Web Browser Speed Test Shows W7 RTM Slower than XP SP3

I was just hoping MS would kill off XP by not giving it support for Office '10. Sigh.
 
Joe Average said:
Can XP provide playback support for nearly 99% of the video compression formats and content out there on the Internet out of the box like Windows 7 can? No, it can't.

That's called a limitation in a specific way. And that's just one...
Click to expand...

There's a reason why CCC and VLC exist, this is a non issue.
 
I've actually noticed the web page load slowdown

BUT

Windows 7 in every other feature outweighs that stupid slowdown
 
Like way way way less bluescreens no matter how hard I try I only got one when I tried to hack some drivers into an SB Live! 5.1 PCI card in Win7x64 version 7000.

And that you can't tell if the computer has been up for several days because it's just that fast, smooth, stable and intelligent.

And that after months and a load of software and drivers clogging up the system, it still boots faster than XP ever will.

And loads drivers and everything faster. Browsing's bound to get faster in time on Win7 anyway, yawn.
 
Vermillion said:
Next time buy quality hardware that actually gets supported. Not Microsoft's fault if you hardware doesn't get updated drivers.
Click to expand...
What the hell are you talking about? The C-media sound chip is for Dolby Digital Live, and they've been a quality manufacturer for, well forever.

My HTC Wizard is a HTC phone. They're the prima donna of Pocket PC devices.

My AMD chipset is made be freaking AMD. FREAKING AMD!

Microsoft is responsible for including the drivers for these devices. Otherwise, what good is a OS without proper working hardware? Since they enforced digitally signed drivers, the C-Media drivers shouldn't have been that obviously buggy. Wasn't that the point of doing that?

KayossZero said:
There's a reason why CCC and VLC exist, this is a non issue.
Click to expand...
No matter what Windows OS I use, Klite Codec pack always gets installed. Along with VLC as well.

Windows Media Player can suck ma balls.
 
DukenukemX said:
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.:rolleyes: 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.
Click to expand...

I wonder how much of those findings were based on Win7 beta or RC's instead of the RTM.

In case you didn't get the memo, hardware manufacturers aren't obligated to get drivers out for beta software.

Microsoft is not responsible for 3rd party drivers. Way to blame it on them.
 
DukenukemX said:
Microsoft is responsible for including the drivers for these devices.
Click to expand...
MS doesn't write those drivers. You really need to ask yourself why your precious manufacturers failed to submit or have drivers that passed quality testing for inclusion on the OS install disc. Contrast that with the many, many companies that did submit a total of thousands of suitable drivers included on the disc. :p
 
And as you pointed out, some drivers are available via online update. That just means they weren't ready by the deadline needed for inclusion on the final RTM disc.
 
DukenukemX said:
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.
Click to expand...

There's always Windows XP x64. I've never had any problems with it or any compatibility issues since SP2.

Don't know why everyone always defends Microsoft when they release an operating system that requires coders to pay them for digitally signed drivers destroying the mod community. Yes, what a wonderful idea. :rolleyes:
 
techrat said:
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.
Click to expand...
A crap ton of tweaking, downloading third party apps and other nonsense. If it's included, it's one less thing I have to screw with.

And FWIW, Remote Desktop, especially with the new stuff in Terminal Server... Blows the pants off anything VNC can do. It's not just remote administration of servers anymore.

DukenukemX said:
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.
Click to expand...
DX10 won't, and never will go to XP. The only entity that can bring DX10 to XP is Microsoft, period, end of discussion. And they won't do that because it's require a huge freakin' overhaul, and they're not going to overhaul for FREE when it's a selling point on an OS they could make money off of.

DukenukemX said:
This is not an improvement. If double clicking isn't good enough to start an application, then MS has problems.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
UAC has yet to have been broken (At least when 100% on). Tell me how that's not an improvement. Hackers cracked Windows 7's activation the same day it RTM'd. It's been 4 YEARS since Vista was released, and nobody has bypassed UAC. That's some pretty fine security right there if you ask me.

DukenukemX said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about the fact that, for Microsoft to sign anything, it's got to have a x64 counterpart driver too. This has contributed GREATLY to getting x64 where it needs to be. In XP days, you had to go down a list and make sure all your stuff was supported. In Vista+, it's hardly a second thought.

