XP Faster then Win 7 which is faster then Vista?

Oh man! Ad-blocking software has been detected! :'(

This website is run by the community, for the community... and it needs advertisements in order to keep running. Blocking our ads means your killing our stats!
Please disable your ad-block, or become a premium member to hide all advertisements and this notice.

Info world have produced some interesting multicore based bench marks which shows XP is faster the Windows 7 and Vista.

The full suite of bench marks is Here and has some surprising results.

 

Your right, however I posted the article because it found the opposite to most of the other ones I have seen, as such I thought it might promote some discussion.

 

oh god
who cares if XP is faster? it does a ton less, its an 8 year old OS

News flash!
Windows 98 was faster than XP
a **** load faster!

that was only three years out of date!


Every tech in my office is now on Win7 on our production platforms
we have everything from the laptop webcams to fingerprint scanners working with no issues, this **** rocks, boot up is <25s for me TO THE DESKTOP (Fingerpring scanner software built into windows is SO MUCH FASTER than the crap HP Software)


Playing Pong on a Quad core with 8GB of RAM will probably be quicker than playing crysis, that does not mean much though does it?

 

I have installed the Windows 7 on my VirtualBox. And I am impressed with it. The hardware is the same as for my XP host.
CPU- Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 2.66GHz
RAM- 2GB ( 1GB for the Windows 7 as guest)
Windows 7 is as fast as my XP. But that is after just fresh install with some basics programs.
Explorer 8 is so much crap.
So I've installed Mozilla Minefield- crazy fast compare to explorer.
I've installed as well AVG antivirus version for Vista but works fine.
Compare to Vista there is much improvement with speed. I do not now yet all functions ( I even do not now all about XP and Vista) but look likes not bad.
Respond well. Networking works fine. I like that I can decide what I want on sidebar.
GUI enough easy for unexperienced user. Most of my non IT friends had problem with Vista configuration.
Generally good but I am not experienced enough to judge it from professional side.
For me it is ok.

 

NT 3.51 worked just fine if i was forced back in time i would be happy with it

Thing i like about XP over 7 and vista is its layout , i think its far more user friendly and it isnt so clutered
One thing i didnt like about Vista is MS seem to have gone into start menu overload mode. It may sound silly but in vista you have to read whats on the screen more... LOL

 

If speed was reallt an issue i would use 3.1 now that really would fly.

It wasnt just a "oh my god XP is better" thread I thought the article and the tests were interesting hence posting it up. I am also impressed with what I have used of windows 7 so far and it is indeed a step in the right direction. However I dont think that it will make sp the the clusterfook that was Vista.

 

Xp still faster than Vista so it doesn't matter how old it is. I think the op was just pointing to what he had seen in the acrticle so there's not really any need to flame him for posting the thread.

I actually think it's important wether it's faster and more stable than xp what would be the point in it if it wasn't?

 

98 is faster than XP... and is pretty darn stable. Want to switch to it? Got a 98 key right here I'll trade you for your Vista key...

 

I wouldn't touch either at the moment, XP still does me fine.

 

This is a rather contrived argument, 98 was based on the old 16bit kernel much of which had a global thread lock only allowing one thread to enter the kernel.

Windows 2000 and XP both benefit from the NT kernel, going from Vista to 98 means skipping multiple OS releases going to a completely different kernel.

Win 98 should perform very poorly on modern multicore hardware. In fact I even remember a friends PC crashing because his processor was too fast, he had to upgrade to Win 95 OSR2 from Win 95 to avoid a software timing loop in the OS, how lame is that ? The fact that certain Windows OS versions were particularly lame does not mean that the new release is anything special.

Some people like to have products with hundreds of features, others prefer the core features to be implemented well. For an OS I'd say performance and stability are pretty critical, much more so than say a nice pretty UI.

Vista Ultimate was sold as a premium product with added extras, not seen any added extras myself, paid through the nose, now the extras are being called 'Windows 7', looks like MS have mastered the bait and switch.

Vista seems very slow on my laptop, its a DELL M1710 with 4GB RAM, has some funny quirks too, tray icons come and go, nobody seems to undestand why. Sure the desktop loads fast, a real test would be boot to first web page as the machine is not ready to use until 2 minutes after the desktop shows, smoke and mirrors trick to make it look faster, other OS's don't seem to suffer this problem.

If windows users stare at a blue circle / hour glass for 1 hour a day how many wasted man hours is that worldwide ? I would argue that substandard OS's from MS have wasted millions of man hours worldwide for last 15 years. Steve jobs famously demanded that the boot time on the Apple II be reduced to reduce users wait time, its a pity the quality demands of MS are not so high.

 

I've been trying Vista SP2(codename: Win 7) for a week now in my HP nx7300(Celeron M 1.76, and 3GB ram) seems to be pritty good compared to Vista SP1 on the same rig

 

Well I've got Vista SP1, I'm not handing over more dosh for Vista SP2/Win 7.

Sure theres a Win 7 beta around but :-

"It can be glitchy-so don't use a PC you need every day."

I need my PC to work better not worse !

"The Windows 7 Beta will stop working on August 1, 2009."

I'll then need to revert to Vista SP1...

These days I actually like to use my computer to actually do work, playing lets reinstall windows does not help me get work done...

On a side note their new download manager does not seem to support restart, which on 1GB+ downloads seems pretty insane. (Yes I know its a Java Applet and its by Akamai but they still chose it.)

 

I just chucked it on to see how it got on with a low spec laptop and it does pritty well but in about a week I will pop my ubuntu/winxp combo back on.

 

Plenty of power users don't use start bar or icons to launch apps anymore, we use app launchers, try Launchy

most non power users should be forced to read more

 

The other is a contrived argument as well. That's the point.

I guess before we had computers, we had absolutely zero productivity, eh?

Hey, nobody forces you to use Microsoft products. If you don't like it, don't use it.

 

I think you are misquoting me so I shall try to explain.

Yes, but as I pointed out going back one version on a similar kernel is a big difference to going back multiple versions to a radically different kernel. So in my opinion your argument is weaker. I agree with many that holding off on Vista in favour of XP is not a bad idea, whole corporations have also held this stance.

Your job as an IT professional is to objectively evaluate the options, not to jump onto every MS bandwagon going.

Well theres different types of productivity, but every little counts, Scott Hanselman even has a nice online video with all his tips and how every second counts. Waiting for a realtime virus scanner half the day or waiting for windows explorer context menus to pick up a folders contents is not time well spent. Generally in the past each new tech was considered a step forward at least in productivity. Thats what the industrial revolution and mechanisation was all about. There were operating systems around in the 1980's that multitasked then better than windows does today and they did it with a few KB not GB !

I'm a professional programmer I follow the market, if 90% of consumers use an OS I have to program for it, windows is not all bad but its not all good either.

 

Quote of the week