Windows 7 or stick with XP for netbook?

rpeters83

rpeters83

Gawd
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
513
Surprisingly enough, I can't find more than a couple articles that deal with Windows 7 RTM (not beta, not RC) performance on a netbook compared to XP. I find lots of battery related articles, but I'm curious about performance.

Sorry if this is a beaten-to-death question, but for those who own a netbook (or similarly spec'd machine) and went from XP to 7. Was it worth it? Was it noticeably slower than XP? Positives? I have MSDN though work so price isn't an issue. Thanks.
 
Windows 7, get more RAM if it's not already maxed out, and never look back.

With 1GB of RAM Windows 7 will scale itself and you'll get good performance, but push it to 2GB if you can and you'll get really great smooth operation all around.

It's just a better OS, in spite of naysayers and folks that choose to run XP for their own reasons.
 
I was running Windows 7 Ultimate on my Dell Mini 9 with 2GB ram and a fast 16GB SSD and it was faster and more responsive than XP Home. I since put OSX 10.6 Snow Leopard on my Dell and it actually runs faster and smoother than Windows 7.

Here is a little video of my Dell mini 9 with Win 7 playing a DVD in Windows Media Center and then going to Netflix and streaming a movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptzpBiEwjqo
 
I would use XP just because it's better on power. I love Windows 7 but battery life trumps everything on a laptop IMO.

Anyways, without AERO Windows 7 is just an OS.
 
The stripped down Windows XP that came on my netbook was vastly superior to Windows 7. Windows 7 took longer to boot, took longer to open programs, couldn't deal with as many programs open simultaneously and took longer to shut down. It also cut battery life slightly.

Windows 7 has a nicer interface, but it wasn't worth all the negatives.
 
bigdogchris said:
I would use XP just because it's better on power. I love Windows 7 but battery life trumps everything on a laptop IMO.

Anyways, without AERO Windows 7 is just an OS.
Click to expand...

i got the same battery life with win 7 pro then i did on XP home.


certainly get 2G of ram though.
 
With these netbooks, if given a choice between Windows XP and Windows 7 Starter, then go with XP. Windows 7 Starter is stripped down, with no Aero interface and no optical drive support at all plus minimal (if any) multimedia support. So, if you rely on programs which must be installed or run from a CD or DVD, you cannot do so at all in Windows 7 Starter (for that you need to upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium - and that upgrade must be performed at the computer manufacturer's service center since Windows 7 Starter cannot read CDs or DVDs at all).
 
I've been running 7 Professional on a netbook just fine. It replaced the XP Home install that was on there, and I haven't noticed any difference either way in the performance. The netbook is an Acer Aspire One w/ 1 gig RAM.

It's not as speedy as Ubuntu Netbook, but it does the trick.
 
Last edited:
my 2c: 7 on my netbook runs flawlessly (Lenovo s10e). I have 1.5GB ram and a 160GB hdd. Very much recommended. I get around 6-7 hours of battery life (great when flying!)
 
I run Windows 7 Ultimate on my Asus 1005HA-P with 2gb of ram, I think it runs great.
 
schenksmill said:
I've been running 7 Business on a netbook just fine. It replaced the XP Home install that was on there, and I haven't noticed any difference either way in the performance. The netbook is an Acer Aspire One w/ 1 gig RAM.

It's not as speedy as Ubuntu Netbook, but it does the trick.
Click to expand...

There is no Windows 7 business, I guess you mean professional.
 
Windows 7 on my stock AspireOne is a little sluggish if you try to do LOTS of things at once.

But treat it like a netbook, and use it like a netbook is intended, and you shouldnt have a problem.
 
Something to consider, is that Windows 7 is vastly more secure than XP. Most 3rd party programs also benefit from security in Windows 7. This extra security easily trumps a few percentage points of performance or battery life, imo.
 
devil22 said:
Something to consider, is that Windows 7 is vastly more secure than XP. Most 3rd party programs also benefit from security in Windows 7. This extra security easily trumps a few percentage points of performance or battery life, imo.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say "a few percentage points of performance". On my 1000H performance was VASTLY better in XP. Thats why I dont even use Windows 7 on my netbook unless I have a program that wont run properly in XP.
 
My Golden Rule:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

What exactly do you think Win7 is going to fix? Likely nothing.

I use 7 on my desktop but I wanted more memory so I needed a 64bit OS. If I had a laptop with XP, I would just leave it with XP.
 
Snowdog said:
What exactly do you think Win7 is going to fix? Likely nothing.
Click to expand...
Security? An interface that doesn't look like a playschool toy?

I got slightly better battery life on my MSI Wind with Vista than XP, 7 is about the same. Since you have it through MSDN you might as well upgrade for the vastly better security Vista/7 offers over XP.
 