DukenukemX said:
Many benchmarks prove that Windows XP still loaded faster then Vista. So what's the point of Superfetch, if Vista can't outperform XP?
Click to expand...
You're ignorant as hell. When I can open Photoshop in 2 seconds on Vista or Windows 7, and it takes a good 10+ seconds on XP... That's a big difference.
Superfetch isn't what's used to boot the machine, either :rolleyes:

DukenukemX said:
Which only tin foil hat users, and IT people use. Otherwise, it slows down performance.
Click to expand...
Bitlocker slows down performance? Where the hell did you get that? Just pull it out of your ass? It's blatently obvious you've never used this.
I use whole disk encryption on EVERYTHING, and once the initial encryption is completed, you will NEVER NOTICE A DAMNED THING. It encrypts on the fly. And excuse me for wanting my data kept safe if someone steals my equipment.... That's because I'm a tin foil hat wearer :rolleyes:

DukenukemX said:
Why then does Vista consume VASTLY more power on laptops, compared to XP?
Click to expand...
Again, you're ignorant as all hell. It takes me less than a second to resume from sleep on Vista or Windows 7. Within 5 seconds of logging in, I'm back online. In XP, it was almost just as fast to bootup fresh, by the time the machine resumed from sleep, started the network card back up, etc.

DukenukemX said:
Would never know, cause I'm a proud FireFox user.
Click to expand...
Windows Explorer does not equal Internet Explorer... You're seriously the most ignorant person I've encountered on these forums. Usually the people that try to argue at least have some ounce of technical ability...

DukenukemX said:
You have to, since it has terrible security.
Click to expand...
Yep. You're immune to zero-day exploits. I'm not. Have fun with that.

DukenukemX said:
Which is best disabled to prevent thrashing Hard Disks.
Click to expand...
Initially, it will. After the initial period, it increases performance. By disabling them, you hurt yourself in the long run.

DukenukemX said:
With so many free software alternatives, really?
Click to expand...
Again, Remote Desktop is more than just remote administration nowadays.

DukenukemX said:
I'm pretty sure my Windows Mobile 6.5 phone works with XP's.
Click to expand...
You're still the most ignorant person I've encountered here. Slideshow has NOTHING to do with Windows Mobile. Sync Center isn't just for Windows Mobile. Mobility Center has NOTHING to do with Windows Mobile.



You officially win the award for most ignorant user I've met. Oh, but WAIT! The foolish remarks continued on in more posts:
DukenukemX said:
Microsoft is responsible for including the drivers for these devices.
Click to expand...
Let's say I'm a little company with 5 employees that manufatures a proprietry interface card. I'm too fucking lazy and incompetant to write a driver, so that means it's Microsoft's job to do that, right??? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Also, in case you missed like, the past few decades, Windows supports MILLIONS of hardware configurations. There's no way they could ever include all this stuff. You'd have to make your Windows install up of dozens of DVDs.


BallerX said:
I am the biggest Vista basher there is. Win7 is what Vista should have been to begin with.
Click to expand...
What did Windows 7 magically fix that Vista had wrong? You've already admitted speed isn't a factor for you...
 
TechieSooner said:
UAC has yet to have been broken (At least when 100% on). Tell me how that's not an improvement. Hackers cracked Windows 7's activation the same day it RTM'd. It's been 4 YEARS since Vista was released, and nobody has bypassed UAC. That's some pretty fine security right there if you ask me.
Click to expand...

http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/07/microsoft-lists-uac-hack-as-malware/

Proof of concepts exist. Just a matter of time to see whether something like this can be used as a common attack vector or if UAC will hold up. Admittedly, this... like many other forms of attacks, still require user intervention. With the prevalence of dialogue popups that people just click away to run what they want to run... I wouldn't be surprised if this does end up doing -some- damage. Remains to be seen if it's just superficial user account scraping like some of the OSX trojans, though.
 
techrat said:
http://www.aeroxp.org/2009/07/microsoft-lists-uac-hack-as-malware/

Proof of concepts exist. Just a matter of time to see whether something like this can be used as a common attack vector or if UAC will hold up. Admittedly, this... like many other forms of attacks, still require user intervention. With the prevalence of dialogue popups that people just click away to run what they want to run... I wouldn't be surprised if this does end up doing -some- damage. Remains to be seen if it's just superficial user account scraping like some of the OSX trojans, though.
Click to expand...

