Windows 7 will be faster than Windows Vista and XP

[El Fiendo]

The thing I never understand is why people vehemently defend XP. You know, it was shit when it first came out. People hated the idea of leaving 98 to go to XP, and ME was a joke. SP2 made XP usable and I don't know why people don't remember this. Everyone seems to recall XP being diamond encrusted diamond from day 1. It wasn't. SP2 was heralded as a bloody godsend/savior. Everything from there was gravy.

Vista, if you have the hardware, is faster due to its pre-cache and all that. A boot to desktop takes a fraction of the time (fresh install to fresh install) and reinstalling the operating system in Vista is probably 10x easier. It feels that much less painful anyways. Networking issues of XP are solved in Vista far better then they ever got solved in XP. And low and behold, by Service Pack 1, most of people's complaints with the product were remedied. Did they try the product? Well no, they'd already started hating it.

Yet we have people offended because they aren't upgrading their OS and people suggest they should. "I will stick with my choice because its the best ever", they say. You know what I say about XP? It was good, but I don't regret upgrading.

Vista at the beginning was a piece of shit, just like XP. Vista now has been nothing but smooth to me. BSODs? Rarely. See, instead of locking up, most times windows kills the driver and reloads it in Vista. In XP if that driver failed, BSOD. In Vista, you get a handy little message saying something, like Nvlddmkm has stopped working, blah blah restarted. That's it, you go along your way. What do I say about Vista? It's good, but I don't mind upgrading.

Windows 7 so far has been pretty good. Nothing deal breaker, nothing really to piss me off. My only complaint is that everything is different because its new. I don't blame the OS for this, just like I didn't blame Vista for being new.

I don't hate XP, it didn't kill my family. I don't hate Vista, it didn't rape my sister. I probably won't hate Win7 because it probably won't do some treacherous thing to me. So why the hell does everyone else hate these OSes and the thought of upgrading?

 

[Champ]

I have never in any case seen XP do anything faster than Vista. I mean from startup to gaming to opening a document. My 64-bit Vista is fast as I could possibly imagine. I'm hearing Windows 7 so suppose to be like XP to Vista in comparison to Vista, but I don't believe it.

 

[qubit]

+1

The thing I never understand is why people vehemently defend XP. You know, it was shit when it first came out. People hated the idea of leaving 98 to go to XP, and ME was a joke. SP2 made XP usable and I don't know why people don't remember this. Everyone seems to recall XP being diamond encrusted diamond from day 1. It wasn't. SP2 was heralded as a bloody godsend/savior. Everything from there was gravy.

Nice post El Fiendo, I agree with you. People most certainly do look back at XP with rose tinted glasses.

The only thing I'll say is that XP was waay better from day one than the 98 SE I was using. 98 SE would BSOD with no effort at all - boy was it a 'joy' at work and no better at home. It really was an unstable piece of shit.

XP on the other hand was very stable from day one, being based on the solid NT kernel. At the time it came out, I was unknowingly running it on a motherboard which itself was very unstable (PC Chips, 'nuff said). It had a habit of killing Internet Explorer mainly, but then XP just continued on its merry way. Sometimes, XP would get corrupted so that it wouldn't boot. However, a repair install would always bring it back just fine.

The minute I realised the motherboard was garbage and replaced it with something decent (Asus) I seldom saw any more BSODs.

And Vista at release was a shoddy beta that loved to blue screen, but all that's long gone with the service packs and other patches. And dare I say, it's quite snappy, too. People just love to hate it, because "It's that crap OS!" and talk out of complete ignorance. Vista nowadays has far fewer gremlins and quirks than XP and has been superior this way for a good year or so.

 

[BrooksyX]

Been using final release of Win7 Professional (thank you WSU for the free copy ) for the last couple days and I must say it is very snappy. Much faster than xp I would say. Everything opens quickly and I have had no problems so far. Will be installing win7 on my lappy tonight or tomorrow. Should run very well as well. Win 7 = the way to go.

