• 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

Lamp Post    70
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. :)

This is true, people are entitled to have opinions about any OS. Also, there is an old proverb: "Don't fix what ain't broken".

But there are reasons why the new OS is "better", even though you don't like it or do not need it. A good example is the new UI; it actually adds more stability to the system, though you might not like the looks of it (my metaphor would be when you get a new weapon in an RPG, you might choose to keep the old ones because it has nicer looks, even though the new one does more damage :p).

Though, I gotta admit, I'm still trying to persuade my friend into installing Windows 7 even though he's content with Windows XP (just waiting for some awesome DX10 game forcing him to upgrade :p).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Orien    1

Nobody "needs" to upgrade and getting with the times if you have no need for it doesn't make sense either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    154
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...

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. :)

Let me make myself better understandable then . You probably are running the same Brick Phone 1987 it Makes calls and does what you need so all these new phones are useless to you right?

you rather not have better stability greater security and vastly improved performance from windows 7 and just stick to XP all be Cause " It does what i need" Speech, it be like telling your GF you dont need to boink her when you got a Real Doll in the closet that in the end gets you the same satisfaction just without the bickering

obviously you dont want to give windows 7 a Try cause in reality your still stuck on Vista is crap thus windows 7 is also

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rigby    1,577
Let me make myself better understandable then . You probably are running the same Brick Phone 1987 it Makes calls and does what you need so all these new phones are useless to you right?

No, those were analog which would make them useless now. Extremely bulky, poor battery life and reception compared to today's technology. Is that honestly the best comparison you can come up with XP and 7 because it's pretty ridiculous.

you rather not have better stability greater security and vastly improved performance from windows 7 and just stick to XP all be Cause " It does what i need" Speech, it be like telling your GF you dont need to boink her when you got a Real Doll in the closet that in the end gets you the same satisfaction just without the bickering

On my system XP is completely stable, performs better than 7 and is secure. Oh and I've used 7 several times since the very first public beta so enough with the "try it" speech. It is better than Vista but I still don't like it overall. As for the rest of your idiotic real doll comments it's obvious I'm talking to either a child or someone with the intellect of one so I'm finished with attempting to discuss anything you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108
Windows XP is better than Windows 7 in, (as long as drivers are available)

CPU Usage (no DWM, not much additional services, etc...)

NO! DWM is graphics card accelerated in Windows 7, its CPU usage is negligible

RAM Usage (disable this and that and you will be at 120MB)

That is down to superfetch, which frees memory if another application needs it. The base usage is only 50-100MB more than XP which isn't really a lot for older computers

Sound Support (because Vista and Up use some sort of DRM - which leeches resources)

Don't make me laugh, that is nonsense. The HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was removed from Vista and 7, so that the sound stack could be reworked, also removing the audio stack from running in Ring 0 kernel mode. This was to increase stability, and reduce the incidence of BSODs. It is not a form of DRM. The only DRM included in Vista and 7 is SUPPORT to play DRM protected files. There is no DRM built into the sound stack

GUI Speed (as long as you add a tweak here and there scrolling, responsiveness is better)

Only if you have an old, slow graphics card. On good graphics cards, DWM actually accelerates the user interface, and reduces CPU usage (in XP it is all bitmap based, and drawn with the CPU)

Application Startup Times (might not be true for old folks with Hard Drives - tested on SSD no *fetch functionality)

You are testing under improper conditions. Superfetch speeds up the loading speed of applications, so they actually load faster for people who don't turn Superfetch off because they are ignorant as to its real function

You will have more space left on your Hard Drive.

about 10GB difference. Again unless you have an old computer, or a really small hard disk, this is a non issue.

Some GUI elements.

What is that supposed to mean?

DX9 performance.

There is no difference in performance between DX9 and DX10

Driver Support for Uncommon devices.

Windows 7 and Windows Vista actually have out of box support for more pieces of hardware than any other operating system

It has less bugs (8 years of bug fixing!!!)

Nonsense. The amount of bugs depend on the quality of the codebase, not its age. In fact, in percentage terms more hotfixes are being issued for XP than have for Vista, especially for critical security flaws.

Working chkdsk (In W7, chkdsk crashed Windows for me)

:laugh: chkdsk works properly in Windows 7. That is probably down to you or your computer, not Windows

Immense amount of data and tweaks are available for XP.

The vast majority of these 'tweaks' are for placebo effect only and have no real difference on performance. Not to mention, Vista and 7 are just as easy to tweak

Just took the liberty to go through that and correct it for you, Udedenkz

This kind of misinformation is why so many people gave Vista its poor rep, and it would be really appreciated if people like you stop spreading it. Factual accuracy is king.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz    51

NO! DWM is graphics card accelerated in Windows 7, its CPU usage is negligible

It still uses CPU along, thus this with other additional processes (that don't appear in XP) - there is more overhead. I never seen Windows 7 idle at 0% without jumping to 2-3%, while XP idles at 0% and almost never jumps to 1%.

