windows 7 compared to XP Pro

vicvic said:

i still don't understand why people like xp?

Can't search programs in start menu
Can't access as many controls in control panel

Starts up slow - ( my xp can't bet the vista and 7 machine ( both restart usually under a min) - i have also seen people in business enviroments wait 20 mins to use xp after a restart.)

Talking about businesses running xp. They don't turn there computers off at night because it takes to long to restart in the morning.)

I am a little unsure if this is a failure for the program or IT staff. ( some of the case i would think IT staff. I have walked in after they have done an over hall and nothing works )

one last thing xp start menu takes up half the task bar??

cheers

vic

ps

7 rules best ever

my view on your points

1 - I dont use search much in start menu, a point and click man myself. But search is superior in win7 yes for those who use it.
2 = not so sure on this one? vista and win7 both seperate a lot of control panel applets giving an initial impression more stuff can be adjusted. eg. display looks like it is split into 3 or 4 different applets. My opinion is there is some new options in win7 control panel but also some older options removed. XP control panel defenitly was eaiser to navigate without a doubt.

The XP start menu might be bigger but of course the super bar by default in win7 is less space efficient than the removed quick launch.

Which gui is better is down to a matter of opinion, I am warming to win7 gui which is good but I can most certianly see why business's will not be keen to use win7. From a business perspective any kind of interface change = bad news as it means staff need to learn again which hits efficiency at the least in the short term. I actually expect business's to adopt vista more than win7 for the gui. (when they drop XP that is).

I've been using Microsoft products since their first GUI-build, Windows 3.1. And before that DOS and what not, but we're talking GUI OS here

I also use OS X, Linux (various flavors including SUSE, CentOS, RHEL, etc.), VMWare Operating Systems (such as bare-metal hypervisors, ESXi servers, etc.).

Microsoft has a done a great job with 7. I've been playing with 7 since the Beta, RC and now we're finally rolling it out to our users.

A lot of employees at my company have been using XP SP3 for quite some time now (including myself, I currently dual-boot XP SP3 and 7, among other things) and as with every operating system, there are and will always be bugs, glitches, problems, complaints, design flaws, etc. We still have people on XP simply because there are a lot of enterprise-class apps which aren't compatible with the "latest and greatest" build from MS. When running an IT department, you have to evaluate things as a whole and not on a case-by-case basis. That's why a lot of business are slow to install the latest and greatest. You stick to what works, otherwise, you're in the office 16 hours of day troubleshooting problems.

Without a doubt, 7 certainly improves on XP and does the same tenfold for Vista. Vista was a pretty badly built OS (we still have about 10-12 users that are on Vista and they all hate the OS including the IT department which is always fixing various problems on these systems). Vista is downright buggy and awful, I can't stand it.

7 boots faster for me and a few users that are now on 7 Professional (32-bit & 64-bit) in our company. So far, I've had nothing but good experiences with 7, the GUI is a big-leap from XP, but not that different from Vista.

I disagree with some members here mentioning that "XP was a lot easier to navigate than 7." 7 is certainly more organized than XP (and previous OS') and at the very least, it's just as easy to navigate as is in XP.

Now on to performance = I'm still running benchmarks and various diagnostics to compare my 7 system(s) to other systems (yes, I have 10+ PC's in my office). But overall, 7 is without a doubt faster than XP in various environments (including gaming).

From first glance and the first real week of heavy 7 use I can already attest to the following:

1) 7 loads faster than XP (and Vista)
2) 7 computes faster and performs everyday tasks much quicker than XP (same PC, same specs).
3) 7 has great hardware plug-n-play support, superior to both XP and Vista.
4) 7 looks pretty good, XP is old so it's not going to look that great compared 7.
5) 7 is what Vista SHOULD HAVE been
6) 7 is faster in many ways compared to XP (probably in every way). All apps, games, browsers, etc. load and perform quicker, smoother and faster than XP.

7 feels rock solid so far, it felt rock solid during the Beta and it's been a pleasure to use so far.

I highly recommend anyone on XP to move up to 7, dual-boot the OS, you can still run your XP but you'll end up spending a lot more time in the 7 environment once you realize how nice it really is.

As a footnote, if you're running 7 on an ancient Pentium III with 512mb RAM and a multi-partitioned HDD - it's gonna be beyond slow for you! Follow the requirements, perhaps even build yourself a new system and enjoy 7 like it's meant to be enjoyed - on fast, responsive hardware that will make your time with 7 a pleasure.

Microsoft, please hook me up with a few hundred $$$ for this writeup!!!

