Discussion in 'other software & services' started by DVD+R, Jun 10, 2009.
This is a gaming performance comparison however if you read it carefully you can see that things aren't as black and white on XP versus Vista versus W7 performance. Ultimately I think Windows 7 will win but Vista performs much better than many people suggest. However the real question is does it perform well enough to justify spending money on the upgrade. The same question applies to Windows 7.
My Vista Ultimate was free so I feel I got good value for money from it
I picked up a boxed version of Ultimate for $50. I did not really want Vista, but at that price I went ahead.
Speedwise, don't you notice how sluggish it is when opening directories with explorer, or installing, especially when setup is extracting things. If I boot into XP and install program X, then do the exact same thing on Vista, I see a marked difference, with Vista being slower.
It is possible machine dependent, but I would think a c2d e6700 with 4gb ram and fast hdd's would be enough.
But as you say, the question is do vista/7 present a reason to upgrade. Performance wise, maybe not, early adoption wise to get ahead of the curve, I believe so, at least for 7.
I definitely see your speed/performance differences when installing apps and drivers etc, and on booting and startup, or shutdown, and some typical operations on Vista vs others. Vista is just more sluggish. Opening folders or loading apps seems good enough, but other usual operations are much slower than both 7 and XPx64 here. I don't think it's machine specific. 7 is an improvement over Vista, yet still not as good as XP.
Have you tryed vista or 7?
vista is a big improvement on xp and windows 7 is a light version of vista.
i would never go back to XP. I hate using XP now im so used to vista. i have to use xp at college.
In what way is Vista an improvement over XP?? When I said XP was better, I was talking about performance in general. Perhaps you are referring to the GUI or new features in x64? For me, XPx64 is a much better performer than Vista, and still beats 7 on my PC. I will agree with you insofar as I kinda like the Vista/7 look better than the XP look now after having used Vista x64 for almost a year.
There was alot of under the hood changes in vista thats why there was alot of compatibility issues at the start. how about all of this stuff
I would much rather run vista or 7 anyday of the week. windows vista is more stable due to the under the hood changes. its a shame one bad driver can still cause a bsod... for example crucial tool to check how much for information about ram upgrades on 64 vista still causes a bsod even after 6 months of me reporting the issue...
for a start microsoft should of put that driver in a sandbox and if it crashed it doesnt matter and secondly how long does it take to fix a known bsod issue on 64bit vista ?
I agree too.Xp is lightweight , easy to backup and restore.
No doubt there are many changes and improvements in Vista and more in 7, but still, I get better performance out of the XP versions here. Vista just seems all around more sluggish to me, so that is what I base my comparisons on. I don't know... there's no stopping change. I might go for 7 after it's been out a while and the prices come down. I haven't made up my mind yet. I liked Vista x64 too, but after OS hopping for months and comparing, I am now on XP. For how long, who knows....
Played with Vista and Seven don't like it at all. I can do many things more and then some with XP. 3rd party apps allow me to do anything this is the flexibility that vista and seven will never allow. Ultimately I guess you have to trust microsoft-*+ sorry to say I don't anymore...
windows 7 is alot faster than vista. unfortnatly i cannot test windows xp on this machine since i havent got a spare xp license so i dont know if xp is faster than 7.
Nobody trust them, how one should?
I had read in other tech forums how some people, just for giggles...tried installing Windows 7 on older hardware that was dreadful for Vista..and having good experiences.
Out of curiosity, I took an old Pentium 4 H/T machine (Dell Optiplex GX280 small form factor), 2.8GHz, only 2 gigs of RAM. And installed Windows 7.
From start...which was booting from the Windows 7 CD, deleting the existing partition on the drive, formatting, full install...up to signing onto the desktop for the first time...25 minutes. All devices properly recognized, full functional.
25 minutes...start to finish!
Usability? Much better than Vista..which had a similar install time. And XP was on this rig, which we had on the bench as one of our spare machines. So I was able to have a good comparison between the feel/response of XP versus feel/response of Windows 7. Quite equal! And I haven't given it much use and time to allow superfetch to "groom" the drive yet for even better performance.
Vista on this machine, when tried, not so zippy. Vista really needs a true Duo Core or higher, and preferably 4 gigs of RAM to have the same zip to it.
Verdict? Yes Windows 7, as my above experiment showed, and as other experiments done by other techs have shown, does run smoother on older systems than Vista does.
As far as ease of backing up and restoring...it's the same across all 3 for me.
Yep, there is really nothing wrong with 7. For me, it will mostly just be a matter of price.
Considering the crew they got working for them now and the way they are marketing their OS' impossible.
Monitoring of the public gonna be much easier since everything will originate from a self contained system, things gonna look legit even when using tools that monitor packets.....I could easily say in my opinion the OS is malware in itself no need to get infected you'll get it all in one conviently purchased package......
He better now after therapy.
Separate names with a comma.