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 February 2, 2009 at 12:19PM
with all these diffrent versions of windows you would think the would have made a simple resourse free o/s for gamers and ppl who dont want all the fancy crap. the rather save the resources for more important apps.
as for the migration of xp to vista to win7, well in my opionion its just the same as the migration from win98 to me to xp! just a thought to ponder on
Likes # 0
Posted February 5, 2009 at 10:46AM
i first tried vista when it was put on the shelvs and tbh the ammount of hardware compatability issues i had was imense so i changed back to xp which i have never had any problems with whatsoever vista was reliesed to soon which is why there was a law suite against microsoft because there were so many issues also windows 7 even tho you say it only takes a cupple of days to get used to (that may be for some one who has good knowladge of computers) it will take a lot longer for the advarage user ad with xp everything is simple and its where you would expect it to be insted of having to search for it
if you want to spend ure day searching you would just use google and the ui is is supposed to be easy to use when you have all the options on like the sidebar it would just get all conffusing for the adverage user (there are too manythings you don't need to see and not enough of what u do ned to see for example u have to manually put most icond on your desktop like internet explorer i remember when it was mandatory to make it easyer to use and now its not apparently ms are like children they cant make up there mind on what is easy and what is not.
the onlt thing that is good about windows 7 is the probem steps recorder which if you know how to use it (average user wont even know how to find it) can be usefull and also thank god you can change the UAC settings so you dont get "bumb" and a dark screen on everythig you click on. over all i will be sticking to xp i know lots of people who have tried it (for more than a DAY) and they also think its complicated and it has alot of fetures that really don't need to be there and for windows 7 i think ms should listen to the user on what it wants at the end of the day its the user that buys so the user should have some involvment and if i want run on my start menue i will have it there and thats why im not changeing over.
Likes # 0
Posted February 5, 2009 at 7:18PM
"Lies , damned lies, and FE's who..
don't understand statistics.. for a start 15.3% saying they have or will install 7, well why not? and that doesn't mean they'll prefer it to XP"
Kindly point me to where I said people will prefer Windows 7 to Windows XP. Methinks you need a lesson in politeness, and a good deal more understanding about how the software business works - it's something that comes with experience.
When Windows XP was a bright,shiny new thing on the horizon of its life we had people - lots of them - here, in the forum who said 'I'll install XP when hell freezes over' or words to that effect. I predicted then that within a year of its launch people would be migrating to it in droves, and I was ridiculed for saying so. In fact that's exactly what happened, but it took that long - Windows XP encountered all kinds of teething problems and needed all manner of tweaks by the developers before it was something the average user was happy with.
Now, with the rose-tinted glasses of hindsight firmly in place people eulogise about XP as if it was an old and trusted friend - never putting a foot wrong and running like the proverbial greased lightning.
Windows 7, contrary to what a lot of people - you included - seem to forget hasn't launched yet, it's still beta software. There'll be a Release candidate, and that will include revisions that have been made as a result of the feedback that beta users have provided. I expect the code to go gold very soon after the RC, and shrink-wrap to follow hard on its heels - Microsoft wants this software out of the door. What will follow is largely an unknown, although it's pretty obvious that Windows 7 will enter a market that isn't exactly booming - the computer industry is having a hard time of it, and it will get worse. That means fewer OEM licences and fewer corporate migrations - Win7 will have to be good to make up for Vista's shortcomings.
Meanwhile people like me, who haven't experienced any problems with Vista will continue to run it as well as testing Win7 beta. Whether one is a few seconds faster than the other at certain tasks is largely immaterial as far as most people are concerned - this thing about speed is an obsession that isn't shared by the vast majority of ordinary computer users
Likes # 0
Posted February 5, 2009 at 8:05PM
The only "performance" issue I have come across that is of any interest/concern to me is when using Corel Video Studio 12. The programme is a little reluctant to "draw" itself on the screen when it is opened, and, having imported a 1920 x 1080 video clip, scrolling through the clip is rather sluggish (in comparison to XP). This is more important to me than rendering time as I tend to leave the pc to get on with this. No doubt this will improve soon as Windows 7 and video drivers are tweaked over the next few months. In the meantime please share your experience if you are using any of the non-pro video editors.
Likes # 0
Posted February 6, 2009 at 1:44PM
yes you have an argument there it was the same with people changing over to xp but it had no where near as many teething problems that is why there was more law suites because of vista the thing is it took ms quite a while for them to reliese xp on to shelvs and it also hade more bata's before it was reliesed but that was when ms actually heard what bata testers actually said but for vista they basicly reliesed a bata on to the shelvs it was pritty much useless, also i was reading a few e-mails that were retreved from one of the law suites with ms and even one of the microsoft exects said it turned his $30000 pc in to an emailing machine, also vista wasnt compatable with many ms hardware let alone anyone eltses and in my oppinion i won't even bother looking at windows 7 untill at least the first service pack arrives because i think microsoft are trying to rush windows 7 to the rescue of vist but i don't think it will work at all and it will just be another failiure on microsofts part again.
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.
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 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 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 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...........................
Reply to this topic
This thread has been locked.