Web Browser Speed Test Shows W7 RTM Slower than XP SP3

[rat]

Crowd seemed to like it when the DJ was using this

In that example, the iPod is nothing more than an attached external drive. You never use the iPod's controls itself for DJing.

In my examples, I show you how DJing software is both run directly on the Netbook... and how the Netbook can be used to power USB devices. Try again.

But hey, have fun beat tapping with your Smartphone.

 

[Enduring_Warrior]

Hey niconx, mind if I borrow that?

 

[Tolyngee]

Kind of interesting reading all this to note that apparently one man's Windows 7 perk is another man's Windows 7 bloat...

My next machine will obviously have 7 on it, but I think every MS OS after 2000 has been at minimum a slight step backwards... From 2000 to XP then from XP to Vista all had their show-stopping issues that made using the new OS as I had once used the previous OS as a complete incapability...

SP1 didn't resolve Vista's issue, and SP3 for XP still didn't complete resolve XP's issue, although at least MS now acknowledged the issue officially...

Thank God for third-party apps to the semi-rescue on some Windows issues!

Again, I'm still going with 7 (what other choice do I have?), but it's sad that I know I'll be at least mildly impressed if it even just f-ing boots properly...

 

[earnolmartin]

I've noticed the difference in online gaming. My XP machine runs Medal of Honor Allied Assault online without any lag at a ping of 50. My Vista machine has a slight lag to it, and it's on the same network with a ping of 50. Both computers have the same hardware.

Not news to me. Vista and Windows 7 just blow.

 

[Joe Average]

No offense to the musically inclined, but that shit has absolutely nothing to do with the given topic, so... kids, let's steer this back on course before yet another thread gets needlessly locked because of going off on tangents...

 

[earnolmartin]

Yes, I know they are talking about browsers, but Vista in general sends out more packets than XP which slow down a network. Microsoft is so dumb these days.

 

[Enduring_Warrior]

Oh wait, why the fuck is anyone still on a 32 bit system?

I hate these comments....

NETBOOKS!

...kinda of a big deal right now...

LoL now she has a really expensive and pretty mediocre windows machine

Kind of like your favorite OS?

Running photoshop on a netbook is equivalent to running it on a Touch Pro 2. Stupid, but it will work.

You know I was going to post a note mocking you guys on how ridiculous you look but I just realized that every day I come here to HardOcp it looks more and more like I'm wasting my time. This used to be a site about learning about the edge of technology. A community who helped each other. Now, well...bah...

 

[TechieSooner]

I find this comment strange, because there's nothing new between XP vs Vista, or even XP vs Vista vs Win7.

Please see my earlier post:

DX10.
DX11.
DX12+

UAC

VASTLY improved x64 support.

Superfetch

Bitlocker

VASTLY improved Power Management

GPU Offloading (Aero)

Windows Explorer enhancements

Sandboxed IE

Indexing/Search

Remote Desktop enhancements

Windows SlideShow, Sync Center, Mobility Center, tons of other "little" stuff that make things so much easier.


I could go on and on, but your statement is just pure ignorance.

A lot of people would disagree.

http://www.netbookera.com/how-to-buy-the-best-dj-netbook/

Netbook+Attached Hardware, I'm not disagreeing with so much. You wouldn't mix together anything on a netbook though.
You could probably record (Assuming you've got a HDD and external equipment) and play back pre-compiled tracks. That's as far as I would take it.

 

[rat]

You wouldn't mix together anything on a netbook though. You could probably record (Assuming you've got a HDD and external equipment) and play back pre-compiled tracks. That's as far as I would take it.

That's pretty much what I said. DJs play prerecorded tracks. Nobody said anything about studio recording. Though with an external sound card (cause internal are always crap), field recording on a Netbook would be dead easy. Enough horsepower for that. I've got an mAudio 4 in 4 out and MIDI/ box here that will record in 24bit/96khz. It runs over USB 1.1. A bit of latency, but more than enough bandwidth for better than CD quality audio recording. Netbook didn't even flinch when I used it as the host. But again, the point is portability and the Atom CPU does quite well, better than people realise.

Kind of interesting reading all this to note that apparently one man's Windows 7 perk is another man's Windows 7 bloat...

My next machine will obviously have 7 on it, but I think every MS OS after 2000 has been at minimum a slight step backwards... From 2000 to XP then from XP to Vista all had their show-stopping issues that made using the new OS as I had once used the previous OS as a complete incapability...

