should I use xp or windows7 ?

E

eckndu

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2006
Messages
183
it's an amd athlon NEO MV-40 1.60 GHz processor with ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3410

with xp i get 3 gb ram with possible 2nd grade drivers, or if i go with 7, i could get the latest drivers and 4 gb ram off a single stick.

which OS do you suggest?
 
Probably depends a lot on the other hardware in that thing.
 
^other hardware in that thing would be the same. what do you want to know?
 
Windows 7. It's much nicer OS in many ways, much fresher looking and so on, but most importantly Windows 7 is hardened against 0-day exploits (with things like ASLR and sandboxing, and standard user tokens for program by default), where as XP is not. That system+4GBs RAM should run Windows 7 fine, so go for it and you'll never look back.
 
jiminator said:
W7 can actually have lower requirements than XP.
Click to expand...

wat.

Windows XP System Requirements
233MHz Pentium or equivalent processor
64MB RAM
SVGA compatible display and video adapter
1.5GB free hard disk space (additional 1.8GB with SP2; addtional 900MB with SP3)
CD-ROM Drive
Click to expand...

Windows 7 System Requirements (x86)
1GHz Pentium III or equivalent processor
1GB RAM
DX9 compatible graphics adapter (WDDM 1.0 driver required for Aero)
16GB free hard disk space
DVD-ROM Drive
Click to expand...
 
No, it's true - there are all sorts of stories of people running W7 on ridiculous, ancient hardware and it runs much better than you would expect. Usually better than XP would. The one reason I would pick XP over W7 (and this is a personal choice) is for screens with less than 768x576...which sadly enough does happen on some netbooks. Without enough vertical space, W7 is more of a challenge to use. Others will still go with W7 on this, but that's my preference.
 
vsboxerboy said:
No, it's true - there are all sorts of stories of people running W7 on ridiculous, ancient hardware and it runs much better than you would expect. Usually better than XP would. The one reason I would pick XP over W7 (and this is a personal choice) is for screens with less than 768x576...which sadly enough does happen on some netbooks. Without enough vertical space, W7 is more of a challenge to use. Others will still go with W7 on this, but that's my preference.
Click to expand...

1. Do you mean 1024x576?
2. Why would it matter? You can make the taskbar smaller, if thats the problem.
 
XP is a dead OS. Just use Win 7 and stop being stupid...it's like asking if you should use Vista.
 
XP is a dinosaur that should have died many years ago. Go for Windows 7 and wonder why you ever asked this question in the first place.
 
Jon55 said:
XP is a dinosaur that should have died many years ago. Go for Windows 7 and wonder why you ever asked this question in the first place.
Click to expand...

Because it's running W7 right now, and I'm not so pleased with its performance. ie: with utorrent in the background and a few tabs in chrome, I will have trouble just to open the volume mixer.
 
eckndu said:
Because it's running W7 right now, and I'm not so pleased with its performance. ie: with utorrent in the background and a few tabs in chrome, I will have trouble just to open the volume mixer.
Click to expand...

And are you convinced it will run that much better with XP?

Since it's an AMD Neo processor, I'm going to guess that it's a budget small laptop. Meaning budget parts....low performance NIC instead of a good Intel, so that means a more software/CPU driven NIC, hence bogs down under heavy loads such as that p2p stuff. And it probably means a 4,200rpm or 5,400rpm hard drive instead of a 7,200rpm. And with that torrent/p2p stuff, who knows what kind of malware/trojans from the poisoned content that stuff is infested with.
 
I have not found that Windows 7 runs better on sub par hardware than XP. I don't believe that for a second.

WinXP runs great on a slower processor and 512MB RAM. I know that's not the OP's hardware, but for the sake of argument...
 
W7 without a doubt. I've installed it on several low spec systems and it's doing fine. You do need more memory than XP, though, but it sounds like you have that covered. You need at least 1GB to make W7 run OK. Beyond that, W7 > XP.
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
And are you convinced it will run that much better with XP?
Click to expand...

I don't know, that's why im here.

And that thing is not infected with horses, or insects. Im sure.
 
Valnar said:
I have not found that Windows 7 runs better on sub par hardware than XP. I don't believe that for a second.

