XP still faster than 7 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
hmm - installed win7 64 on my laptop - Asus G1S (T7500/4GB ram) ; put in a similar disk that I have XP Pro installed on - WD Scorpio Black Edition 320GB, 7200RPM

I have a huge moviecollection - and use Collectorz Movie Collector - it loads painfully slow compared on the XP platform.
Likewise - filetransfer to my 2.5" USB disk is much slower on 7 than on xp
Burning the same iso takes near 30 seconds longer in 7 - with the same edition of Nero

And honestly - win7 looks like a ladyshaver... think i put in the xp disk again - for now... :rolleyes:
 

nobody_here

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
8,878
i still cant believe people are willing to overlook all the bugs and inefficiencies of XP, i ran it forever myself, it was good, but 7 once you give it a chance (same with Vista) are much better all around
 

GushpinBob

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
2,721
HAY GUIS1 I BOGHT THIS LABTOP THE OTHER DAY AND IT CAME W/ THIS WINDOWS SHIT ON IT. FUCK IT WAS SOOOO SLOW SO I FORMATTED IT AND PUT DOS 5.0 ON THEIR. NOW MY PC SCREAAAAAMMMSS. F THAT SLOW PILE OF SHIT WINDOWS DOS FOR LYFE!!!!1111
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Just about all the web benchmarks I've seen show Win 7 is faster than Vista, and Vista is faster than XP. Anyways, speed is hardly everything, or we'd all be using DOS (like gushpinbob said.) Vista and 7 are much more secure, offer much better 64-bit support, have dx10/dx11, gpu accelerated gui, and a ton of other stuff. Choice is yours, though.
 

SlowCobra

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
501
Some people are just so brainwashed that honestly they should just switch to Linux or a Mac. Xp had its place, 5 years ago. For anyone that still complains about Vista and Win 7, it must be a PEBKAC or an ID10T error. Use the proper hardware along with common sense and there are generally minimal issues.
 

JimmiG

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2008
Messages
2,429
File transfers and applications should not be slower, though. Maybe check if the proper SATA and chipset drivers are installed?

But yeah, of course WinXP is leaner since it's so ancient. My bare installation of XP (in a virtual machine) uses 52MB of RAM after a clean boot and the Windows folder is 460MB. The whole machine only has 128MB of RAM allocated to it, since it's almost always running in the background - yet it works fine. In fact my first computer I used XP on only had 128MB of RAM. Have you tried installing Windows 7 on a system with a 500 Mhz CPU and 128MB of RAM? Those specs were common for Win98 users upgrading to XP when it came out.
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
I can only say what i see in real life, my laptop even came with Vista - and it was dead slow. Hell - even Microsoft have admitted - more or less - that Vista was a flop.
So I did "downgrade" my laptop to XP pro - and experienced a much faster laptop.

I have never had any "security issues" with XP - ever, I have even turned of the firewall and the security center. I have a pfsense router which includes m0n0wall.
Nor do I use a antivirus program in my stationary computers - I do randomly run scans with Nod and SuperAntiSpyware. But they never find any comprimising apart from "tracking cookies".
And yes - I do have Acronis mirrors of all my computers ; only needed a couple of times when I have blown the raidarray in my main computer.

On my laptop I do have both NOD and SuperAntiSpyware installed of course.

To the idiot comment - "run DOS" - I like Windows because it is easy to use, and a lot of programs. I haven't seen photoshop for DOS yet... Photoshop is a program I use a lot. And there is more programs "out there" than run on XP than on any other windows version....

I am not specially a fan of Vistas and Windows7's "barbie look" either, would probably configure them so them so they did look like windows xp - with the classic startmenu.
I do belive that the latter is near impossible in 7 tho after what I have been reading.

My computers are very up to date - especially my main computer (see signature) ; my guest computer is so so - Shuttle with atom 270 :)
I have decided to give that a go with windows 7 too - Will be back later with my experience on the Shuttle

Note: Latest chipsetdriver, matrix and graphics are installed....
 

FoxhoundOp

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Messages
1,129
I like how you refer to Vista and 7 as having a "barbie look" and comparing them to a feminine shaver yet you think THIS looks okay.

9cmc3ahd5pypvw6mi1g6.png


You should just stick to XP as it sounds like that's what you're happy with. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are NOT Windows XP so don't expect them to be.
 

