(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> I'm one of those who will probably stick with XP until they are
> dragged kicking and screaming....
> Having said that....
> I've been fooling around with a couple of Win 7 boxes and am
> starting to think that, with enough memory, it might be faster
> than XP on the same PC.
> I put this to somebody I know who tests on numerous OS' and he
> thought 7 was faster too.
> Is there anything to it?
I have lots of computers here and I had Windows 7 on three of them. And
comparing XP to Windows 7 it was always the same. Windows 7 eats far
more processor power, runs the CPU hotter, and runs applications and
games slower. I have to run Windows 7 on my fastest machines just to
have it appear to be the same speed of XP on slower machines.
Remember that Windows 7 has some tricks up its sleeve to make it appear
faster. Like it pops up the desktop early in the boot process to make it
appear faster than XP. Windows 7 is more tuned to multi-core processors
though, so that is nice. Although running Windows 7 on any single core
processor was always a huge disappointment to me.
I too plan on keeping XP as long as I can get away with it. And so far
XP runs 100% of what I want to run. While Windows 7 only runs 95% of
what I want to run. So for me, Windows 7 is a downgrade and not an
upgrade.
--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2
Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3
XP is fast - especially if it's put together right
Win2000 can be even faster, i suppose - it is simpler that XP
no matter which OS - the more features and capabilities, the more overhead
i have XP MCE2005 - i love it - although, it took me a year of tinkering to figure out how to set it up correctly
I have tinkered with XP(Have it on my other box) and kinda like it,but my main box runs win2000,and I know all the ins and outs about it,and keep it because I know its quirks.
Is XP MCE2005 a lot different than XP Pro ?
Quote from: anunitu on February 24, 2012, 06:03:07 PM
I have tinkered with XP(Have it on my other box) and kinda like it,but my main box runs win2000,and I know all the ins and outs about it,and keep it because I know its quirks.
What are the differences between Win 2000 and XP.
MCE is essentially XP Pro with a Media Center program added
and - a little fancier set of standard themes
the Media Center program lets you play CD's, DVD's, etc
but, more importantly, allows you to watch TV from the computer (TV receiver board required)
it also provides a channel guide with TV schedules for your area (updated online)
the channel guide doesn't work with .NET 4 installed, however
my TV card is an MPEG capture board - i want to learn more about how to program it
click on image for full-size
(http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/image-files/media-center-edition-2005.jpg) (http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/tom-keating/image-files/media-center-edition-2005.jpg)
Interesting.
I thought about getting a TV board but I watch too much TV as it is. :bg
Sitting very long hurts my back too.
As far as I have read XP is based on win2000,win2000 was considered mainly a business OS when it came out.
Windows 7 has a lot of eye candy. The Aero stuff slows the system down if it does not have a fast cpu or enough ram. Turn it off and it should fly.
XP Media Center Edition is nice - but, i don't use it as much as i used to - it will record TV like tivo, though
i have another identical machine connected to the TV - i do watch movies and stuff with it - just not on-air stuff very often
for the past couple years, we more or less quit watching on-air TV
too damn many commercials
it is nice, however, to be able to take a VCR tape and make a digital copy :P
i do that rarely, though
Years ago, I had a video capture card (might still have it around somewhere) and when my family learned what it does they wanted me to convert all the home movies to dvd. Don't have a VCR anymore though.
it's one thing to do one or two
very time-consuming to do many
tricks:
1) don't let everyone know you can do it
2) screw it up - if you don't like doing something, do a crummy job of it - lol
3) they have little USB converters - point them at one on amazon or e-bay :bg
If you have a single core CPU (even hyperthreaded) win7 will run like a dog.
If it has DDR400 it will run like a dog, even with 4GB of RAM.
Any IDE devices, there's that dog again. Still using a GeForce4? Woof woof.
Windows XP (2001) is good for a 2001-2005 computer.
Windows 7 needs at least a quad-core with 4GB of DDR2 and native SATA2 (SATA3 preferred) to be bearable.
One reason for the hatred of Vista was underpowered computers certified 'Vista Compatible' when they weren't.
Quote from: sinsi on February 25, 2012, 12:06:23 PM
Windows 7 needs at least a quad-core with 4GB of DDR2 and native SATA2 (SATA3 preferred) to be bearable.
sinsi,
My machine runs Win 7 Home Premium 64 bit nicely with just a dual core. It's certainly no gamer's machine but for 32 and 64 bit desktop applications it is indeed snappy! :bg
Experience Index Ratings (scores range from 1.0 to 7.9).
Processor Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5800 3.20GHz – Score of 6.6
Memory (RAM) 4.00 GB DDR3 - Score of 6.6
Graphics Intel(R) G45/G43 Express Chipset - Score of 4.3
Gaming graphics - Score of 3.5
Primary hard disk 1TB - Score of 5.9
Well, I must eat humble pie...
Just upgraded a p4 3.06GHz with 2GB of DDR2, XP=>Vista=>7 (the cheat's upgrade).
Doesn't run blazingly fast but runs faster than it did with XP, actually runs faster than a lot of brand new i7/4GB laptops I've worked on.
Installing updates/drivers, with their million reboots, didn't drive me up the wall :dance:
Are you saying that without any RAM increase it runs faster than XP ?
My old p2 with Windows 95 is more faster than anything :bdg :bdg :bdg :bdg :bdg :toothy :toothy :toothy
Quote from: Rockphorr on February 27, 2012, 03:31:40 PM
My old p2 with Windows 95 is more faster than anything :bdg :bdg :bdg :bdg :bdg :toothy :toothy :toothy
I think you might consider a career as a technical writer. :U