That is down to superfetch, which frees memory if another application needs it. The base usage is only 50-100MB more than XP which isn't really a lot for older computers

Without things like superfetch, etc. Windows 7 STILL uses more RAM than XP. Vanilla 7 x64 uses about ~850MB while Vanilla XP x64 uses around ~260MB. Tweaked Windows 7 still uses more.

Don't make me laugh, that is nonsense. The HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was removed from Vista and 7, so that the sound stack could be reworked, also removing the audio stack from running in Ring 0 kernel mode. This was to increase stability, and reduce the incidence of BSODs. It is not a form of DRM. The only DRM included in Vista and 7 is SUPPORT to play DRM protected files. There is no DRM built into the sound stack

You maybe right - I just researched the process - seems Sound and DRM related from what I read, but it is still more overhead. Never had sound crash on me, but I don't deny the possibility.

Only if you have an old, slow graphics card. On good graphics cards, DWM actually accelerates the user interface, and reduces CPU usage (in XP it is all bitmap based, and drawn with the CPU)

I guess a GPU that can only run Crysis on medium is slowbut if such a GPU is slow for DWM, that just means DWM is made a moron. In XP, firefox scrolls much faster - while in Windows 7 - I can see that is laggs while scrolling. I bench marked this - although I don't think it is as slow now with 7600.

Right Click and Explorer take a bit longer ~ about a fourth of a second or an eight of a second longer.

You are testing under improper conditions. Superfetch speeds up the loading speed of applications, so they actually load faster for people who don't turn Superfetch off because they are ignorant as to its real function

I have an SSD with 0.2ms seek and ~120MB/S read speed based on HDTune tests and 108MB/S based on another program. What I stated that Windows 7 is slower at opening applications than Windows XP (which also has fetching features disabled). XP vs W7 (without Superfetch) is a fair test at how efficient the OSes are at opening programs. (Besides new applications will open slower in W7 with superfetch). You should understand that when comparing real application loading times from Disk - loading the application from RAM is cheating.

about 10GB difference. Again unless you have an old computer, or a really small hard disk, this is a non issue.

That is not a counterargument.

What is that supposed to mean?

Some things require more clicking, Explorer now lacks right click menu in some areas, less customization for explorer, Control Panel is spaced oddly - things like that.

There is no difference in performance between DX9 and DX10.

What? I wasn't comparing DX9 with DX10

Windows 7 and Windows Vista actually have out of box support for more pieces of hardware than any other operating system

Smart Battery ain't one of them - and it ain't on their database either. Reread what i said "UNCOMMON"

Nonsense. The amount of bugs depend on the quality of the codebase, not its age. In fact, in percentage terms more hotfixes are being issued for XP than have for Vista, especially for critical security flaws.

The golden rule is to wait for SP1 before upgrading to a new Windows OS.

laugh.gif chkdsk works properly in Windows 7. That is probably down to you or your computer, not Windows

Bug is a bug. And this a major bug as chkdsk is important. When it swallows up all your RAM making other applications loose graphics, buttons, icons, history, and have no ability to run scripts due to low memory (such Explorer.exe) that is BAD. And I am not the only one who experienced this - stop shifting blame.

The vast majority of these 'tweaks' are for placebo effect only and have no real difference on performance. Not to mention, Vista and 7 are just as easy to tweak

W7 is still new, there ain't many tweaks for it. Unless you call programs like TweakSe7en which have an immense amount of problems and will screw you over if you don't have System Restore... There is no 7lite for example. There ain't a lot - I am performance freak - I know.

Just took the liberty to go through that and correct it for you, Udedenkz

This kind of misinformation is why so many people gave Vista its poor rep, and it would be really appreciated if people like you stop spreading it. Factual accuracy is king.

lolwut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Digital.K    2

I installed the Win7 RC on a laptop that came with Vista (it's roughly 6 months old). Vista was always kludgey but Win7 is very very polished and smooth on the same laptop. The difference is stark actually. THIS is what should have been the version after XP.

Stick with XP if you must, but eventually you will have to update to something. May as well do it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xilo    928

Been thinking of upgrading to windows 7 from xp myself. I have a P4 2.2ghz, 2gb ram, and ATI 3650. Would I see any performance benefit? or am I better off sticking to xp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108
It still uses CPU along, thus this with other additional processes (that don't appear in XP) - there is more overhead. I never seen Windows 7 idle at 0% without jumping to 2-3%, while XP idles at 0% and almost never jumps to 1%.

post-286512-1250813246_thumb.png

Part 1 of your argument shot down.