SP1 didn't resolve Vista's issue, and SP3 for XP still didn't complete resolve XP's issue, although at least MS now acknowledged the issue officially...

Thank God for third-party apps to the semi-rescue on some Windows issues!

Again, I'm still going with 7 (what other choice do I have?), but it's sad that I know I'll be at least mildly impressed if it even just f-ing boots properly...

*chuckles*

Might want to look into WinXP Fundamentals. It's actually got a smaller footprint than Win2000... and I think without most of the default crap that WinXP has in it, it comes closer to fixing it in a way that Win2K was good for. But in general, I agree. Last MS OS I actually liked was Win2K. I think too many people lose perspective with the habit of the latest and greatest to realise... just because something is reduced compared to what you're using now doesn't mean that it's any less capable. Hell, I know a number of video editing outfits that still use Dual G4s or G5 based Macs for their editing needs. (A friend of mine who prepares those annoying bumps and burn ins (yes, he's aware how much people hate him for being the person responsible for those overlays) still uses a G4 for the SD and HD TV broadcasts)

OS wise, completely satisfied with Ubuntu and occasionally dual booting into WinXP Fund. There are computer professionals don't exclusively play games and "need" DX10, 11, 12, 17, 39..., yanno...

 

[niconx]

Hey niconx, mind if I borrow that?

Go for it, it's not even mine or the guy who is hosting it for that matter, I saw it years ago and then years later saw it again and it just popped into mind. Here is another great one:

 

[DeadSkull]

WTF is this crap. XP is one of the worst OS MS ever put out.

 

[Proneax]

There is a LOT of ignorance in this thread. Its... well actually its not that surprising.

If you're not running the RC or leaked RTM then you have no basis for talking down at Win7. I've you've tried it for a week as your main system and don't like it, that's fine.

I've generally been slow to switch O/S and I held on to XP (actually was Server2k3) for a long time.

Windows 7 has blown me away. It's a great system and I will be installing the leaked RTM this week! Can't wait for my pre-order to actually get delivered and this time I will be installing Win7 Several months early instead of several months or years late!

 

[gtg465x]

Let's see... While I agree with you, there ARE some limits.

DX10 and DX11... and, uhm. er... uh...
4GB total Memory addressing limit... Oh wait, Vista and Win7 still have this in 32bit mode.

Nope. Still not enough for me to give a fuck about Win7.

You're right, that's the only difference between XP and 7... DX11.

You sir, fail. You should find another hobby because you suck at this one.

 

[gtg465x]

Aero bugs the crap out of me. I also don't want something that adds more overhead to my system... So an OS that uses GPU rendering would be exactly that. Why does an OS even need 3D effects other than to look pretty? When I click on something, I want the window to open. Not to shimmy, stretch open, overlay transparencies and animate when I do things. Think of how much faster computers would appear to be if it wasn't trying to do so much extra crap.

Fail. It doesn't add more overhead. Quite the opposite. It lets your otherwise idle GPU take care of the desktop rendering, thus leaving your CPU free to process other more important tasks. If you don't want Aero to animate things, then uncheck the box that says animate shit.

 

[gtg465x]

I'd be the last person in this room to cheer Apple on for the same things Microsoft has been doing.

Quicktime is quite possibly the best(worst?) example of bloat, unnecessary overhead, lousy integration with OS and a source of a good deal of attack vectors for MacOSX. It has its own fair share of problems within any versions of Windows. One example is that it hijacks other applications... totally fucks up Firefox mimetypes, for example and nearly impossible to fix after uninstalling. The ONLY good thing I can really say about Quicktime is that it's not WinME.

Finally, we agree.

 

[gtg465x]

The Atom CPU is quite a capable little thing.

Fail. Even a shittastic Celeron is more than twice as fast as an Atom at the same frequency.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-cpu,1947-9.html

 

[rat]

Of course XP might be quicker at some things, but it's also very limited in what it can do nowadays.

Let's see... While I agree with you, there ARE some limits.

DX10 and DX11... and, uhm. er... uh...
4GB total Memory addressing limit... Oh wait, Vista and Win7 still have this in 32bit mode.

Nope. Still not enough for me to give a fuck about Win7.

You're right, that's the only difference between XP and 7... DX11.
You sir, fail. You should find another hobby because you suck at this one.

You sir, shouldn't selectively take a reply out of the context in which it replied to. Your own reading comprehension is what failed here.