Snowdog said:
My Golden Rule:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

What exactly do you think Win7 is going to fix? Likely nothing.

I use 7 on my desktop but I wanted more memory so I needed a 64bit OS. If I had a laptop with XP, I would just leave it with XP.
Click to expand...

It will fix security. Which is one of the most important things there is, in this modern connected world. Also, a better interface, stability improvements, and many other technical improvements and bug fixes with the more modern code base.
 
devil22 said:
It will fix security. Which is one of the most important things there is, in this modern connected world. Also, a better interface, stability improvements, and many other technical improvements and bug fixes with the more modern code base.
Click to expand...

Security issues on XP are massively exaggerated. Patched up XP is quite solid. I never had a security breach in the years I used XP.
 
Snowdog said:
Security issues on XP are massively exaggerated. Patched up XP is quite solid. I never had a security breach in the years I used XP.
Click to expand...

I don't think the XP security issue is exaggerated at all. XP lacks memory randomization, which means it is wide open to 0-day attacks. Vista and win 7 are hardened against 0-day attacks. Plus XP doesn't do sandboxing, and runs users with full admin credentials by default. And you personally may not have security issues with XP, but I work on a lot of XP boxes that are infected, after installing vista or win 7 the users typically never have malware again.
 
Snowdog said:
My Golden Rule:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

What exactly do you think Win7 is going to fix? Likely nothing.

I use 7 on my desktop but I wanted more memory so I needed a 64bit OS. If I had a laptop with XP, I would just leave it with XP.
Click to expand...

IMO Win7 is like a fixed Vista. What Vista should have been in the first place.
 
devil22 said:
I don't think the XP security issue is exaggerated at all. XP lacks memory randomization, which means it is wide open to 0-day attacks, plus it doesn't do sandboxing, and runs users with full admin credentials by default. And you personally may not have security issues with XP, but I work on a lot of XP boxes that are infected, after installing vista or win 7 the users typically never have malware again.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are comparing years of XP use with a few weeks of windows 7 use as your "never again" benchmark. Fully patched windows XP today is much more robust than it was years ago. Just today I was reading of the latest security hole in windows7 that Microsoft is working to fix.

The most important part of any security system is between the keyboard and chair. Unless there is a problem here, and upgrade to Win7 just for better security is unwarranted.
 
A few weeks of win 7? First I talked about Vista and Windows 7, Windows 7 has been out 3/4ths of a year, and Vista has been out for 3 years. Second, that Windows 7 aero flaw is a perfect illustration of what I am referring to, because of ASLR in Windows 7 the flaw is not exploitable, where as if it was the same flaw in XP boxes would be getting pwned left and right.
 
ZodaEX said:
IMO Win7 is like a fixed Vista. What Vista should have been in the first place.
Click to expand...

That's like saying XP was a fixed 2000...

Vista was great. 7 builds on it.

Snowdog said:
The most important part of any security system is between the keyboard and chair. Unless there is a problem here, and upgrade to Win7 just for better security is unwarranted.
Click to expand...

Let me know when XP has anything comparable to UAC/application sandboxing and user interface privilege isolation. The closest thing to that on XP is running as a limited user, but a lot of software wont work.

Snowdog said:
Just today I was reading of the latest security hole in windows7 that Microsoft is working to fix.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

All operating systems will have zero-day exploits that need to be patched, and all users are vulnerable to them regardless of how smart they think they are. Permissions controls like UAC are the last and most important line of defense against unpatched exploits. XP essentially has nothing of the sort if you run as an administrator account.
 
Last edited:
DeathFromBelow said:
Let me know when XP has anything comparable to UAC/application sandboxing. The closest thing to that on XP is running as a limited user, but a lot of software wont work.
Click to expand...

My point stands. The user swamps the OS changes. None of my programmer friends had security issues with XP. People with no computer knowledge who click and install everything had many issues.

No matter what you do on the technical side, you can stop people from installing malware if they don't know any better. A UAC permission is just going to be another click they have to do when installing.
 
Well yes, not all cases are eliminated, but it is sure nice knowing I will probably never get malware unless *I* make the crucial mistake and download a trojan, and those types of malware are easy to avoid if you know anything about computers. However, no matter how tech literate you are, a 0-day in XP can get you easily pwned - not likely at all in Vista or Win 7. That's the way computers should be, you should only get pwned if you make a mistake, not if your OS has a hidden unknown flaw in it. That's also the difference between XP and Vista/7.
 
Snowdog said:
None of my programmer friends had security issues with XP.
Click to expand...

No matter what you do on the technical side, you can stop people from installing malware if they don't know any better. A UAC permission is just going to be another click they have to do when installing.
Click to expand...

