It's free to register, to post a question or to start / join a discussion
Windows 7 slower than XP Pro..
Likes # 0
Posted January 20, 2009 at 1:55PM
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.
Likes # 0
Posted December 13, 2010 at 6:26PM
I am over 70, have used windows since DOS days. Jumped from XPPro to W7 64 bit a year ago, and it is much better on stability, etc. I have not noticed a change in speed but am pretty sure ATI clone of a 500gig drive is quicker. Did not move to Vista in view of "bloat" comments.
I would reccomend a jump from XP to W7 - tried a dual boot for a month and soon dropped XP.
Likes # 0
Posted December 13, 2010 at 12:51PM
Windows experience index is nothing more than a tool for users who are contantly trying to tweak their PCs and are obsessed by who has "the best" or "the fastest" .it does not even exist on lower versions of windows 7 not because of hardware configurations ,but because of software limitations . One of my PCs has 16gb of ddr3 ram with a 3.2ghz 6 core phenom ,along with raided 2x500gb hybrid hard drives .its blistering and will perform any computer tasks I wish it to with unrivaled speed.
however the windows experience index score was a mere 4.2 ,only because I choose to fit a bog standard (but reliable) graphics card .I dont play games so have no need to waste my time fitting anything faster in that departement .
windows index score serves no perpose in my oppinion apart from incouraging users to constantly be buying upgrades of thier hardware in the quest for a better PC , A clever ploy on microsofts part but a totally unnesessary piece of software .
Likes # 0
Posted October 23, 2009 at 10:34AM
I still have a pc with windows ME on it an it will run rings around all of these os,s . but thats another story.
when XP came out it was abysmal, it was slow and buggy and security was a joke , it was not until service pack 2 that people began to say that it was turning into a decent OS at last ,and to a large extent thats true .but XP has run longer and had more time to be tweaked into being so good .
however times change and new ways of doing things are being used ,speed is not the only factor.
Vista ,as ridicule as it was by XP users ,was far less buggy than XP at launch and has been improved tremendousely in a short time .
Windows 7 started life a a (back to basics) stripdown of Vista thats true ,but dont be mistaken into thinking of it as a mere sevicepack update .
there are a lot of changes under the hood .
Windows 7 is the most complete and least buggy OS I have ever tested , and will see off XP with no problem in the long run .
It is conciderably faster than Vista ,and compares favourably with XP on speed .
I currently have it on the same PC as 32 and 64bit formats also in ultimate and home premium (N) versions .and they are all fast .
Typical boot times being around 18-20 seconds .and shutdowns around 10 seconds are the norm .
photoshop is a pleasure to use and dvd softwares are fast and efficient too.
a final note ,I see comparisons earlier in this thread using softwares designed to work on XP ,and not Windows 7 or even Vista .
A completely unfair comparison.
Likes # 0
Posted October 23, 2009 at 9:47AM
Good joshing fun, and a lot of truth kicking about
I should perhaps whisper it in present company, but I was always a Windows Me guy. Never had any glitches to speak of, and bsod just never happened. I really couldn't understand why everyone rubbished it, but it worked for me
Luckily, I decided to skip Vista, because xp worked as well and, to be truthful, I was unhappy with Mr Gates pricing policy and his eula for oem software
As for 7, well, I have a copy that I bought at £44, which I thought was a fair price for an o/s. I'll keep it shrink wrapped until I see how things go once the ordinary souls like me get their mitts all over it day to day
Two things do rather concern me
The first is the fairly widespread view that it is not faster than xp. I can't quite see why, after the experience of vista Microsoft should want a new system that's slower than XP. Just doesn't make sense I'm afraid
The second is the amount of power that is used to run the processors and memory designed to go with 7. It might be needed for gaming but for day to day use in the average home or business it seems totally against all we are being told about going green. And I am by no means into the windfarm and wind up power lobby
Likes # 0
Posted October 22, 2009 at 10:56PM
but it has been the best OS that MS ever made IMO"
That sort of comment is fairly common, and of course Windows XP has been very successful, but you know what? Some people have very short memories.
When Windows XP was first launched it got a terrible reception. People vilified it, and there were plenty of 'XP will go on my hard drive over my dead body' comments. Now, years (and countless patches and fixes later) XP has a dedicated, loyal following. Nothing wrong with that, as long as you remember that it wasn't always so - it took time.
Whether Windows 7 will achieve similar status remains to be seen, but the signs are good. Way back when XP was first launched I went on record as saying that within a year or so most of the detractors would be running it. I'll say the same about Windows 7 here and now. It's a good operating system, and whether it is a few seconds faster or slower than XP at certain tasks is neither here nor there as far as most people are concerned. What really sells operating systems by the million copies is stability,compatibility, and ease of use.
