Windows 7 Will Kill XP Ahead of Windows 8, It

[Frylock86]

There are some fundamental disadvantages to Windows 7.

1. Software has less memory to work with. Windows 7 uses about 5 times more memory than XP. This is a non issue if you do nothing RAM intensive / have plenty of free available RAM always...

2. Windows Media Player. WMP comes with Windows 7 by default and is nice. The thing scrolling lists of songs takes an immense amount of CPU.

3. Windows Explorer has the same issue. Compared to XP, W7 Windows Explorer requires significantly more CPU power than XP's Windows Explorer. No I am not talking just about the large icon mode... I am talking about the detailed view.

4. Win XP performs much better in DX9 gaming. If you need to squeeze the living hell out of your system in terms of DX9 gaming, XP. **** 7

5. Same goes for the the user interface. XPs user interface -although lacking snap to screen age funct- is faster once the drivers are installed. This is not the case before the drivers are installed.

6. Unlike XP, Windows 7 does not run the CPU at 100% all the time. This makes it seem slower than XP (In B4 captain obvious). This can easily be fixed by an advanced user.

7. User Account Control. Worst power-user feature conceived. It slows down things considerably (Ex. Gothic II install) and it annoys you to no end. Luckily the whole thing can truly be disabled by killing off the driver.

Num. 1 cannot be fixed. This is just simple progression. Nothing too special here.

Num. 6 & 7 can be tackled with ease by any power user.

Num. 2, 3, 4, & 5 SHOULD be fixed by Microsoft. The most problematic is Num. 3 considering that netbooks these days come with W7 pre-installed.

Oh and the whole Linux interface argument is lulzworthy. W7 has the best interface out there.

1. Less memory - I disagree, I have no problems whatsoever running anything at all. Sure, Windows 7 uses more, but that is SuperFetch at work, and that memory is freed if it is needed.

2. I don't have this issue on my desktop or my netbook

3. See number 2.

4. My Win 7 system performs the same as did my XP system.

5. Windows 7's Ui is more responsive due to GPU rendering, and also doesn't tear like XP's does.

6. Neither my netbook or desktop are any slower. I don't know what you are talking about.

7. UAC also saves user's asses. This is one of the features that makes Windows 7 more secure than XP systems, and eliminates the need for over-zealous AV suites.

[ViperAFK]

There are some fundamental disadvantages to Windows 7.

1. Software has less memory to work with. Windows 7 uses about 5 times more memory than XP. This is a non issue if you do nothing RAM intensive / have plenty of free available RAM always...

2. Windows Media Player. WMP comes with Windows 7 by default and is nice. The thing scrolling lists of songs takes an immense amount of CPU.

3. Windows Explorer has the same issue. Compared to XP, W7 Windows Explorer requires significantly more CPU power than XP's Windows Explorer. No I am not talking just about the large icon mode... I am talking about the detailed view.

4. Win XP performs much better in DX9 gaming. If you need to squeeze the living hell out of your system in terms of DX9 gaming, XP. **** 7

5. Same goes for the the user interface. XPs user interface -although lacking snap to screen age funct- is faster once the drivers are installed. This is not the case before the drivers are installed.

6. Unlike XP, Windows 7 does not run the CPU at 100% all the time. This makes it seem slower than XP (In B4 captain obvious). This can easily be fixed by an advanced user.

7. User Account Control. Worst power-user feature conceived. It slows down things considerably (Ex. Gothic II install) and it annoys you to no end. Luckily the whole thing can truly be disabled by killing off the driver.

Num. 1 cannot be fixed. This is just simple progression. Nothing too special here.

Num. 6 & 7 can be tackled with ease by any power user.

Num. 2, 3, 4, & 5 SHOULD be fixed by Microsoft. The most problematic is Num. 3 considering that netbooks these days come with W7 pre-installed.

Oh and the whole Linux interface argument is lulzworthy. W7 has the best interface out there.