Without things like superfetch, etc. Windows 7 STILL uses more RAM than XP. Vanilla 7 x64 uses about ~850MB while Vanilla XP x64 uses around ~260MB. Tweaked Windows 7 still uses more.

No it doesn't. The baseline usage for Windows 7 is around 250 - 300 megabytes, the baseline of XP is between 100 and 150, the difference is nowhere near as bad as you make out.

You maybe right - I just researched the process - seems Sound and DRM related from what I read, but it is still more overhead. Never had sound crash on me, but I don't deny the possibility.

No, it isn't more overhead. The removal of the HAL actually decreases overhead if anything. And read what I posted CORRECTLY. DRM is NOT USED unless you try to play back DRM protected content. It does NOT sit there in the background magically encrypting your sound.

I guess a GPU that can only run Crysis on medium is slowbut if such a GPU is slow for DWM, that just means DWM is made a moron. In XP, firefox scrolls much faster - while in Windows 7 - I can see that is laggs while scrolling. I bench marked this - although I don't think it is as slow now with 7600.

Right Click and Explorer take a bit longer ~ about a fourth of a second or an eight of a second longer.

What the hell? Crysis is a game that can kill even the best GPUs on the market, and I really don't see the relevance. DWM requires far less graphical processing power than Crysis. And again, I think that issue is with your computer not the OS. My right clicks appear instantly, my browsers scroll very smoothly, and everything works fine. Stop trying to mix up your own personal experience caused by poor hardware and lack of knowledge with actual facts.

I have an SSD with 0.2ms seek and ~120MB/S read speed based on HDTune tests and 108MB/S based on another program. What I stated that Windows 7 is slower at opening applications than Windows XP (which also has fetching features disabled). XP vs W7 (without Superfetch) is a fair test at how efficient the OSes are at opening programs. (Besides new applications will open slower in W7 with superfetch). You should understand that when comparing real application loading times from Disk - loading the application from RAM is cheating.

No it isn't. Superfetch is a feature of the OS, and therefore results achieved using it are perfectly valid.

That is not a counterargument.

Sure it is. A lot of XP apologists like you try to use the disk space argument as a reason not to upgrade, and the simple fact is that if you need to worry about a few extra gigabytes of space then you either need to delete some of your porn, or consider moving your computer into the 21st century.

Some things require more clicking, Explorer now lacks right click menu in some areas, less customization for explorer, Control Panel is spaced oddly - things like that.

Where does it lack right click then? I am willing to bet it has been designed that way.

What? I wasn't comparing DX9 with DX10

You mentioned DX9 performance as an advantage of XP, therefore inferring that DX9 is somehow better. If that isn't what you meant kindly clarify it.

Smart Battery ain't one of them - and it ain't on their database either. Reread what i said "UNCOMMON"

The reason support for this kind of hardware gets dropped is simple... because nobody uses it, or it is obsolete. Regardless, it is the job of the manufacturer to write drivers. Making their code better is Microsoft's job, they can't be expected to write drivers for every single device known to man.

The golden rule is to wait for SP1 before upgrading to a new Windows OS.

Says who? That is your opinion, that is not a fact.

Bug is a bug. And this a major bug as chkdsk is important. When it swallows up all your RAM making other applications loose graphics, buttons, icons, history, and have no ability to run scripts due to low memory (such Explorer.exe) that is BAD. And I am not the only one who experienced this - stop shifting blame.

I am not shifting blame. Microsoft have confirmed that this feature is by design, to speed up the performance of the process. It will not eat up all of your memory, it generally stops between 93 and 95%. Not to mention, that only occurs with the /r switch applied. It will only use available memory also, so anything already running in memory will not be unloaded.

W7 is still new, there ain't many tweaks for it. Unless you call programs like TweakSe7en which have an immense amount of problems and will screw you over if you don't have System Restore... There is no 7lite for example. There ain't a lot - I am performance freak - I know.

Most of the Vista tweaks still work on 7, hell some of the XP ones even do

Just took the liberty to go through that and correct it for you, Udedenkz

lolwut?

How could that be in any way unclear? You need to stop using your experiences, which are being caused by a mixture of misinformation on your part, and evidently poor hardware. I would urge you to go get the facts, before posting again.

Been thinking of upgrading to windows 7 from xp myself. I have a P4 2.2ghz, 2gb ram, and ATI 3650. Would I see any performance benefit? or am I better off sticking to xp?

You have a DX10 card, so you would see a benifit in terms of UI performance, and your machine is more than fast enough to cope with 7. Go for it!