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
19,026
File transfers from disk to disk and to usb is much much faster on my Win7 system than XP.
Win7 runs better on my Dell Mini9 than XP, which really surprised me.
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
The classic start menu is so bad, why do old people always want to use it?

What amazes me is actually hunting and clicking for stuff anymore. With Windows 7, I press the Windows key and type a few letters, wham... there it is, whatever I happened to be looking for.

People just can't stand change...
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
File transfers from disk to disk and to usb is much much faster on my Win7 system than XP.
Win7 runs better on my Dell Mini9 than XP, which really surprised me.

You did probably something wrong in XP then since I now can verify that on two installs on different systems find disktransfer considerably slower. Microsoft stated that they had sorted out the distransfer problem - but I don't think that is a fact...


What amazes me is actually hunting and clicking for stuff anymore. With Windows 7, I press the Windows key and type a few letters, wham... there it is, whatever I happened to be looking for.

People just can't stand change...

You get that in XP too, it's called Windows Search, but then again disk indexing needs to be running - and indexing is a HUGE performance killer... so I don't use it :)

I have always been wondering why people buy good hardware - more ram etc. for thereafter configure Windows to eat that extra performancegain ????
You find them everywhere - asking why their performance suck vs. others that have tweaked their OS

I like how you refer to Vista and 7 as having a "barbie look" and comparing them to a feminine shaver yet you think THIS looks okay.

UGLY IMAGE REMOVED :D

You should just stick to XP as it sounds like that's what you're happy with. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are NOT Windows XP so don't expect them to be.

I didn't go from Win98SE either before Microsoft came with SP1 which sorted out numerous problems in XP, SP 2 even more - SP3 for XP is a fuckin' performance killer so I didn't install that.

Will probably wait to install 7 on my maincomputer until they sorted out the problems that starts to emerge in 7 now. Since I have to use a Vista driver for my areca raid controller it even can be a driverproblem for all I know ?
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
It doesn't work the same in XP even when the drive(s) is/are fully indexed, it's simply not the same thing, seriously.

But I'm not going to go there... run whatever the hell you want. People, benchmarks, websites, reviews, etc - on a monster machine such as the primary one you have listed in your signature, if you're still running XP, so be it. If that's what you like, so be it. Run it till the end of time for all most of us care.

But when you start a thread asking if an older OS is "still faster" than a newer one, and people/benchmarks/websites/reviews all say it's not, and you dismiss those comments outright, well... there's a name for people that do such things online.

I'll leave that for you to figure out.
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
:D
It doesn't work the same in XP even when the drive(s) is/are fully indexed, it's simply not the same thing, seriously.

But I'm not going to go there... run whatever the hell you want. People, benchmarks, websites, reviews, etc - on a monster machine such as the primary one you have listed in your signature, if you're still running XP, so be it. If that's what you like, so be it. Run it till the end of time for all most of us care.

But when you start a thread asking if an older OS is "still faster" than a newer one, and people/benchmarks/websites/reviews all say it's not, and you dismiss those comments outright, well... there's a name for people that do such things online.

I'll leave that for you to figure out.

There is probably just as many sites that says the opposite - and honestly I don't care - my personal experience counts a lot more than others....

But - I have now slooooow 7 in my Shuttle box, I guess 7 will be ok after numerous updates - just as XP got good...

And I guess you and me have totally different ideas when it comes to performance :D
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
I didn't go from Win98SE either before Microsoft came with SP1 which sorted out numerous problems in XP, SP 2 even more - SP3 for XP is a fuckin' performance killer so I didn't install that.

This. Annoying as heck, but... hey... it fixes something, right?
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
:D

There is probably just as many sites that says the opposite - and honestly I don't care - my personal experience counts a lot more than others....

But - I have now slooooow 7 in my Shuttle box, I guess 7 will be ok after numerous updates - just as XP got good...

And I guess you and me have totally different ideas when it comes to performance :D

Then we can consider this travesty closed... excellent.

NEXT!!!
 

SoAndSo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
1,215
I am still running XP on my sig rig. I will continue to run it for as long as possible for the following reasons
  • I cant afford to upgrade to w7. for w7 pro OEM i am looking at at least $250. I cant justify spending that money on something that i really dont need.

