Is 2008 The Best

rcooper

I'm using various versions of BD - 2008/2010/2011 all but one on machines running XP (pro & home) It's fair to say that I'm convinced of two things. 1: XP is by far the best operating system from MS so far. 2. BD AV 2008 is by far the best programme offered by BD so far.

I have a strong dislike of programmes that are overly large and take up space and resources and therefore are much slower - i.e Win 7 and 2010 and 2011 versions of BD. Worse of all the update time on the newer versions of BD is far slower than on 2008.

Why do newer programmes not get smaller and faster instead of bigger and slower ?

Tomwa

I'm using various versions of BD - 2008/2010/2011 all but one on machines running XP (pro & home) It's fair to say that I'm convinced of two things. 1: XP is by far the best operating system from MS so far.

I run a multi-boot with BackTrack 4, Windows 7 ultimate x64, and Windows XP and of all of them Windows XP is used the most rarely. As time progresses the compatibility and functionality of windows 7 continues to increase and with an update to date system (I have a Core i7 920 PC with ATI Radeon 5870) you shouldn't have any real problems with Windows 7 as opposed to Windows XP. In fact I have had much fewer problems with Windows 7 than XP and the problems that I DO have are persistent from Windows XP (Having to delete the shell icon cache constantly for icons for example).

2. BD AV 2008 is by far the best programme offered by BD so far.

I have a strong dislike of programmes that are overly large and take up space and resources and therefore are much slower - i.e Win 7 and 2010 and 2011 versions of BD. Worse of all the update time on the newer versions of BD is far slower than on 2008.

I understand what you mean by programs that drastically affect the performance of a computer, I had at one point used a McAfee security suite (Many years ago) and it had many processes all using way to much ram and putting way to much load on the CPU. (Had a singe core at the time there were no Dual or Quad cores ) It seems to me you should be using Linux if you want small and fast than a linux distro which takes up only a couple hundred megabytes and has no real load on a computer would probably be best with you. However, for me I prefer to stay top of the line (As much as I can I'm not overly wealthy ).

Why do newer programmes not get smaller and faster instead of bigger and slower ?

Consider this, as time progresses operating systems and other programs have to include many more services and functions. We've got tablet PCs, Card Readers, Smart Cards, Insane numbers of USB devices, the ability to use multiple graphics cards, vast networking options. Which is why each time I install windows I follow a few steps.

1.) Install windows

2.) Reboot and Update as necessary

3.) Install Security Programs (AV, AS, Behavior analysts, ect.)

4.) Go through Services and disable ALL of what I do not need.

5.) Disable unnecessary Windows components.

After Windows Initial setup I have about 46 Services that startup automatically and am able to disable a very large quantity of those. In the end I would dare to say that several months into a Windows 7 setup that has been properly customized you will be much better off than a Windows XP system used in the same way.