WinXP or WinVista

By xMetian
in Microsoft (Windows)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Proficient

Flawed

Posted
Posted

7/Vista = uses ~500 MB more RAM than XP (newer OS = more resources)

Only Windows suffers from this progressive bloat problem.

64-bit + 4GB RAM = ~500MB more RAM than 32-bit OS

That's not strictly true. If you are border line (around 4GB) you can use PAE. Although its support on windows is dubious. On Linux however it works very well, and allows you to access in excess of 4GB of memory on 32 bit systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Arkaic

Posted
Posted

Only Windows suffers from this progressive bloat problem.

That's not strictly true. If you are border line (around 4GB) you can use PAE. Although its support on windows is dubious. On Linux however it works very well, and allows you to access in excess of 4GB of memory on 32 bit systems.

but we are talking windows here. in which case its unstable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

WindowsFanatic

Posted
Posted

Only Windows suffers from this progressive bloat problem.

Lollll. Again you failed to read the posts above. Windows 7 has 1 billion times better memory management than XP. Lolll. That's why it has much better performance on modern systems. Free RAM = Wasted RAM. XP is so pathetic that it doesn't know how to utilize 2GB+ RAM to produce better performance. Lolllllll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Duffydemon

Posted
Posted
Lollll. Again you failed to read the posts above. Windows 7 has 1 billion times better memory management than XP. Lolll. That's why it has much better performance on modern systems. Free RAM = Wasted RAM. XP is so pathetic that it doesn't know how to utilize 2GB+ RAM to produce better performance. Lolllllll.

i also like windows and im windows 7 fan too, but your lolll and childish replies are very annoying, we know vista/7 is better then xp and most of comments from other users make sense, but yours posts are full of childish and annoying words.....its ok you hate xp, but atleast post something which make sense rather than lolll or blind fan rplies

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mentor

Azies

Posted
Posted

You really should look into getting Windows 7, as it performs better than Vista in some areas and is more recent, meaning longer support. While for some reason you are only restricted to those two titles, that's a hard question, I'd probably recommend Windows Vista Home Premium x64, considering you have 4GB of ram, you'd want to take advantage of all of it. It's only a holdover though, Windows 7 is the place to be right now.

i also like windows and im windows 7 fan too, but your lolll and childish replies are very annoying, we know vista/7 is better then xp and most of comments from other users make sense, but yours posts are full of childish and annoying words.....its ok you hate xp, but atleast post something which make sense rather than lolll or blind fan rplies

He's either a child, or has a severe developmental disorder, of which he should seek professional attention if he hasn't already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

lalalawawawa

Posted
Posted

Neowin, a place where a lot of professional tech guys with huge knowledge discuss the latest in technology. :laugh:

^ I think this pretty much sums up every thread made about an OS in the last few years here on Neowin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

.Markus

Posted
Posted

64-bit = access to 4GB RAM

7/Vista = uses ~500 MB more RAM than XP (newer OS = more resources)

64-bit + 4GB RAM = ~500MB more RAM than 32-bit OS

Only Windows suffers from this progressive bloat problem.

Windows XP and 7/Vista uses RAM in some completely different ways. 7 and Vista cache in your RAM, as it's around 40x faster than a conventional hard disk drive. Therefore it makes more sense to use the RAM to speed up your system.

There's no point having a large chunk of your RAM just sitting there, as your computer isn't then taking advantage of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

lalalawawawa

Posted
Posted

Windows XP and 7/Vista uses RAM in some completely different ways. 7 and Vista cache in your RAM, as it's around 40x faster than a conventional hard disk drive. Therefore it makes more sense to use the RAM to speed up your system.

There's no point having a large chunk of your RAM just sitting there, as your computer isn't then taking advantage of it.

This. Unused memory is wasted memory. Too bad these professionals can't freaking understand that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

Flawed

Posted
Posted

arrogantly spout that XP is better than Vista/7 simply cuz it 'uses less RAM'

Well for systems with less than 2GB of ram I certainly wouldn't recommend Vista/7. Many people are looking to upgrade older systems with such memory limitations, and so for them, memory hogs like vista are a poor choice. I'd rather save that memory for my applications/games personally. And by the way, that extra memory usage has little to do with super fetch. Try disabling it in the services and see the difference. I'll give you a clue, there isn't much. In summary I wouldn't say that XP is hugely superior to Vista/7, but it does have some redeeming features. Less bloat, better application support etc.

