XP still faster than 7 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
I stand corrected.

I did the math (2^16 = 65536) and went crazy from there. I probably should of read the specs first... but then again... it's DOS5...
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
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.

Well I didn't see you post any proof either ???? ;)

As you can see @ http://www.xtreeme.no/ I have ripped out the hardware in my mainsystem in order to do some modifications so naturally I will not nbe able to post any benchmarks on a week from that system.
I really don't care to post benchmarks from the shuttle box - which runs a 2,5# 5400 rpm disk :)

But yeah I can post benchmarks when my mainsystem is back up , what will you like to 2see ? My raid0 array @ ~1200MB/s ? :p
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
Well I didn't see you post any proof either ???? ;)

As you can see @ http://www.xtreeme.no/ I have ripped out the hardware in my mainsystem in order to do some modifications so naturally I will not nbe able to post any benchmarks on a week from that system.
I really don't care to post benchmarks from the shuttle box - which runs a 2,5# 5400 rpm disk :)

But yeah I can post benchmarks when my mainsystem is back up , what will you like to 2see ? My raid0 array @ ~1200MB/s ? :p

Noone is going to waste their time installing XP again.... and do it with XP SP3... not SP2...
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
I am not going to waste my time reinstalling 7 on my laptop either....
XP IS faster than 7 (yes I did take down all the updates too) on that one - period.:)
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
Okay... how are you gonna prove your benchmarks?

Also, what are the specs for your laptop?
 

PC_User

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
5,022
And there is more programs "out there" than run on XP than on any other windows version....

This short statement tells us everything we need to know. Stick to your XP and have a nice day ;)
 

Deadjasper

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
2,148
If anyone is interested, I have an AMI 386 MB with a 389DX 33 and, get this, a math co processor and 33mb of ram on board. Believe it or not, this board will actually run Windows XP. Not very fast, but it will run.

Any offers?
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
Yeah... I'm just dreading the SonDa5 fanaticism that is about to come from Main...

Never heard of a single product fanboi in the computer parts world...

Stating you love a brand... okay... wierd, but okay...


but a single product, of a brand? Not just that, but an outdated product?
Not only an outdated product, but one that is already losing support from manufacturers?

Screw it, who cares? If Main likes XP SP3/SP2 or whatever, then let him keep it.

He's probably just jealous that he cannot get windows 7 running fast on his laptop. Too bad, could of asked nicely...
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
If anyone is interested, I have an AMI 386 MB with a 389DX 33 and, get this, a math co processor and 33mb of ram on board. Believe it or not, this board will actually run Windows XP. Not very fast, but it will run.

Any offers?

Any chance you want to jack up the price? I know of one person who jumps after anything with a fancy name, and somehow might relate to calculating math, seperate of a real math processor.
 

Deadjasper

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 28, 2001
Messages
2,148
Any chance you want to jack up the price? I know of one person who jumps after anything with a fancy name, and somehow might relate to calculating math, seperate of a real math processor.

Ha Ha. this MB has a very rich history. I bought it brand new and it wasn't cheap because it was state of the art at the time. after I retired it, I had a client, an attorney who lost his computer to a burglar. He needed a replacement ASAP so I slapped it in a case with a junk HD etc. and loaded Win XP on it. He ended up renting it for 2 years at 50 bucks a month. Whata deal it was for me, lol. So it earned it's keep long ago. The only reason I haven't trashed it is because it has sentimental value.
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
Okay... how are you gonna prove your benchmarks?

Also, what are the specs for your laptop?

Asus G1S (T7500 (core2 @2,2GHz) 4GB -6400 DDR2, WD Scorpio Black Ed. 320GB, 7200RPM
It runs 24/7 overclocked to 2700MHz

Don't you think it is capable running 7 ? - http://www.xtreeme.no/g1s/ :p

This short statement tells us everything we need to know. Stick to your XP and have a nice day ;)

Does it ? you might maybe now that running programs in compability mode very often isn't good for the programs performance ?

