XP still faster than 7 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Haha, the TC is an obvious troll.

If he wants to stick with his archaic barebones OS that will see its support slowly slip away from it, so be it. XP is so ridiculously bad compared to Vista and 7......I can't stand using XP anymore. That was the primary reason I got a mac! Vista & 7 got me using my PC again. XP's only place anymore is for companies who have software that will not work on Vista/7. Any regular user is doing themselves a disservice by sticking to it.

And yes I am "hallelujah-ing" Vista despite what some fool at micro-dollar-oft said.
 
nobody_here said:
i still cant believe people are willing to overlook all the bugs and inefficiencies of XP
Click to expand...

Thank you. XP is only "fast" because the OS is incredibly dumb; it does nothing for you. It scares me that ANYONE is willing to put a fresh install of a 9-year-old OS on their computers *shudder*
 
I think we found somebody who fell for the "I'm a Mac" ads.
When your metric for how much faster XP is than Vista/7 is based on your co-workers taking longer to complete their tasks (and admitted by you as noobs) than it takes you plus a bunch of FUD blogs, you're not going to convice ANYBODY. Back up your claims with some bona-fide benchmarks (and don't pull the usual XP fanboi crap of hand picking benchmarks from 3 years ago).

Continue to run XP. Nobody cares. You are not your OS. In the mean time, I'll be enjoying a nicer, more efficient, MUCH more stable OS.

Thank you for the morning laughs, and have a pleasant day.
 
I think it is extremely funny how Main states a question then just fights everyone. Even when he created the thread which gives you reason that he would give back up information when trying to prove a point. Instead he just calls everyone fan boys or girls(insulting people trying to help you?). I think it is pretty funny how he is just picking fights with everyone that wants to prove him wrong. Yes they dont know everything about windows 7. But you don't even care you just want to come in here and fight with everyone. It is also humorous how your posts have a lot of broken grammar and just opinions.
 
Last edited:
ServicePack 1 to 7 is on it's way... the beta is expected in january

That didn't take long.... :D
 
Tawnos said:
The way "Main" writes and the links he uses makes me think he's the infamous "twitter" from slashdot.

For those interested in the supposed "XP is faster at copying," there's a great analysis of the situation here: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/02/04/2826167.aspx

Not sure what other inquiries or claims he made, but at least I can give a fully comprehensive technical answer to one question.
Click to expand...

thank you - your links is much more thrustworthy than mine ;)
 
Main said:
Fanboys just read that Vista and 7 was better and jumped on the train and filled Bill's pockets even more :)
Click to expand...

Your attempt at making a point == fail.

You do know that probably 90% of us here get all of our Microsoft stuff for free? Or at least at no cost to our personal pockets..just that of the employer. It's called MSDN and TechNet and Microsoft Action Pack and stuff like that. ;)

Uh...yup.

So we're going to use what's best and what makes us happiest. If it's not what works best, we'll just reach into that giant stack of CDs and licenses that didn't cost our pockets a dime and install what does work best.

It's not like we have to defend what we're running because we feel the need to justify the cost of 300 bucks or whatever.
 
Main said:
thank you - your links is much more thrustworthy than mine ;)
Click to expand...

And if you weren't a moron you'd read it and realize the "slower copy" was in dialog dismissal:
Perhaps the biggest drawback of the algorithm, and the one that has caused many Vista users to complain, is that for copies involving a large group of files between 256KB and tens of MB in size, the perceived performance of the copy can be significantly worse than on Windows XP. That’s because the previous algorithm’s use of cached file I/O lets Explorer finish writing destination files to memory and dismiss the copy dialog long before the Cache Manager’s write-behind thread has actually committed the data to disk; with Vista’s non-cached implementation, Explorer is forced to wait for each write operation to complete before issuing more, and ultimately for all copied data to be on disk before indicating a copy’s completion
Click to expand...
That means, even with the SP1 changes (which I believe continue to hold true through win7), Vista doesn't dismiss the file copy dialog until the file copies actually finish. In contrast, XP will close it as soon as the read thread completes, making it appear to complete quicker.

That is on top of the fact the new algorithm behaves much better under a wider variety of circumstances, reducing the memory paging and subsequent thrashing that XP's copy engine had.
 
the more I use win7 and osx compared to xp, the more I'm convinced that I don't prefer any of them over the other.
 
Tawnos said:
That is on top of the fact the new algorithm behaves much better under a wider variety of circumstances, reducing the memory paging and subsequent thrashing that XP's copy engine had.
Click to expand...

That is bull fucin* shi*...........

You can take that algoritm and wipe your a** with it - furthermore I am pretty sure you don't even know what speed and efficency is. 7 did NOT and probably will not - ever beat the performance in XP

Why ? - well n00bs have to be protected from themselves - and that protection costs performance - a LOT of performance that is

I am gonna look into 7 - when I got time ; and I am pretty sure that I will be able to squeeze a lot more performance out of it.
But then I probably will be back on XP's security level ;)

Hey - don't take it personal ??? hehe ;)
 
militarytrolling.jpg
 
YeOldeStonecat said:
You do know that probably 90% of us here get all of our Microsoft stuff for free? Or at least at no cost to our personal pockets..just that of the employer. It's called MSDN and TechNet and Microsoft Action Pack and stuff like that.
Click to expand...

I know... and 98% of you are dumb asses that install infected warez - usenet is F U L L of that shit.

I get phonecalls every firkin single day from people that has fucked up their pc after installing infected programs :D
 
Main said:
That is bull fucin* shi*...........

You can take that algoritm and wipe your a** with it - furthermore I am pretty sure you don't even know what speed and efficency is. 7 did NOT and probably will not - ever beat the performance in XP

Why ? - well n00bs have to be protected from themselves - and that protection costs performance - a LOT of performance that is

I am gonna look into 7 - when I got time ; and I am pretty sure that I will be able to squeeze a lot more performance out of it.
But then I probably will be back on XP's security level ;)

Hey - don't take it personal ??? hehe ;)
Click to expand...

and with that, I'm done with you. Good day, sir.
 
Main said:
That is bull fucin* shi*...........

You can take that algoritm and wipe your a** with it - furthermore I am pretty sure you don't even know what speed and efficency is. 7 did NOT and probably will not - ever beat the performance in XP

Why ? - well n00bs have to be protected from themselves - and that protection costs performance - a LOT of performance that is

I am gonna look into 7 - when I got time ; and I am pretty sure that I will be able to squeeze a lot more performance out of it.
But then I probably will be back on XP's security level ;)

Hey - don't take it personal ??? hehe ;)
Click to expand...

Boom HEADSHOT!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top