 

[El Fiendo]

The only thing I'll say is that XP was waay better from day one than the 98 SE I was using. 98 SE would BSOD with no effort at all - boy was it a 'joy' at work and no better at home. It really was an unstable piece of shit.

I didn't have that many issues with 98SE towards the end. But that's because I realized you had to do a fresh install every 3-6 months to keep it running happy. But yes, XP was a system that offered stability over 98. Then again, 98 was vastly more stable than 95.

XP was pretty stable on release, yes, as long as you stuck to 'new' hardware and software. I had far more things lose functionality going from 98 -> XP than when I transferreed from XP 32bit -> Vista 64bit. Most BSODs I got from XP were incompatible software / hardware related.

All I know is that when I go from my Vista SP1 machine onto one of my XP machines, I notice the difference. The OS feels more sluggish, and because alot of the GUI has been streamlined in Vista I get things done quicker. The search in the Start Bar is probably my most used feature hands down. Navigating folders is dead easy, and I love the breadcrumb style that allows me to click on a folder thats higher up in the tree in the address bar to take me straight to that folder. I'd say once I got used to it and it stopped being new to me, my productivity on the computer saw a good increase. Mind you, these are my opinions based on what I've observed.

 

[qubit]

I didn't have that many issues with 98SE towards the end. But that's because I realized you had to do a fresh install every 3-6 months to keep it running happy. But yes, XP was a system that offered stability over 98. Then again, 98 was vastly more stable than 95.

Actually, that reminds me that at that time, I didn't know half as much about computers as I do now. So to be fair to 98 SE, I have to confess that I never used Windows Update to patch it, therefore I guess it's somewhat unfair to judge it in its unpatched state. So perhaps it was reasonably ok by then, I guess.

XP was pretty stable on release, yes, as long as you stuck to 'new' hardware and software. I had far more things lose functionality going from 98 -> XP than when I transferreed from XP 32bit -> Vista 64bit. Most BSODs I got from XP were incompatible software / hardware related.

Yes, I remember the hardware compatibility glitches! Not that different to that of Vista when it was new...

All I know is that when I go from my Vista SP1 machine onto one of my XP machines, I notice the difference. The OS feels more sluggish, and because alot of the GUI has been streamlined in Vista I get things done quicker. The search in the Start Bar is probably my most used feature hands down.

I've long noticed that there is a noticeable pause when bringing up menus such as Start in XP, regardless of the speed of your PC. It's weird, it's like there's a built in delay. And of course, that delay can shrink a bit sometimes, just to make life interesting.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

I didn't have that many issues with 98SE towards the end. But that's because I realized you had to do a fresh install every 3-6 months to keep it running happy. But yes, XP was a system that offered stability over 98. Then again, 98 was vastly more stable than 95.

XP was pretty stable on release, yes, as long as you stuck to 'new' hardware and software. I had far more things lose functionality going from 98 -> XP than when I transferreed from XP 32bit -> Vista 64bit. Most BSODs I got from XP were incompatible software / hardware related.

All I know is that when I go from my Vista SP1 machine onto one of my XP machines, I notice the difference. The OS feels more sluggish, and because alot of the GUI has been streamlined in Vista I get things done quicker. The search in the Start Bar is probably my most used feature hands down. Navigating folders is dead easy, and I love the breadcrumb style that allows me to click on a folder thats higher up in the tree in the address bar to take me straight to that folder. I'd say once I got used to it and it stopped being new to me, my productivity on the computer saw a good increase. Mind you, these are my opinions based on what I've observed.

You should try SP2 made my system just a little more snappy, I love Vista and will miss it when I upgrade to 7, but that is the way things go, I don't however miss XP,NT(build 4.0) 98, 98SE but I do miss 95 and MS DOS 5.0-with win 3.5, and DOSSHELL and QBASIC....I'm an odd one.....I liked XP but couldn't wait for something better and in FEB,07 I got a pre-built system with Vista that actually came with a Cannon printer that did not work with Vista till August of 07, and yet i still liked Vista better than XP, I must have spent 16 hours on the phone with MS tech TEAMS resolving problems for weeks (that was neat) and i still like vista better

 

[lemonadesoda]

Would you rather I gave you $10 for free? Or would you play with me; 50/50 you pay me $10 or I pay you $25? Surely the second option is the better "expected outcome"?