As you probably also saw I have 7 on my little Shuttle box installed ? And I will also try 7 on my main rig when it's up running again... If 7 is running better I will stick with it - if not Xp is going back in ;)

So - what I do is to test things - if the previous "thing" was better than the new one I would most certainly stick with the old one.
You see - I use a computer for work - and performance is important for me, a nice looking OS doesn't impress me.
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
Yeah... I'm just dreading the SonDa5 fanaticism that is about to come from Main...

Never heard of a single product fanboi in the computer parts world...

Stating you love a brand... okay... wierd, but okay...


but a single product, of a brand? Not just that, but an outdated product?
Not only an outdated product, but one that is already losing support from manufacturers?

Screw it, who cares? If Main likes XP SP3/SP2 or whatever, then let him keep it.

He's probably just jealous that he cannot get windows 7 running fast on his laptop. Too bad, could of asked nicely...

uhh I got every single windows version up from 3.11 - yes even ME and 32 bitVista <- those two are in the same league) :D ... Vista 64 is a little bit better... :p

I used my Vista 32 as a target when I did shoot in my airgun :D
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,719
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.

Most people actually got performance increases going from 95 ->98 and definitely from ME to 2000/XP.
Here's a benchmark to back it up:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/3096

It's very logical for people to question upgrading to a new OS. Especially if the new OS isn't' necessarily making their lives easier. Windows 7 does bring new features and stability and performance increases over Vista. However, is it really required over XP? I've upgraded from DOS 5 -> Windows Vista. Except for Vista, each upgrade brought tangible features that immediately benefited my user experience. Namely stability, usability, and usually a performance increase. If it wasn't for the lack of Direct X support I probably wouldn't have upgraded to Vista. But how about for someone who doesn't game, or isn't the enthusiast? For someone who has average hardware or below average I really doubt there's a need for them to upgrade, or I doubt there' s a $200 need to do so.

For sanity's sake Windows itself brought a GUI to the table over DOS so the comparison is about as disingenuous as it gets, but what does Windows 7 bring over XP that is as ground breaking as a GUI? To logically think that Windows 7 isn't as needed of an upgrade compared to previous OS which does the core of what's it's suppose to do is quite logical, especially if you are limited in your home IT budget for computer upgrades where new hard drives or more memory might make far more sense.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
uhh I got every single windows version up from 3.11 - yes even ME and 32 bitVista <- those two are in the same league) :D ... Vista 64 is a little bit better... :p

I used my Vista 32 as a target when I did shoot in my airgun :D

This.

Paintball gun left nothing of that disc (2 discs, discarding the useless one :D).
 

Arainach

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
2,353
but what does Windows 7 bring over XP that is as ground breaking as a GUI
A network stack that doesn't suck, security hardening, a true multi-user security model, ASLR, graphics drivers in user-mode to dramatically improve system stability (the only BSODs I ever got on XP were NVIDIA/ATI; they don't crash my system anymore on Vista/7), Bitlocker full-drive encryption, the new Taskbar (much more intutive UI), Aero Snap window management (makes it easy to compare windows side-by-side, something I do a lot), Win+P projector control (I do a lot of presentations), dramatically improved pen/touch support, MUCH better handling of High DPI, Searchable Start Menu, Media Transcoding when streaming to my XBox360, Homegroups for sharing my Media in my home network, DWM (which eliminates Window Tearing), A Monitor Color Calibration Tool, Libraries (which when combined with the Indexing service provide what WinFS was supposed to be), far better Media Center support......

Care for me to continue?
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
Are some of you getting some kind of rebate with M$ by beeing so fangirlish ??
Are you the same girls that halleluja'ed Vista --- which now M$ themselves say should never been released ?

hmmm - maybe M$ says that about Vista to trick over fangirls to 7.... someone here is maybe eating both the bait and the fishing rod - hell yeah even the fisherman :)

Wonder if they even bothered checking if 7 really WAS faster than XP - most probably some here "read somewhere" that 7 was faster and blindly installed it...

