• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

WinXP vs Win7

Recommended Posts

Rigby    1,577

Windows 7 is a bit better, Vista was plain horrible. Even so I don't want either, mainly because of the most important thing to an end user and that is the interface. For me the new theme and layout were ugly, unintuitive and filled with gimmicky junk. The classic theme is still there but it's pretty messed up now since they no longer design the interface with it in mind.

I despised the new Windows Explorer also. All my opinions of course but after two months of trying to like Vista I gave up on it; I hate it. A lot of people do. If I could get the Windows 7 kernel with the XP GUI I'd use it without hesitation, but as it stands now the next time I upgrade my OS it will probably be from XP to Linux or some form of BSD, maybe OSX. Absolutely not Vista or 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lamp Post    71
- DWM still uses CPU - up to 2% on my Computer

DWM runs on the CPU, though it does no rendering on the CPU, so it doesn't really use much resources. Also, the DWM/WDDM is "safer" when it comes to instability. Because it uses the kernel space less compared to the XP model, a failure from the GPU won't crash the system completely in most cases.

- I am saying that XP requires less memory to run.

Though, unless you have -very- low amounts of RAM, you would not require to minimize the amount of memory Windows use?

- Windows Audio Device Graph Isolation causes up to 10% CPU usage when audio is enabled - without it there is no sound.

Never spikes above 1% for me... :s

- Without GPU drivers XP interface is slow like hell. I never said that the GUI in W7 is slow, but Windows XP is still faster.

Win7 doesn't have to do the repainting everytime you move, resize, or minimize a window, which makes it waste less resources.

- What? You aren't making coherent sentences that I can understand.

"So you're scared that your 2TB HDD loses 20GB? If so, you shouldn't install crap on the system, but rather leave it to defaults without extra, unnecessary software." See, not hard to understand if you really want to?

- lol what? Most everything is DX9. Some new games are DX10, nothing much.

DWM in Windows 7 uses DX10, along with a lot of new games using it too. Also, Win7 outperforms XP on DX9 mode, it seems like to me... (http://mos.futurenet.com/techradar/Review%20images/PC%20Format/PCF%20227/Gaming-performance1-420-90.jpg)

- Yes, that is why I only have missing driver issues on Windows 7. Reread my sentence, try buying a non-mainstream cheap laptop or something.

Well, I wouldn't buy a non-mainstream cheap laptop - only troubles with those. Though, the OP uses a MacBook, so for him there shouldn't be any driver issue afaik.

Windows 7 is the most up-to-date OS and runs fine and well XP still has bugs oh and NO Os is Bug FRee

- Wut? No OS is bug free, but after such a long time, XP is a very stable safe bet.

- Windows 7 ain't really in the hands of many customers - when it will be - then all the bugs and problems will show.

As I mentioned earlier, a GPU failure in XP makes the system irresponsive, while Windows 7 is able to restart the GPU without crashing the whole system, which makes it a not so safe bet for stability IMO? Also, if you use the 32-bit version, like most people do, it lacks a lot of security features and cannot benefit properly from new hardware (last time I tried the 64-bit XP version, it wasn't much to brag about, has that changed?).

- What? chkdsk is a very useful component - and it is an issue - I researched it myself. It shouldn't crash Windows 7.

This is an error that Microsoft is aware of (it's a memory leak, which causes the system to crash), and they are working on it. So I assume a fix will be out by the time of October release at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Roberticus    32

Try Win7, you have nothing to lose. :) 2GHz and 2GB Ram is more than enough.

But if it doesn't work, switch to XP.

Windows XP is better than Windows 7 in, (as long as drivers are available)

DX9 performance.

You have the same performance if you install DX9 on Win7 or Vista (if you have your display drivers up-to-date).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnuragMishra    0

If running XP is important, why don't you virtualise in OSX itself?