The original claim that I responded to was that WinXP is "severely limited in what it can do nowadays"... I even fully quoted the posts, as they were originally quoted, for you to see this. Comparing WinXP to Win7, as far as capabilities go, you're limited in being able to play games that use anything above DX9.0c and in the case of 64bit mode, addressable memory. When it comes to applications, software that you can install... WinXP has -NO- limitations aside from DX that would reduce what you can do on the OS when compared with Win7.

People can point out the added features of Win7, say, like Aero as it has been pointed out so much... but that is more of a design and interface flourish. There still has been no examples pointed out beyond mine in of DX that would demonstrate that WinXP is incapable of doing that Win7 can. Codecs? They can be installed in WinXP with something like the CCCP. Restricted user access? Can be done in XP. Remote desktop? Can be done with something like VNC. Having it integrated into Win7 is a distinction, but not an argument that supports the claim that WinXP is severely limited. There has been many applications, like WinFlip, that duplicate a lot of the Aero features in WinXP. Other apps do this, too, WITH GPU ACCELERATION. So, again, since you still have the 4GB memory limit in Vista and Win7 if you use 32bit mode and aside from anything above DX9.0c, what LIMITATIONS does WinXP have that doesn't exist in Win7?

 

[gtg465x]

At same clock speeds, it whoops the P4.

All I know is that it runs about the same speed as an Athlon T-Bred clock for clock. Yes, that's a 7 year old processor ladies and gents. This thing won't be winning any speed awards any time soon.

 

[Sublym3]

Well back on topic, I have been running Windows 7 betas and RC since they came out and I notice the opposite. Whether it is a actual or only a perceived performance difference it doesn't matter. When I open 30 websites at once a few milliseconds doesn't matter.

Also for those wondering this is the test that they use to determine the score.

Oh and as always HardOCP's mantra "synthetic benchmarks suck"

 

[Chilly]

Wow... techrat... you fail... you fail [H]ard.

 

[gtg465x]

You sir, shouldn't selectively take a reply out of the context in which it replied to. Your own reading comprehension is what failed here.

The original claim that I responded to was that WinXP is "severely limited in what it can do nowadays"... I even fully quoted the posts, as they were originally quoted, for you to see this. Comparing WinXP to Win7, as far as capabilities go, you're limited in being able to play games that use anything above DX9.0c and in the case of 64bit mode, addressable memory. When it comes to applications, software that you can install... WinXP has -NO- limitations aside from DX that would reduce what you can do on the OS when compared with Win7.

People can point out the added features of Win7, say, like Aero as it has been pointed out so much... but that is more of a design and interface flourish. There still has been no examples pointed out beyond mine in of DX that would demonstrate that WinXP is incapable of doing that Win7 can. Codecs? They can be installed in WinXP with something like the CCCP. Restricted user access? Can be done in XP. Remote desktop? Can be done with something like VNC. Having it integrated into Win7 is a distinction, but not an argument that supports the claim that WinXP is severely limited. There has been many applications, like WinFlip, that duplicate a lot of the Aero features in WinXP. Other apps do this, too, WITH GPU ACCELERATION. So, again, since you still have the 4GB memory limit in Vista and Win7 if you use 32bit mode and aside from anything above DX9.0c, what LIMITATIONS does WinXP have that doesn't exist in Win7?

You're right, there aren't many limitations, but you have to tweak the hell out of it and install a bunch of crap just to get functionality that's in Windows 7 out of box. Of course you CAN do it, but WHY?

 

[DukenukemX]

Please see my earlier post:

DX10.
DX11.
DX12+

Previous Windows OS's had received new DX versions, yet DX10 was exclude in XP. We'll soon see OpenGL doing equivalent graphics to DX10, and I doubt XP will be excluded from it.

UAC

This is not an improvement. If double clicking isn't good enough to start an application, then MS has problems.

VASTLY improved x64 support.

Yet, the default Internet Explorer in X64 Vista and Win7 is 32-bit. That also includes Windows Media Player.

Lets not foget, requiring digitally signed drivers. Kinda kills the driver mod community, like Omega Drivers.

Superfetch

Many benchmarks prove that Windows XP still loaded faster then Vista. So what's the point of Superfetch, if Vista can't outperform XP?

Bitlocker

Which only tin foil hat users, and IT people use. Otherwise, it slows down performance.

VASTLY improved Power Management

Why then does Vista consume VASTLY more power on laptops, compared to XP?

GPU Offloading (Aero)

Ok, you got 1.

Windows Explorer enhancements

Would never know, cause I'm a proud FireFox user.

Sandboxed IE

You have to, since it has terrible security.