I did read "somewhere" that the slow file transfer was fixed in Windows 7... but is it really ?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=no&source=hp&q=slow+file+transfer+in+windows+7&meta=
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
We all know what's coming for this thread, best to run quick before you get caught up in whatever Admin/Mod "Sweeper Team" comes rolling in... ;)

/me ducks and covers... exit stage left...
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
We all know what's coming for this thread, best to run quick before you get caught up in whatever Admin/Mod "Sweeper Team" comes rolling in... ;)

/me ducks and covers... exit stage left...

hehe

Anyway - if you really see what I have been writing it is from my own experience ; for all that I know some of you other guys might have diifferent experiences with YOUR own computers.

have a nice night (yeah its really late here now) ....
 

Langford

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
1,339
Most people actually got performance increases going from 95 ->98 and definitely from ME to 2000/XP.
Here's a benchmark to back it up:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/3096

It's very logical for people to question upgrading to a new OS. Especially if the new OS isn't' necessarily making their lives easier. Windows 7 does bring new features and stability and performance increases over Vista. However, is it really required over XP? I've upgraded from DOS 5 -> Windows Vista. Except for Vista, each upgrade brought tangible features that immediately benefited my user experience. Namely stability, usability, and usually a performance increase. If it wasn't for the lack of Direct X support I probably wouldn't have upgraded to Vista. But how about for someone who doesn't game, or isn't the enthusiast? For someone who has average hardware or below average I really doubt there's a need for them to upgrade, or I doubt there' s a $200 need to do so.

For sanity's sake Windows itself brought a GUI to the table over DOS so the comparison is about as disingenuous as it gets, but what does Windows 7 bring over XP that is as ground breaking as a GUI? To logically think that Windows 7 isn't as needed of an upgrade compared to previous OS which does the core of what's it's suppose to do is quite logical, especially if you are limited in your home IT budget for computer upgrades where new hard drives or more memory might make far more sense.

I can see 95 to 98 being faster IF 95 had IE4 installed beforehand. Otherwise it seems unlikely, because 95 was very slim before IE4 was introduced to it. Naturally 2k was an improvement over ME/98, it was the nice NT kernel.

With the way the consoles are taking almost all of the games, I stick with Linux nowadays. It does everything I want and more, and does it better than anything else. It makes a small computer feel like a big computer, and makes a big computer feel like the gosh darn bat computer. As nice as virtual machines are getting, I plan to let Windows 7 live in one for the rare occasions I may need it. Same with some older versions of windows. Having virtual machines is very liberating.
 

tacosareveryyummy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
5,301
Well I didn't see you post any proof either ???? ;)

As you can see @ http://www.xtreeme.no/ I have ripped out the hardware in my mainsystem in order to do some modifications so naturally I will not nbe able to post any benchmarks on a week from that system.
I really don't care to post benchmarks from the shuttle box - which runs a 2,5# 5400 rpm disk :)

But yeah I can post benchmarks when my mainsystem is back up , what will you like to 2see ? My raid0 array @ ~1200MB/s ? :p

I didn't make any unsubstantiated claims in my post like you did. Go use the search feature if you want to see benchmarks. Some were posted in the news section a few months ago.

I want to see proof of your alleged claims. Enlighten us so we can all revert back to xp and enjoy the speed increase.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,719
A network stack that doesn't suck, security hardening, a true multi-user security model, ASLR, graphics drivers in user-mode to dramatically improve system stability (the only BSODs I ever got on XP were NVIDIA/ATI; they don't crash my system anymore on Vista/7), Bitlocker full-drive encryption, the new Taskbar (much more intutive UI), Aero Snap window management (makes it easy to compare windows side-by-side, something I do a lot), Win+P projector control (I do a lot of presentations), dramatically improved pen/touch support, MUCH better handling of High DPI, Searchable Start Menu, Media Transcoding when streaming to my XBox360, Homegroups for sharing my Media in my home network, DWM (which eliminates Window Tearing), A Monitor Color Calibration Tool, Libraries (which when combined with the Indexing service provide what WinFS was supposed to be), far better Media Center support......

Care for me to continue?

You sound like a walking brochure, but yes please do.

