Guys on my programming forum using a slightly different dialect of Windows basic are finding faults and one reason I stick with XP.
This is a comment by a programmer much more skilled than I. These people write compilers and adjust the components of the language. The following is a quote by one of the gurus of the language following a previously running program crashing.
Memory leaks are the bane of programming languages. Repeated calls to a function without the memory being released will eventually take up the computers memory and everything stall.



So when the unexpected happens, It probably is not your fault. If all else fails go back to XP.
ME and Vista are testament to rushed operating systems. So far the programmers of CC follow strict version guidelines which displays itself in the solidarity of their software. They are a rare breed.

Windows 7 Works fine for me... Now when I had Vista it was really buggy... XP was also a good build. But I see no reason not to move to Windows 7.

I think programmers are compensating. It is possible but not desirable to do additional memory dumps.
When you start a program you expect it to work and 99% of the time it does and then for no apparent reason crashes(stalls) that is more than likely the available memory is full and a further request is enough to create gridlock. Actually happens on roads same principal.

As far as I know Windows is written in C, so basically it is bullet proof. But it is easy not to release memory after a function is called and so is created a memory leak that gradually consumes all available memory. Easy to do.

One check, run the task manager whilst using a program and watch the memory usage. this will increase on some programs during use. It is not as apparent with the memory available to modern systems but it does happen

Although I have to say I love windows 7 compared to the rest, including XP which I also loved until I got windows 7 (I'm on 32 bit), I do agree there is most likely memory issues with it. I've noticed many times where just certain types of programs tend to take a lot of memory and that even after closing them there are issues that make me have to reboot the computer to make it work as it should again. This isn't all too often, and I usually turn my computer off each night so it's not like I leave it sit too long without refreshing.

Anyways, even with any memory issues it's a whole lot better than XP is, and that's saying a lot since I really loved XP

I would pretty much agree.
XP=
Vista=
Win 7=

Here is my list:

Win98SE =
WinME =
XP=
Vista=
Win 7=

I have Win8 on parallels, don't know yet what I think of it.

Win 3.1: "New at this windows stuff; if something doesn't work perfectly, - must be MY fault..."
Win 95: "better"
Win 98: "...not so good..."
Win ME: (skipped this one)
Win XP: "MUCH better!"
Win Vista: (skipped this one)
Win 7: "MUCH better STILL, ++"
Win 8: (skip, and wait for 9...)

Oh, if we are to go down memory lane, I could add the OSes back to Win3.0 in which you couldn't scale anything up or down... Definitely

You are so forgetting one of the best releases!

http://toastytech.com/guis/bobboot1.gif

http://toastytech.com/guis/bobhome1p.png

LOL, I think I had that on my Packard Hell pc that I only had for a brief time.