Let's be fair about this: this is a computational task that, by all appearances, looks as though it's handled by the GPU. Getting rid of the logo wouldn't make Windows 7 load any faster, because that part of the boot sequence is all about disk I/O.
I think it looks clean, and polished. A definite step up from previous versions of windows. I just hope they are not trying to pull the wool over our eyes again like they did with Vista.
Well they show you this flashy OS that LOOKS better, but ends up being the same, if not worse. I know a lot of inexperienced computer users that got Vista just because it looked good. Now maybe it's their own fault, but you can't tell me that MS didn't think of that as well.
Besides hard numbers, I could say anecdotally that playing TF2 on vista was a nightmare of inexplicable pauses while the drive constantly accessed for 30-60 second spans and the game froze, rendering it unplayable while Vista did "whatever", and the problem completely went away when I went back to XP....
We can argue the "slower on the same hardware" argument every day for eternity, but that's the way it's been with damn near all operating system improvements since they started. I find more than enough redeeming qualities in Vista (improved security, improved graphics subsystem, improved resource management in many areas, etc) to completely boggle me with the sheer number of "upgrade to XP" slogans I've seen over the last few years.
But hell, I've been blowing this horn for a while, and nobody's listened to me yet. I just sincerely do not believe that anything in Vista so much worse than XP that they're deserving of being called deceivers. That's hyperbole of the highest quality.
*Snark realizes this makes him look like a fanboy, but will kill anybody who says so...
I run windows Vista, and I have no plans to go back to XP. All I was saying, is that Vista looked better than it ran when it was released. One could argue that XP did the same thing over windows 2000. I think that the new boot screen is nice looking, and appealing, but I'm not going to start making calls on the OS until I see more than a little tinsel and glowing orbs.
Thrax
🐌Austin, TX Icrontian
Comments
Or we could just stick to benchmarks
We can argue the "slower on the same hardware" argument every day for eternity, but that's the way it's been with damn near all operating system improvements since they started. I find more than enough redeeming qualities in Vista (improved security, improved graphics subsystem, improved resource management in many areas, etc) to completely boggle me with the sheer number of "upgrade to XP" slogans I've seen over the last few years.
But hell, I've been blowing this horn for a while, and nobody's listened to me yet. I just sincerely do not believe that anything in Vista so much worse than XP that they're deserving of being called deceivers. That's hyperbole of the highest quality.
*Snark realizes this makes him look like a fanboy, but will kill anybody who says so...