Indexing/Search

Which is best disabled to prevent thrashing Hard Disks.

Remote Desktop enhancements

With so many free software alternatives, really?

Windows SlideShow, Sync Center, Mobility Center, tons of other "little" stuff that make things so much easier.

I'm pretty sure my Windows Mobile 6.5 phone works with XP's.

I could go on and on, but your statement is just pure ignorance.

You're a loony.

The only reason anyone would install Vista would be for X64 and DX10. Cause lets face it, anyone with over 4 gigs of ram and has a DX10 graphics card, won't be taking advantage of it with XP.

All Windows 7 did was fix most of the stupid crap that Windows Vista brought with it.

#1 Windows Vista was piss ass slow - Windows 7 isn't.
#2 Windows Vista wasn't compatible with some older software - Windows 7 is.
#3 Windows Vista didn't want XP drivers - Windows 7 can use XP drivers.

 

[rat]

Fail. Even a shittastic Celeron is more than twice as fast as an Atom at the same frequency.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-atom-cpu,1947-9.html

The Celeron-M, yes. The Celeron-M also beats a P4 at the same frequencies. As did a P3. Your point? You still haven't debunked or contradicted anything I said. You also haven't even addressed the other aspect of the Atom, for what it was designed for. The Celeron-M and its power draw versus the Atom. If the Atom were to draw the same amount of power, how would the Celeron-M fare against it?

Mobile Celeron 1.6 1600 MHz 256 KiB 400 MT/s 16x 1.3 V 30 W Socket 478 September 16, 2002 RH80532NC025256
Celeron M 380 1600 MHz 1024 KiB 400 MT/s 16x 1.004/1.292 V 21 W Socket 479 July 2005 RH80536NC0251M
Celeron M 420 SL8VZ (C0) 1600 MHz 1024 KiB 533 MT/s 12x 1.0-1.3 V 27 W Socket M April 2006 LF80538NE0251M
Celeron M 520 SL9WT (B2) 1600 MHz 1024 KiB 533 MT/s 12x 0.95 - 1.30 V 30 W Socket M January, 2007 LF80537NE0251M
Celeron M 520 SL9WN (A1) 1600 MHz 1024 KiB 533 MT/s 12x 1.100 - 1.250 V 26 W Socket M June 2007 LF80537NE0251M

21, 26, 27 and 30 watts TDP.

The Atom N270 draws 2.5, the one benchmarked in your link (the 230) draws 4 watts.

Given its overall performance and power draw, I stand by my original statement that's a capable little processor. Quadruple that thermal envelope and let's see what it can do against a Celeron M that still draws approx 5 to 14 watts more power.

 

[rat]

You're right, there aren't many limitations, but you have to tweak the hell out of it and install a bunch of crap just to get functionality that's in Windows 7 out of box. Of course you CAN do it, but WHY?

Besides the point. Thank you for confirming my ORIGINAL STATEMENT was still correct. I was addressing the claim of limitations when goalposts were moved by arguments that Win7 offered more out of the box. That Win7 offers more out of the box was never in dispute, I just personally stated that I didn't care for what it included in the box and gave examples why. Like I said, it was besides the point. WinXP isn't limited compared to Win7.

Wow... techrat... you fail... you fail [H]ard.

Wow... Chilly... You said absolutely nothing of substance. Carry on, bandwagon hopping troll. But please, don't let me stand in the way of actually contributing something beyond a "neener, neener" remark. After all, you've said all of two lines in this entire thread, the first being an unsourced (and easily debunked) claim.

Big whoop, Windows 7 RTM is just about faster than XP in everything else.

Debunked in many ways. Even the first google search is sufficient in pointing this out:

http://www.overclockers.com/index.p...id=4324:w7bench&catid=58:software&Itemid=4264

There ARE variables aside from your own, you know.

 

[RS3RS]

Previous Windows OS's had received new DX versions, yet DX10 was exclude in XP. We'll soon see OpenGL doing equivalent graphics to DX10, and I doubt XP will be excluded from it.

This is not an improvement. If double clicking isn't good enough to start an application, then MS has problems.

Yet, the default Internet Explorer in X64 Vista and Win7 is 32-bit. That also includes Windows Media Player.

Lets not foget, requiring digitally signed drivers. Kinda kills the driver mod community, like Omega Drivers.

Many benchmarks prove that Windows XP still loaded faster then Vista. So what's the point of Superfetch, if Vista can't outperform XP?

Which only tin foil hat users, and IT people use. Otherwise, it slows down performance.