Edit: Attatched wrong screenshot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xilo    928

I've tried Vista on this machine, and gaming and video performance suffered. Tis why I'm hesitant to tryout Windows 7 lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Owen W    53
NO! DWM is graphics card accelerated in Windows 7, its CPU usage is negligible

It still uses CPU along, thus this with other additional processes (that don't appear in XP) - there is more overhead. I never seen Windows 7 idle at 0% without jumping to 2-3%, while XP idles at 0% and almost never jumps to 1%.

Uh, thats because Windows 7 actually uses your hardware then just letting it idle all the time. Oh noes!

That is down to superfetch, which frees memory if another application needs it. The base usage is only 50-100MB more than XP which isn't really a lot for older computers

Without things like superfetch, etc. Windows 7 STILL uses more RAM than XP. Vanilla 7 x64 uses about ~850MB while Vanilla XP x64 uses around ~260MB. Tweaked Windows 7 still uses more.

Uh the RAM looks used because it is pre-allocated and gets freed up and shared amongst applications as it is needed, so it appears more is being used, but actually it's just being used better

Don't make me laugh, that is nonsense. The HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was removed from Vista and 7, so that the sound stack could be reworked, also removing the audio stack from running in Ring 0 kernel mode. This was to increase stability, and reduce the incidence of BSODs. It is not a form of DRM. The only DRM included in Vista and 7 is SUPPORT to play DRM protected files. There is no DRM built into the sound stack

You maybe right - I just researched the process - seems Sound and DRM related from what I read, but it is still more overhead. Never had sound crash on me, but I don't deny the possibility.

I can see where this is going. You're one of the people that never even tried vista.

Only if you have an old, slow graphics card. On good graphics cards, DWM actually accelerates the user interface, and reduces CPU usage (in XP it is all bitmap based, and drawn with the CPU)

I guess a GPU that can only run Crysis on medium is slowbut if such a GPU is slow for DWM, that just means DWM is made a moron. In XP, firefox scrolls much faster - while in Windows 7 - I can see that is laggs while scrolling. I bench marked this - although I don't think it is as slow now with 7600.

What kinda hardware are you running?! Like...pre-2000? Stick with XP then. Let us all move on.

Right Click and Explorer take a bit longer ~ about a fourth of a second or an eight of a second longer.

You are testing under improper conditions. Superfetch speeds up the loading speed of applications, so they actually load faster for people who don't turn Superfetch off because they are ignorant as to its real function

I have an SSD with 0.2ms seek and ~120MB/S read speed based on HDTune tests and 108MB/S based on another program. What I stated that Windows 7 is slower at opening applications than Windows XP (which also has fetching features disabled). XP vs W7 (without Superfetch) is a fair test at how efficient the OSes are at opening programs. (Besides new applications will open slower in W7 with superfetch). You should understand that when comparing real application loading times from Disk - loading the application from RAM is cheating.

Again, your hardware is old.

about 10GB difference. Again unless you have an old computer, or a really small hard disk, this is a non issue.

That is not a counterargument.

Yeah, actually it is. These days HDD space is as cheap as water, so this really isnt' a problem.

What is that supposed to mean?

Some things require more clicking, Explorer now lacks right click menu in some areas, less customization for explorer, Control Panel is spaced oddly - things like that.

There is no difference in performance between DX9 and DX10.

What? I wasn't comparing DX9 with DX10

Windows 7 and Windows Vista actually have out of box support for more pieces of hardware than any other operating system

Smart Battery ain't one of them - and it ain't on their database either. Reread what i said "UNCOMMON"

It is actually.

Nonsense. The amount of bugs depend on the quality of the codebase, not its age. In fact, in percentage terms more hotfixes are being issued for XP than have for Vista, especially for critical security flaws.

The golden rule is to wait for SP1 before upgrading to a new Windows OS.

That was the golden rule. XP has *never* had a bux fix. The updates are just band-aids on top of holes. Theres no code updates, just jimmy-rigs to fix it. That's why they bring out new revisions of windows, because they actually fix things like that. Alot of businesses are not waiting till SP1 to upgrade, and all SP1 will be is minor bug fixes. Show me something thats broken in 7600?

laugh.gif chkdsk works properly in Windows 7. That is probably down to you or your computer, not Windows

Bug is a bug. And this a major bug as chkdsk is important. When it swallows up all your RAM making other applications loose graphics, buttons, icons, history, and have no ability to run scripts due to low memory (such Explorer.exe) that is BAD. And I am not the only one who experienced this - stop shifting blame.

You're still deluded. This behaviour is built in. See this link for more details: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/08/1...bug-report.aspx

The vast majority of these 'tweaks' are for placebo effect only and have no real difference on performance. Not to mention, Vista and 7 are just as easy to tweak

W7 is still new, there ain't many tweaks for it. Unless you call programs like TweakSe7en which have an immense amount of problems and will screw you over if you don't have System Restore... There is no 7lite for example. There ain't a lot - I am performance freak - I know.