Hi there
XP is STILL BRILLIANT for all sorts of cases where older hardware can't run on W7 - especially W7 X-64.

For these cases keep your XP install but run it in a Virtual machine - that way you get the best of both worlds.

If you need to re-enter a License key just say to MS you've "Upgraded" to a new machine (with the Virtual Hardware) -- don't say it's a VM however.

Since it's a Virtual machine you can "Clone" this to run on as many machines as you like since the "Virtual Hardware" will be identical.

For typical apps the XP machine can be run very nicely in 640MB RAM -- you don't have to use a 1:1 ratio for Virtual to Real RAM when running Virtual machines.


Cheers
jimbo

dakrisht said:

As a footnote, if you're running 7 on an ancient Pentium III with 512mb RAM and a multi-partitioned HDD - it's gonna be beyond slow for you! Follow the requirements, perhaps even build yourself a new system and enjoy 7 like it's meant to be enjoyed - on fast, responsive hardware that will make your time with 7 a pleasure.

Following the requirements leads you to a slow computer. I've got 4GB of ram and a 2.8GHz tricore, and 7 is still sluggish. I've got another OS on this computer that is a lot faster and more efficient

kemo said:

dakrisht said:

As a footnote, if you're running 7 on an ancient Pentium III with 512mb RAM and a multi-partitioned HDD - it's gonna be beyond slow for you! Follow the requirements, perhaps even build yourself a new system and enjoy 7 like it's meant to be enjoyed - on fast, responsive hardware that will make your time with 7 a pleasure.

Following the requirements leads you to a slow computer. I've got 4GB of ram and a 2.8GHz tricore, and 7 is still sluggish. I've got another OS on this computer that is a lot faster and more efficient

That isn't right. I built a fresh new gaming system (Phenom x2 550 Black Edition @ 3.1GHz stock, 4GB DDR3 1333MHz Kingston 9-9-9-24, Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB SATA II HDD via AHCI, LG GH22 series DVD-/+RW, Sapphire 4890 1GB GDDR5 stock, Gigabyte MA 790GPT UD3H, Antec Two Hundred, Xigmatek NRP-MC651 80% efficiency Silver certified modular PSU) with 7 and it works fine. Maybe you could try the guides in my sig.

I'm on dual boot XP32/7.64 at present, with only a few programs installed on 7 until I get used to it. It's certainly potentially a super OS, but there's some annoying things as well. I've found the answer, but I reckon the typical user's Start Menu>Programs will be a complete and utter illogical mess in no time at all once they've installed umpteen programs that dump folders everywhere with no obvious way of organising similar types of programs into new folders of their own choice. And why are non-running icons in the taskbar so slow at showing tooltips? There appears to be no way round this one. Also no up arrow in Explorer, doh!

Frostmourne said:

kemo said:

dakrisht said:

As a footnote, if you're running 7 on an ancient Pentium III with 512mb RAM and a multi-partitioned HDD - it's gonna be beyond slow for you! Follow the requirements, perhaps even build yourself a new system and enjoy 7 like it's meant to be enjoyed - on fast, responsive hardware that will make your time with 7 a pleasure.

Following the requirements leads you to a slow computer. I've got 4GB of ram and a 2.8GHz tricore, and 7 is still sluggish. I've got another OS on this computer that is a lot faster and more efficient

That isn't right. I built a fresh new gaming system (Phenom x2 550 Black Edition @ 3.1GHz stock, 4GB DDR3 1333MHz Kingston 9-9-9-24, Seagate Barracuda 7200.12 1TB SATA II HDD via AHCI, LG GH22 series DVD-/+RW, Sapphire 4890 1GB GDDR5 stock, Gigabyte MA 790GPT UD3H, Antec Two Hundred, Xigmatek NRP-MC651 80% efficiency Silver certified modular PSU) with 7 and it works fine. Maybe you could try the guides in my sig.

I completely agree with Frostmourne - Windows 7 simply flies on my build (check my system)... You've done something wrong, fresh install 7...

You mention you have "another OS on this computer that is a lot faster and more efficient." based on what? Have you done benchmarks? Are you comparing a heavy-OS to something like a base Windows 98/2000 install?

7 is without a doubt, 100% faster than XP in many ways and leaps and bounds faster than awful Vista (especially in networking)...

Again, you've done something wrong.

Sometimes I get in the old Dart to take it out for a drive.

Love to smoke them Lexi with their aero sunroofs.

I pick up the boys and take em down to bingo.

Please elaborate : 100% faster than xp in many ways.

I have found small gains, approx. 5-10%, in some areas.