Why then does Vista consume VASTLY more power on laptops, compared to XP?

Ok, you got 1.

Would never know, cause I'm a proud FireFox user.

You have to, since it has terrible security.

Which is best disabled to prevent thrashing Hard Disks.

With so many free software alternatives, really?

I'm pretty sure my Windows Mobile 6.5 phone works with XP's.


You're a loony.

The only reason anyone would install Vista would be for X64 and DX10. Cause lets face it, anyone with over 4 gigs of ram and has a DX10 graphics card, won't be taking advantage of it with XP.

All Windows 7 did was fix most of the stupid crap that Windows Vista brought with it.

#1 Windows Vista was piss ass slow - Windows 7 isn't.
#2 Windows Vista wasn't compatible with some older software - Windows 7 is.
#3 Windows Vista didn't want XP drivers - Windows 7 can use XP drivers.

I'm sure you'll get flamed for using actual logic (how dare he!) instead of just assuming newer is better, but you make perfect sense.

The truth is, Microsoft wants to make as much money as possible, and will continue to release a new operating system every few years -- whether a new o/s is needed or not.

The biggest thing making XP a dinosaur is that it's not making MS money anymore. They finally hit the nail on the head, and now they have to make new operating systems loaded with "features" to continue being profitable.

 

[gtg465x]

Given its overall performance and power draw, I stand by my original statement that's a capable little processor.

Having impressive performance per watt doesn't make it capable. If I design a 0.1 watt processor that beats even i7's performance per watt, but still takes 2 minutes to open a web browser, does that make it capable?

Besides the point. Thank you for confirming my ORIGINAL STATEMENT was still correct. I was addressing the claim of limitations when goalposts were moved by arguments that Win7 offered more out of the box. That Win7 offers more out of the box was never in dispute, I just personally stated that I didn't care for what it included in the box and gave examples why. Like I said, it was besides the point. WinXP isn't limited compared to Win7.

Windows XP IS severely limited compared to Windows 7. However, the applications that can be installed on XP are not.

Car analogy incoming... Is a Ferrari no better than a Honda Civic? If you add enough shit to the Civic, it might be able to match the abilities of the stock Ferrari.

 

[donald_k]

Summary: Windows 7/Server 2008 R2 is a good OS -- 2D is slow untweaked on older hardware --- this is due the new WDDM model and GDI acceleration be redone (stupid..yes... but bad apps programming now cannot kill your video card since the kernel now sits in the way). 3D.. MUCH faster.. even on the older hardware.. but 2D must be tweaked.. because everything starts with the older 2D routines. Windows Vista-- yes it absolutely sucks! Windows 7/Server 2008 R2... I at least was able to hack it within 2 weeks to surpass XP; Vista I could not (SP1 and SP2 untested -- did not have the time to fuck around with Vista).


I bet it has to do with GDI acceleration, If your video card does not meet WDDM 1.1 specifications... your 2D environment WILL BE slower. One hack around is oddly enough to turn off hardware acceleration for the Avalon engine (I have an ATI X1200 IGP and this made a huge difference), 2D on pre WDDM 1.1 cards will be sped up. WDDM 1.1 cards apperantly have most of the good old GDI acceleration allowed on them... YMMV.. I do not have one myself. I suspect Windows 7 attempts to take the WDDM path for GDI acceleration..fails with WDDM 1.0 drivers and uses Directx's RGB software raster. XDDM drivers would bypass this... Server 2008 R2 blocks installing them (this is the OS I am testing right now)

Another option is loading good old XDDM drivers -- this apparently does not work on Windows Server 2008 R2 -- Windows 7 RTM itself unknown.. beta versions it worked and this will force GDI to be accelerated old school method since XDDM drivers will override the kernel and connect to the hardware directly. Good chance Aero will crash or even bluescreen as without proper reg hacks it is NOT ment to run this way! Stick to WDDM 1.0 minimum where possible, especially if you want Aero.

My only problem now with 2D slowness is any Adobe Flash objects... Adobe has always sucked for this anyways because they are too lazy to update it. HD youtube results in 50+% cpu. GDI itself... got it almost the same if not faster than XP (even though its software mode.. I think ATI's 9.3 Cat drivers intercept the calls).

Aero -- it DOES speed up 2D because it forces it all to the 3D accelerator as a texture... HOWEVER... certain 3D games will not cause the OS to disable Aero... a 10% FPS drop might result (because the CPU takes the hit). I run with Aero disabled.. for now -- once I get XDDM drivers able to run I am sure I can hack Aero to run on them (I managed to kill Win7's/Server2008's driver signing requirements by only a reg hack -- no F8 for me ).