** This does not hold if you are buying a MBA just to use Windows.

And AFAIK, there is not much on Windows 7 that only 7 can do (productivity wise). 7 might make your work seem more pleasant and smooth, but at the end of day, you can write documents, surf web and play games in XP as well. If you are really fine with your copy of XP, why spend money on 7 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SH3K0    1

Just download the RC mate and test it yourself, that way you'll know for sure which OS to keep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    164
I'm well aware of the new features, but I do not need any of them. In fact there are a lot that I simply do not want, including the horrible new interface. It's called an opinion; just because a person is happy with the OS they are using doesn't mean they are "living in the past" and they generally get tired of people acting like Microsoft salesmen and trying to shove something else on them because it's newer. I'm very happy that you like your OS, good for you. I don't like it though and I wish people would stop telling me that I need it when I clearly don't.

This isn't directed at you but to the people saying stupid things like "get with the times"; answer the guys question honestly, give him just the facts and let him decide. Don't tell him that he "needs" it because it's the latest shiny thing on the sales aisle.

how the hell do you know you dont need them if you have not ran windows 7 and used it day to day like i have . and like someone else stated if you knew how windows ran under the hood then you see the freaking huge improvement over windows XP.

Most of the under the hood stuff that runs windows XP runs on is based on NT 4.0 aria architecture and windows 9x architecture when it comes to audio and video and SMP related code and other items all of this is old tech and and at the time it was great stuff true and tried stability and security for the time but Microsoft has made huge architectural changes to foundation that runs windows and while windows vista was more a 1.0 version of all this 7 makes 100s of little improvements to this and they show.

Edite: course XP did help usher in new device compatibility bit still not enough

besides all that windows 7 makes tones of UI refinements that were damn awful for the most part in my eyes on vista and improves them and now offers user experience that is what vista was supposed to be in Longhorn .

Edited by notuptome2004

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
svnO.o    27
how the hell do you know you dont need them if you have not ran windows 7 and used it day to day like i have . and like someone else stated if you knew how windows ran under the hood then you see the freaking huge improvement over windows XP.

Most of the under the hood stuff that runs windows XP runs on is based on NT 4.0 aria architecture and windows 9x architecture when it comes to audio and video and SMP related code and other items all of this is old tech and and at the time it was great stuff true and tried stability and security for the time but Microsoft has made huge architectural changes to foundation that runs windows and while windows vista was more a 1.0 version of all this 7 makes 100s of little improvements to this and they show.

To add to this, the sound stack itself in Windows 7 is amazing. I love how you can have 2 default devices and easily switch between headphones, another pair of headphones, surround sound, etc... without having to actually restart the app that is outputting sound to your headset/speakers. To me this is great as I have 2 pairs of headphones (1 for gaming, 1 with a long enough cord for laying on my bed while watching movies at night, and surround sound speakers for music/etc).

And when you start to discuss security -- there is no comparison. Windows 7 is 100x more secure than XP ever was (I know because I've done a lot of coding and realized how easy it is to create malicious programs that can screw up an XP install). Then you have all the features of Windows 7 that is already widely talked about like the interface/taskbar/libaries/super fast search/etc... And to top it all off, if you have high end hardware (high end dual core or any kind of quad core), using XP pretty much makes your dollars go to waste (since Windows 7 takes advantage of multiple cores/multi-threading/multi-gpu a lot better).

I guess if people don't care about any of the above mentioned things then maybe they shouldn't get Windows 7. Instead they should just wait until they get a new computer with Windows 7 preloaded onto it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TonyLock    26

Thank you for your opinions everyone, you have been very helpful. I will get Win7 and run it on my MBA and see if it works over the weekend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hawkeye666    1
Thaks Udedenkz.

Here are the specs for my next computer:

http://www.apple.com/macbookair/specs.html

Can anyone tell me if I can run Windows XP mode on Win7 using this particular computer?

