Users Who Think XP Is Good Enough Need to See Infection Rates


Recommended Posts

I've never had any issues with win7 scrolling performance, thumbnails, or search speed...

netbook?

Udedenkz please stop with the scrolling arguments. No sane person will scroll up and down 20,000 times in 5 seconds to look at the CPU usage, that has got to be the most useless test of a OS performance I have ever heard of.

You just have to scroll to notice the lagging. You do not need to scroll much.

EX: Documents, Downloads, Pictures, the music list in Windows Media Player

Learn to read.

I think people that do not get infected and run without an anti-virus should share their secrets (browsing habits, daily tasks, routines, software, browser configuration, etc..). This may be of interest.

Um I do not have ANY lag on all 5 of my systems, and I have never noticed any lag on hundreds of systems at my university. Maybe you just have a bad system.

How much faster are they compared to Athlon II P340? How much faster is their HD compared to a low-end 5200 RPM?

Although the original post for the horrible performance is on my notebook, I notice performance differences VERY EASILY especially on a netbook. (EX: Have you noticed the massive difference in CPU utilization between WMP and MPC:HC ?)

On the netbook, in Fallout 3 when there are more then 2 enemies around the FPS does go down and with more than 4 - I need to resort to VATS.

On the notebook, there is some bad race conditions between the physics engine and the main engine in Dragon Age Origins towards the end of the game where one laggs behind the other. Obviously DAII is out of the question due to the epic-fast CPU of mine.

If you haven't noticed I said that these are fixable by not using the pre-installed Windows Explorer and its fail-search making Windows 7 a proffered choice to Windows XP even in the area of such performance tricky areas.

So drop it.

No you drop it. The systems at my university all have 2.18Ghz Core2 Duo systems, and they have never, NEVER had any of the problems with what you are saying since day 1 of Windows 7. There are hundreds of computers on campus. Some might boot up slower due to it being an older system, but they have NEVER had scrolling speed issues. Read that again: NEVER. It is NOT a Windows 7 issue, it must be your system cannot handle Windows 7 that well. The fact that I can have multiple games running at the same time with no FPS drop at all suggest you are having a hardware issue. It is not all Windows 7 fault.

Work on some consistency, why don't you? I've offered honest explanations about how alexalex could technically be using the same "install" of Windows XP but still have restored from his backup over again, and he hasn't responded to that yet,

I don't understand what answer are you waiting for ? What same install ? The original install date doesn't change with service packs (now sp3) or security and other updates. So, when I upgraded my 60GB hdd to 80GB hdd a year ago, and restored from an image backup taken minutes before the upgrade, nothing should or have been changed in regard to original install date.

That is nothing compared to what I did.

I took out my hard drive from my dead laptop and put it into another one.

Windows XP worked without any issues even though the only familiar piece of hardware was the HD! :blink:

No you drop it. The systems at my university all have 2.18Ghz Core2 Duo systems, and they have never, NEVER had any of the problems with what you are saying since day 1 of Windows 7. There are hundreds of computers on campus. Some might boot up slower due to it being an older system, but they have NEVER had scrolling speed issues. Read that again: NEVER. It is NOT a Windows 7 issue, it must be your system cannot handle Windows 7 that well. The fact that I can have multiple games running at the same time with no FPS drop at all suggest you are having a hardware issue. It is not all Windows 7 fault.

FYI, that CPU is a lot more powerful.

So do we agree that W7 requires a massive amount of hardware power to do the same things XP does with little hardware power? And do we agree that the easy way to amend this is to not use Internet/Windows Explorer?

Also, your University is a failure if it allows you to play games on their computers.

That is nothing compared to what I did.

I took out my hard drive from my dead laptop and put it into another one.

Windows XP worked without any issues even though the only familiar piece of hardware was the HD! :blink:

FYI, that CPU is a lot more powerful.

So do we agree that W7 requires a massive amount of hardware power to do the same things XP does with little hardware power? And do we agree that the easy way to amend this is to not use Internet/Windows Explorer?

Also, your University is a failure if it allows you to play games on their computers.

An OS released in 2001 has lower system requirements than an OS released in 2009?

COLOR ME SHOCKED!

An OS released in 2001 has lower system requirements than an OS released in 2009?

