• 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

Xilo    928
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.

I did list in an earlier post (ATI 3650, P4 2.2GHZ, 2GB RAM). I would try dual booting, but I have no space to do it. I just know I had tried out Vista, and games and movie watching performance suffered. Also had a crazy problem with the sound stack using like 20% of the CPU.

Wondering if Windows 7 would run any better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haresh Kainth    0
Me too. I mean, all I am not bothered with new software like Word 2007, or Office 2010. All I need is Word 2003. Realistically, when people make comments like "XP has XPired" I have to laugh at them as not only is their comment unhelpful but also totally retarded. They miss the point of my actual reasons for using a certain OS.

In terms of my post here, all I am really looking to know is whether Win7 will be faster than WinXP. I had installed Vista but that was slow and I heard Win7 was faster on older PCs than Vista was.

Also, if my apps don't run on Win7, then there is absolutely no reason for me to install it and will stick WinXP. Being disabled, I have very specific applications that I need in order to be able to use a computer and if they don't run on a newer OS, I don't need the newer OS.

Speed is what I want, not bells and whistles.

Windows 7 has a feature called Windows XP Mode http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx That should do the trick for legacy apps ;)

Windows XP is a good OS, however Windows 7 is also a good OS and personally its a fast OS, you can turn off the fancy graphics Aero and just go for a basic Windows classic look and turn off the extra services and the system responds pretty well.

Personally, give Win 7 a chance. If you like the new Windows 7 then enjoy. If not, enjoy Windows XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz    51

How about we start a new thread with a sole purpose of comparison and discussion of Windows 7 to Windows XP ? Although judging by the title the thread IS about "XP vs 7", this is misleading to the actual intent of the OP. I have some screenshots to share!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108
^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.

That is pure grade A nonsense

How about we start a new thread with a sole purpose of comparison and discussion of Windows 7 to Windows XP ? Although judging by the title the thread IS about "XP vs 7", this is misleading to the actual intent of the OP. I have some screenshots to share!

I don't see the need for that. Most of the stuff in this thread has stemmed from your misinformation. I am personally just trying to actually pass factual information onto the OP, rather than using my personal bias to spread nonsense like you do. The best way to end this would be for you to stop spreading false information ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz    51

Ok...

Here are things that XP is better at (for now), with proof,

CPU (and RAM) usage when playing Video,

480pMKV.jpg

MKV480p.jpg

720p-1.jpg

720p.jpg

Playing Video Without Jitter,

1080pJitter.jpg

jitter.jpg

Read Speed,

HDTUNE.jpg

ReadSpeednotsofail.jpg

ReadSpeedFAIL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KeeperOfThePizza    49

Better because of a 10-15% difference...... and not to mention... it looks as if your running 64bit of Windows 7 vs 32bit of XP?.. those tests are faulty.

Edited by LOLING

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xilo    928

Looks like I'll be sticking to XP then. That was my main concern (video and gaming performance) and that's one hell of a CPU jump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KeeperOfThePizza    49
Looks like I'll be sticking to XP then. That was my main concern (video and gaming performance) and that's one hell of a CPU jump.

10%-15% is not a big jump(hardly noticeable), and most of all shouldn't be of any concern running a modern computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Ely    213
Ok...

Here are things that XP is better at (for now), with proof,

Do you really expect an OS that is already close to being 10 years old to have the same system requirements as a new modern OS such as Windows 7? If so, your expectations are flawed and your are dreaming buddy, buy new hardware that is capable of running 7 at the same stats of your archaic OS if you want them to benchmark exactly the same, I'm amazed at how close both OSes benchmark on that system actually, another prove at how excellent Windows 7 is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
KeeperOfThePizza    49

I agree Ely. Not to mention there can be many factors why his results differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jimbo11883    1

Use what you like, or already have. I may prefer Windows 7 to Windows XP, but in the end they both allow you to get your work done... Maybe with slightly different steps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xilo    928
10%-15% is not a big jump(hardly noticeable), and most of all shouldn't be of any concern running a modern computer.

