Back to XP64 for me!

Status
Not open for further replies.
mathewmatics said:
Man some of you little geeks seem to take my decision personally or something.

I don't need the "most" out of my SSD.

I don't care about DX11.

I don't need my OS to "speed up" my applications??? What a crock. "Speed" them up...lol.....
Click to expand...

It speeds up their launch, not how fast they run. This has been timed and proven. It's not a "crock" just because you don't understand and fail to graps what I'm talking about or how the software works.

Cerulean said:
snip................
Click to expand...

That goes for you too.
 
I don't care unless we are talking significant numbers....as in the diff between a 7200RPM drive and a REVO diff!
 
My games loading from the time I double click them to the time I am playing is already great...so to me it is a crock..
 
My games loading from the time I double click them to the time I am playing is already great...so to me it is a crock..
 
mathewmatics said:
I don't care unless we are talking significant numbers....as in the diff between a 7200RPM drive and a REVO diff!
Click to expand...

There is a difference between "I don't care" and "what a crock." The fact that you don't care about it doesn't make it less true. Windows 7's features can speed up the launch of applications and when given enough time to organize the disk. Windows 7 can launch applications used most frequently in less time than Windows XP. This isn't a big deal for gaming or smaller applications but to those of us who have to use Photoshop or similar programs this can really be a good thing. Your usage patterns may not lend themselves to realizing the potential of this feature, but that doesn't mean that the feature isn't valid or that it doesn't work right, is falsely advertised, or whatever.

As far as "not needing the most out of your SSD" well again that's your problem. An SSD can be fast but a properly tuned SSD is even faster. Why you'd be resistant to that is beyond me.
 
Last edited:
cannondale06 said:
I am using over 2gb right now with 25 tabs open in Chrome and no other programs open at all. 2gb is the very minimum even for most basic users. plus just think of all the junk that comes on pre built comps or with stuff they install that most people never remove.

EDIT: oops I do have Steam running too
Click to expand...

I seem to get by quite fine with 1GB in Windows 7 Professional on my ancient 7 year old thinkpad. Even runs Firefox, thunderbird, and MATLAB at the same time quite well, better than it did on XP in fact. XPs memory management is archaic.

Not to mention after six months to a year of loading up an XP machine with programs, it always slowed way down compared to a new install - I haven't found that with 7, even after 2 years. Best new feature right there, I hate reinstalling Windows.

I can't believe this topic still comes up.
 
resistant....again it all comes down to is it worth it for ME.

I say no....no photoshop/pinnacle/vegas/on this machine....just sweet perfect beautiful XP64 and BFBC2...
 
People, please, move on, this guy is seriously pushing the post count skyward and he's been here a few days or so. We are all aware of the reasons people push post counts so high so fast... really, let it go. It's been done before, it'll be done again, this one's a wrap.

Moving on...
 
repoman0 said:
I seem to get by quite fine with 1GB in Windows 7 Professional on my ancient 7 year old thinkpad. Even runs Firefox, thunderbird, and MATLAB at the same time quite well, better than it did on XP in fact. XPs memory management is archaic.

Not to mention after six months to a year of loading up an XP machine with programs, it always slowed way down compared to a new install - I haven't found that with 7, even after 2 years. Best new feature right there, I hate reinstalling Windows.
Click to expand...

I call complete BS on 1GB of RAM with 7. And if you are still using Slozilla and don't know how to keep XP running perfectly for years and years that speaks more of you than of me...
 
repoman0 said:
I seem to get by quite fine with 1GB in Windows 7 Professional on my ancient 7 year old thinkpad. Even runs Firefox, thunderbird, and MATLAB at the same time quite well, better than it did on XP in fact. XPs memory management is archaic.
Click to expand...

I'm impressed you're getting by quite fine in MATLAB with only 1GB :eek:

I agree with Joe, it's pointless to continue as all parties involved already have their minds set. Some more aggressively than others, it seems. :p
 
Joe Average said:
People, please, move on, this guy is seriously pushing the post count skyward and he's been here a few days or so. We are all aware of the reasons people push post counts so high so fast... really, let it go. It's been done before, it'll be done again, this one's a wrap.

Moving on...
Click to expand...
And why would I do this exactly? I have been in hardware for a long time and that is why I joined.....to talk about hardware and computers.
 
repoman0 said:
I seem to get by quite fine with 1GB in Windows 7 Professional on my ancient 7 year old thinkpad. Even runs Firefox, thunderbird, and MATLAB at the same time quite well, better than it did on XP in fact. XPs memory management is archaic.

Not to mention after six months to a year of loading up an XP machine with programs, it always slowed way down compared to a new install - I haven't found that with 7, even after 2 years. Best new feature right there, I hate reinstalling Windows.

I can't believe this topic still comes up.
Click to expand...
1gb is not enough for anything more than the very very basic usage with Vista or 7. open up about 10-15 tabs and then try and open up a program and all of that physical ram is gone and its hitting the hard drive.
 
