New Google phones UK release date | Pixel XL price, new features, specifications: Pixel X and…
PcMark05 benchmarks run on my dual-boot (XP Pro SP3/ 7 Beta both 32bit) Dell Inspiron 9400 , T7200 2GhZ , 2GB RAM, GeForce Go 7900 GS give
5052 marks on XP, 4661 on Windows 7, XP performing better in all tests.
In the 'real' world ripping a DVD using AutoGK took
2 hours 8 mins in XP , 2 hours 28 mins in Windows 7.
ie audio & video encoding, not just copying a DVD ;-)
Not being funny here but I don't think Windows 7 was ever said to be faster than XP, from what I have heard on the subject they seem to be saying its faster and uses less resources than Vista not XP.
I think if you want to compare it to anything you should really compare it to Vista. I would be very surprised if it was faster than XP.
Always willing to be corrected by someone that knows better!
MS try and force the dreadful bloated Vista on everybody and when it bombs, instead of producing a fast rewritten OS with genuine improvements over XP, it produces a service pack called Windows 7.
Why would anyone, especially companies, go to great expense to buy an OS that apart from some cosmetic improvements is inferior to XP?
Would you buy a car that was slower, bulkier and harder to drive, just because the paint was shinier?
I'm the wrong person to comment on this as I don't like Vista, I have a new faster PC now and Vista would run on it like a dream if I installed it on the PC I have now, but on my old PC it was considerably slower than XP and I had some problems and had to revert to XP.
Now all that said MS do seem to be trying to improve Vista, you could argue that VW have done the same with the Golf as the MK 1 golf is faster than all the ones that have come thereafter but even though I personally do not like it I do not think that the work they did with Vista was merely cosmetic. They were trying to create a more stable system that was more secure so I feel your comment is slightly unfair.
As to whether they have actually achieved a more stable more secure system, this I personally have no real opinion about as I did not use it for long enough to feel qualified to comment but it is considerably bulkier than XP and since my XP PC runs blisteringly fast, and is stable as a rock and since theres no program I really want or need that runs on Vista only(so far at least) I see no reason to get Vista.
The differences between Vista and XP are not just cosmetic. Personally I don't think its an improvement but many people do not agree with my point of view. Everyone is entitled to their opinion of course. Ask me in say 3 years and perhaps then I will have had to change my OS and will be saying how wonderful it is but at the moment XP does me fine.
Not seeking any sort of arguement hawthorn123 but thats my opinion. I like XP and will stick with it as long as I can but I will eventually have to move to Vista or its replacement and anything they do to speed it up has to be better for me in the future. Remember when XP came out many people found that their old Win 98 PC crawled as the hardware was not up to it and to a certain degree Vista is the same. Its not just cosmetic differences between XP and Vista, I don't think its worth the perforamnce hit but thats me. I agree with much you say but not all.
At least you are consistent, all your posts/threads are determined to rubbish anything other than XP. Take a break , you might enjoy it.
anything other than XP', I'm simply stating what I observe - as I work each day building, repairing and testing systems for my clients.
I would love to say that Windows 7 is fast , secure, intuitive and contains genuine improvements over XP - I wish it would have a 'must have' feature or two - instead when asked by clients why they should buy it, I shall say to Vista users, 'because it is faster and easier to use' and to XP users, 'because you'll soon have to, because the new laptop you want doesn't have XP drivers available'.
"I would love to say that Windows 7 is fast , secure, intuitive and contains genuine improvements over XP - I wish it would have a 'must have' feature or two"
But you cant because it doesnt ! I know exactly what you meant , and because 7 is not much more than a Vista service pack its of no surprise most people who loved XP wont be upgrading to either if they can avoid it. I had a pc built for me about 10 months ago with a Fast Quad processor and 4 GB RAM . 2 8800GTX's and the first thing i demanded was its ability to run XP. I had used Vista for 5 months previously abroad in my work, and i didnt want the second rate O.S anywhere near my home computer. I have used Windows since 3.1 and apart from Millenium Edition i have never been so disappointed.
hawthorn123, if you havent already take a look at this:
I guess we already knew this but....
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.