But uh...why do you need to tweak something that is this fast? Also, things such as vLite, nLite and "7lite" remove upgrade functionality now. if used, you cannot install Service packs.

Just took the liberty to go through that and correct it for you, Udedenkz

This kind of misinformation is why so many people gave Vista its poor rep, and it would be really appreciated if people like you stop spreading it. Factual accuracy is king.

lolwut?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,481
NO! DWM is graphics card accelerated in Windows 7, its CPU usage is negligible

It still uses CPU along, thus this with other additional processes (that don't appear in XP) - there is more overhead. I never seen Windows 7 idle at 0% without jumping to 2-3%, while XP idles at 0% and almost never jumps to 1%.

That is down to superfetch, which frees memory if another application needs it. The base usage is only 50-100MB more than XP which isn't really a lot for older computers

Without things like superfetch, etc. Windows 7 STILL uses more RAM than XP. Vanilla 7 x64 uses about ~850MB while Vanilla XP x64 uses around ~260MB. Tweaked Windows 7 still uses more.

Don't make me laugh, that is nonsense. The HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was removed from Vista and 7, so that the sound stack could be reworked, also removing the audio stack from running in Ring 0 kernel mode. This was to increase stability, and reduce the incidence of BSODs. It is not a form of DRM. The only DRM included in Vista and 7 is SUPPORT to play DRM protected files. There is no DRM built into the sound stack

You maybe right - I just researched the process - seems Sound and DRM related from what I read, but it is still more overhead. Never had sound crash on me, but I don't deny the possibility.

Only if you have an old, slow graphics card. On good graphics cards, DWM actually accelerates the user interface, and reduces CPU usage (in XP it is all bitmap based, and drawn with the CPU)

I guess a GPU that can only run Crysis on medium is slowbut if such a GPU is slow for DWM, that just means DWM is made a moron. In XP, firefox scrolls much faster - while in Windows 7 - I can see that is laggs while scrolling. I bench marked this - although I don't think it is as slow now with 7600.

Right Click and Explorer take a bit longer ~ about a fourth of a second or an eight of a second longer.

You are testing under improper conditions. Superfetch speeds up the loading speed of applications, so they actually load faster for people who don't turn Superfetch off because they are ignorant as to its real function

I have an SSD with 0.2ms seek and ~120MB/S read speed based on HDTune tests and 108MB/S based on another program. What I stated that Windows 7 is slower at opening applications than Windows XP (which also has fetching features disabled). XP vs W7 (without Superfetch) is a fair test at how efficient the OSes are at opening programs. (Besides new applications will open slower in W7 with superfetch). You should understand that when comparing real application loading times from Disk - loading the application from RAM is cheating.

about 10GB difference. Again unless you have an old computer, or a really small hard disk, this is a non issue.

That is not a counterargument.

What is that supposed to mean?

Some things require more clicking, Explorer now lacks right click menu in some areas, less customization for explorer, Control Panel is spaced oddly - things like that.

There is no difference in performance between DX9 and DX10.

What? I wasn't comparing DX9 with DX10

Windows 7 and Windows Vista actually have out of box support for more pieces of hardware than any other operating system

Smart Battery ain't one of them - and it ain't on their database either. Reread what i said "UNCOMMON"

Nonsense. The amount of bugs depend on the quality of the codebase, not its age. In fact, in percentage terms more hotfixes are being issued for XP than have for Vista, especially for critical security flaws.

The golden rule is to wait for SP1 before upgrading to a new Windows OS.

laugh.gif chkdsk works properly in Windows 7. That is probably down to you or your computer, not Windows

Bug is a bug. And this a major bug as chkdsk is important. When it swallows up all your RAM making other applications loose graphics, buttons, icons, history, and have no ability to run scripts due to low memory (such Explorer.exe) that is BAD. And I am not the only one who experienced this - stop shifting blame.

The vast majority of these 'tweaks' are for placebo effect only and have no real difference on performance. Not to mention, Vista and 7 are just as easy to tweak

W7 is still new, there ain't many tweaks for it. Unless you call programs like TweakSe7en which have an immense amount of problems and will screw you over if you don't have System Restore... There is no 7lite for example. There ain't a lot - I am performance freak - I know.

Just took the liberty to go through that and correct it for you, Udedenkz

This kind of misinformation is why so many people gave Vista its poor rep, and it would be really appreciated if people like you stop spreading it. Factual accuracy is king.

lolwut?

Tackling the issues (from the top down):

DWM - Primitive (at best) in XP (mostly games used it at all; the first application to make use of it in XP was WindowBlinds). Was DWM useful, despite the primitiveness, in XP? Definitely (I did state that WindowBlinds uses DWM starting with WB 5). Vista fleshed out DWM over XP (more of the UI itself used DWM; this required a rewrite of WindowBlinds, which resulted in WB 6, to take advantage of the flesh-out of DWM and UI uses for it). Again, most applications didn't really take advantage of underlying OS changes (Office 2007 was just as guilty of this as anyone).