That's the issue with Vista/Win 7. Play safe, the devil you know, or play for wins, but could lose.

Horses for courses. If I was running my business's accounting system and I KNEW it was 100% reliable on XP, would I want to "upgrade" to Win 7? Not really. No need. No benefit. Possible risk. Same issue if just using my corporate email/MS Office. The disruption with "down time" and having to catch up on work days later or staying late? No thanks.

If PC's were just for fun, entertainment and gaming, would I upgrade to Win 7? Sure thing.

Horses for courses.

AT WORK... EXPECT people for the right reasons... to want to stick with XP.

 

[Deleted member 67555]

Would you rather I gave you $10 for free? Or would you play with me; 50/50 you pay me $10 or I pay you $25? Surely the second option is the better "expected outcome"?

That's the issue with Vista/Win 7. Play safe, the devil you know, or play for wins, but could lose.

Horses for courses. If I was running my business's accounting system and I KNEW it was 100% reliable on XP, would I want to "upgrade" to Win 7? Not really. No need. No benefit. Possible risk. Same issue if just using my corporate email/MS Office. The disruption with "down time" and having to catch up on work days later or staying late? No thanks.

If PC's were just for fun, entertainment and gaming, would I upgrade to Win 7? Sure thing.

Horses for courses.

AT WORK... EXPECT people for the right reasons... to want to stick with XP.

But of course with any business plan you have to put forth risk in order to stay ahead and not fall behind, XP is more of a risk than 7 as it will have no more support very soon, except for in a virtual drive in 7

 

[newtekie1]

Ok, I think I need to clearify. The people are coming and ASKING MY OPINION, I'm not forcing on anyone, they are ASKING ME FOR IT!

Now, as for why I don't recommend simply a re-install of XP. While that would seem like a good solution, there are other reasons go move away from XP. These are people that are interested in moving to Vista/7 because they want the extra features and benefits and are concerned about the negatives. They are taking one negative, blown out of proportion, and are concerned enough to consider not moving to a better OS.

There are definitely some legitimate reasons to stick with XP, but for most consumers, there aren't. And the main reason I hear is that Vista/7 is slower than XP, and for the average consumer, that simply won't be true.

The person that argued with me actually did more of the shoving their opinion on others than I did. I was asked for my opinion, he just butted in and gave his. And the explanation I give in my first post was almost exactly the explanation I gave to him. And yes, he was one of those that never actually used either Vista or 7. Of course he also wanted to argue that 2000 was still a great OS to use today... The majority of people asking me don't want and explanation, they just want an answer, if they ask why I'll tell them.

 

[Steevo]

People who had issues with 9X had hardware issues, or virus problems.


I took a 95 machine and changed from a Intel to a K6 new MB, and everything, hacked it a bit and had almost a full year with no reboots and no BSOD. I only upgraded to XP to get better/more memory support.

 

[timta2]

You guys can argue all you want until you are blue in the face but the numbers don't lie. "Feeling faster" is not faster. I have yet to see any tests/benchmarks where XP was outperformed by Vista or 7. If I'm wrong, feel free to post some links for me.

 

[El Fiendo]

Here's some.

Link

In some, XP does still shine, in some it get its ass handed to it by W7 or Vista.

Also, you know how they say choosing hardware based solely on benchmarks is shortsighted and foolish? Well, it applies to software too. There are far more things about an OS than how fast it can zip a folder of a specific size. Enough people say it 'feels faster' to make me think that there is something there that perhaps a benchmark can't pick up. Maybe there actually is change in a window's popup delay that we notice. Or maybe its explained in the link I sent you. Dunno, we haven't been doing benchmarks. We've just been basing it on our personal experience.

Have you tried anything past XP?

 

[DrPepper]

Just installed win7 on a neighbours pc and they seem to like it.