Myself, I found a couple russian websites that went through this and had registry mod entries to overcome Win7's problems with pre WDDM 1.1 cards (actually it was for Windows Vista). Google : HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Avalon.Graphics
dword (32 bit):
DisableHWAcceleration 0x00000001
SkipDriverCheck 0x00000001
SkipDriverDateCheck 0x00000001
**Check your 2D performance before and after.... quickest way is to watch MSIE8's cpu usage when scrolling fast up and down on hardocp.com as this causes massive GDI calls.. you might be faster with GDI -> WDDM HW acceleration left on -- in my case SW acceleration is tons faster***



Now my 3D side of the house.. I run a good old N64 emulator (PJ64 1.7 with a whole collection of pulgins) for debugging since always I have gotten it to tax the entire system when I take the VI limiter off... it had a decent gain (10 to 20%) over Windows Server 2003 (which is faster than XP ever could be). However older plugins for older DirectX interfaces did run slow on the EMU.. so your game might need a tweak/hack/update to force it to use the newer hooks to stay out of the compatibility layer emulation.. eg. Do not expect your DX7 game to run nicely full speed... but your DX8 or above should fly no problem. Now UAC.. yes it is still fucking annoying.. I still have it running but I think I will be killing it off within the week. Biggest problem with UAC is that it needs a methods were it can be trained (eg.. for this website.. user does not want prompts as he will answer yes 100% of the time). I have tried to see if UAC has a training mechanism and it does not... eg.. I want to download a Youtube Video... I still get a minimum of 6 prompts -- and the keyboard cannot properly navigate those windows (UAC really wants the mouse dragged to it.. arrow keys work though!).

Either way: As an engineer.. I know for damn sure I can get Server 2008 R2 to run what I need... more so than Server 2003 itself, and at full speed! (exception is Adobe Flash --- Youtube btw is experimenting with HTML5 which will spell the death to Flash..thank god!). Anything else.. Linux all the way.

 

[rat]

Having impressive performance per watt doesn't make it capable. If I design a 0.1 watt processor that beats even i7's performance per watt, but still takes 2 minutes to open a web browser, does that make it capable?

A fair point, but still inaccurate. Firefox doesn't take more than 5 seconds to load on my Netbook. My original point is that the Atom is quite capable. It's NOT a shitty processor no matter how many people want to say "LOLNETBOOK"... Sure, it's not going to be playing Left4Dead or Hulu Streams fullscreen... But it's more than enough for playing multitrack audio, for example, in the case of laptop DJing. I've mastered albums on lower performing hardware than the netbook I have... but granted, that WAS 8 years ago. Most of the software involved in that process hasn't changed much. Compared to a desktop built by most of us here, yeah, it's weak. For single task purposes even with today's software, though... it's got enough horsepower to do the job.

Windows XP IS severely limited compared to Windows 7. However, the applications that can be installed on XP are not.

Car analogy incoming... Is a Ferrari no better than a Honda Civic? If you add enough shit to the Civic, it might be able to match the abilities of the stock Ferrari.

Would you say a word change here would be a fair enough compromise? WinXP isn't limited, it just comes with less features. While some would see no difference between the choice of words, those of us on here SHOULD be smarter than that. When I see "limited", I think "can't do this"... (and I believe that was the intended use of the term when it was first brought up, I wasn't the only one who thought so)

When it comes to WinXP versus Win7, the only thing that I see that it cannot do is DX10 and up. With third party accessories (or in this case, software), you can put in the extra 3 cupholders the Farrari has versus the Civic, or whatever. So out-of-the-box versus features that can be added in later, WinXP isn't really all that limited compared to Win7. That was my original point as well.

Nevermind that I think the Civic would actually end up melting if you put a Farrari engine in it.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

I'm sure you'll get flamed for using actual logic (how dare he!) instead of just assuming newer is better, but you make perfect sense.

The truth is, Microsoft wants to make as much money as possible, and will continue to release a new operating system every few years -- whether a new o/s is needed or not.

The biggest thing making XP a dinosaur is that it's not making MS money anymore. They finally hit the nail on the head, and now they have to make new operating systems loaded with "features" to continue being profitable.

You and DukenukemX are funny guys. I think you guys forgot the sarcasm tags on your posts.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Opera totally rocks

 

[DukenukemX]

You and DukenukemX are funny guys. I think you guys forgot the sarcasm tags on your posts.