You guys reading comprehension sucks. What did I say "When 100% on"???

That attack is only an issue if you leave Win7 on its default setting.
 
pxc said:
MS doesn't write those drivers. You really need to ask yourself why your precious manufacturers failed to submit or have drivers that passed quality testing for inclusion on the OS install disc. Contrast that with the many, many companies that did submit a total of thousands of suitable drivers included on the disc. :p
Click to expand...

Manufacturers fail to submit drivers because they want you to buy new hardware. Microsoft doesn't want to write drivers because it costs them too much money.

This is a bad game that the consumer just can't win.
 
So Apple, without access to Windows source code, makes a browser for Windows that is 5-6 times faster than Microsoft can for its own OS.

And Microsoft has had 8 years since the release of XP, and its OS is slower rather than faster.

Yet the Apple bashing just keeps a rollin'. :rolleyes:
 
RS3RS said:
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.
Click to expand...

DING DING DING DING! Winner!

Absolutely. The sooner that Windows users realize this, the better. After finally making XP a decent OS with SP2, why did most people really desperately need a new OS? Because MS's installed base was at its max, so no more growth. Gotta keep selling software, but how, when everyone already has your product? Convince them they need a new OS with a flashy UI and tens of millions of dollars in marketing.

Just look at the latest version of Office and you'll see this taken to an extreme. I will use Office XP until the year 2050, since it does all I will likely ever need, at least until they perfect VR. But how does MS make money off of that?

For the record, I am an Apple stockholder, but haven't owned a Mac since 2001 and I don't own an iPod. I use XP every day of my life. It just would be nice if Microsoft didn't suck so badly, considering its enormous resources and advantages.

MS is the best argument for antitrust laws, and I am a libertarian free-marketeer.

When your business model is convincing people they need your shit, instead of providing them with what they really need, you're in trouble.
 
uclajd said:
DING DING DING DING! Winner!

Absolutely. The sooner that Windows users realize this, the better. After finally making XP a decent OS with SP2, why did most people really desperately need a new OS? Because MS's installed base was at its max, so no more growth. Gotta keep selling software, but how, when everyone already has your product? Convince them they need a new OS with a flashy UI and tens of millions of dollars in marketing.

Just look at the latest version of Office and you'll see this taken to an extreme. I will use Office XP until the year 2050, since it does all I will likely ever need, at least until they perfect VR. But how does MS make money off of that?

For the record, I am an Apple stockholder, but haven't owned a Mac since 2001 and I don't own an iPod. I use XP every day of my life. It just would be nice if Microsoft didn't suck so badly, considering its enormous resources and advantages.

MS is the best argument for antitrust laws, and I am a libertarian free-marketeer.

When your business model is convincing people they need your shit, instead of providing them with what they really need, you're in trouble.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah. Sorry but I enjoy getting use out of ALL the hardware I paid for. Having XP x64 sit around in 512MB of RAM and 7.5GB sitting there doing nothing is pretty pointless.

XP and Office XP may do everything YOU want it to but that doesn't mean it does everything somebody else wants it to do.

I can't stand XP or Office 2003 at work anymore because it's too limiting with what it can do. It slows down my productivity because it can't keep up with me after being able to do things more efficiently in Vista/Windows 7 or the much faster to use Ribbons in Office 2007.
 
Not sure of "blah blah blah" is much of a rebuttal, and I am glad you are happy with your purchase of Vista, apparently because it fixes (yet another) RAM limitation built into Windows ("nobody will ever need more than 32 bits").

If that was worth more than $200 to you, great. But why again does 99% of the personal computing world need to go to 64 bits? Seriously, no sarcasm here. Why does the average person need a 64 bit OS?

Vermillion said:
Blah blah blah. Sorry but I enjoy getting use out of ALL the hardware I paid for. Having XP x64 sit around in 512MB of RAM and 7.5GB sitting there doing nothing is pretty pointless.

XP and Office XP may do everything YOU want it to but that doesn't mean it does everything somebody else wants it to do.

I can't stand XP or Office 2003 at work anymore because it's too limiting with what it can do. It slows down my productivity because it can't keep up with me after being able to do things more efficiently in Vista/Windows 7 or the much faster to use Ribbons in Office 2007.
Click to expand...
 