XP has no protection against zero day exploits. All users are vulnerable to zero day exploits regardless of their technical skills. UAC and other new security features introduced in Vista provide a defense against those attacks. XP has nothing like that.

The fact that some people are too stupid or ignorant to take advantage of these new features is their problem. Even if they ignore UAC Vista/7 added a number of other passive security improvements like memory address space randomization that everyone can benefit from.

If your "programmer friends" think XP is as secure as 7 I suggest you not rely on their technical expertise in the future.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
If your "programmer friends" think XP is as secure as 7 I suggest you not rely on their technical expertise in the future.
Click to expand...

That isn't what I said. I acknowledge that 7 is more secure, but the need for this if you are security aware is exaggerated.

The majority of security issues people had with their systems doesn't come from remote attacks using exploits, taking over their machines. It comes from the user clicking on what should be suspicious, or even installing malware themselves with something else questionable(which nothing can protect against).

None my tech literate friends had security issues with XP, but tech illiterate friends of the family had machines that were infested to the point that some of them take them in for annual reinstalls.

Harping the you must upgrade XP because it is insecure, is FUD.
 
Snowdog said:
That isn't what I said. I acknowledge that 7 is more secure, but the need for this if you are security aware is exaggerated.

The majority of security issues people had with their systems doesn't come from remote attacks using exploits, taking over their machines. It comes from the user clicking on what should be suspicious, or even installing malware themselves with something else questionable(which nothing can protect against).

None my tech literate friends had security issues with XP, but tech illiterate friends of the family had machines that were infested to the point that some of them take them in for annual reinstalls.

Harping the you must upgrade XP because it is insecure, is FUD.
Click to expand...

Indeed, the user behind the OS is generally the determining factor in whether the PC is run rampant with viruses/malware or whether it's defragged properly and updated regularly for peak performance.

Too many people on these forums and others are too young (physically or mentally) and ignorant of the real facts. If someone doesn't have an SSD or doesn't play DX10/11 games then using XP is perfectly valid and telling people to upgrade just for the sake of it isn't very bright.

My XP English only custom install is a 236MB.ISO with all the updates til Dec2009, it's lean and mean and is something Windows 7 can never touch efficiency wise, but I don't use SSD nor will I for years to come. DX10/11 aren't on my radar until true PC games I care about incorporate it (not shitty ports or half assed additions trying to woo sheep with big words) I don't encode movies or rip movies 24/7 so more than 3-4GB of ram is meaningless to me. I figure by the time I want to move to 64bit and a newer OS Win8 or something will be out. :p
 
You two know nothing about security and are misinforming people, I and deathfrombelow have given you technical, detailed information on this, but you choose to ignore it like you can change reality by ignoring it. XP is vulnerable to 0-days, Vista and Win 7 are, for the most part, not vulnerable to 0-days. End of story. And how do you know where most malware comes from, you conducted some sort of large scale study on the issue I suppose? I should really stop wasting my time...
 
devil22 said:
And how do you know where most malware comes from, you conducted some sort of large scale study on the issue I suppose?.
Click to expand...

More than likely he knows this from personal experience. People who are knowledgeable about computers can easily avoid infecting their machines by following safety guidelines and using quality security software (not what's built into windows like the firewall). For others who know very little about computers and computer security (most people) More than likely they will trash their machine in a matter of months under regular use. That's why I recommend OSX or linux to people who don't know how to use windows anyways. It's harder to screw up these O.S.es.
 
devil22 said:
You two know nothing about security and are misinforming people, I and deathfrombelow have given you technical, detailed information on this, but you choose to ignore it like you can change reality by ignoring it. XP is vulnerable to 0-days, Vista and Win 7 are, for the most part, not vulnerable to 0-days. End of story. And how do you know where most malware comes from, you conducted some sort of large scale study on the issue I suppose? I should really stop wasting my time...
Click to expand...

Most of XPs 0-day exploits are covered at this time.

Also XP security has been continually improved over the years as in the major overhaul in SP2 and continual patches since.

http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/windowsxpspfs.mspx
Stronger Security Settings

Windows XP SP2 establishes stronger default security settings and updates for Windows XP with new features and tools designed to help customers better defend their systems and information from hackers, viruses and other security threats. This means safer browsing and communications for consumers and an improved security infrastructure for businesses. Enhancements include the following:

•
Windows Firewall (formerly Internet Connection Firewall). With Windows XP SP2, Windows Firewall is enabled by default in the On-With-No-Exceptions Mode, which helps customers guard against network-based attacks by unsolicited inbound traffic. The improved firewall also extends protection to a computer's boot time and shutdown process.
•
Attachment Manager. Windows XP SP2 establishes stronger default protection against viruses spread through Outlook Express, Windows Messenger and Internet Explorer by isolating potentially unsafe attachments during the opening process.
•
Internet Explorer security improvements and stronger security default settings. Windows XP SP2 includes code-level changes in Internet Explorer that help protect against certain types of exploits. For example, it restricts script-initiated windows that are used to fool users by hiding Internet Explorer controls and concealing malicious activity. Windows XP SP2 also limits a hacker's ability to attack a PC by restricting HTML in the local machine zone from running with elevated system privileges; and it warns customers about potentially harmful downloads and helps them block unwanted software.
•
Data execution prevention. Windows XP SP2 reduces the risk of buffer overrun vulnerabilities by helping prevent certain types of malicious code from attacking and overwhelming a computer's memory.
Click to expand...

Certainly it doesn't contain the newest features of Win7, but it isn't swiss cheese either. It isn't exactly news that the People are the biggest difference between a secure and insecure machine these days:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/hfae-pas100909.php

Why do I think the same people spreading the FUD against XP today would have been the same ones arguing it was fine when they were running XP (and when XP security was actually much worse).
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Most of XPs 0-day exploits are covered at this time.
Click to expand...
doublefacepalmg.jpg


A zero-day exploit is, by definition, a previously unknown, unpatched exploit. They can't be stopped by XP or traditional malware scanners until the OS is patched and/or malware definitions are updated. It's possible to attack an unprotected OS like XP with no input from the user.

Vista introduced protection against these exploits with UAC. Software runs in a sandbox and requires the user's permission to gain admin priviliges. This is a massive increase in security that we've desperately needed on Windows for years.
 
Last edited:
Snowdog said:
Most of XPs 0-day exploits are covered at this time.
Click to expand...

You have a source for this right? Yea I didn't think so. Fact is, nobody knows how many unknown exploits are in XP, and most of them are probably exploitable, unlike Vista/7 where almost none of them are.

Also XP security has been continually improved over the years as in the major overhaul in SP2 and continual patches since.
...
Certainly it doesn't contain the newest features of Win7, but it isn't swiss cheese either. It isn't exactly news that the People are the biggest difference between a secure and insecure machine these days:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-10/hfae-pas100909.php
Click to expand...

I have to assume you did not read your link. It is about people choosing weak passwords, but says nothing about where most malware comes from (e.g. "downloaded and clicked trojans" or 0-days) and really has nothing to do with the topic, and shows nothing relevant.

Why do I think the same people spreading the FUD against XP today would have been the same ones arguing against Mac users when they were the source of XP FUD.
Click to expand...

Not one thing I've said is fud. XP is vulnerable to 0 days, Vista and 7 are, for the most part, not. That is a fact, calling it fud just shows you don't understand security. Fud is when you say for instance "most malware is 'download and click' not 0-days" when you have absolutely no source that verifies that, and basically just made it and other things you say, up on the fly, like we will believe anything at all.

As far as Mac OS X vs XP, you neglected conveniently to mention what version of Mac OS X. Mac OS X 10.0 is no more secure than XP (if you add a firewall/router to XP RTM), but current Mac OS X versions are closer to Vista and Win 7. So no it would not make sense to say current mac os x aren't more secure than XP, but back in XP's/OS X 10.0's heyday it did make sense.
 
devil22 said:
You have a source for this right? Yea I didn't think so. Fact is, nobody knows how many unknown exploits are in XP,
Click to expand...

It is a simple fact about the software life cycle. As any software product is tested or used over time, the amount of bugs (what a 0-day exploit is) will start out with a large number in the beginning and as time goes by there will be less and less left to find and they will be harder to find. They follow a fairly predictable decaying curve. After all this time, there will be little left to find and they will be hard to find.

devil22 said:
Not one thing I've said is fud. XP is vulnerable to 0 days, Vista and 7 are, for the most part, not.
Click to expand...

So? After nearly 9 years on the market there are much less vulnerability left to exploit in XP. XP has never been more secure than it is today.

Were you so alarmist about XP years ago when you used it and it was MUCH more vulnerable? Back in 2004, before SP2 you were likely an XP user, and security issues were massively worse. Were you screaming bloody murder? Things for XP today are an order of magnitude better and now you complain?
 
Snowdog said:
XP has never been more secure than it is today.
Click to expand...

IN OTHER NEWS: A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Comparing Windows XP to ITSELF does nothing for evidence of your stance.

EDIT: In all fairness though, I'm on both sides. A large portion of security problems do come from the user, but with the added security benefits of Vista/7 it just becomes tougher for the user to compromise their machine. Malware on Windows XP is free to just run rampant where it damn-well-pleases.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top