RAM usage - If the underlying operating system is actually STABLE (and supports multitasking), you WILL multitask. (That is irrelevant whether it's Windows/Linux/OS X/UNIX/BSD.) If you run more applications at once, RAM requirements will increase. XP was not as stable at the limit while multitasking as either Vista OR 7 (and 7 trumps Vista at 1 GB; however, both trump XP at 2 GB, where XP64 trails both Vista 64-bit and 7 64-bit from 2 GB out. From 1 GB up, 7 x64 is the multitasking-stability champ followed by a virtual draw between 7 32-bit and Vista 64-bit, with XP64 in third, and XP32 trailing. This is all on my ASUS P5N-EM with nothing but 32-bit applications on each OS). If you crash earlier, you won't multitask as much (if at all), and you would also be loath to add RAM. Bitness vs. bitness, the 64-bit versions of each operating system are more stable when multitasking than their 32-bit counterparts (this is especially true when running exclusively 32-bit applications, as there are few 64-bit applications other than utilities and niche applications).

Niche applications such as SmartBattery: that's a vendor decision, not a Microsoft decision.

The Rule of 1.0 - Officially broken (and not because of Windows 7 alone); consider Office 2010 Technical Preview (not even a proper beta, and as solid as solid gets, especially in 64-bit). Easily the scariest application Microsoft has introduced into the testing community since Windows NT (the first one).

The CHKDSK Bug - While CHKDSK is important, the usage that triggers the bug is not common. That is why it wasn't a showstopper bug. In fact, the trigger usage is something that Microsoft has recommended against (running CHKDSK on non-boot volumes) since Windows NT 4.01 that I know of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz    51

EDIT: Another advantage of Windows 7 is that is more stable when there is no drive access (such as first gen SSD stutter).

Stop Writing Your Responses In Quotes - It doesn't Allow Me To Quote your responses :(

Uh, thats because Windows 7 actually uses your hardware then just letting it idle all the time. Oh noes!

U like overhead, but I don't. :)

Uh the RAM looks used because it is pre-allocated and gets freed up and shared amongst applications as it is needed, so it appears more is being used, but actually it's just being used better

If you want to know how much RAM Windows 7 requires to run, install it on a 512MB System. It is more than XP. It will not magically run on 120MB RAM on a 512MB System - it can't free that much. It requires MORE RAM.

Don't make me laugh, that is nonsense. The HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) was removed from Vista and 7, so that the sound stack could be reworked, also removing the audio stack from running in Ring 0 kernel mode. This was to increase stability, and reduce the incidence of BSODs. It is not a form of DRM. The only DRM included in Vista and 7 is SUPPORT to play DRM protected files. There is no DRM built into the sound stack

I can see where this is going. You're one of the people that never even tried vista.

I actually see your point here. lol

Only if you have an old, slow graphics card. On good graphics cards, DWM actually accelerates the user interface, and reduces CPU usage (in XP it is all bitmap based, and drawn with the CPU)

What kinda hardware are you running?! Like...pre-2000? Stick with XP then. Let us all move on.

Intel Mobile Core 2 Duo T8300 @ 2.4Ghz w. 3MB L2 Cache, 2x2 GB 667Mhz DDR2 RAM, NVidia 8600MGT w. 256 DDR2, Patriot WARP V2 64GB SSD, Realtek HD Audio, Windows 7 x64

Again, your hardware is old.

I bet anything lower than a PCIe SSD drives are old for you.

Yeah, actually it is. These days HDD space is as cheap as water, so this really isnt' a problem.

Just like some of my points, this one has low relevance with modern Hard Drives. It is a challange to install W7 on a 4/8 and 16 (due to, lack of space to install other things) GB SSDs.

It is actually.

You are so bull****ting me.

Nonsense. The amount of bugs depend on the quality of the codebase, not its age. In fact, in percentage terms more hotfixes are being issued for XP than have for Vista, especially for critical security flaws.

That was the golden rule. XP has *never* had a bux fix. The updates are just band-aids on top of holes. Theres no code updates, just jimmy-rigs to fix it. That's why they bring out new revisions of windows, because they actually fix things like that. Alot of businesses are not waiting till SP1 to upgrade, and all SP1 will be is minor bug fixes. Show me something thats broken in 7600?

lol what?