WinXP runs great on a slower processor and 512MB RAM. I know that's not the OP's hardware, but for the sake of argument...
Click to expand...
For the sake of argument, you are right in terms of XP running better with very low system memory, such as 512 MB. However, feed that system 2 GB or more, and Windows 7 will run just as well. In older hardware, the memory is really the key. If the system has enough, Windows 7 should be the choice. If not, XP is the choice. Given the OP's memory, Windows 7 would run just as well.
 
the thing to do is throw XP on there and see which one you like better .. I'd personally stick with W7 .. or run linux on it.
 
im kind of in the same boat as OP. i have an ibm x41 (1.6ghz intel p m, 2gb ram, 915 chipset) and i am getting ready to put an os on it for school. i dont really need any of the extra features of win7, xp will be fine for what im doing. the thing that is pushing me in the win7 direction is i do not have an optical drive. xp installing from a usb thumb drive is a pain in the ass. But i know xp will run faster on that hardware though.
 
DeaconFrost said:
For the sake of argument, you are right in terms of XP running better with very low system memory, such as 512 MB. However, feed that system 2 GB or more, and Windows 7 will run just as well. In older hardware, the memory is really the key. If the system has enough, Windows 7 should be the choice. If not, XP is the choice. Given the OP's memory, Windows 7 would run just as well.
Click to expand...

That's my experience. One of our service bench rigs at the office is an old old DellSmell Optiplex GX2something....with an early single core Pentium 4 non-H/T...like 2.4GHz. 1 gig of RAM. Onboard Intel imitation graphics. One of the first rigs we tested Win7 on back when it was beta. Win7 takes perhaps 20-30 seconds longer than XP to bootup (who cares..the thing runs 24x7 all year long)..but once it's up and running..it's equally responsive as XP was.

With just 512 megs of RAM even XP is painful these days...back when XP first came out 512 megs was fine, the standard, but these days, factor in all your windows updates, heavier software, and heavier antivirus than 8 years ago...and 512 megs is freaking painful.
 
I would recommend 7.

In addition to HelioX's recommendation, I also think that turning off unneeded services & startup apps could help as well.
 
tricky0502 said:
im kind of in the same boat as OP. i have an ibm x41 (1.6ghz intel p m, 2gb ram, 915 chipset) and i am getting ready to put an os on it for school. i dont really need any of the extra features of win7, xp will be fine for what im doing. the thing that is pushing me in the win7 direction is i do not have an optical drive. xp installing from a usb thumb drive is a pain in the ass. But i know xp will run faster on that hardware though.
Click to expand...

I have Win7 running on a T41 and T43 with no issues. These platforms had XP on previously but Win7 feels just fine. At the 2GB memory level, I wouldn't think twice about going ahead with Win7 on that platform. As someone said you can turn off all of the eye candy. The advantages of running an OS based on current technology are significant.
 
well shoot .. I had Vista running just dandy on Athlon XP / P4 s478 boxes w/ 512megs of ram back when it was RC .. ran a computer lab at a school for troubled teens. They played games like Halo, Serious Sam 1&2 .. NFS Most Wanted ..etc .. and typed up their assignments using Open Office.. they all ran good without issues. Soooo ... win7 on comparable hardware should run even better!
 
eckndu said:
Because it's running W7 right now, and I'm not so pleased with its performance. ie: with utorrent in the background and a few tabs in chrome, I will have trouble just to open the volume mixer.
Click to expand...

You really think a 10 year old OS is going to fix any of those problems?
 
Here's my take:

I'm also in the boat with a low-end system (eee 900a - 1.6ghz, 2gb ram, 4gb SSD). I LOVE W7, best OS that M$ has put out. However there was a major deal-breaker:

Requirements:
XP: 500gb HD
W7: 16gb HD

I installed XP and still have plenty space for music, documents, movies, etc. I couldnt even FIT win7 on there.

That being said though, if I had a 32gb or larger SSD, I would have gone with W7.