One of Apple's more annoying traits is their unwillingness to tell you what exact CPU is in any given product. That page doesn't say the precise model of Intel chip used so from it you cannot tell is XP mode will work. It requires a chip with hardware Virtualization and that virtualization must be enabled in the BIOS two issues that are iffy at best with Apple.

The double edged sword of Mac, they don't want you to know, or to need to know these kinds of details. Hence their "more stable" platform. It is closed therefore far less prone to the issues of third party problems.

Most of the under the hood stuff that runs windows XP runs on is based on NT 4.0 aria architecture and windows 9x architecture

Absolutely nothing under the hood of XP is based on Win9x architecture. Read the DDK (device driver kit) for XP if you really want to find out. Little of it is even based on NT 4. It is either new or based on Win2000. Most of the multimedia is actually new in XP. And then again new for Vista with revisions for Win7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarkWiz    12

Modern Hardware - Go for Windows 7 > 1 GB RAM ( I am sure once you start using it you will definitely start liking it. ) It's awesome. Don't worry about bugs and all. I am sure Microsoft will do their job they know their priorities. So, they'll fix the critical things first. Regarding the chkdsk issue it may only occur when using /R /B as far as what I've observed. And we don't use those parameters generally. They are useful only if there's HDD corruption.

I don't know about the battery issue but if you really start liking Windows 7 you wudn't mind to ignore that issue.

Old Hardware - Give a try for Win 7 if possible.

XP will most of the time give better performance than Windows 7. But if you are going with SSD as ur main HDD go with Win 7 coz it is optimized for SSD as they are likely to wear out with usage. (Check this article for SSD and improvements for SSD in Windows 7 )

A guy named Eric Tung (VMware Employee) on this forum has said "You don't even need to check that - the only 32-bit Intel Macs were the first generation Core Solos/Core Duos. Any Core 2 Duo/Xeon Mac (i.e. anything since Oct 2006 with the exception of the mini, which moved over in Aug 2007) is fine, they all support VT-x."

That means the VT feature is enabled by default on this MAC Book Air too.

The processors available with MAC Book air are VT Enabled:

Core 2 Duo 1.86 GHz - SL9400 http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36689

Core 2 Duo 2.13 GHz - SL9600 http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37262

I could see only these 2 processors with 1.86 and 2.13 GHz speed available in Core 2 Duo's

That means the XP mode will work on MAC Book Air.

Few more things about XP Mode: You may need to switch from MAC OS then to Win 7 instead of directly booting to Win 7 according to this article about Hyper-V which is quite old don't know about the current changes.

Edited by TR2006LH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TonyLock    26

Thanks TR2006LH. That was very informative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tt_dan    0

Hi Guys,

Just out of curiosity...I found this folder in my c:windows folder, I am running Xp as you can see and never tried to make it look like vista/7 (although I am really tempted to put 7 on it...anyways)

This folder looks like a folder form 7 or vista..anybody have seen anything like this before?

Cheers for any ideas.

7_folder_icon_in_Xp_2.bmp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    164
One of Apple's more annoying traits is their unwillingness to tell you what exact CPU is in any given product. That page doesn't say the precise model of Intel chip used so from it you cannot tell is XP mode will work. It requires a chip with hardware Virtualization and that virtualization must be enabled in the BIOS two issues that are iffy at best with Apple.

The double edged sword of Mac, they don't want you to know, or to need to know these kinds of details. Hence their "more stable" platform. It is closed therefore far less prone to the issues of third party problems.

Absolutely nothing under the hood of XP is based on Win9x architecture. Read the DDK (device driver kit) for XP if you really want to find out. Little of it is even based on NT 4. It is either new or based on Win2000. Most of the multimedia is actually new in XP. And then again new for Vista with revisions for Win7.

what i am talking about mostly is the APIs witch are slightly improved or upgraded in XP such as the graphics system API GDI+ which for windows XP added a few new editions to the API for theming and and maby some new underling video accelerations beef ups but nothing major

it is still relativity the same Win32 GDI API system windows 98se for example uses so it still has the same limitations and draw backs and issues that can occur so for (Example) an application that can run on 98se to XP and what not runs exactly the same on the API side of things and to-date the APIs you run on XP with SP3 are the same as the day XP was new with the exceptions of DX updates that may slightly improve Direcdraw and other related task to the API

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panacik    27
I've yet to see a convincing reason why XP is obsolete, other than people just saying it's 8 years old.