This post is filled with so much false information its not even funny.

[Ci7]

never imagined the thread would go on forever

now where is my popcorn!

[onebadolepuddycat]

I have Windows 7 on some of my machines, Xp on others, even Vista on one...but nothing Apple. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are both nice, but I had not been blown away by anything in the lineage since Xp. Why should I not use XP? Have any profound technological advancements been made since XP which would necessitate migration? Which is probably why I am still indifferent, and in fact I am replying to this article on a machine which actually still uses an Xp o/s. Before declaring that something is better when offering it, be sure that it can easily be proven to everyone. It should be more than obvious (basic and simplistic), the difference between this version and that version, and why it would actually be in a person's (or a company's) best interests to upgrade. As you are doing your overall analysis, do keep in mind that a comparable one will also be made by the consumer...which if not convincing, will mean that you have in fact lost a sale.

[MtnDewCodeRedFreak]

Ugh - not that sh*t again.

[Udedenkz]

Before I start, I'm posting this on a ASUS-g71g lappy which came out a few months before 7. Meaning, its not some ****ed up technology from 2002.

1. Unused memory is wasted memory. When are people going to understand that... :/

2. It works fine here, and I have ~27gb of music. Read the first line. ;)

3. Again, don't have any problems here. Read the first line.

4. No, it does not. 7 performs better, period.

5. If you have a ****ty GPU, like an integrated one from 1874, yea, I would agree. Otherwise, no. Read a few pages about how Windows 7 does the interface part.

6. Considering that 7 uses multithreading, multirendering, multiwhatever more efficiently than XP, I'd say I disagree.

7. Go bitch to Gothic's developers, not to Microsoft. Mkay?

Oh, and stop with the whole Windows vs Linux debate.

1. When are people going to read a post before replying to it? I not talking about superfetch, yet, I am talking about the simple fact that W7 uses 5 more memory to run.

2. On a netbook?

3. On a netbook?

4. ...

5. 8600M GT, NV ION, ATi 4250 are now ****ty GPUs? Troll more.

6. You don't get the argument. A CPU running at 800Mhz is slower than one running at 1.6Ghz. W7 aims to run the CPU at the lowest clock speed and only switch it when necessary...

7. Or XP.

1. Less memory - I disagree, I have no problems whatsoever running anything at all. Sure, Windows 7 uses more, but that is SuperFetch at work, and that memory is freed if it is needed.

2. I don't have this issue on my desktop or my netbook

3. See number 2.

4. My Win 7 system performs the same as did my XP system.

5. Windows 7's Ui is more responsive due to GPU rendering, and also doesn't tear like XP's does.

6. Neither my netbook or desktop are any slower. I don't know what you are talking about.

7. UAC also saves user's asses. This is one of the features that makes Windows 7 more secure than XP systems, and eliminates the need for over-zealous AV suites.

1. Windows 7 at boot-up will use like 600-700MB. XP uses ~120MB. This memory is REQUIRED to run all the services, it will NOT free this memory. Therefore there is less memory to use. I am not talking about superfetch.

2. I noticed this first on my C2D. Hopefully this will be fixed with SP1. You can avoid it by using PGUP/DN keys instead of scrolling with arrow keys on a netbook.

3. ...

4. Not a performance freak? Though so.

5. People are forgetting something about XP. Without GPU drivers XP's interface is really slow. GPU drivers assist XP's interface significantly. Also XP doesn't tear... :/

6. Once again you need to pay attention. Going from XP to 7 leads to a slower and less responsive interface. You get used to it and think this is the default.

7. I am not talking about average users, but power users. It slows things down. It simply does. And all W7 installs come preinstalled with Norton.