Don't feed the troll.

I think it is funny how forum n00bie's are always the ones to come in here and cry about Windows 7 and how they are going back to XP.

You know what I think? Come here for help when you have issues but don't come here to cry and stir up a pointless debate about which OS is better.
 
Everyone is a newb at some point in any forum.

My thread is serious and I have no ulterior motives.

And I will come here and do whatever I want unless a mod says no....
 
Last response:

Search is your friend, as there are dozens of "XP Pro x64 is the best OS ever and here's why and no I won't use Windows 7 or Windows Vista or or or..." threads over the years. Search exists for a reason and it is highly recommended to find more info related to the given questions you may have.

This place doesn't enforce the "Use Search" requirement like some forums - I've been on some that if you ask a question that can be found in under 30 seconds with a single search, you get warned for it and if you do it twice, you get banned, seriously.

This forum is extremely lenient on people asking questions that are extremely repetitive and while XP Pro x64 might not fit into that precisely, the same statements and questions you've posed in this thread have been asked and answered dozens upon dozens of times, just as well as those threads always end up falling apart in such situations and people have been banned before things just blow up fast.

So, now I'm done, and again, good luck to you.
 
mathewmatics said:
I call complete BS on 1GB of RAM with 7. And if you are still using Slozilla and don't know how to keep XP running perfectly for years and years that speaks more of you than of me...
Click to expand...

Even though it's been made obvious that you're a troll, I'll respond to you one last time - please think before you call BS on anyone. It makes you look pathetic when you get proved wrong, and you tend to lose the rest of your already small amount of credibility. Not that your business's website didn't do that already.



cannondale06 said:
1gb is not enough for anything more than the very very basic usage with Vista or 7. open up about 10-15 tabs and then try and open up a program and all of that physical ram is gone and its hitting the hard drive.
Click to expand...

I don't use that many tabs on my 8GB desktop.
 
cannondale06 said:
I am using over 2gb right now with 25 tabs open in Chrome and no other programs open at all. 2gb is the very minimum even for most basic users. plus just think of all the junk that comes on pre built comps or with stuff they install that most people never remove.

EDIT: oops I do have Steam running too
Click to expand...

I've got 15 IE 9 tabs, OneNote 2010, 2 copies each of Word and Excel 2010, Windows Media Player and the Kindle reader open while using handwriting recognition which eats up considerable memory and I still have 280 MB free on my HP Slate 500 running Windows 7 Pro with 2 GB of RAM. 2 GB of RAM is plenty for Windows 7 for desktop apps.
 
repoman0 said:
Even though it's been made obvious that you're a troll, I'll respond to you one last time - please think before you call BS on anyone. It makes you look pathetic when you get proved wrong, and you tend to lose the rest of your already small amount of credibility. Not that your business's website didn't do that already.





I don't use that many tabs on my 8GB desktop.
Click to expand...

Proves nothing...I still say it acts slow as a snail...


that actually looks horrible IMO!!
 
mathewmatics said:
I do understand and have read all the claims...but if can hit the power button and be on my home page in 40 seconds flat
Click to expand...
My Windows 7 box boots faster. ;)

But, if your on a single core machine, then you're right that XP is probably a better OS for you. 7 does use more CPU cycles up than XP does.
 
mathewmatics said:
I don't have any single cores left I don't think...
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not going to be one of those guys who are arguing with you about how fast your computer is because you only know that. I'm not arrogant enough to try to guess the performance of your PC either. However, I will argue that disabling services/features in Windows 7 to get better performance is retarded. If your that bad off, then just run XP, which is what you're doing.
 
I have to admit that I do get a kick out of these threads proclaiming how a ten year old OS for some inexplicable reason uses less memory and runs better on 50 cents of RAM than a two year old OS. Never mind that it will 3 versions behind in a years time, is getting little support for the latest and greatest features and is about to be dropped like a bad habit by the developer.

If XP64 works for you then great, XP would turn most of my systems into expensive useless piles of junk. My tablets would be crippled and and my sig rig wouldn't even work in Surround.
 
1min 20sec on 7200RPM SATA2 XP64 to hompage....

40 seconds with same on a MLC Sandforce controlled SATA SSD.
 
heatlesssun said:
I have to admit that I do get a kick out of these threads proclaiming how a ten year old OS for some inexplicable reason uses less memory and runs better on 50 cents of RAM than a two year old OS. Never mind that it will 3 versions behind in a years time, is getting little support for the latest and greatest features and is about to be dropped like a bad habit by the developer.

If XP64 works for you then great, XP would turn most of my systems into expensive useless piles of junk. My tablets would be crippled and and my sig rig wouldn't even work in Surround.
Click to expand...


