk thanks to the service pack! There's zero lag. It’s fast and efficient, so you should be able to run Windows 7 on that 2.4 without any issues, but honestly, don't bother installing Windows 7 until the final version is actually out—you'll just be wasting your time.👍

John Taylor31 said:Is there actually any noticeable difference between build 7057 and 7077? I don't want to waste my bandwidth if it's all the same stuff.

Don't bother downloading anything. There are way too many builds floating around right now; don't waste your time and just wait until the official release comes out. Obviously, if something on your PC is broken because of a specific build, then go ahead and download it, but otherwise, you're just wasting your time.👍

Mininova... or something along those lines, just make sure you don't end up flying on the wrong version

Bryan Wood49 said:Hey everyone, give me some advice—should I go ahead and install Windows 7 on my laptop?
I'm running Windows Vista right now, and honestly... I guess I'm somewhat satisfied with it.

Trust me, don't touch Windows 7 until the full version is actually out, which I think is still about a month away. Just hang tight...

Frank Jackson46 said:Thanks for the info, but honestly, your post is completely irrelevant. I have no idea what the point of this pseudo-intellectual nonsense is; the message is clear enough to everyone, yet it holds absolutely zero value...

And what am I supposed to say to that? I didn't offer any criticism, so there's no need to immediately jump down my throat calling things "pointless"!🙄
When I mentioned that everything depends on the hardware, I meant that people constantly complain about things like Windows Vista being useless because it’s too demanding or slow. Well, newsflash: it wasn't designed to run on a 0.1GHz processor with 1MB of RAM. That's exactly why you need a slightly more powerful machine—which is why "hardware requirements" are printed right on the box. A computer can be optimized for specific tasks, and for certain jobs, a particular OS is simply the better tool for the trade. That was the whole point.
As for the users, it's the same logic. If you need an OS that wows you with raw speed rather than flashy graphics, you'll probably go with Linux (sure, it has an interface, but it isn't anything special). If you want an OS that impresses you with its "beauty" and unique design, then you grab Windows Vista or Windows 7.
Everyone should just choose whatever they want. Just like how some people will love Windows 7 while others hate it, an OS is only "better" or "worse" depending on what you actually need it to do.
👍
P.S. It's spelled "irrelevant."

Frank Jackson46 said:Interesting link. For the most part, I've been running build 7057 since it dropped, and honestly, it’s solid—it hits that sweet spot between Windows Vista and Windows XP. To me, Vista felt way too sluggish given all the cool features it offers, whereas XP tends to run into stability issues more often. This version is a great middle ground; even with the visual effects enabled, it runs fast. Without them, I think almost anyone looking to ditch XP could jump on this to get a better look and new functionality (even if some parts feel a bit clunky) without sacrificing speed.

It all comes down to the hardware and the person using it! An OS is really just a tool to help you reach your goal.

Maybe an HD 4850 for about $367, or if you can swing the extra cash, just go for the HD 4870.

Let’s just go ahead and revert back to Windows 7. This whole debate about XP versus Vista has already spiraled into some sort of endless loop—we've probably gone over this
trillions of times by now.Here is a little more context for you: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236