Oh, and by the way - the history of evolution is littered with examples of walking backward, not forward. Evolution is simply a process of gradual change - it has nothing to do with forward motion.
Likes # 0
Posted October 22, 2009 at 9:30PM
Ok I understand the need to evolve and always innovate and make things better.
However there is just one problem here, studies confirm win 7 is NOT faster then XP. Add on top of that the fact that MS made USELESS changes to the interface. "If it aint broke don't fix it" Ever hear that? MS has not apparently...
So then in reality win 7 is just a slightly optimized and repackaged version of the failed OS "Vista"......Pityfull really
You wanna know what Vista DID do better then XP though?
THE ONLY THING? The search.....thats it oh and ACTUALLY aquiring drivers over the net which XP always ask to do yet can never seem to do for some reason.
To me Vista is bloatware thats all it is, and 7 isnt much better, maybe a Vista that works as it should have if anything. I honestly could care less how pretty and shiny individual windows are. I want to click on things and they open immediately, not in 30 seconds. IF I wanted that? I will go back to windows 95 or 3.1. BUT make no mistake I used those and I dont believe even they were as slow as Vista.
People can cry about how old XP is but it has been the best OS that MS ever made IMO. Its pretty bad when you have always been an early adopter and you dont wont vista or win 7 because they suck that bad lol. Dont get me wrong, if you go out and buy a new retail pc and have a choice? get win7 over vista ALL DAY....but I am seeing this from the perspective that I saw windows come up and have used em since 3.1 and I don't like what I am seeing. And I will never consider a new MS OS a successor UNTILL its superior to XP in
1.load/shut down times
2.general access times inside the OS
3.usefull improvements in user interface
To evolve we walk forward not backward...........................
Likes # 0
Posted February 11, 2009 at 12:46PM
I don't think people using xp want to change to vista or windows 7, but eventually they will have to. Microsoft will not provide updates for xp for much longer, and the more advanced the software and hardware becomes, the more they will have to change. I've been using vista for around 12 months, and if im honest, i did'nt like it that much mainly because of hardware issues. But as the drivers became available the better and more stable vista became, especially since sp1 came along. Since then i've enjoyed vista, ok i had to wack a bit more ram in the computer, but a small sacrifice to make as you have to keep adding ram virtually every year as games and apps become more demanding. Just my opinion mind.
Likes # 0
Posted February 6, 2009 at 11:07PM
on the software experience front, so I withdraw my earlier jibe about that.
I certainly appreciate the need that some people have for as much speed as possible, but let's remember that the operating system is only one of the influencing factors here.
Windows 7 a Vista Service pack? Well that's certainly one way of looking at it, but not, in my estimation a completely valid one. Time will tell, however, and until then it gives us all something to speculate about.
Likes # 0
Posted February 6, 2009 at 6:12PM
personally i don't have vista on my computer as the way i see it, its all well and good that its got a new interface and more reliability than xp and it crashes less but i'm thinking if they cant get it right in the first place who says they will get it riht at all,
vista had 5 years of research and millions of dollars spent on testers and programmers etc.. but it was still a sham, so what im thinking if vista took 5 years to become a failure, windows 7 hasnt had half that time on the drawing board and its based on the same platform and design so what my question is, is it just going to be another software failure like vista?? as im sure you know with your 30 years of experiance you would of realise vista didnt sell as good as xp and with consumer and buisness confidence at a low with microsoft after vista will windows 7 actually sell i mean its all good saying people will buy with servays but will it actually happen.
Likes # 0
Posted February 6, 2009 at 5:50PM
if you consider my response impolite.. it was a bit tongue in cheek.. and I shall take your patronising attitude regarding the software business in the same vein - with over 30 years experience I can afford to.
I'm glad you are happy with Vista, it is at least now stable, but anyone who prefers an operating system that takes twice the memory and a much faster processor to provide an inferior performance to the system it is supposed to replace leaves something to be desired - the fact that it cost millions of people vast inconvenience and unnecessary expense simply adds to the ridiculousness of it all.
You are , of course, correct when you say that performance per se doesn't matter too much to many people, who after all use their computers for email and shopping, but you must appreciate there are many many people who demand more of their machines, whether to process video or play games and won't welcome being forced to accept a performance degredation.
The sad thing is that MS had an opportunity to produce a new OS, using their huge resources and experience, but opted instead to rush out what is effectively a Vista Service Pack to try and resolve some of Vistas most obvious deficiencies.
Reply to this topic
This thread has been locked.