[treemonster]

what exploit or vulnerability did it take advantage of? And like most exploits i'm guessing it came out once the vulnerability was already discovered and people didn't patch their OS? (see my argument you can cure stupid)

You're still not bringing any actual facts to your argument. you have to be daft as **** if you think windows 7 can't be infected by keyloggers

and not my fault your grammar is bad, like your sig says "i have no excuse for my poor english though!"

it installed a file through an exploit in flash that installed a variety of malware that do not work in win 7 or vista, due to their built in security features. since these features have not been patched into xp, it is still vulnerable to a similar attack if something like flash is exploited.

a similar attack happened on a game fansite i go to a week later which also only targeted xp. it did not work in vista or 7.

[rajputwarrior]

what exploit or vulnerability did it take advantage of? And like most exploits i'm guessing it came out once the vulnerability was already discovered and people didn't patch their OS? (see my argument you can cure stupid)

You're still not bringing any actual facts to your argument. you have to be daft as **** if you think windows 7 can't be infected by keyloggers

and not my fault your grammar is bad, like your sig says "i have no excuse for my poor english though!"

it installed a file through an exploit in flash that installed a variety of malware that do not work in win 7 or vista, due to their built in security features. since these features have not been patched into xp, it is still vulnerable to a similar attack if something like flash is exploited.

a similar attack happened on a game fansite i go to a week later which also only targeted xp. it did not work in vista or 7.

so it's all because of flash that this is happening, what xp vulnerabilty does it take advantage of? bet you almost anything that vulnerability was patched A LONG time ago.

[Night Prowler]

Windows XP does the job just fine, Windows 7 is just better looking.

This is what XP users are telling themselves to justify not moving to Windows 7. Windows 7 is just so much more then XP. Plus, in a few short months IE9 will be out and I'm guessing you will be stating that IE9 is just better looking.

There is nothing wrong with XP but to say that Windows 7 is just better looking....

[treemonster]

so it's all because of flash that this is happening, what xp vulnerabilty does it take advantage of? bet you almost anything that vulnerability was patched A LONG time ago.

xp doesn't have the security features of vista and 7. this is not every going to get patched in to xp.

[The_DINGUS]

I swear there are a sizeable number of people out there that think the only thing that's been changed in Windows since 1995 is the appearance of the UI.

[notuptome2004]

My mom who si computer eliterate runs a 1.6ghz AMd XP chip with 1.5gb of ram and an 8400GS Nvidia card for Email and Im use and internet and movies DVDs . the system had a fresh install of windows XP with SP3 on it that i put on the system for her well for 4 to 6 months she kept calling me asking me how to do this or that in windows XP and or fix problems it had .

so i would go over and fix them but some of the time the issues were major slow downs and i would figure out fast she would leave applications open and other stuff she would run that she didnt want open at that time . small things add up so one day she called me up and siad my computer is running really really slow witch i figured ok more stuff open she did not close right.

Well i went over and everything was closed so i did a virus scan and everything Nothing so she asked me why her system is so damn damn damn slow now when she notices it being slower then it ever has then ya know something is wrong . so i re-installed XP with SP3 and well problem fixed for short 3 weeks when she calloed me and was like this XP is driving me crazy sone can ya come help your mother out Please!

so i did and well i took another copy of windows 7 ultimate i had purchased and installed it on her system and she called me later that night and was like WOW this is so much faster and the only time she has called me is to tell me about features she discovered on her own. ( Aero Snap Aero Peak Jump list Search ) List goes on and she has never had a single issue on windows 7 and 6 month later same install still running as fast as the day i installed it.

so the Fact my mom notices huge differences over windows XP and the fact she never seen a damn windows 7 commercial before i installed windows 7 and she figured the thing out all on her own without hgelp or questions and did so in just a few short hours is Why windows 7 is far better and Superior over windows XP

[Frylock86]

This is what XP users are telling themselves to justify not moving to Windows 7. Windows 7 is just so much more then XP. Plus, in a few short months IE9 will be out and I'm guessing you will be stating that IE9 is just better looking.

There is nothing wrong with XP but to say that Windows 7 is just better looking....