With Vista and the way it was when it first came out (buggy and slow), it put a lot of people off, even when they released SP1, which cleared up a lot of problems and improved overall performance.

Windows 7 IMO is cleaner, faster and simpler. It has LOTS of great reviews so far and not many reported issues. I also know that many companies are preparing to upgrade to 7. This means that new machine will be running 7, which means the user will see how it is, like it and want it for their home machine.

Its all a cycle. Windows 7 will likely be the new XP.

/grabs popcorn and beer

Lol. Thats what i thought when i came in to the thread...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scorbing    517

The fact alone that I can now, FINALLY!!!!!!!, open .MOV files nativately is a kudos from me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro    55
I've yet to see a convincing reason why XP is obsolete, other than people just saying it's 8 years old.

It's not obsolete, but it feels dated as hell. I've fixed countless XP computers throughout the years because of very recurrent problems (like not being able to boot because some files are corrupted). Ive never had that problem on vista or windows 7. Stuff like that. Not to mention vista/win7 have more robustf firewalls built-in. Etc. XP is dated. Useless? No. But it's time to move on.

On a macbook air I'd stick with OS X, but if windows is needed, then I'd use XP. Win7 is no biggie but on a computer like that what I want is battery life and I'm sure xp will be better for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mad_onion    13
Hi Guys,

Just out of curiosity...I found this folder in my c:windows folder, I am running Xp as you can see and never tried to make it look like vista/7 (although I am really tempted to put 7 on it...anyways)

This folder looks like a folder form 7 or vista..anybody have seen anything like this before?

Cheers for any ideas.

when you updated internet explorer it updates the icon for downloaded program files too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
splur    27

I haven't used Win7 on Mac, but I know on my old computer (1.7ghz, 500mb ram) it actually ran faster than WinXP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Foub    0

Right now I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate on my Acer Aspire One netbook and it runs great for just 1.6 GHz and 1 Gig of RAM. It is definitely not Vista SE. Before this I used XP and it worked just fine as well. I would recommend 7 now over XP. I'll mess XP, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40

the only way to know if 7 will run ur apps is by installing it either in a virtual machine or a dual boot and install your apps in 7 and see how they run, if they run good then windows 7 will be good for you but run the upgrade advisor first so it may give you an idea about what may or may not work. sofar for me 7 is running better than vista and it actualy runs a few old games properly then vista did(in 1 of them i can finally go beyond 800x600 in 16 bit color and run up to 1280x780 in 32 bit color with no laggyness(it is at least a 8-9 yr old game but XP is not obsolete yet as it does have life left in it, just because it's old does not mean anything, if it runs what you need and at a good speed then that is acceptable but if it runs very slow and or crashes all the time then i consider that not good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
red77stars    0

If MS ever made DX10+ available for XP, i say nothing would ever beat Windows XP x64 Edition. DirectX API was always selling point for Windows otherwise, people would be on Linux or something else.

I use Windows 7 and i love it. I didn't have problems with Windows Vista while i was running it, so yeah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rigby    1,577
how the hell do you know you dont need them if you have not ran windows 7 and used it day to day like i have . and like someone else stated if you knew how windows ran under the hood then you see the freaking huge improvement over windows XP.

Most of the under the hood stuff that runs windows XP runs on is based on NT 4.0 aria architecture and windows 9x architecture when it comes to audio and video and SMP related code and other items all of this is old tech and and at the time it was great stuff true and tried stability and security for the time but Microsoft has made huge architectural changes to foundation that runs windows and while windows vista was more a 1.0 version of all this 7 makes 100s of little improvements to this and they show.