When you have a 2.2GHZ P4, yes... It is very so. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anarkhy    33
Do you really expect an OS that is already close to being 10 years old to have the same system requirements as a new modern OS such as Windows 7? If so, your expectations are flawed and your are dreaming buddy, buy new hardware that is capable of running 7 at the same stats of your archaic OS if you want them to benchmark exactly the same, I'm amazed at how close both OSes benchmark on that system actually, another prove at how excellent Windows 7 is.

no matter the hardware you put them, xp will have a slight better performance than 7, and a os which uses 10 to 15% of cpu power is not a good thing.

the purpose of a os is to manage the computer hardware and interface with the user not to consume cpu power, the lighter the os the better. all the power of your cpu should be used by your applications and games.

so 10% of cpu consuming is a lot, it should be close to zero, but thats the price for a shiny windows that we pay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
+Ely    213

Anarkhy what are you talking about dude? Windows 7 uses %0 of my CPU, and it does so even in my old PC which only has a Pentium 4 with one core, I don't understand what you complain about, Put any new Linux distro in your system and tell me if it runs faster than XP, of course there might be a slight difference in performance, but yeah you are right, that's the price you pay to have a new modern system with all the latest technologies and better features, if you want it to run exactly as fast as your old OS then buy new hardware.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ghforlife    0
Me too. I mean, all I am not bothered with new software like Word 2007, or Office 2010. All I need is Word 2003. Realistically, when people make comments like "XP has XPired" I have to laugh at them as not only is their comment unhelpful but also totally retarded. They miss the point of my actual reasons for using a certain OS.

In terms of my post here, all I am really looking to know is whether Win7 will be faster than WinXP. I had installed Vista but that was slow and I heard Win7 was faster on older PCs than Vista was.

Also, if my apps don't run on Win7, then there is absolutely no reason for me to install it and will stick WinXP. Being disabled, I have very specific applications that I need in order to be able to use a computer and if they don't run on a newer OS, I don't need the newer OS.

Speed is what I want, not bells and whistles.

At this time i'm running Win7 and i've ran both XP and Vista, speed as i see it is in the eye of the person who is running the computer. What i mean is, almost all systems slow down in one way or another, myself i like to use the newest system just because it is new, XP is just as fast as Vista as Win7 is to XP, you can do things to each one to speed it up. I can make XP faster than 7, and i can make Vista faster than XP, please just pick one and stay with it untill you get board with it and change.

Although, Win 7 did inpress me when i first installed it, i found out that i didn't have to install any driver's at all..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Julius Caro    55

Damn @ this thread. A major xp vs windows 7 bitch fest. If you are worried about raw performance, go run a linux command line system and program your stuff in C. It will FLY! Windows xp can't do that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subject Delta    108

My experiences with MPC:

Normal Video:

post-286512-1250904612_thumb.png

HD Video:

post-286512-1250904518_thumb.png

I still maintain that it is udedenkz computer, and not Windows 7 to blame for those problems. It seems to play nicely enough on my computer, in fact I don't even get that much CPU utilisation playing back HD content. Not to mention that MPC actually uses its own internal decoders, and not the Directshow capable system codecs that use D3D acceleration to reduce CPU usage. Playing the same HD video through WMP:

13292159.pngw1280.png

Game, set, and match.

Now guys please stop letting udedenkz' bias against Windows 7 stop you looking at the actual facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman    255

I didn't check to see if someone else answered this for you but here it is:

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2744

The VT support is enabled by default on all Intel chips that support it.

It looks like the latest versions of the Macbook Air support it

SL9400 - 1.86GHZ

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=36689

SL9600 1.86 and 2GHZ

http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37262

I couldn't find information for the models with the X3100.

The cpu identifier is the P7200 but couldn't find the information.

If you can run CPU-Z it should tell you if the chip supports VT or not.