  • If i upgrade to w7 then I will have to upgrade my hardware to at least i5/4890. I cannot afford to do so (plus the wife would tenderize my testicles with a mallet)

  • learning curve - i have zero experience with vista and I dont know if i can be bothered learning the tricks and nuances of a new OS

  • If i have to format then I will lose all my games. I have all my games on a seperate drive nut i have never had any luck getting them to work after a format on XP, let alone a new OS. Plus the caps here in New Zealand are pathetic (im on 40gb a month and it costs me $70) and I have tonnes of steam games i play constantly.

I know i will upgrade to w7, i just think it will be more of a forced upgrade than a willing one. I will probably do it when I next have to format my c drive
 

Arainach

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
2,353
I cant afford to upgrade to w7. for w7 pro OEM i am looking at at least $250. I cant justify spending that money on something that i really dont need.
Then get an Upgrade version?
If i upgrade to w7 then I will have to upgrade my hardware to at least i5/4890
.....what? Win7 has run fine for me on a 1.6Ghz P4 with 1GB of RAM. It would fly on your Sig Rig.
If i have to format then I will lose all my games. I have all my games on a seperate drive nut i have never had any luck getting them to work after a format on XP, let alone a new OS. Plus the caps here in New Zealand are pathetic (im on 40gb a month and it costs me $70) and I have tonnes of steam games i play constantly.
You can back up your Steam Folder. Steam even provides the mechanism.
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
SoAndSo posted legitimate reasons for not upgrading, no reason to hound him about it. But with hardware like the OP has, and worrying about a few frames per second (with Windows 7 being faster, even), that's just... well... we all know what it is.
 

RubbingAlcoholic

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 5, 2009
Messages
455
Windows 3.1 is faster than XP.

DOS is faster than Windows 3.1.

Wow I'm going to reformat and install DOS I will have a much better computer experience. kthx
 

legcramp

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
11,945
  • If i have to format then I will lose all my games. I have all my games on a seperate drive nut i have never had any luck getting them to work after a format on XP, let alone a new OS. Plus the caps here in New Zealand are pathetic (im on 40gb a month and it costs me $70) and I have tonnes of steam games i play constantly.

Back up your steam files... there's even an option for that...
 

jimnms

Gawd
Joined
Mar 15, 2003
Messages
882
Windows 3.1 is faster than XP.

Actually it's not, I tried it a while back when I was cleaning and found my old DOS 6.22 and WFW 3.11 install disks. I have an old system that has a floppy drive and I found a guide somewhere on putting them on a bootable CD. I managed to get DOS and Win 3.11 installed, but without driver support for modern hardware, you're stuck running at 640x480 in 8-bit color.
 

number69

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2003
Messages
1,646
I'm gonna hop to Windows 7 sometime soon. XP still runs great but i'm bored of it, I know not the best reason to switch but I tried Windows 7 in a VM for many months and I liked it.
 

braamer

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 28, 2004
Messages
1,597
I run Windows 7 on my son's piddly little Asus 900HA with 1GB of RAM and it runs fine. I hung onto XP until late last year, but I'm now running Windows 7 on everything because it is just better.
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
Theres no TRIM support in xp, so no xp is not faster than 7.

I dont have ssd in my shuttle.... and in my mainsystem I do run a areca 1680ix controller with the ssd's attached to it - so trim support isn't a question there either ;)


What I do find kind of strange is that some people seems to take itr personal wheter a guy finds out on his own that a operating system slows down his system ?

A while ago we saw the Vista fanboys shouting that Vista was far better than XP ever had been - they suddenly became quiet after that M$ themselves stated that Vista never should have been released :rolleyes:

Now that M$ AGAIN is using exactly the same marketing hype they always have used when they release a new OS - we do see 7'ish fanboys coming out of the shadows...
We even saw this when ME was released !!
Do some searching on the wayback machine - and you will have a good laugh :D
 

jonneymendoza

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
6,373
What amazes me is actually hunting and clicking for stuff anymore. With Windows 7, I press the Windows key and type a few letters, wham... there it is, whatever I happened to be looking for.

People just can't stand change...

+1.
 

tacosareveryyummy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,301
I dont have ssd in my shuttle.... and in my mainsystem I do run a areca 1680ix controller with the ssd's attached to it - so trim support isn't a question there either ;)


What I do find kind of strange is that some people seems to take itr personal wheter a guy finds out on his own that a operating system slows down his system ?