(On a minor note, if you dont mind lack of Bluetooth Support, I HIGHLY reccomend Linux for older netbooks. I ran PupEEE on mine and it BLAZED --- but I *NEED* bluetooth as my only way online away from home is tethered cellular (there are maybe 10 hotspots in the nearby several-hundred-stores city) if you dont need Bluetooth, the you might want to go with Linux, that was the ONLY problem I faced. If they get BT support, I'll be dropping atleast half of my M$ installs)
 
Jon55 said:
You really think a 10 year old OS is going to fix any of those problems?
Click to expand...

It takes quite a bit of work to pare down W7 to the point where it performs like XP on older hardware. I've been using W7 for a few months and have since started dual-booting XP to see the differences. My conclusion: no matter what you do, W7 is going to be more demanding and less responsive. So if you're running an older laptop on battery (or any low-powered machine), XP is good in the short term.

Why would sticking with XP be bad? Because if you're a retard and click on random shit in your email, or visit questionable web sites, you're going to get boned using XP. But if you are careful in what you are doing, get all the updates, have a GOOD backup solution, and reasonable protections, XP will be a good solution for some time to come. IMHO.
 
I don't like XP. That's because my parents (who do nothing you're not supposed to do--they don't click dumb links or visit dangerous sites) had a hell of a time with a machine I built for them with XP on it. Every time I came home from school, something was wrong with either XP or something else.

I installed Windows 7 on it. The problems went away.

Also, it's not advisable to turn off Win7's graphics unless your GPU is an absolute pile of fail. GPU compositing > CPU compositing.
 
Sovereign said:
Also, it's not advisable to turn off Win7's graphics unless your GPU is an absolute pile of fail. GPU compositing > CPU compositing.
Click to expand...

Both windows' will use the 2d functions that all GPUs have. The reason to turn off the special effects is that it makes the machine less responsive and taxes the battery severely (if you're on a laptop). And these things add nothing to the usability (unlike some other OSs).
 
venm11 said:
Both windows' will use the 2d functions that all GPUs have. The reason to turn off the special effects is that it makes the machine less responsive and taxes the battery severely (if you're on a laptop). And these things add nothing to the usability (unlike some other OSs).
Click to expand...

I would disagree, unless "more stability" is somehow unrelated to usability since one reason for GPU compositing is improved overall stability of the OS. I've yet to see any reason to disable the 3D compositing, even on an ancient Dell OptiPlex GX-something desktop that my friend has from her father's work. As a matter of fact, my laptop gets worse battery life with Aero off than on.

"Less responsive" is subjective, but I also disagree there. Even integrated graphics in modern netbooks can handle Aero. Unless one deliberately tries to construct a situation in which the machine is under-equipped in the extreme (running GMA900 or less, 512MB of RAM or less, 4200RPM HDD), 7 should be on par with or exceeding Windows XP.

"Severely taxing" the battery is also a matter of opinion, inasmuch as while 7 does reduce battery life versus XP, if that reduction doesn't matter to the user, it's a moot point.
 
You can turn of Aero and that does help with increasing battery a good bit. Plus I think power management features are better in 7, machines work with sleep and hibernation better.
 
If all your apps/hardware works in XP, then no reason to switch. If you don't carry big loads, then a small car will do, over a Hummer. Same idea here.
 
The problem with XP now is that it's going to receive less and less support. It's interesting that Microsoft is abandoning XP before any other browser maker.
 
Yeah this is true. I think it still has a few more years until it becomes an issue where stuff wont support it, but yeah it will happen. I stayed on windows 2000 for a few years after XP was released, and only reason I switched was because newer hardware was harder to get to work in 2000, and certain programs/games would not install.

The good thing about waiting is you skip the "beta" period where there are lot of issues. Vista for example, was basically Windows 7 Beta. I skipped over all of that, no hassle for me. I'm giving 7 a bit more time to mature, maybe a service pack or two, then will probably upgrade to it. By then it will be stable. Mind you, it is quite stable now already. I just see no need to upgrade at this point.
 
Of course there is always the application, driver, hardware support side. At the moment, XP supports more than Win7. While it may not matter to the OP, it's true. Other than some utility programs (off which 2K/XP has their equivalent), I don't know of anything that is Win7 specific that won't work on XP. However, there are several things that will work on XP which won't work on Win7, especially 64-bit.

When that tide starts turning is when you'll see corporations dump XP in favor of 7. There is no reason to do so right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top