 

[newtekie1]

You guys can argue all you want until you are blue in the face but the numbers don't lie. "Feeling faster" is not faster. I have yet to see any tests/benchmarks where XP was outperformed by Vista or 7. If I'm wrong, feel free to post some links for me.

I haven't seen any tests with an XP machine that has been installed for years vs. a fresh install of Vista/7. Have you? If so, can you show me some? I'd like to see these numbers that "don't lie".

 

[qubit]

I haven't seen any tests with an XP machine that has been installed for years vs. a fresh install of Vista/7. Have you? If so, can you show me some? I'd like to see these numbers that "don't lie".

Oh no... don't remind me of a bogged down Windows that's been on there for years! lol I'd like to see those numbers too.

This reminds me, in my job in IT support, they've got lots of ancient PCs with slow P4 CPUs, 256MB RAM and running Windows 2000 which hasn't seen a defragment in its 7 or 8 year life. Starting the PC often shows a 90% full 20GB drive and performance like they're wading through treacle - no word of a lie, I've seen them sit there for 20 minutes while they boot. The users of these machines often A defrag and temp file clearout helps a fair bit, but a fresh, fully patched image of XP is what helps the most. Sometimes the drive is actually too full to defrag, so that I have to repartition it to make more space available on C: (they've usually got two partitions).

The icing on the cake of course, was the PC that was like this, plus had the bonus of not actually showing any free space on drive C: !! Heck, I'm surprised it didn't blue screen at startup. I did eventually manage to clear out enough temp files to put Partition Magic on and enlarge the C: partition. This one was a nice challenge and a memorable job.

 

[AsphyxiA]

So I feel I should put in my two cents here:

1. I tend to agree with newteckie mostly because people are dumb or just plain ignorant. Most of the people who view this forum have at least some knowledge of the latest hardware/software. It's very easy for us to take this knowledge for granted so when a rant like this arises, we flame. That being said I believe that you are right in telling people that Vista/7 is faster than XP. But I think that a different hands on approach would have better. If you are trying to convince someone that a system, let them take it for a test drive. New and shiny always catches the to most people and theyll probably upgrade.

2. The second reason why he should be telling people they should get rid of XP is because he is (most of the rest of us) are early adopters. We are the testers, and the stupid average "Joe Bag-of-donuts" are the REAL consumers. Way to go to ending the XP era, it needs to die already!

3. Whoever tried to bring business into this discussion, I know where you are coming from but you can't compare business class to consumer class because most business class tech is years behind new tech; t's safe, cheap, and reliable. If they could, they'd still run 2000, oh wait, Kellogs still runs 2000 as their primary OS even though it isn't supported.
You can't compare a business to a consumer because a consumers needs are much different than something like a major distribution company such as Amcon.

4. Anyone who says XP is better that Vista or Seven needs to really grow up. you are no better than people who believe that a zombie apocalypse will happen, or the Mayan calender does mark the end of the world, or that vaccines cause Autism. Think about it, software is created for current tech. So your 24 GB of ram, 64 core 18GHZ cpu , 16 Video card behemoth is definitely gonna run XP faster than a 939 AMD64 x2 with a gig of ram and an X800 card because the hardware is better!

XP needs to die, and we all know it. People who are afraid to adopt the new technology, stop bitching at the people who do because they're inventing new things and finding/fixing bugs for you, you pansy ass whiners.

Newteckie, find a hands on approach to show people new tech, they'll appreciate it.

 

[freaksavior]

@ op,

i agree, at best buy peopel ask my opinion then ignore it. I wonder why they ask me anyway. I tell them vista is fine and to kill there friends who didn't like it or switch to a mac (yes i know "macs are overrate and over priced/ sarcasm" ) but they wont listen and blab on " i want xp, its good, vista sucks, whats this new windows 7 whatever"

a typicle day in pc sales

 

[Deleted member 67555]

So I feel I should put in my two cents here:

1. I tend to agree with newteckie mostly because people are dumb or just plain ignorant. Most of the people who view this forum have at least some knowledge of the latest hardware/software. It's very easy for us to take this knowledge for granted so when a rant like this arises, we flame. That being said I believe that you are right in telling people that Vista/7 is faster than XP. But I think that a different hands on approach would have better. If you are trying to convince someone that a system, let them take it for a test drive. New and shiny always catches the to most people and theyll probably upgrade.