Edite: course XP did help usher in new device compatibility bit still not enough

besides all that windows 7 makes tones of UI refinements that were damn awful for the most part in my eyes on vista and improves them and now offers user experience that is what vista was supposed to be in Longhorn .

Is the swearing really necessary? No offense but it kind of makes you sound unintelligent. As someone else pointed out nothing in XP is based on 9x. For me all the little improvements don't change the fact that I don't like it nor do they change the fact that XP works perfectly for what I need.

If people like XP better and it does what they need there is no reason to upgrade, especially if they hate the new UI and many of the other dumbed down features in Vista and 7. I don't want flashy (and imo hideous and distracting) eye candy, hate the new design and layout, etc. Mostly it does not offer me anything I want or need that I don't have already. I have a fast, completely stable OS that supports one hundred percent of my software and hardware, is still fully supported, and does everything I want to do.

Edited by TRC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    164
Is the swearing really necessary? No offense but it kind of makes you sound unintelligent. As someone else pointed out nothing in XP is based on 9x. For me all the little improvements don't change the fact that I don't like it nor do they change the fact that XP works perfectly for what I need.

If people like XP better and it does what they need there is no reason to upgrade, especially if they hate the new UI and many of the other dumbed down features in Vista and 7. I don't want flashy (and imo hideous and distracting) eye candy, hate the new design and layout, etc. Mostly it does not offer me anything I want or need that I don't have already. I have a fast, completely stable OS that supports one hundred percent of my software and hardware, is still fully supported, and does everything I want to do.

Well for you information that Flashy UI as you call it means far greater stability far greater performance going to windows 7 is about performance and stability + security first and foremost .

(For me all the little improvements ) what little improvements . dont you mean big improvements . ( Complete sarcasm i bet you the klind a od person that goes Well if the start menu opens the same exact way as XP ( meaning ya clik on start) well then absolute nothing improved ther nothing new All stick with XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thatmikeguy2    10
I'm well aware of the new features, but I do not need any of them. In fact there are a lot that I simply do not want, including the horrible new interface. It's called an opinion; just because a person is happy with the OS they are using doesn't mean they are "living in the past" and they generally get tired of people acting like Microsoft salesmen and trying to shove something else on them because it's newer. I'm very happy that you like your OS, good for you. I don't like it though and I wish people would stop telling me that I need it when I clearly don't.

This isn't directed at you but to the people saying stupid things like "get with the times"; answer the guys question honestly, give him just the facts and let him decide. Don't tell him that he "needs" it because it's the latest shiny thing on the sales aisle.

This is simple. It?s like an older model vehicle. Some people prefer older model vehicles because of many reasons. Nostalgia, looks, ease of operation, usefulness, and sometimes general comfort. It does not make it right or wrong, but simply an individual opinion of that old car or truck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rigby    1,577
i bet you the klind a od person that goes Well if the start menu opens the same exact way as XP ( meaning ya clik on start) well then absolute nothing improved ther nothing new All stick with XP.

I'd reply but I can't understand half of the gibberish you are saying. I'm supposed to take OS advice from someone who communicates worse than a six year old? Right...

This is simple. It?s like an older model vehicle. Some people prefer older model vehicles because of many reasons. Nostalgia, looks, ease of operation, usefulness, and sometimes general comfort. It does not make it right or wrong, but simply an individual opinion of that old car or truck.

Exactly, yet some people just can't accept that others may not share their opinions. Are they that insecure about their choice of OS, game console, etc that they have to argue and attempt to belittle others that don't use the same product they do? For me it's not about nostalgia though, it's just that I find XP to perform better, look better, have better usability and it does everything that I need so upgrading would be pointless. After using Vista and 7 I actually found them to be a serious downgrade. That's my opinion of course, I just wish others would respect it.:):)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.