ChkDsk

You're still deluded. This behaviour is built in. See this link for more details: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/08/1...bug-report.aspx

Seems like an excuse to me. In XP, I can do whatever I want while chkdsk is running. In W7, I have to wait it out. EPIC FAIL

*snip*

I am not sure how the first paragraph is relevant or the second. I don't think any normal user would ever actually find out about Stability from that point of view - maybe individuals that run Servers or something.

Valid deterrent from not using W7, especially x64 (- I think there is a 32-bit version somewhere).

Valid Point but, on the other hand, there are examples like XP and Vista which say otherwise and bugs like the chkdsk i pointed out.

I dunno if M$ said that but chkdsk fixed problems with the drive restarting in XP and W7 when being written to / read.

Edited by Udedenkz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108
Snipped

U like overhead, but I don't. :)

It isn't overhead because the resources are freed when you need them

If you want to know how much RAM Windows 7 requires to run, install it on a 512MB System. It is more than XP. It will not magically run on 120MB RAM on a 512MB System - it can't free that much. It requires MORE RAM.

I have managed to get Windows 7 and Server 2008 to run on a system with 384MB of ram, and it was usable. Not for major tasks, but for browsing and IM it was OK. Only reason I dropped it was because there was no support for the sound and graphics equipment in the machine due to its age

Just like some of my points, this one has low relevance with modern Hard Drives. It is a challange to install W7 on a 4/8 and 16 (due to, lack of space to install other things) GB SSDs.

You shouldn't be installing ANY OS on a disk that small

You are so bull****ting me.

No. Most people aren't stupid enough to have a puny 8 or 16GB disk as their main boot drive on any machine fast enough to run 7 these days. If you are, that is your problem, not the problem of the OS.

lol what?

ChkDsk

chkdsk isn't broken, that feature is by design. And like I stated, it only uses up memory that isn't in use by something else, an argument I see that you (conveniently) have no counter for. I have tried chkdsk in 7, and although it uses a lot of ram, it stopped at 94% and my system never became unresponsive

Seems like an excuse to me. In XP, I can do whatever I want while chkdsk is running. In W7, I have to wait it out. EPIC FAIL

No, by design means just that. A design feature

The Rule of 1.0 - Officially broken (and not because of Windows 7 alone); consider Office 2010 Technical Preview (not even a proper beta, and as solid as solid gets, especially in 64-bit). Easily the scariest application Microsoft has introduced into the testing community since Windows NT (the first one).

What issues are you having with Office 2010 in Windows 7, it works very nicely for me :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notuptome2004    154

Tackling the issues (from the top down):

DWM - Primitive (at best) in XP (mostly games used it at all; the first application to make use of it in XP was WindowBlinds). Was DWM useful, despite the primitiveness, in XP? Definitely (I did state that WindowBlinds uses DWM starting with WB 5). Vista fleshed out DWM over XP (more of the UI itself used DWM; this required a rewrite of WindowBlinds, which resulted in WB 6, to take advantage of the flesh-out of DWM and UI uses for it). Again, most applications didn't really take advantage of underlying OS changes (Office 2007 was just as guilty of this as anyone).

DWM is part of the new graphics driver model under windows vista/7 WPF Windows presentation foundation witch runs all on the GPU DWM would never work on XP the same way it works on Vista/windows 7 yes MS did back port some WPF features but limited at best. and Window blinds only used DWM in windows Vista because it was able to take advantage of the underlying OS feature but on windows XP it used GDI+ huge big difference there but at any rate XP never used DWM never had never will XP runs on GDI+ Winows 21 API graphics foundation witch stems back to windows 98se

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,481
U like overhead, but I don't. :)

It isn't overhead because the resources are freed when you need them

If you want to know how much RAM Windows 7 requires to run, install it on a 512MB System. It is more than XP. It will not magically run on 120MB RAM on a 512MB System - it can't free that much. It requires MORE RAM.

I have managed to get Windows 7 and Server 2008 to run on a system with 384MB of ram, and it was usable. Not for major tasks, but for browsing and IM it was OK. Only reason I dropped it was because there was no support for the sound and graphics equipment in the machine due to its age

Just like some of my points, this one has low relevance with modern Hard Drives. It is a challange to install W7 on a 4/8 and 16 (due to, lack of space to install other things) GB SSDs.

You shouldn't be installing ANY OS on a disk that small

You are so bull****ting me.

No. Most people aren't stupid enough to have a puny 8 or 16GB disk as their main boot drive on any machine fast enough to run 7 these days. If you are, that is your problem, not the problem of the OS.

lol what?