Agreed. Windows 7 is more than just "looking better", it preforms better, and lasts longer than XP does. Windows rot is a thing of the past since Vista.

(I know, I know - That's what she said :rofl: )

[rajputwarrior]

xp doesn't have the security features of vista and 7. this is not every going to get patched in to xp.

how do you know that? what vulnerability does it take advantage of? what peice of malware are you talking about? all you are saying is something happens in flash and only attacks in XP. sweet, i can just say stuff too if I wanted.

[Ashmir]

Any browser can be sandboxed by using tools like chml.exe on Windows. And yea, you need to give your consent to run things as admin in Windows too. Windows going back to NT 3.1 could run like that, it just wasn't the default. The same way apparmor and selinux are not the default on ubuntu. Apparmor and selinux are ok, but in its default config, ubuntu doesn't sandbox the browser or try to stop rootkits like (modern) Windows does, so I just don't see linux as being more secure. Having to use non-default command line tools that are impossible for the average user to understand to make it secure does not really count, because almost no one does that.

Ubuntu does sandbox the browser. There is an apparmor profile for Firefox by default enabled for every user since version 8.04 LTS (and perhaps even earlier, I don't know).

And the driver singing on Windows Vista and 7 used to 'stop rootkits' is actually used for DRM, but is sold as a security feature (most Trojans don't care about the kernel) and by mandatory singing Microsoft ensures no fake audio and video drivers are installed and the user gets access to 'premium content' .

[metallithrax]

Agreed. Windows 7 is more than just "looking better", it preforms better, and lasts longer than XP does. Windows rot is a thing of the past since Vista.

(I know, I know - That's what she said :rofl: )

So, in 9 years people are gonna be saying that we should be upgrading from Windows 7 to Windows X just because it is so much better/more secure.

Somehow I don't see this happening.

Because windows 7 will have been surpassed a couple of times before then.

[Lazure]

1. When are people going to read a post before replying to it? I not talking about superfetch, yet, I am talking about the simple fact that W7 uses 5 more memory to run.

2. On a netbook?

3. On a netbook?

4. ...

5. 8600M GT, NV ION, ATi 4250 are now ****ty GPUs? Troll more.

6. You don't get the argument. A CPU running at 800Mhz is slower than one running at 1.6Ghz. W7 aims to run the CPU at the lowest clock speed and only switch it when necessary...

7. Or XP.

1. Windows 7 at boot-up will use like 600-700MB. XP uses ~120MB. This memory is REQUIRED to run all the services, it will NOT free this memory. Therefore there is less memory to use. I am not talking about superfetch.

2. I noticed this first on my C2D. Hopefully this will be fixed with SP1. You can avoid it by using PGUP/DN keys instead of scrolling with arrow keys on a netbook.

3. ...

4. Not a performance freak? Though so.

5. People are forgetting something about XP. Without GPU drivers XP's interface is really slow. GPU drivers assist XP's interface significantly. Also XP doesn't tear... :/

6. Once again you need to pay attention. Going from XP to 7 leads to a slower and less responsive interface. You get used to it and think this is the default.

7. I am not talking about average users, but power users. It slows things down. It simply does. And all W7 installs come preinstalled with Norton.

1. Windows 95 uses like 16mb of RAM. I guess that makes it a better choice than even Windows XP by your logic! Oh, wait, you can't install it anymore. Know why? Cuz hardware has made massive advancements since then. RAM capacity has drastically increased, by the time XP came out systems regularly had 256-512mb of RAM in them for XP's needs. Windows 7 uses a little bit more memory, whoopdie-do, guess how much an average system has nowadays in the modern world? 2gb~6gb. Go to wal-mart or best buy and look for yourself. Percentage-wise, Windows 7 actually uses LESS of the total system memory in an ideal modern system than XP did at it's launch date. You are pretending that we all still use old pentium 4 systems with low RAM, and trying to put 7 on them. Don't use a netbook as a comparison, either, as they are much lower spec than standard computers and laptops are. There's a reason they still come with XP installed (though not for much longer). Even with Windows 7's ram usage, the memory management is so much better than task switching with low remaining memory is still much better than XP was with PLENTY of remaining memory... I have personal experience to back this up on MULTIPLE machines.