You know, as I made those posts, I was installing Win7. Here's my complaints.

#1 My C-media drivers cause 32-bit applications to freeze. Yea it's a beta driver from C-media, but I got the same result from their Vista driver in compatibility mode. Signed drivers at their best. I had to disable the 32-bit C-Media Mixer, but that's fine since it was also starting up the 64-bit C-Media Mixer.

#2 Lots of Vista drivers won't work in Win7 unless they're in Vista SP2 compatibility mode.

#3 My Windows Mobile phone wasn't detected unless I downloaded "drvupdate-amd64.exe".

#4 Three unknown devices were sitting in device manager, 2 were fixed by running Windows update, and one took some research and finding that it was the Amd Away Mode Driver. I couldn't find a Win7 driver, so I had to use a Vista driver.

#5 My HP PhotoSmart 2575 printer wasn't one of the printer driver choices in Vista unless I hit the Windows Driver Update button. Which was conveniently available with the add new printer Wizard.

I got Windows 7 to work, but the hardware I'm using isn't exactly new. My Windows Mobile Phone is a HTC Wizard. My motherboard chipset is a AMD 690G with a SB600. My printer was around before Windows Vista.

So why weren't all the drivers loaded onto Vista? I hardly consider what I had to do, continent. I had an easier time getting Macintosh to work on my PC. Drivers and all.

 

[JDAdams]

Just to add, for those that seem to have missed it, that there is an x64 version of XP (although it's actually closer to Server 2003) available, which I'm running on my main gaming PC with no problems - all devices have drivers and performance is top-notch. So scratch that one as a reason to upgrade. DX10 us the only reason I'd consider moving away from XP - for starters, the upgrade path is not an easy one since MS don't support an in-place upgrade from XP x64. In addition to that, as already comprehensibely pointed out by others, there really is nothing else offers in Vista+ that I want to use.

 

[Techno Pride]

mmmmk.

It's just another OS. I don't become more popular amongst people if I tell them I use W7 instead of the "crappy" WinXP.

 

[SixtyWattMan]

You know, as I made those posts, I was installing Win7. Here's my complaints.

#1 My C-media drivers cause 32-bit applications to freeze. Yea it's a beta driver from C-media, but I got the same result from their Vista driver in compatibility mode. Signed drivers at their best. I had to disable the 32-bit C-Media Mixer, but that's fine since it was also starting up the 64-bit C-Media Mixer.

#2 Lots of Vista drivers won't work in Win7 unless they're in Vista SP2 compatibility mode.

#3 My Windows Mobile phone wasn't detected unless I downloaded "drvupdate-amd64.exe".

#4 Three unknown devices were sitting in device manager, 2 were fixed by running Windows update, and one took some research and finding that it was the Amd Away Mode Driver. I couldn't find a Win7 driver, so I had to use a Vista driver.

#5 My HP PhotoSmart 2575 printer wasn't one of the printer driver choices in Vista unless I hit the Windows Driver Update button. Which was conveniently available with the add new printer Wizard.

I got Windows 7 to work, but the hardware I'm using isn't exactly new. My Windows Mobile Phone is a HTC Wizard. My motherboard chipset is a AMD 690G with a SB600. My printer was around before Windows Vista.

So why weren't all the drivers loaded onto Vista? I hardly consider what I had to do, continent. I had an easier time getting Macintosh to work on my PC. Drivers and all.

I'm sorry the companies you buy products for don't support them.

 

[Chilly]

<snip>

Wow... Chilly... You said absolutely nothing of substance. Carry on, bandwagon hopping troll. But please, don't let me stand in the way of actually contributing something beyond a "neener, neener" remark. After all, you've said all of two lines in this entire thread, the first being an unsourced (and easily debunked) claim.



Debunked in many ways. Even the first google search is sufficient in pointing this out:

http://www.overclockers.com/index.p...id=4324:w7bench&catid=58:software&Itemid=4264

There ARE variables aside from your own, you know.

Uh huh.... good job losing credablity, linking to tests done with the Windows 7 BETA. That link you provided was done with the beta, not even the RC1 let alone the RTM in which there was major strides each way. But I'll be nice and provide some links for you, which were done with the RTM.

http://windows7center.com/news/windows-7-benchmarks-vs-vista-and-xp/
http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=22006

 

[Chilly]

One more note, I proved my one and ONLY point which I disagree with you guys on, other than that, I don't really care to be dragged into the argument as its not mine to begin with, lets just leave it at the fact that I don't agree with you techrat(and others) and I doubt I'll change your mind or you'll change my mind. I'm a stubborn bastard and chances are, so are you.