RS3RS said:
The biggest thing making XP a dinosaur is that it's not making MS money anymore.
Click to expand...
No, it would be users like me who feel it as an eyesore and an overall strain to use anything less than Vista. If you're going to set up a workstation and leave it as admin, fine XP works. You just can't get away with that shit anymore though.
 
If that was worth more than $200 to you, great. But why again does 99% of the personal computing world need to go to 64 bits? Seriously, no sarcasm here. Why does the average person need a 64 bit OS?
Click to expand...
64-bit Windows resolves much of the limitations (address space, firstly) present on 32-bit Windows OSes. Another is improved security and platform stability (mandatory driver signing). While many end-users may not see these benefits outright, software developers and hardware vendors should be able to deliver products much more easily when they aren't targeting two types of platforms, reducing costs and potentially improving quality.
 
Which everyone will benefit from, even if they don't realize it.
 
bigdogchris said:
No, it would be users like me who feel it as an eyesore and an overall strain to use anything less than Vista. If you're going to set up a workstation and leave it as admin, fine XP works. You just can't get away with that shit anymore though.
Click to expand...

If you consider that godawful Aero somehow less of an "eyesore" than XP you must be smoking some good shit, pass it over here man :D
 
uclajd said:
Not sure of "blah blah blah" is much of a rebuttal, and I am glad you are happy with your purchase of Vista, apparently because it fixes (yet another) RAM limitation built into Windows ("nobody will ever need more than 32 bits").

If that was worth more than $200 to you, great. But why again does 99% of the personal computing world need to go to 64 bits? Seriously, no sarcasm here. Why does the average person need a 64 bit OS?
Click to expand...

Well I do video and audio encoding. Not to mention lots of VM work in order to keep up with the latest technologies like Exchange 2010 and Server 2008 R2. Plenty of gaming as well normally WITH those VM's running. So yeah it's nice to have access to 8+GB of RAM and all the video RAM on both my video cards.

And actually I paid for Vista Ultimate because I actually USED all the functionality like Media Center, Bitlocker and the rest. Oh and since it was Ultimate it was more then $200 and Yes, I found it to be a worthwhile investment as is Windows 7 which I find better then Vista. Bitlocker2Go is awesome as is the new Applocker and that's just scratching the surface of new functionality.

The problem is you assume nobody needs more then 32-bit and 3.25GB of RAM. Not everybody only uses the Internet, Office, and E-mail. Some of us actually use the computer to it's full extent.
 
Vermillion said:
The problem is you assume nobody needs more then 32-bit and 3.25GB of RAM. Not everybody only uses the Internet, Office, and E-mail. Some of us actually use the computer to it's full extent.
Click to expand...

Implying that 3.25GB of RAM is only good for "Internet, Office, and E-mail" - that's a paddlin'.
 
Joe Average said:
Been doing both for over a decade, and sometimes even less - what's your beef, bub? :D
Click to expand...

Not really a beef, but a question of practicality.

For example, I could ride a bike across the USA. But why would I when I have a car?

I save so much time with 64bit and 8GB of ram that it isn't even funny.

For a more pointed example, let me throw this out there:

Try rendering a 30 second 720p animation in Blender on windows XP. It should take somewhere around 24 hours.
 
Depends on what you're using, and I've been doing 3D work for decades too, so... you picked the wrong guy to ask to do comparisons with. :D

And I wouldn't use XP, I'd use XP Pro x64 as I always did since the day it became available... and Blender? Ugh... no thanks, I'll stick with Lightwave x64.
 
Joe Average said:
Depends on what you're using, and I've been doing 3D work for decades too, so... you picked the wrong guy to ask to do comparisons with. :D

And I wouldn't use XP, I'd use XP Pro x64 as I always did since the day it became available... and Blender? Ugh... no thanks, I'll stick with Lightwave x64.
Click to expand...

I guess XP64 would solve the ram issue but when I used it before Vista was out it was a NIGHTMARE of incompatibilities. Significantly worse than even Vista at release time.
 