ChkDsk

chkdsk isn't broken, that feature is by design. And like I stated, it only uses up memory that isn't in use by something else, an argument I see that you (conveniently) have no counter for. I have tried chkdsk in 7, and although it uses a lot of ram, it stopped at 94% and my system never became unresponsive

Seems like an excuse to me. In XP, I can do whatever I want while chkdsk is running. In W7, I have to wait it out. EPIC FAIL

No, by design means just that. A design feature

What issues are you having with Office 2010 in Windows 7, it works very nicely for me :/

Agreed; Frank. That's why it's scary. It's not even 1.0 code (in 64-bit, it's more like 0.4 code), and it absolutely *smokes* Office 2007 (in both performance and stability). I run Office 2010 x64 daily (in fact, several times a day in the case of Outlook), and I have *three* mail accounts configured (POP3, IMAP, and Outlook Connector x64/MAPI, for Comcast HSI, GMail, and Hotmail, respectively; no problems whatever). Before Vista (let alone 7) came along, it would be highly unusual to find this sort of stability in barely-beta code (in fact, the last time I saw this sort of stability in a non-released version of Office was the RC of Office 95, and that was fourteen years ago, and even Office 95 wasn't this stable) in an application OR operating system. The release candidates of both Vista and 7 were solidly usable; heck, even the pre-RC of 7 (build 7000) was solid and usable.

Where the underlying OS is stable, Office 2010 x64 does not crash. It swallows even the largest mailboxes with barely a burp. (My GMail account, which I dedicated to bulk e-mails and mailing lists, is easily the largest, and I had let it sit for over a year before turning Outlook 2010 x64 loose on it, and I *deliberately* chose IMAP to increase the load on the client, as GMail supports both POP3 and IMAP. IMAP was supposed to be a weak spot for Outlook; were that all IMAP clients are this weak.) I don't have a powerhouse system; it's a Celeron E1200 (overclocked at that) DC with 3 GB of RAM. How much more stable can Office 2010 actualy get? (How much more stable can ANY application get from no crashes?)

It's spoil-us-rotten stability from barely-beta code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108

Ah I see what you mean now, yeah the quality is exceptional for a Beta. Microsoft really seem to be upping their game in general at the moment though, my guess would be that what has happened with Vista has lead to an overhaul to internally ensure the quality of released code.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hitman2000    16

xp was great folks, but 7 is x100 better.

I dont see the point of people arguing about 7 using more ram, well bak in 2003 512 mb was the common amount of ram these days it would be 2gb if not 4gb.

So comparitively speaking using 256mb out of 512 compared with 1gb out of 4.

Windows 7 look so much better, i hate when i use xp now it looks so old and fugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TonyLock    26

^You have an emotional reaction when you see someone using an OS that is suited to their needs but somehow does no match your aesthetic desires.

Lets face some facts. MOST of the people on Neowin will never truly use the full power of Win7. Most people do not "need" it but "want" it and fail to understand the difference. The only reason they want it is because it's shiny & new and they want to watch their internet porn on a transparent interface; bottom line!

Only a people people here will truly use Win7 to its fullest potential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kyang    112
...they want to watch their internet porn on a transparent interface; bottom line!

Oh, you had to go there. :( .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40
I've tried Vista on this machine, and gaming and video performance suffered. Tis why I'm hesitant to tryout Windows 7 lol.

if you listed your system specs then maybe we can help you but also the only true way to know is to dual boot and test it(real hardware is better as it does not have to drawn in software) also if you run the 7 upgrade advisor it can help you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Anarkii    2,250

I have Windows 7 Ultimate installed on my laptop, and yes, there is a vast improvement over XP on it. Things are faster, and drivers are automatically installed alot better on install. Highly recommended over XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Panacik    27
Don't presume to know me or to justify uncouth comments in this thread made by insecure people who can't really justify themselves.

Come educated & knowledgeable people have responded very well & polity on this thread, which was the intention.

Dont worry mate. That person who told you off for making this thread, obviously didnt actually read your question to start with, which was nothing connected to weather XP ownez Windows 7 etc.

Most educated and knowlegable people i know on Neowin will and have steered clear of this and other flame bait threads. One, because they know from their experience on Neowin, that it will be a downward spiral in to flames and in the end, no one will win, because people like to think they know better than the next person and TWO, because, they actually know what is best in very low level technological terms and dont need to prove it.

Its like someone who has money, doesnt talk about money, but someone who likes to THINK they have money will always try proving a point about money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Colin-uk    134

Thread Cleaned

Try to keep it civil people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145
but at any rate XP never used DWM never had never will XP runs on GDI+ Winows 21 API graphics foundation witch stems back to windows 98se

GDI (GDI+ is a software-only utility library that offers additional features at the expense of performance, and sits on top of GDI and a few other APIs) is still the primary graphics API in Windows and what virtually all software uses (including all of Windows, except the games). It has no replacement. GDI has changed internally though, as it now sits on top of DirectX.

The problem with these new 3D-based APIs is that they have very high system requirements, and aren't available on older versions of Windows. Software makers want to reach as wide an audience as possible.

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.