As for the rest of you guys, enjoy your debate.

 

[Vermillion]

Previous Windows OS's had received new DX versions, yet DX10 was exclude in XP. We'll soon see OpenGL doing equivalent graphics to DX10, and I doubt XP will be excluded from it.

XP may get the new OpenGL but DX is the most commonly used API now. Even iD Software moved to DX.

This is not an improvement. If double clicking isn't good enough to start an application, then MS has problems.

Double clicking? WTF are you talking about? UAC warns you when a shitty coded piece of software asks for administrative rights

Yet, the default Internet Explorer in X64 Vista and Win7 is 32-bit. That also includes Windows Media Player.

And show me how many browser plug-ins have 64-bit versions? My god can you imagine the PR fall out if 64-bit IE was the default strictly because of Flash and YouTube?

Lets not foget, requiring digitally signed drivers. Kinda kills the driver mod community, like Omega Drivers.

Funny...I'm running unsigned drivers on my laptop right now. I get a big red warning box saying it's not digitally signed.

Many benchmarks prove that Windows XP still loaded faster then Vista. So what's the point of Superfetch, if Vista can't outperform XP?

Source?

Which only tin foil hat users, and IT people use. Otherwise, it slows down performance.

Source?

Why then does Vista consume VASTLY more power on laptops, compared to XP?

Windows has always been iffy with battery life. I have found that Vista isn't all that bad if you actually modify the Power Saving features beyond the default.

Would never know, cause I'm a proud FireFox user.

Windows Explorer != Internet Explorer

You have to, since it has terrible security.

IE6 was a security nightmare. IE7 was much improved and IE8 is very secure even under Windows XP. Sandboxing is the way of the future no matter what. Chrome sandboxes itself. While Firefox is my preferred browser one of its weaknesses is that it doesn't sandbox itself.

Which is best disabled to prevent thrashing Hard Disks.

Funny after a few days the thrashing stopped.

With so many free software alternatives, really?

Well not every business allows those other alternatives. Might as beef up the one that comes with Windows.

You know, as I made those posts, I was installing Win7. Here's my complaints.

#1 My C-media drivers cause 32-bit applications to freeze. Yea it's a beta driver from C-media, but I got the same result from their Vista driver in compatibility mode. Signed drivers at their best. I had to disable the 32-bit C-Media Mixer, but that's fine since it was also starting up the 64-bit C-Media Mixer.

#2 Lots of Vista drivers won't work in Win7 unless they're in Vista SP2 compatibility mode.

#3 My Windows Mobile phone wasn't detected unless I downloaded "drvupdate-amd64.exe".

#4 Three unknown devices were sitting in device manager, 2 were fixed by running Windows update, and one took some research and finding that it was the Amd Away Mode Driver. I couldn't find a Win7 driver, so I had to use a Vista driver.

#5 My HP PhotoSmart 2575 printer wasn't one of the printer driver choices in Vista unless I hit the Windows Driver Update button. Which was conveniently available with the add new printer Wizard.

I got Windows 7 to work, but the hardware I'm using isn't exactly new. My Windows Mobile Phone is a HTC Wizard. My motherboard chipset is a AMD 690G with a SB600. My printer was around before Windows Vista.

So why weren't all the drivers loaded onto Vista? I hardly consider what I had to do, continent. I had an easier time getting Macintosh to work on my PC. Drivers and all.

Next time buy quality hardware that actually gets supported. Not Microsoft's fault if you hardware doesn't get updated drivers.

 

[ICOM]

You know I was going to post a note mocking you guys on how ridiculous you look but I just realized that every day I come here to HardOcp it looks more and more like I'm wasting my time. This used to be a site about learning about the edge of technology. A community who helped each other. Now, well...bah...

It still is concerning HARDWARE (with the exception of consoles or BR...)

This thread is about operating system(s). I personally don't give a fat flying mother fukin' damn about operating systems or the dinks that rant about them...but it's fun to stir the pot.

 

[piscian18]

I keep saying I'm gonna install windows 7 but then my stupid XP keeps working and well.. I'll upgrade eventually I swear.

 

[BallerX]

I am the biggest Vista basher there is. Win7 is what Vista should have been to begin with. When it comes to browser speed, I haven't noticed a difference, at all, between the three of them. If it is not noticeable then who really gives a shit.