2. I don't even use WMP, but any time I did look at it, it never lagged and I have a c2d. There are far better media players, such as foobar and mpc-hc, both of which run even better on Windows 7 than they would in XP, especially MPC-HC since its BEST renderer ONLY works in Vista/7.

3. I have never had explorer lag on me. Where do you get this from?

4. I personally tested performance on the same game between an XP install and a 7 BETA install back in 2009. The Last Remnant. Not only did XP have graphical glitches/crashes that Windows 7 did not, it also had 10 less FPS on average than Windows 7 did for me. Same nvidia driver, too. Where do you get that XP is faster? Do you have a source? Didn't think so. I however, have personal experience and testing. This was on the same system, as well, via dual boot.

5. XP tears because it constantly has to redraw any time a window is moved around the desktop. There is no composition engine in XP that allowed window contents to be remembered in GPU memory for smooth graphics transfer operations. It literally had to repaint EVERY part of the window if you even moved the window one pixel in any direction. Moving a window really fast over another one caused redraws, and even on a fast system, it would leave split second white splotches or trails or tearing as it redrew it constantly super fast as you moved the window. This is a fact, it's how GDI works. Paints elements top to bottom each time something changes. You'll see it even more on older computers with weak CPUs. Go, load up XP in a virtual machine and move windows around alot.

6. I noticed instantly the moment I used 7 with Aero that the UI was much more responsive. Window movement was much smoother. I did not notice any artifacts or lag in window movement. It was completely smooth and completely responsive. Windows XP looked glitchy and ugly in comparison, and DID lag a lot sometimes. With aero, I never notice a window drawing, it just appears with a nice, smooth fade-in effect that lasts 0.5 seconds and that animation can be disabled for an INSTANT window pop-up if that's your thing. I can disable the same animations in XP, and i can still notice the lag of a window being drawn. Oh and your argument about Windows not using the full CPU... you're thinking of a very intelligent and useful power saving feature that actually exists at the level of the CPU itself, Windows 7 just has the tools to CONTROL it. Realistically, Windows 7 is very smart about it in the default profiles. If you're running an app that's not even GOING to use your cpu fully, it won't have the CPU running at full power. This saves energy. You don't need to drive 120mph when you're going down the street to say hi to a friend, even tho you could.. it would be pointless. When you run an app that demands high amounts of CPU power, Windows bumps it up to 100%. Check the power profile yourself, min processor state vs max processor state. You can set both to 100% if you really want it to always use your full clocks, but realistically you would NEVER NOTICE the difference. The clock can change literally in an instant the moment it's needed.

7. Ok, this is where I know you're just making stuff up. Where on earth did you assume that Windows 7 comes with norton? Seriously? Microsoft does NOT ever supply Norton or McAfee or any other software suite like that with Windows 7. OEMs bundle that software with their machines AFTER they install Windows on them. You cannot pin this on Windows 7, you must pin this on Compaq, Acer, Toshiba, HP, and other manufacturers who believe Norton's supposed security will make people buy their products cuz they'll feel super safe from those evil viruses out there. You HONESTLY believed that if you bought a box of just Windows 7 Home Premium off the shelf, that it'd magically have Norton when you installed it fresh on a system of your choosing? You're really uninformed, and nothing you say here is credible. A fresh copy of Windows 7 installs within 15-20 minutes and the default settings are more than enough to provide a fast, responsive experience for anyone who wants to just go and use it, save for a few driver installs perhaps.