If you're going to froth at the mouth and zealously defend XP until the bitter end,

Pot, kettle, and black, come to mind. My question is, why such disdain for an OS that is still popular amongst windows users? I don't really care that much what people use, but to call XP inferior to Vista/7 is pure fabrication. None of the items you presented are advantages. I'm sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Veteran

Frylock86

Posted
Posted

Some people just completely ignore key facts about Vista/7's advantages over XP, and look at stuff that doesn't even matter. And some people are saying things that aren't even factual.

XP64 is NOT NOT NOT used by more people than Vista/7. XP32 is. XP64 does in-fact have hardware support troubles. There's PLENTY of devices that have x64 drivers for vista/7, but NOT for XP64. XP and Vista/7 use COMPLETELY different driver models.

XP does NOT by any means have the same hardware resources as Vista/7. Let's see...

- Windows Vista/7 has a completely rewritten graphics driver model, known as WDDM. This not only improves performance in gaming and other apps that utilize 3D resources (such as modern Photoshop versions), but it also integrates 3D acceleration into the desktop itself, allowing things like Aero and DirectWrite to exist. Nevermind the fact that DirectX 10/11 require WDDM, as well. Now, tell me Flawed, when did you see DirectX10/11, Directwrite, or Aero working in XP?

- Windows Vista/7 has a rewritten Audio system. Unlike in XP, different programs can have different levels of volume, and can output to different devices. You can change audio system settings on the fly between applications with little trouble.

- Windows Vista/7 has far superior RAM management over XP. In XP, even with having ~3GB of usable RAM available, and you only using 10% of that RAM, it often overused the swap file and switching tasks (alt-tabbing between software) sometimes presented you with a delay while the disk thrashed a bit. In vista/7, this behavior is non-existent unless you actually manage to max out your RAM/CPU usage. Yes, Windows Vista/7 use more RAM than XP does, but XP was designed for systems that had 256~512mb of RAM total, back in 2001; 9 years ago. Vista came out in 2007, where systems regularly had 2GB~4GB of RAM, not including netbooks. Windows 7 came out last year, where systems almost always have 4GB of RAM, sometimes even more. The negative of extra use of RAM by Vista/7 is far outweighed by the many memory management advantages there are, allowing multitasking to be far more seamless. Tell me, did you ever use Windows Vista/7 and have 100% of your RAM used?

- Windows Vista/7 has superfetch, speaking of RAM, which preloads your most commonly used data into RAM when the system is idle. This dramatically reduces loading time for these software and files. In Windows XP, every time I loaded photoshop, it took 15-25 seconds every single time. In Windows 7, It's up in 6 for the most part.

- Windows Vista/7 has far superior multicore-CPU threading across the system. This means with dual and quad core CPUs, your system will run smoother and more reliably than in XP because the modern optimizations allow for a much more efficient load balance between cores. Windows XP cannot even use all 8 threads presented by a core i7 cpu, making XP on an i7 system the STUPIDEST MOVE ANYONE CAN EVER MAKE.

- Windows Vista/7 installations do not degrade over time in the way XP does. After a year of usage, XP becomes slower than it was fresh. After a year of usage with Windows 7 especially, I have yet to notice performance degredation across my system. I have not felt the NEED to reinstall Windows 7 since RTM. I have plenty of times, however, felt this need in Windows XP. Of course, this is more of a software thing than hardware, but this is extremely important when you DO use windows 7 on subpar hardware.

- Windows Vista/7 have more flexible power management features than XP ever did. If preserving battery power or reducing electric costs is extremely important to you, you can easily pick and choose what parts of your system can be throttled to save power under whichever conditions you see fit.

- Windows 7 has a feature known as TRIM. This feature is massively important for owners of SSD (solid state drives). Installing XP on an SSD would up there with the STUPIDEST MOVES ANYONE CAN MAKE.

- Windows 7 also supports SATA and AHCI by default without any special slipstreaming or driver steps. No irritating headaches trying to install it on modern systems using modern technology. In XP, if you used the original disc and tried to install it on a SATA/AHCI system, you'd find yourself in a heap of trouble. Windows 7 just quite simply supports the modern technologies better, built-in, without any extra help. Nevermind the fact that Windows Vista/7 install much quicker than a normal, attended XP install does.

This is just all hardware-related advantages. I didn't even touched the surface yet on purely software/UI advantages, which the users will REALLY notice. People who actually sit in this thread and arrogantly spout that XP is better than Vista/7 simply cuz it 'uses less RAM' or it 'just works' are fully ignorant to many facts and many advantages there are, and just want to flex their fanboy muscles for a 9-year-old OS. Using XP today on even semi-modern machines is like someone using an intel-based Mac (2006+) with the very first version of MACOSX on it (which btw is completely impossible anyways.) If you're going to froth at the mouth and zealously defend XP until the bitter end, at least get your facts straight about Vista/7 instead of blindly bashing it without knowing what you're talking about.