A while ago we saw the Vista fanboys shouting that Vista was far better than XP ever had been - they suddenly became quiet after that M$ themselves stated that Vista never should have been released :rolleyes:

Now that M$ AGAIN is using exactly the same marketing hype they always have used when they release a new OS - we do see 7'ish fanboys coming out of the shadows...
We even saw this when ME was released !!
Do some searching on the wayback machine - and you will have a good laugh :D

Whatever dude. You need to post benchmarks to backup your claims. Without them your just going to be dismissed as an XP fanboy who doesn't want to move on with the rest of the tech world.

Don't come here and post garbage that you can't support. The fact of the matter is that current benchmarks show that Win7 is the faster OS.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
I dont have ssd in my shuttle.... and in my mainsystem I do run a areca 1680ix controller with the ssd's attached to it - so trim support isn't a question there either ;)


What I do find kind of strange is that some people seems to take itr personal wheter a guy finds out on his own that a operating system slows down his system ?

A while ago we saw the Vista fanboys shouting that Vista was far better than XP ever had been - they suddenly became quiet after that M$ themselves stated that Vista never should have been released :rolleyes:

Now that M$ AGAIN is using exactly the same marketing hype they always have used when they release a new OS - we do see 7'ish fanboys coming out of the shadows...
We even saw this when ME was released !!
Do some searching on the wayback machine - and you will have a good laugh :D


Wow... We have just found the first XP fanboi on this forum :eek: (post 7, of course).
 

Deadjasper

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
2,148
When it comes to OS's, I'm the worlds worst critic. I moved to Vista then back to XP twice before finally sticking with Vista. I moved from Vista to Win 7 and haven't looked back. Ms really did fix many problems. Some remain but all in all, Win 7 is a worthwhile upgrade.
 

Langford

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
1,339
WinXP rightfully should be faster than Win7, and Win2k should be faster than WinXP, and WinNT4 should be faster than Win2k, and DOS5 should be faster than them all. It would be pure fanboyism to pretend differently. Not going to get much use from 8 gigs of ram or USB3 or blueray in DOS, or much use of them even in Windows XP for that matter. That is of course if you care about those things. There may come a time when Windows 7 is needed to run some killer app or game, and that's when the choice will become obvious. Any OS can be secured, and any OS can be made productive, but you still have to consider what software you actually intend to run and what hardware you intend to run it on. Windows NT4 was probably the best Windows yet, and many people would still like to run it, but it's simply no longer practical to hang onto. Someday XP will be in that same boat, popular but no longer practical. Most people won't be bothered by a move to Windows 7, and most people won't really feel any special need to move to Windows 7, at least not for a long while.
 

villain71

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2006
Messages
230
Win 7 rocks but sadly even with the xp backwards compatible mode there are a few programs that will just not run properly on Windows 7 period.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
WinXP rightfully should be faster than Win7, and Win2k should be faster than WinXP, and WinNT4 should be faster than Win2k, and DOS5 should be faster than them all. It would be pure fanboyism to pretend differently. Not going to get much use from 8 gigs of ram or USB3 or blueray in DOS, or much use of them even in Windows XP for that matter. That is of course if you care about those things. There may come a time when Windows 7 is needed to run some killer app or game, and that's when the choice will become obvious. Any OS can be secured, and any OS can be made productive, but you still have to consider what software you actually intend to run and what hardware you intend to run it on. Windows NT4 was probably the best Windows yet, and many people would still like to run it, but it's simply no longer practical to hang onto. Someday XP will be in that same boat, popular but no longer practical. Most people won't be bothered by a move to Windows 7, and most people won't really feel any special need to move to Windows 7, at least not for a long while.
Of course, DOS5, that 16bit OS, is limited to about 65K of ram...
 

Grentz

Fully [H]
Joined
May 5, 2006
Messages
17,207
Win 7 rocks but sadly even with the xp backwards compatible mode there are a few programs that will just not run properly on Windows 7 period.

Like what? I am curious because XP mode is just XP. Every regular program that ran in XP should run in XP Mode.
 

Langford

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
1,339
Of course, DOS5, that 16bit OS, is limited to about 65K of ram...
It will see a megabyte out of the box, and can make use of 4GB with HIMEM.SYS loaded. Why anyone would need 4GB of ram with DOS I couldn't say, I guess they could run a really nice ramdisk. Not really the point anyhow, LOL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top