I am probably the biggest proponent user of XP Pro x64 this forum has ever had, so, I've seen all the arguments from most anyone that cared to throw 'em back at me, and I still say it's a rock solid and reliable OS unlike most anything Microsoft has ever created. I never had the issues other people had with it (and continue to have), but then again, I ain't your average Joe, I assure you. :)

It always worked, it still works, and it's still wicked evil fast for a workstation OS. If I was setting up machines just to do drone-like work, they'd all have XP Pro x64 on 'em... for my own workstation, I now use Windows 7 as I have since last August.

But I digress, we've taken this one off-topic...
 
XP is fast, it just has a really poor security model. For most people here it isn't a problem (informed users are careful and diligent), but for your average user that wants it to "just work" its a massive problem, and its the main reason I try and push people into either using OS X, Vista, or if they have an irrational dislike of Vista (and IMO most of the dislike is irrational) then I tell them to wait for Windows 7.

Not having a computer turn into a zombie because you went to the wrong webpage or opened the wrong file is so nice.
 
I think the most relevant point that people seem to miss out, and forgive me for being a Devil's Advocate here, is this:

In spite of the fact that XP has been out for so long, and despite the fact that Vista and now Windows 7 are so much larger - meaning that a default installation of XP barely cracks a single gig and the installation files fit on a single CD with room to spare, and that Vista/Windows 7 both take about 10GB for a default installation on average and require a DVD to hold the installation files - they're both STILL practically as fast as XP is even in spite of their roughly ~10x larger footprint.

People seem to miss that. They're not bloated in the respect that the OSes are just 10GB of more code sitting there. They provide some aspects that XP never did out of the box, and a helluvalot more components, etc.

There's far more going on under the surface of Vista and Windows 7 that never happened with XP and most of it is part of Vista and Windows 7's self-tuning nature. They can take care of themselves better than XP ever could, even with third party software installed to manage some of it (because you'll never turn XP into Vista/Windows 7, for sure).

It would be nice to see such ridiculous comparisons being made, it really would. If you want to run XP, fine, do it, nobody is stopping you. If you want to stick with Vista, fine, do it, nobody is stopping you. Same for Windows 7.

But geezus... let the comparisons go, they're not productive and getting nowhere...
 
Joe Average said:
There's far more going on under the surface of Vista and Windows 7 that never happened with XP and most of it is part of Vista and Windows 7's self-tuning nature. They can take care of themselves better than XP ever could, even with third party software installed to manage some of it (because you'll never turn XP into Vista/Windows 7, for sure).
Click to expand...

This is what turned me off of XP more than anything and pushed me over to OS X for my main work machine, the creeping slowdown that was inevitable with even the most diligently maintained XP installation. That Vista and Windows 7 can keep running without that creeping OS-slowdown that I hate so much is awesome.

XP is a 2001 operating system, they have come a long way since then with OSes like OS X, Vista, and Windows 7. I dunno, I use XP and I feel like I'm in the stone age as far as security and longterm stability.
 
Serpico said:
This is what turned me off of XP more than anything and pushed me over to OS X for my main work machine, the creeping slowdown that was inevitable with even the most diligently maintained XP installation. That Vista and Windows 7 can keep running without that creeping OS-slowdown that I hate so much is awesome.

XP is a 2001 operating system, they have come a long way since then with OSes like OS X, Vista, and Windows 7. I dunno, I use XP and I feel like I'm in the stone age as far as security and longterm stability.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree with this. After so long, I don't feel like I have to do regular reinstalls with Vista. I set up and go... XP always seemed to degrade quickly and this was a major improvement in Vista from personal experience. However it is not exactly an advertisable or 'benchmarkable' feature, because usually OS comparisons are done immediately after installation.

Also, Vista finally was a long needed backend overhaul of many OS components. For example, the Windows sound architecture was changed out completely. Now Windows audio makes much more sense. Additionally, WASAPI has come as part of the overhaul of this ONE component, and is extremely useful.

Here's another example: Vista Disk manager. XP cannot even resize, shrink, or expand existing partitions. Vista does it all without the need for third party tools, a reboot, and a chkdisk examination. This was an extremely useful and time saving tool for me.

Microsoft has been making large strides throughout the entire windows platform. Think about the changes between 95,98, 2000, XP, XP w/SP2, Vista, and W7. I would say that every edition has brought something significant - whether it was in UI, connectivity and integration, or backend improvements. Obviously nothing is perfect - there were many problems and glitches. However each increment has been substantial.

-darkmatter08
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top