/Thread.

Needs closed. The OP already went with Vista.

Flawed, simply put, between Vista and XP, the better choice would be Vista. A clean install of Vista will operate better than a clean install of XP on the hardware he stated he has. In going with Vista, he also has an upgrade path to Windows 7 (And possibly Windows 8), making his choice of going with Vista the right one to make. It's the only choice that makes sense. You can get over yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Enthusiast

WindowsFanatic

Posted
Posted

Well for systems with less than 2GB of ram I certainly wouldn't recommend Vista/7. Many people are looking to upgrade older systems with such memory limitations, and so for them, memory hogs like vista are a poor choice. I'd rather save that memory for my applications/games personally. And by the way, that extra memory usage has little to do with super fetch. Try disabling it in the services and see the difference. I'll give you a clue, there isn't much. In summary I wouldn't say that XP is hugely superior to Vista/7, but it does have some redeeming features. Less bloat, better application support etc.

Pot, kettle, and black, come to mind. My question is, why such disdain for an OS that is still popular amongst windows users? I don't really care that much what people use, but to call XP inferior to Vista/7 is pure fabrication. None of the items you presented are advantages. I'm sorry.

Lollll... Again so many "Flaws" in your reply. Windows Vista/7 is 100 billion times better than pathetic OSes like XP or Ubuntu. Lolllll. XP isn't "popular" among Windows users. It has only 45% usage share. Almost all of them are business PCs or very backdated systems which can't handle Windows Vista/7. Lolllll. No person other than a few Luddites use XP anymore when they have the option to choose. Lollllllll.

And the features that Lazure mentioned are all incredible incentives to use the greatest OS ever, which is Windows 7, and stay 100 miles away from pathetic and unusable OSes like XP and Ubuntu. Lolllllllll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

hdood

Posted
Posted

Windows XP and 7/Vista uses RAM in some completely different ways. 7 and Vista cache in your RAM, as it's around 40x faster than a conventional hard disk drive. Therefore it makes more sense to use the RAM to speed up your system.

There's no point having a large chunk of your RAM just sitting there, as your computer isn't then taking advantage of it.

It's not all used for caching. Windows actually does use memory, unlike what half of Neowin seems to think. This is memory that cannot be freed and that you cannot get back, and is about twice as much in 7 as it was in XP. Of course we're still only talking about a couple hundred megabytes, so it's a bit silly. It matters on a system with 512MB of RAM, but no system suitable for 7 has that anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proficient

sim1

Posted
Posted

Personally, I would jump straight from XP to Windows 7.

In your case I would recommend Windows 7 64 bit because your computer is quite powerful (dual-core with 4GB of ram) and can run Windows 7 with no performance issues.

I run Windows 7 on a AMD 64 (3700+) with 3GB of ram. I don't game on this system BUT I don't have any issues with doing "regular" stuff like browsing the web, listening to music, etc.

If you do not wish to buy Windows 7 and want to know which OS to install between XP and Vista... I would say Vista (like others said :p)

Don't worry, after all the Windows Updates, Visa will be stable and secure.

Hope this helps,

-Simon

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Southern Patriot

Posted
Posted

Windows Vista is so much better than Windows XP. Windows Explorer is enough of a reason to upgrade, in my opinion;

This is the one and only area where I still feel that XP was better than Vista or 7. I've never really liked the newer versions of Explorer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

Udedenkz

Posted
Posted

This is the one and only area where I still feel that XP was better than Vista or 7. I've never really liked the newer versions of Explorer.

Explorer is a lot slower on 7 than on XP. Bloody hell, it is a lot slower to scroll. Even something as trivial as loading and scrolling system32.

I think MS just doesn't like netbook users one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

TCA

Posted
Posted

OP you'll benefit more with Windows Vista then sticking to XP imo, but whenever you get the money for Windows 7 you're in for a ride :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

I'm not ranting. I am just giving him good advice and trying to explain why upgrading to Windows 7 is a *must* for every XP Luddite. However, he is free to ignore my advice. Why should I pay him to improve his own experience?

Upgrading to Windows 7 is NOT a must for XP users.

Jesus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grand Master

MtnDewCodeRedFreak

Posted
Posted

Ugh to the idiots that think XP is better.

Oh HELL NO! Vista and 7 is LIGHT YEARS ahead of XP in so many ways (see Lazure's post) that it's not even funny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.