[+Warwagon MVC]

7. I am not talking about average users, but power users. It slows things down. It simply does. And all W7 installs come preinstalled with Norton.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[JRosenfeld]

Security

First of all Windows XP's support is ending. As in no more fixing exploits and sewer wholes in the system. In addition the security features built into XP are not designed for todays attacks. You may argue that a third party firewall and AV software would help. But that is just delaying the inevitable.

XP security updates will continue until April 2014, 3 1/2 years from now. As i said in my post #2, at that time I'll consider changing. In any case malware/viruses mainly bite the careless or ignorant user. I've never had any on my PCs.

[ViperAFK]

1. When are people going to read a post before replying to it? I not talking about superfetch, yet, I am talking about the simple fact that W7 uses 5 more memory to run.

2. On a netbook?

3. On a netbook?

4. ...

5. 8600M GT, NV ION, ATi 4250 are now ****ty GPUs? Troll more.

6. You don't get the argument. A CPU running at 800Mhz is slower than one running at 1.6Ghz. W7 aims to run the CPU at the lowest clock speed and only switch it when necessary...

7. Or XP.

1. Windows 7 at boot-up will use like 600-700MB. XP uses ~120MB. This memory is REQUIRED to run all the services, it will NOT free this memory. Therefore there is less memory to use. I am not talking about superfetch.

2. I noticed this first on my C2D. Hopefully this will be fixed with SP1. You can avoid it by using PGUP/DN keys instead of scrolling with arrow keys on a netbook.

3. ...

4. Not a performance freak? Though so.

5. People are forgetting something about XP. Without GPU drivers XP's interface is really slow. GPU drivers assist XP's interface significantly. Also XP doesn't tear... :/

6. Once again you need to pay attention. Going from XP to 7 leads to a slower and less responsive interface. You get used to it and think this is the default.

7. I am not talking about average users, but power users. It slows things down. It simply does. And all W7 installs come preinstalled with Norton.

Uhh xp's windows definitely do tear. Unless you have a magic version of xp that had a 3d accelerated and vsync'd desktop. Yet another false assertion :rolleyes:

[treemonster]

how do you know that? what vulnerability does it take advantage of? what peice of malware are you talking about? all you are saying is something happens in flash and only attacks in XP. sweet, i can just say stuff too if I wanted.

i don't pretend to know the technical details of the attack, but go ahead, pretend it didn't happen. pretend xp is safe just cuz you say it is.

also, security was an issue with xp for years before vista came around, which is why vista was made the way it was made. then people qqed and hated it forever because 3rd parties failed to make drivers for it for ~ the first year it was out. oh and UAC is so annoying QQ!

[rajputwarrior]

i don't pretend to know the technical details of the attack, but go ahead, pretend it didn't happen. pretend xp is safe just cuz you say it is.

also, security was an issue with xp for years before vista came around, which is why vista was made the way it was made. then people qqed and hated it forever because 3rd parties failed to make drivers for it for ~ the first year it was out. oh and UAC is so annoying QQ!

when did i say that? every argument you have said so far has had absolutely no basis to it whatsoever.

and so far, you don't pretend to know anything in terms of this discussion.

[treemonster]

when did i say that? every argument you have said so far has had absolutely no basis to it whatsoever.

and so far, you don't pretend to know anything in terms of this discussion.

nice trolling

[rajputwarrior]

nice trolling

solid rebuttal, I call you out for backing up anything you say, and you come back with with trolling :rofl:

[Samurizer]

i don't pretend to know the technical details of the attack, but go ahead, pretend it didn't happen. pretend xp is safe just cuz you say it is.

Maybe you should take a break and look at what you're writing. Go ahead, pretend it happened, pretend XP is unsafe because you say it is?

It's surprising why you have to fall back to emotional appeals to argue your point. Things like these are simple facts that can be easily proven or disproven without having to resort to such an emotionally-charged arguments. It almost seems like you're angry because people don't accept at face value the preconceived biases you try to push onto them.

Last but not least, XP isn't safe because I say so, it's safe because I know it's entirely possible to use it and stay uninfected for years. You know, personal experience.