Exactly...you NEED 7.
 
heatlesssun said:
I have to admit that I do get a kick out of these threads proclaiming how a ten year old OS for some inexplicable reason uses less memory and runs better on 50 cents of RAM than a two year old OS. Never mind that it will 3 versions behind in a years time, is getting little support for the latest and greatest features and is about to be dropped like a bad habit by the developer.

If XP64 works for you then great, XP would turn most of my systems into expensive useless piles of junk. My tablets would be crippled and and my sig rig wouldn't even work in Surround.
Click to expand...

Fascination with boot times is pretty hilarious as well, considering both my desktop and shitty laptop are at their previous state in 3 seconds flat thanks to standby mode. They both restart once a week for updates.
 
bigdogchris said:
Well, I'm not going to be one of those guys who are arguing with you about how fast your computer is because you only know that. I'm not arrogant enough to try to guess the performance of your PC either. However, I will argue that disabling services/features in Windows 7 to get better performance is retarded. If your that bad off, then just run XP, which is what you're doing.
Click to expand...

I don't mean to come across as arrogant..

tweaking software is retarded?
 
mathewmatics said:
Again, how much faster to homepage than 40 seconds?
Click to expand...

About 25 on my Windows 7 Ultimate EP121 4GB/64GB. And really if you're not running 4GB what the hell does XP64 buy you anyway? Kind of weird talking about how little memory XP uses and yet talk about a version of it that's pointless without at least 4GB.
 
repoman0 said:
Fascination with boot times is pretty hilarious as well, considering both my desktop and shitty laptop are at their previous state in 3 seconds flat thanks to standby mode. They both restart once a week for updates.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more. If you are booting a system so often that the difference between a 40 second boot time versus even a couple of minutes even matters then you've got other problems.
 
mathewmatics said:
I don't mean to come across as arrogant..

tweaking software is retarded?
Click to expand...
Windows 7 comes pre-tweaked by Microsoft, essentially. When you start messing with how it comes out of the box, you may be causing yourself problems down the road. 99.99% of users should use the default installation and options for optimal performance and reliability.

I just installed XP on an old Pentium D, with 1GB of ram, and onboard graphics. It runs great, better than XP that was on it before actually. I suppose everyone's results can very but I feel more likely than not, performance issues are caused by unecessary 'tweaking', which makes things worse in the long run. When you start disabling SuperFetch and other services designed to make things better, things usually get worse. It's more of a state of mind. Either, break it, or leave it alone because it already works great. You're either one guy or the other.
 
Couldn't disagree more...if I want my machine on I want it on in 40 seconds verses 1or 2 minutes........I could easily set up sleep and be super fast but no need here...especially at 40 seconds to homepage times!
 
heatlesssun said:
Couldn't agree more. If you are booting a system so often that the difference between a 40 second boot time versus even a couple of minutes even matters then you've got other problems.
Click to expand...

I think it takes about that long before my AHCI bios and RAID bios are done starting up, though once Win7 starts it's not much longer thanks to a SSD.

I'm not even going to touch the tweak or not to tweak argument. That's been covered well enough.
 
heatlesssun said:
About 25 on my Windows 7 Ultimate EP121 4GB/64GB. And really if you're not running 4GB what the hell does XP64 buy you anyway? Kind of weird talking about how little memory XP uses and yet talk about a version of it that's pointless without at least 4GB.
Click to expand...

You are saying your Win 7 machine with a spinning 7200 RPM drive is at home page from a cold boot in 25 seconds?
 
Someone tell blackviper he has wasted all these years on his site for tweaking software..I don't have the heart...he is a nice helpful guy...
 
To use XP anymore just hurts me. The fast searching to launch applications, window snapping, better UI, it just goes on and on. I don't see why anyone want willingly get XP anymore.
 
Win 7 installed properly (I am including tuning like you said, shutting off superfetch, disable the swap file, using a RAMDisk for temp/tmp and browser cache files etc etc) you can boot in like 7-10 seconds tops based on whats installed)drivers and such. And the UEFI Bisoes are smoking fast coming up once configured properly too unbeatable speeds. And overall Win 7 will launch apps faster than XP once this is done. And perform better overall.

You can diagnosis problems on Win 7 easier than XP.

You get critical security updates like mentioned, XP SP3 has security holes and XP in general has sec urity holes that will never be patched

Newer versions of IE will never run on XP and IE9 is oh so fine and fast.

Graphics acceleration will never be used on the XP Desktop or MS apps like on Win 7, DierectX 11 or not

This list goes on.

You may justify whatever you need to stray on XP but IMO Win 7 x64 is the finest OS ever built. You just have to drive it for a while and give it a chance to wow you.

Now all that said like others have mentioned if your hardware is older running newer OSes and apps is problematic. They do demand more phyiscal resources.

But Inrtel's SandyBridge has never been a better time for a computer savy and one who demands excellect value/price to upgrade the hardware. Its the pefect time to upgrade both hardwarte and OS IMO for those folks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top