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

    • AMD RX 9070 GRE AI, Blender benchmarks vs 9070 XT, 7800XT, Nvidia RTX 5070, 4070 by Sayan Sen Earlier this week, we shared the first part of our review of AMD's new RX 9070 GRE. It was about the gaming performance of the GPU, and we gave it an 8 out of 10. As a follow-up, similar to how we did with the 9070 XT and non-XT, we are doing a dedicated productivity review for the RX 9070 GRE as well, where we compare it against the 9070 XT, 9070, 7800 XT, as well as Nvidia's 5070 and 4070. This will include AI, rendering, compute, and more benchmarks. AI performance, especially, is a very important metric in today's world, and AMD also promised big improvements thanks to its underlying architectural improvements. We will be pitching it against the data we already have for the RX 9070, and RX 9070 XT, but also the Nvidia 5070 FE, MSI GeForce RTX 4070 VENTUS 2X 12G, and Gigabyte Radeon RX 7800 XT GAMING OC 16G as they are in a similar price class, but also because we do not have a comparable 5060 Ti card lying around here that we can compare it against. Before we get underway, this is a collaboration between Sayan Sen and Steven Parker, who lent me his test bed. Also, there was no editorial input from AMD. First up, the specs of the RX 9070, 9070 XT, and 9070 GRE, which were given to us by AMD: Radeon RX 9070 GRE Radeon RX 9070 Radeon RX 9070 XT Boost Clock: Game Clock: up to 2.79GHz up to 2.20GHz up to 2.52GHz up to 2.07GHz up to 2.97GHz up to 2.40GHz Stream Processors 3,072 (48 CU) 3,584 (56 CU) 4,096 (64 CU) Ray Accelerator 48 56 64 AI Accelerator 96 112 128 ROPs 96 128 Texture Mapping Units 192 224 256 Memory 12 GB GDDR6, 18Gbps Clock, 192-bit Bus 432 GB/s 16 GB GDDR6, 20Gbps Clock, 256-bit Bus Effective Memory Bandwidth: 640 GB/s Infinity Cache 48 MB (3rd Gen) 64 MB (3rd Gen) Card Bus PCI-E 5.0 X16 Output 2x HDMI 2.1b 2x DisplayPort 2.1a Power consumption 220W 304W Recommended PSU 650W 750W Slot width 2x 3x Price (SEP) $549 $599 As you can see from the specs above, it is less than the standard RX 9070 in every way that counts, except for slightly higher Boost and Game clock speed. Design Moving on, the RX 9070 GRE we were given is an XFX Swift triple-fan, dual-slot design with two 8-pin connectors. At 30cm (self-measured), it will fit in most systems easily. There is no RGB either. The AMD Radeon RX 9070 GRE by XFX from all angles. Test system Our test system consists of the following: Lian Li O11 Dynamic Mini V2 Flow (Amazon|Newegg) ASUS Z890 ProArt Creator WiFi (Amazon|Newegg) Intel Core Ultra 7 270K Plus (Amazon|Newegg) Thermal Grizzly KryoSheet - 44x37 (Amazon|Newegg) 2x 16GB G.Skill Trident Z5 RGB (7200 MT/s in XMP) (Amazon|Newegg) Sabrent Rocket4 Plus 2TB SSD (Amazon) Windows 11 25H2 (Build 26200.8246) AMD shared a press driver based on the recently released Adrenaline 26.5.2 that we were required to use. We now move on to our benchmarks. First up, we have Geekbench AI running on ONNX. For some reason, the 9070 GRE does exceptionally well here in both half-precision (FP16) and single-precision (FP32). It manages to beat the RTX 5070 and RX 9070 non-XT, and is only behind the 9070 XT. Since Geekbench runs in short bursts instead of continuously hammering the graphics card, it seems the GRE's faster boost clocks are helping here. Next up, we move to the UL Procyon AI test suite, starting with the image generation benchmark. We chose the Stable Diffusion XL FP16 test since it is the most intense workload available on Procyon. The Nvidia cards do very well here, as even the 4070 out-muscles AMD's best fairy easily. The positive thing about the GRE is that it gets quite close to the 9070 non-XT in this test; this indicates that the VRAM does not play a very big role here, as SD XL relies on float16 (FP16). So this is something to keep in mind again. If you wish to work with float32 AI workloads, graphics cards with larger than 12 GB buffers would likely emerge as victors. Regardless, the gains are still massive on AMD's 9000 series compared to the 7000 series. Following image generation, we move to the text generation benchmark. This is one test where the 9070 GRE struggled, quite a lot. It seems that the 12 GB VRAM and lower memory bandwidth of the new Radeon 9070 GRE are hurting it quite a bit; the split is massive, especially in a test like Llama2, which packs 13 billion parameters. As such, in all the tests, the 9070 GRE is the slowest of the lot. Next, we tried Blender, and here the AMD GPUs were beaten by Nvidia. Rendering is something the Green team has always had a lead over the Red side, and it has not changed so far. On the positive side, though, the 9070 GRE shows significantly better results than the 7800 XT, which means AMD is on the right path. Catching up to Nvidia, though, will require a lot more effort. And we hope HIP and ROCm can keep improving. Wrapping up AI testing, we measured OpenCL throughput in the Geekbench compute benchmark. The RX 9070 GRE alongside the 9070 did not fare well here at all, even falling behind the 7800 XT. Interestingly, even the RTX 5070 could not beat the 4070 on OpenCL, so perhaps this suggests that OpenCL optimization may not have been a priority for either AMD or Nvidia in the modern era. Conclusion We reached the end of our productivity performance review of the 9070 GRE, and we have to say it's a mixed bag. Unlike the 9070 and 9070 XT, the GRE excels in some areas while losing ground fairly easily in others. Similar to how it happened in gaming, any time the card's memory subsystem gets hammered, it tends to fall behind the others. This was the case with text generation, wherein we saw the VRAM sometimes hit its maximum available 12 GB of usage with larger model sizes. So what do we make of the RX 9070 as a productivity hardware? It can certainly be used, but you have to know it has its limitations. For those looking for a GPU that can deal with more, AMD recently unveiled the Radeon AI PRO R9700, which is essentially a 32 GB refresh of the 9070 XT with some additional workstation-based optimizations. On a similar note, the new Ryzen AI Halo platform is something you can consider if you want to set up a local AI processing station. Considering everything, we rate AMD's Radeon RX 9070 GRE a 7.5 out of 10 for its productivity performance. Price is less of a factor for those looking at productivity cases compared to those considering the GPU for gaming, and as such, we felt it did quite decently on many occasions and can be handy if you need a 12 GB GPU and, for some reason, don't want to get Nvidia. Purchase links: RX 9070 / XT / GRE (Amazon US) As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
    • Does anyone here know if these updates are integrated into the UUP dump isos?
