random Windows XP rave

whitedragon, you have alluded to this 'benchtest' in several posts (above), but you have not provided a link to said testing. Please do so.

 

If you follow the link in my sig there is a link there.

 

I'd go that route too if I could afford the $189.00. Because of other priorities like a psu, O/S, RAM and dvd & USB drives, there's nothing left in the pot

 

VMWare Player 3.0 is free, but doesnt allow snapshots. Its a basic VM.

 

Ok, I read the benchtest on you base your bold comment...

That benchtest doesn't substantiate your contention whatsoever - it fact it actually states that WinXP won out (perhaps barely, but it outperformed Win7)!

Furthermore, I suspect that had they used a less robust test rig, WinXP would have outperformed Win7 by a much wider margin!

 

Dont look at the conclusion look at the actual scores. Whats sad is Win7 is faster in the more important areas and doesnt have 3 service packs under its belt.

Use what you want, but XP is far buggier than Win7 is as well.

Here are a few final thoughts all bench testing was done on the same hardware.

http://lookpic.com/i/660/kYuIpIVU.png
http://lookpic.com/i/39/Y69yOK6K.png
http://lookpic.com/i/884/lWda8yaA.png
http://lookpic.com/i/457/BET4K9jR.png

Start up times for Win7 are 6 seconds faster with 0 service packs.
http://lookpic.com/i/883/HQzlmtea.jpeg

 

Since MaximumPC conducted the test, who better to draw conclusions? Besides which, has it occured to you that the specific tests which are important to you may not be as important to others?

Well, had you said Vista is far buggier, I wouldn't contest that ...but as I support over 200 XP users in our company, I have to say that XP (SP3) is as 'rock-solid' as an OS can be.

 

I guess if things that are important such as things that you will never notice like gaming benchmarks where the human eye cant see over 30fps a game running at 60FPS must be extremely important. Your lack of willingness to do research on your own makes me think you have a god complex.

 

Thanks for the info. I've tried Ubuntu with VirtualBox and Ubuntu installed directly onto Vista (which becomes automatically a dual-boot). Ubuntu directly onto Vista is faster than using the VM, so this is my setup at the moment and quite frankly I find it very interesting. Would you say malware that won't affect Ubuntu could eventually attack the Vista environment even when running Ubuntu?

 

Osaban yes it can. Even if you dual boot some linux infections directly target Windows machines. They are written to infect Linux, but the general purpose is to spread to Windows. I assume you used the wubi installer? If thats the case you arent in a sandbox or VM and can get infected in Windows.

 

If that's the case, it is a real pity. It is so good though that I might risk it for a while. Imaging should save me, if things get serious. I'm new to Lynux and I honestly don't know what's what with installers. When I started the Ubuntu CD I took the option to install Ubuntu on Vista as a normal program. Rebooting the system after installation gave me a dual-boot option which is fine as everything works perfectly without doing anything. Thanks for the warning.

 

nope only when UAC is maxed out

 

I'm sorry, but that is not my experience. My UAC is set to default level and IE8 is indeed in Protected Mode.

 

This is a nice setup you have here. It will, indeed, be faster than running in the vm with the trade off of being a bit less secure, and other usability differences, but really the chances of these so called Windows-targeting viruses launched within Linux are going to be so unlikely they're not worth worrying about, especially as long as you aren't running as root.

 

Try ubuntu Netbook remix.

And Flash is known to be a POS. Luckily I haven't had much issue with it on my box, but some people do.

Probably because you are trying to apply the same setting on different kernel versions. Also, different distros will usually be using different kernel revisions, and some distros patch their own stuff into the kernel. You can't have an apples to apples comparison when comparing different kernels in different distros.

If you like insecure computing, then XP is for you.

Again, you need to try a distro specially made for netbooks. UNR is one, there are others.