Are we talking about the same network stack that decreases in performance if you are playing sound files, it's been fixed in Vista but when it launched it was no upgrade. In addition, white papers are nice, but if you can't SEE the difference, much less feel it, who cares? Definitely not the average buyer. Are you comparing a new network stack to adding a GUI to an OS?!?! If you actually want to compare the revolution to computing that was brought about by the GUI and mouse control to that of a new network stack so be it, but it's not like the new network stack was implemented because of the absence of one.

The same graphic upgrades that cause the graphic driver to crash? That's the upgrades we are talking about??

Lastly after those "improvements", all of the other features you've listed can be added by 3rd party apps for far less than $200. Some of them for free, like streaming media to the Xbox 360.

To be fair a lot of the problems that existed in Vista have been resolved in Windows 7. However, we are talking about problems that Windows XP users didn't have to begin with so the question still stands for those people.

For me it doesn't matter as I guess you could call me an enthusiast as it's my job to test new software packages and find a good way to implement them into a business setting, but again for other users who are not enthusiasts they are not going to care about new network stacks, or monitor color correction tools.
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,719
I can see 95 to 98 being faster IF 95 had IE4 installed beforehand. Otherwise it seems unlikely, because 95 was very slim before IE4 was introduced to it. Naturally 2k was an improvement over ME/98, it was the nice NT kernel.

With the way the consoles are taking almost all of the games, I stick with Linux nowadays. It does everything I want and more, and does it better than anything else. It makes a small computer feel like a big computer, and makes a big computer feel like the gosh darn bat computer. As nice as virtual machines are getting, I plan to let Windows 7 live in one for the rare occasions I may need it. Same with some older versions of windows. Having virtual machines is very liberating.

Windows 95B or C I think bolted a web browser to the OS. Can't remember, one of them put it in and another removed it because of that web browser fight with Netscape. So I'm pretty sure they would still have seen a performance increase still.

I too am a Linux user so it really doesn't matter too much to me. However, I thought I would add my opinion.The deluge of problems that came from the arrival of Vista really focused a lot of people's attention on the need to upgrade to the latest software when you perform a cost analyst of the what you are getting compared to the cost.
 

SoAndSo

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
Messages
1,215
Then get an Upgrade version?
possibly, but like i said. its still an arseload of money for something i dont actually need

.....what? Win7 has run fine for me on a 1.6Ghz P4 with 1GB of RAM. It would fly on your Sig Rig.
gaming performance. im currently running dx9 which means i can crank up the candiez, i didnt go to vista because i couldnt afford to upgrade to dx10 hardware at the time, now i cant afford to upgrade to dx11 capable hardware. and yes, if i upgraded to w7 i would be running dx11 when i game, and theres no point in just upgrading my video card on my old p35 mobo, so i would want to do a full upgrade, that would include a case and a new 1080p monitor as well. not worth it just for an OS upgrade.


You can back up your Steam Folder. Steam even provides the mechanism.

yes but i dont have the space on any of my other drives, nor do i have an external hard-drive.

look, dont get me wrong, i want to upgrade to w7 but at the moment its simply a cost i cant justify
 

kac77

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
2,719
yes but i dont have the space on any of my other drives, nor do i have an external hard-drive.

look, dont get me wrong, i want to upgrade to w7 but at the moment its simply a cost i cant justify

You make some good points. I totally forgot that in order to really benefit from using a newer video card you need to have a monitor to do so.

It sounds like because of your situation you would be best served to upgrade incrementally. You need a lot of stuff and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm still sitting on my Core7 upgrade as there's other things that take precedence. I always go for hard drive upgrades first, as you can use it as soon as you get it, then mb/processor/memory then video card and monitor. The last upgrade being the OS.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,413
they suddenly became quiet after that M$ themselves stated that Vista never should have been released

Please provide the link to MS site that has them saying this, MS merely wanted to move on from Vista because it got such a bad name, mainly cause of 3rd party crap drives (NVIDIA anyone) and OEM's selling it on rigs with 512mb of ram.,and they could not change that, once people make up their mind, whether they know the truth or not, it is hard to change it, just as you say XP is faster then Win 7, even though many sites have shown otherwise on modern day hardware that Windows 7 over all outperforms XP.

Nothing wrong with Vista as many many people will atest to.