COLOR ME SHOCKED!

This is because of poor optimization of the new Windows Explorer / Windows Media Player as 3rd party alternatives do 10x better.

CPU-wise there is negligible difference between the two OS. Same Dragon Age performance for example.

That is the single-most full of s*** comment I've ever heard.

Get real.

Laughable. If there is anyone who needs a "get real" clue, it is you. A plethora of tools are available for xp such that, if I wanted the same level of security that W7 offers, it is there for the taking. All one needs to do is string two neurons together to do the research. You can keep your Vista 2.0. Don't curse the rest of us who didn't bite the bait Ballmer set out for the usual herd.

Death to Windows XP.

Maybe in five years. Then you can try again. Sorry but this bridge is too short for you, troll.

This is because of poor optimization of the new Windows Explorer / Windows Media Player as 3rd party alternatives do 10x better.

CPU-wise there is negligible difference between the two OS. Same Dragon Age performance for example.

Explorer in Win7 is fine. I don't know where you come up with these issues. Of course it's going to seem clunkier on lower-end hardware that was released years before 7 came out.

XP's Explorer is clunky and "poorly optimized" compared to Windows 2000's Explorer.

Windows 98's Explorer is clunky and poorly optimized compared to Windows 95's Explorer.

Explorer in Win7 is fine. I don't know where you come up with these issues. Of course it's going to seem clunkier on lower-end hardware that was released years before 7 came out.

XP's Explorer is clunky and "poorly optimized" compared to Windows 2000's Explorer.

Windows 98's Explorer is clunky and poorly optimized compared to Windows 95's Explorer.

I have an issue with this argument,

Older Windows Explorer may be faster but they are also worse (+/- removed features).

Windows 7 explorer has a good interface and features like Libraries are a major win, except it is slow. Why do I have to wait for a folder with a few hundred thumbnails to load? It is just thumbnails that have been cached and thus should load instantly, should they not?

Anyway I always bring up 3rd party explorer alternatives -> they support the new features such as libraries AND they are really fast. That is, even feature-filled explorer alternative CAN BE ****in' FAST. Therefore Windows Explorer could have been really damn fast, but it is not.

Your argument may work for Windows Search: It is slow because it searches inside files, older ones (like Classic Search) are much faster because they do not.

Still software such as Everything Search shocked me - indexing an entire HD: few seconds - search anything: pretty much instant.

My original post said that W7 is not perfect (for reasons just like the above) but can be perfect with 3rd party programs such as Chrome, Everything Search, etc - which makes Windows XP *not* useful to stick with.

Okay seriously this is getting ridiculous. Does Windows 98 require more specs than Windows 95? Does Windows XP require more specs than Windows 98? YES

Why are people so shocked when Windows 7 cannot run on 2001 hardware I mean come on.

Seriously, if you meet the requirements, everything you listed runs very fast. I get instant search results due to indexing, I get no scrolling lag, Win7 boots up faster than I could get Windows XP to, and I get pretty fast search results when I search non indexed locations.

BTW Windows 7 will NOT search inside files for non indexed items. Why dont you learn what you criticize?

post-249286-0-58800300-1305442779.png

You see the first option? Yes even searching by filenames can be slow if you have a million files, but will you seriously defend XP and say that is instantaneous when in fact it is not? XP has horrible searching.

Again: You are having a hardware requirements issue. Windows Explorer IS FAST on systems that meet the requirements.

Providing the machine you are attempting to install Windows 7 on meets the minimum requirements, you can pretty much guarantee an improvement.

Windows XP has been a fantastic Operating System and in some circumstances it still makes perfect sense to use it. Some machines are unable to run Windows 7, while XP runs perfectly well, being adequately stable and secure for everyday usage providing the user takes precautions and exercises his/her common sense.

When win7 can run on my 5 year old celeron or on a first gen netbook I'll get it. Until then I will stick with win xp. :)

Win 7 runs fine on my i5 though :p

I'm not sure what you're doing wrong. I've installed Ultimate on two Centrino laptops that are 7 and 9 years old, both run just fine except for no Aero Glass. Or is it a hardware compatibility issue you're talking about instead of a performance one?