2. The second reason why he should be telling people they should get rid of XP is because he is (most of the rest of us) are early adopters. We are the testers, and the stupid average "Joe Bag-of-donuts" are the REAL consumers. Way to go to ending the XP era, it needs to die already!

3. Whoever tried to bring business into this discussion, I know where you are coming from but you can't compare business class to consumer class because most business class tech is years behind new tech; t's safe, cheap, and reliable. If they could, they'd still run 2000, oh wait, Kellogs still runs 2000 as their primary OS even though it isn't supported.
You can't compare a business to a consumer because a consumers needs are much different than something like a major distribution company such as Amcon.

4. Anyone who says XP is better that Vista or Seven needs to really grow up. you are no better than people who believe that a zombie apocalypse will happen, or the Mayan calender does mark the end of the world, or that vaccines cause Autism. Think about it, software is created for current tech. So your 24 GB of ram, 64 core 18GHZ cpu , 16 Video card behemoth is definitely gonna run XP faster than a 939 AMD64 x2 with a gig of ram and an X800 card because the hardware is better!

XP needs to die, and we all know it. People who are afraid to adopt the new technology, stop bitching at the people who do because they're inventing new things and finding/fixing bugs for you, you pansy ass whiners.

Newteckie, find a hands on approach to show people new tech, they'll appreciate it.

Most consumers do not know more than "Click"-"Click", anything beyond that and most people are lost, It's very sad, but true. Point being if you take a system such as mine of course XP is gonna "click" quicker so why move on? right... That's how most people see it, they think the only "extra's" you get is "eye candy" so there is no point, most consumers have absolutely no idea of what there computer can do, let alone what a new OS could do for them and the worst part is because they fear change, even if that change makes life easier, so why change......
I guess i have A>D>D cause i look forward to change

 

[Mussels]

Just tell these people that if they want a fast OS, go back to windows ME or 2000.

Oh yeah, they're terrible looking, hard to use, lacking features we all know and love, and modern hardware doesnt work on them.

I just tell people to go 7, because it saves them long term hassle. its like a few people i know still on win 2K who are pissy they cant use 8GB of ram, or trifire/quad SLI - the OS just wont cut it, and they say they dont want to upgrade because its 'slower'


slower, or unusable due to lack of features? choose 'slower' (and 7 is soooooo slow, its terrible )

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Most people don't want to upgrade from XP (or even older) because of software compatibility issues. If everything was backwards compatible without a doubt, I think that would convert the bulk of users including me.

 

[PVTCaboose1337]

Are we defining faster as feeling faster, or actually faster?

 

[vbx]

Win7 isn't faster than XP. It might boot up faster, but running programs in XP is still faster.

Win7 is faster than Vista.

Win7 also installs faster than XP thats for sure.

I'm sticking with XP Media Center. I would Get Win7 Ultimate but 300+ is to much. Maybe if I get a new prebuilt and it comes preloaded with Win7 Ultimate, I would get it.

I'm dual booting now and Win7 is running smoothly. No compatibility issues at takes up a lot less resource than Vista ever did. But it's not faster than XP.

For examples: I have over 50 movies in my external HD. The video thumbnails takes less than 2 seconds to load on XP. On Win7, it takes up to a full minute to get all the thumbnails loaded.

Same goes with photo gallery. All the thumbnails loads faster on XP.

 

[qubit]

I'm sticking with XP Media Center. I would Get Win7 Ultimate but 300+ is to much. Maybe if I get a new prebuilt and it comes preloaded with Win7 Ultimate, I would get it.

You don't have to spend so much money. Media Centre is available in the Home Premium edition, which costs much less than Ultimate:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare-editions/default.aspx

No need to stick with XP.

 

[vbx]

Interesting. I thought the media center would only be available in the "ultimate" version.

It's still $200. Can we "upgrade" or "downgrade" from Win7 Ultimate (RC) to Win7 Home premium?