How are you test your disk transfer speeds, did you actually use programs like HDTune or HDtach to get real solid numbers, to me it just seems like you like XP better, so you want i to be faster so when your on 7 you feel likje things are slower, but i am sure if you actually benched things or timed it, you may suprise yourself.

You obviously like XP, stick with it, cant wait till you browse some website that is compromised, and a well known one you may vists and get infected to hell and back cause your using such a buggy OS.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
Please provide the link to MS site that has them saying this, MS merely wanted to move on from Vista because it got such a bad name, mainly cause of 3rd party crap drives (NVIDIA anyone) and OEM's selling it on rigs with 512mb of ram.,and they could not change that, once people make up their mind, whether they know the truth or not, it is hard to change it, just as you say XP is faster then Win 7, even though many sites have shown otherwise on modern day hardware that Windows 7 over all outperforms XP.

Nothing wrong with Vista as many many people will atest to.

How are you test your disk transfer speeds, did you actually use programs like HDTune or HDtach to get real solid numbers, to me it just seems like you like XP better, so you want i to be faster so when your on 7 you feel likje things are slower, but i am sure if you actually benched things or timed it, you may suprise yourself.

You obviously like XP, stick with it, cant wait till you browse some website that is compromised, and a well known one you may vists and get infected to hell and back cause your using such a buggy OS.


Lotta flambois who love to bash, because they don't know about superfetch, nor how much better you can multitask (i.e. Your computer won't "glitch out" when switching between two programs, nor will one slow program waiting for something slow down your entire computer).

I reimaged XP every 2 months (for about 3 years since I got a computer with it installed), because after that, it got the the 'craptastic' level of slow. Vista took too much CPU time for my laptop, while idling (hot exhaust all the time). 7 is allright, as it's managed to survive for 4months... so far? (up until I installed retail last week).

I like 7, mostly because I can squeeze 5 hours of battery life out of my laptop using it. Something Vista/XP have failed to be able to do for me.

But that's just me. It's not applicable to everybody else.
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
Microsoft Openly Admits Vista is Not Good; Vista 7 Likely the Same @ http://boycottnovell.com/2009/09/18/msft-admits-vista-less-good-product/

"Presumably Songhurst was hinting at what analysts, investors, and more importantly, users, have known for quite some time - that Vista is a bloaty, slow, underwhelming operating system which has failed to supplant XP in most organisations" @ http://itsneak.v3.co.uk/2009/09/vista-in-less-g.html

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10303 (probably the same "problem" for 7 ? )

And to you guys that think 7 will run all "xp programs" - Download Windows XP Mode @ http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/download.aspx :p

XP is selling amazingly good even today after minilaptops took off.

XP is easy to configure so it is very safe (gpedit.msc) -som of you guys are probably not aware of that - you need microsoft to do it for you ; and are willing to pay a huge amount of money for it.
Well yes - you get the barbie looks too of course :) , which probably every professional user will hack away at once. We use our pc's mainly as a tool - not only for fun - some of us will do whatever it takes to get that extra performance out of our systems in order to do our work faster and therefore earn more money. Or only be able to stop work a bit before.
I get work with estimated time sent here every week, I usually do 7 hours estimated work in four hours. I have colleagues that use more time than estimated on their work, I have tried to tell them that they need a fast computer and the fastest OS. But hey - these guys are really novices when it comes to the internals in a computer, they just buy a computer. Which we all know comes with Vista Home or Basic - and now it will be replaced with 7..

Maybe 7 WILL be faster on my mainsystem ? - but I really doubt it..... but I am gonna give it a go ;)

Have a nice day - btw; who of you won the "nicest desktop award" last week ? :D
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Some MS guy saying Vista is "less good" is not the same as saying "not good" or "should have never released Vista." This isn't symantics, it's completely opposite definitions for those statements from what was actually said. So will you knock it off already?
 

firas

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 29, 2006
Messages
2,458
If after 50 years, when Windows 30 is released, I won&#8217;t be surprised if someone said &#8220;XP is still faster&#8221; :D it&#8217;s just hard to let go the first OS you used specially with that shiny P4 chip you&#8217;re still using!
 