More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBook_Air#Specifications

I hope that helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Udedenkz    51
I still maintain that it is udedenkz computer, and not Windows 7 to blame for those problems. It seems to play nicely enough on my computer, in fact I don't even get that much CPU utilisation playing back HD content. Not to mention that MPC actually uses its own internal decoders, and not the Directshow capable system codecs that use D3D acceleration to reduce CPU usage. Playing the same HD video through WMP:

0% CPU sound fishy - I mean - my CPU usage jumps between 9% and 26% or 3-12% without sound decode (on W7). On top of that a wast jungle of 3rd party processes not using any resources ? Is that an alienware or equivalent or something?

Also your screenshots lack a comparison to XP - giving evidence that either XP is slower or the same as W7. If your screenies are correct, then ofcource, you would need to find something more sensitive to compare with than Task Manager :p

Here is my setup, stay far far away from it,

Intel C2D CPU

Intel PM965 Motherboard (W7 Incl Drivers)

Realtek HD Sound (Latest Drivers x64)

Nvidia 8M Series GPU (186.03 W7 x64 Drivers)

BTW, there isn't much of a difference between WMC and WMP. The Video Filters can be interchanged without any noticeable difference as both WMP and WMC support the GPU out of the box.

Yet, still, my Solid State Drive results stand without scrutiny. :D Also this is the same behavior as from RC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40
I did list in an earlier post (ATI 3650, P4 2.2GHZ, 2GB RAM). I would try dual booting, but I have no space to do it. I just know I had tried out Vista, and games and movie watching performance suffered. Also had a crazy problem with the sound stack using like 20% of the CPU.

Wondering if Windows 7 would run any better.

well vista ran a bit slow but 7 runs great on it just got 1 bug and thats when i run any full Screen game then i exit and some of my icons are not in the place they were in as i never had that issue with xp or vista though it is a minor annoyance, windows update does have a nforce 4 pci express root port driver but am not sure if that will fix it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40

i fixed it by disabling the xp window scaling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kalel83    175

i have an eee pc with windows 7 working (home premium) (2gb in 1005hab)

it works perfectly

the wireless utility is much, much, much better, amongst other things

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hdood    145
0% CPU sound fishy - I mean - my CPU usage jumps between 9% and 26% or 3-12% without sound decode (on W7). On top of that a wast jungle of 3rd party processes not using any resources ? Is that an alienware or equivalent or something?

It isn't fishy at all. It looks about the same as on my machine when playing 1080p video. WMP hovers between 0-3% (although a couple of videos I've tried have been at 50%, I'm guessing because they can't be decoded in hardware for some reason), as does the DWM. The rest of the processes are all 0% because they're just sitting in the background not really doing anything other than waiting for events.

This is on a fairly low-end system. 2.53 GHz E7200 (C2D) with only 3MB L2, 4GB 800 MHz memory, on-board SoundMAX audio (on a P5B), and a cheap Radeon 3600.

In reality though, it doesn't matter one bit if it had used 50%, because this isn't a media center that is encoding live video in the background at the same time. The amount of free CPU is meaningless if you aren't using it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
soldier1st    40

actualy if i launch any full screen game my icons are now set to where they were and if i launch a full screen game and i change the layout they revert to the previous setting,weird.never had this issue in vista or xp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nagisan    248
0% CPU sound fishy - I mean - my CPU usage jumps between 9% and 26% or 3-12% without sound decode (on W7). On top of that a wast jungle of 3rd party processes not using any resources ? Is that an alienware or equivalent or something?

I will admit 0% CPU utilization seems a bit off, playing a 1280x720 HD clip on my system (Q6700 @ 3.6Ghz and a 4890 Toxic) in WMP uses around 12% CPU usage.

Yet, still, my Solid State Drive results stand without scrutiny. :D Also this is the same behavior as from RC.

Did not read this thread so I am not sure what your claiming XP can do with a SSD that W7 cannot, but unless you have a low-end SSD the performance differences if any will be minimal. As for install size that really is no big deal.......right now with two massive games installed I have nearly 80GB of 120GB free, thats 40GB of HDD usage, the games incase your wondering? WoW and TF2, totaling up to 22GB, over half of my current SSD usage.

Now, I do not know what size SSD you are talking about, but if you got a SSD smaller than 20GB than that is your own fault, you should have saved money and got a conventional HDD or shelled out more and got a halfway decent SSD.

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.