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 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 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 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 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 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.
Reply to this topic
This thread has been locked.