FoxhoundOp

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Messages
1,129
I'm surprised this thread wasn't closed a long time ago. It's pretty much the textbook definition of flamebait.
 

korpse

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
422
I just wanted to let you guys know that I installed the NES firmware onto my Wii, and it is SOOOO FAST! I beat Super Mario Brothers in 12 seconds! Who needs all the extra features of the Wii software!?!?!
 

Main

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 26, 2009
Messages
135
hmm wonder if these fanboys here also were halleluja'ing Vista ???

But I have had quite some fun - I seem to be the one and only here with personal experience regarding the performance
Fanboys just read that Vista and 7 was better and jumped on the train and filled Bill's pockets even more :)
 

evanisthecoastie

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
4,708
hmm wonder if these fanboys here also were halleluja'ing Vista ???

But I have had quite some fun - I seem to be the one and only here with personal experience regarding the performance
Fanboys just read that Vista and 7 was better and jumped on the train and filled Bill's pockets even more :)

you sound like a child. stop spouting so much bullcrap about xp being amazing.

I waited 2 years to switch to vista from xp, i was like you once. brainwashed. then i finally decided to upgrade to vista after XP's horrific stability issues and problems arising after extended use. I was a fanboy for xp the entire time and ate up all the shit spouted about vista just as you did.

After a week of skeptical use of vista i wished i never waited so long. hands down the most stable OS ive ever used. As i speak now im loading windows 7 onto another computer im building for someone, and it does have a lot of good features.

Would i pay 300 bucks for the ultimate retail version? no.

but i would pay for the upgrade disk. So far ive had to download 1 driver online, all the others have been auto detected and installed for me which is a big plus for me, and other users who are computer illiterate.

and who the fuck still cares about OMG XP IS SO MUCH FASTER THAN VISTA/7/WHATEVER

that is the most worthless drivel someone can spout at someone these days. upgrade/get a new computer. xp is probably one of the most buggy, bsod ridden, security flawed os out right now.

stop being a fanboy and start being a CONSUMER. people forget what that is anymore i swear.
 

vsboxerboy

2[H]4U
Joined
Oct 17, 2005
Messages
3,661
I think the problem is that you don't really have a logical argument or debate points and is more like an eight year old arguing with a sibling. You don't really listen to what people are saying and instead choose to plug your ears: nanana im not a fanboi YOU're a fanboy - no you're a fanGIRL!

I really don't understand what the whole fascination with benchmarks is anyway. I think we can all agree that if there is a speed difference one way or the other, the difference is small enough that user input times will probably be the limiting factor. How much time does your computer sit idle waiting for you to tell it what to do?

Benchmarks are so useless because they don't simulate actual life. Example: opening a program - for the sake of fairness they exclude the amount of time it may take you to find in one os vs the other which is can be many multiples of how long the program took to load! And with advanced indexing and caching functions, it's hardly fair to compare a clean XP and a clean (vs prefetched, etc.) 7 install - but this is getting biased.

Anyway, use whatever operating system which gives you the greatest user experience - which is personal and varies (linux, mac, windows, as well as sub flavors) because unless the computer speed is the limiting factor for work which you are getting paid to do, you've wasted more time arguing here than the difference in OS speeds could possibly ever equate to.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,413
Some MS guy saying Vista is "less good" is not the same as saying "not good" or "should have never released Vista." This isn't symantics, it's completely opposite definitions for those statements from what was actually said. So will you knock it off already?

My thoughts exactly, the site taking things out of context, thus agin, show me a link to an MS site that states MS says what you claim they say and seem to mention in every other post as your defense as to why Vista was no good.

also that sites keeps calling Windows 7, Vista 7.. they cant even get the name right.

And with advanced indexing and caching functions, it's hardly fair to compare a clean XP and a clean (vs prefetched, etc.) 7 install - but this is getting biased.

it is completly fair, as to show that the aging XP is in fact slower in many instances, hence the benefits of the new OS's that come out and things like superfetch and better memory management that make the new OS better in so many ways, especially over time as the OS learns your usage patterns.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top