    • Motrix Next 3.9.4 by Razvan Serea Motrix Next is a modern, open-source cross-platform download manager built as the official next-generation successor to the original Motrix project. It has been completely rewritten using Tauri 2, Vue 3, TypeScript, and Rust, while still relying on the powerful Aria2 download engine for high-speed multi-protocol transfers. The app supports HTTP, HTTPS, FTP, BitTorrent, ED2K and magnet links, offering advanced features like multi-connection acceleration, task scheduling, bandwidth control, and batch download management. With a significantly reduced install size (around 20MB), it focuses on being lightweight, fast, and resource-efficient compared to traditional Electron-based download tools. Designed for Windows, macOS, and Linux, Motrix Next delivers a clean, modern UI inspired by Material Design 3 principles, with smooth animations and a minimal workflow. It improves usability through better download organization, system tray integration, and enhanced torrent handling including selective file downloads and tracker management. Motrix Next features: Multi-protocol downloads — HTTP, FTP, BitTorrent, Magnet, .torrent, ED2K, and Metalink tasks BitTorrent — Selective file download, DHT, peer exchange, encryption controls, metadata caching, GeoIP peer flags, and tracker probing Browser extension integration — Embedded Extension API with independent authentication, download confirmation, smart auto-submit, filename hints, referer/cookie forwarding, and real-time controls (Chrome Web Store · Edge Add-ons) Safe filename handling — Content-Disposition, RFC 2047, non-UTF-8, percent-encoded, and extensionless URL resolution with path traversal sanitization Download organization — Favorite and recent folders, optional file-type categorization, stale-record cleanup, and completed history backed by SQLite Concurrent downloads — Independent controls for active tasks, HTTP connections per server, segments per file, and BT peer limits Speed control — Global and per-task upload/download limits with day-of-week and time-of-day scheduling System integration — Tray operation, optional tray speed display, macOS Dock badge/progress, protocol handlers for magnet://, thunder://, and motrixnext:// Lightweight mode — Destroys the WebView on minimize-to-tray while Rust keeps the engine, task monitor, notifications, history, and extension routing alive Notifications and power options — Native task start/complete/failure notifications, keep-awake during downloads, and optional shutdown after completion Network controls — Scoped proxy support for downloads, app updates, and tracker updates, plus system proxy detection Auto-update channels — Stable, Beta, and Latest Across Channels policies with separate download and install phases Diagnostics — Structured logs, exportable diagnostic ZIPs, database integrity checks, automatic DB rebuild, and Linux GPU rendering fallback Personalization — Light/dark/system theme, 10 color schemes, 26 languages, and first-launch system language detection Motrix Next 3.9.4 changelog: Motrix Next 3.9.4 promotes the 3.9.4 beta cycle to stable. This release refreshes bundled engine binaries, improves task detail readability and copy actions, expands link handling for magnet and ED2K workflows, polishes responsive navigation and text wrapping, updates browser extension documentation, and refines network preference controls. New Features Task Detail copy actions — Added copyable values for task metadata and reusable render functions for long text fields. Magnet and ED2K lifecycle support — Added task lifecycle handling for magnet and ED2K links. History cleanup for deleted tasks — Deleted tasks can now remove matching history records. User-Agent management — Added user-agent management and improved related network preference controls. Browser extension documentation — Added the Firefox Add-ons link for the Motrix Next extension. Improvements Engine binaries — Updated bundled binaries for supported architectures. Task Detail readability — Long task names, URLs, tracker values, and copyable metadata now render more clearly. Deletion messaging — Refined localized task deletion text for clarity and consistency. Text wrapping — Improved URI input wrapping and task name multiline display. Navigation layout — Improved sub-navigation responsiveness. Disk allocation default — Changed the default file allocation method to trunc. Proxy controls — Improved proxy button styling in network preferences. Download: Motrix Next 64-bit | ARM64 | macOS ~20.0 MB (Open Source) Links: Website | macOS / Linux | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • NVIDIA officially supports Ubuntu, as linked above with the GeForce NOW Hands on I did in collaboration with Paul Hill.
    • TO be clear I am not running linux today, however I keep thinking about it. And I want to make sure there are minimal obstacles if I decide to make that switch in the coming months.
  • 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
      479
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      244
    3. 3
      Steven P.
      72
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      66
    5. 5
      +Edouard
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!