2011 Linux distributions run on exactly the same hardware as on 2001, if you so choose.

Yes, in most cases, just as badly. I have an old and slow laptop and the newest versions of Ubuntu are both slower and work worse than XP and 7 on the same hardware. Most Linux distributions with the more fully featured window managers have pretty similar memory and CPU footprints to Windows 7

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Good, because the nonstop chattering from the voices in her head made me quit the second game.
    • This new cabinet design lets you run AMD, Intel, and Nvidia PCs inside one case by Sayan Sen At Computex 2026 earlier this month, AMD announced a couple of new X3D processors for both sockets AM4 and AM5 as it confirmed the support extension of the latter till 2029. And although Intel didn't unveil any new desktop chips, the company's Core Ultra 200S Plus series is relatively new too. Let's say though that you want the best of both worlds simultaneously, and instead of running two different systems, you can have both running together side-by-side, or rather on top of one another. That's exactly what Thermaltake's CAPO X dual system is made for doing. While it's not exactly mandatory to run AMD with Intel, or vice versa, you get the idea. As you can see in the render above, it is essentially like a double-decker PC case that is capable of holding two microATX (mATX) motherboards. Even running just one discrete graphics card in a PC can get toasty, so you may be wondering how well the cooling is designed on the CAPO X, Thermaltake has confirmed, as is evident from the marketing promo image above, that the case supports up to two 360 mm AIO liquid coolers. 420mm is not supported. In total there is room for 13 120mm case fans. In terms of I/O (input/output) options for the two systems, there are naturally two places for those ports, one at the top and one at the very bottom of the chassis in the front panel. In terms of use cases, there are many possibilities. Thermaltake itself, for example, highlights how one system can be your main PC while the other could be the AI agent PC. Another example given is how it can be used to stream and game simultaneously with dedicated systems instead of hogging one with the entire load. Nothing regarding pricing or availability was said. Source: Thermaltake (YouTube, X)
    • There might be some passive design improvements (cooling, etc), but I doubt they'd change the core performance spec of the hardware mid-generation when they've already got a new console in development.
    • State of Decay 3 is out in 2027, reveals Plague Nests with new co-op gameplay trailer by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe A few months ago, Undead Labs broke its silence about the third entry in the State of Decay series since its announcement in 2020. Today, the studio had a brand-new trailer to reveal at the Xbox Games Showcase, finally giving players a look at the Unreal Engine 5-powered title. A broad 2027 release window is now attached to State of Decay 3 too. The studio confirmed that every scene seen in the gameplay trailer (except for the studio logo) released today is from the game with no cinematic footage. "The quality bar of the moment-to-moment experience is higher than anything we’ve achieved in Undead Labs’ history," says the studio. "State of Decay 3 is being built in Unreal Engine 5, and we’re creating better quality versions of what makes our game the survival sandbox it is, and the combat experience is really, really important to us, and I think you can see it coming through in this trailer." One new aspect of this upcoming entry is the Plague Nests. These are supposed to be dynamic, dungeon‑like enemy hubs with varied “personas” that change tactics each time one appears on a map. These areas will have the best loot in the game for players brave enough to tackle them. The combat system is being overhauled too, letting players do quick and power attacks depending on the situation. This isn't just on the player's side though, as zombies themselves now have multiple new types of behaviors depending on how fresh or decayed they are. "All of these play very differently, especially as you start getting outnumbered or when you’re making noise and running around and trying to save your rear end or the rear end of your friend next to you," adds the developer. Of course, settlement building and community management are massive parts of this third entry too. These are being further expanded with the cooperative focus, giving players much more freedom for playing together than in State of Decay 2. Players will even be able to split up and build settlements in different areas of the same map with different goals. Undead Labs confirmed that playtests are already ongoing for the title, and interested players can sign up to participate by heading over here once more slots open up ahead of the full release. State of Decay 3 is coming out on PC, Xbox Series X|S, PlayStation 5, and Xbox Game Pass sometime in 2027.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Proficient
      Eric Biran went up a rank
      Proficient
    • Dedicated
      Conjor earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Week One Done
      Windows Guy earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Dedicated
      Mark Spruce earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • Collaborator
      conkir earned a badge
      Collaborator
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      492
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      247
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      +Edouard
      68
    5. 5
      ATLien_0
      67
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!