should i use my xp retail or xp oem to upgrade to w7

I gave some links in another thread, and some quick googling would turn them up, but many reputable sites are showing Windows 7 to be on par, or better than XP in gaming. I believe the primary one I've used here is from FiringSquad.

Here's the beginning of the comparison:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/

Here's the conclusion page:
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/...ing/page12.asp

Now, I'm not dumb enough to say everyone's individual system will mimick their results, but my point is, one individual's opinions doesn't trump a repeated test, and one who's results are repeated by other websites as well. You may not think so, but for the majority of comparisons, Windows 7 comes out on top.

Given all the other features and benefits of Windows 7, and the fact that Windows 7 will hold its own against XP, the choice is pretty cut and dry. Besides, if this is a gaming system, where performance matters, you'll be running 4 GB of system memory (or more), which means you should be running an x64 OS. XP x64 was fine for some tasks, and Vista x64 ran well, but Windows 7 x64 is the best choice of the three.

ha ha thanks deacon.

ya ive read people are pretty happy with w7 beta rc etc. more so than was people with vista. i take my time. i dont have money to burn. i read most people hated vista that was good enough for me. i read. and have friends who i trust too. i do not just buy for hype advertisements and fan boys or lies. and ya. vista its said to be a lot better now too..

i know when they was first talking about w7 said it would be modular. can add or delete what you wanted to and make it lean. that would have been sweet.

um my crt. well ya some of what you say is dead on. less space and energy. but i can easy change hrz and res. text larger and more easy on the eyes. and first and foremost im a gamer. i play my games some 17 hours a day every day..

to get a good lcd for gaming id want none wide 1280x1024 2ms. but is said will pretty much suck for text or normal desktop use. or get more high res lcd with 5-6-8 or more ms speed and suck for gaming and be stuck at what ever the lcd's native res is 1280x1024 what ever. if i change native res well my picture will suck. so in my opinion and for gaming and versatility its no comparison that my crt hands down is better short energy use or more desk top space taken up. i think lcd's are more a rip than anything else. but thats my opinion.

even 4:3 or wide view is a matter of opinion. wide cutes off the top and bottom but can see more side to side.. none wide you see less side to side but more top and bottom. i prefer the 4:3 format my self. but could get use to wide lcd if they was not fixed native res. my systems are older. i cant run my games and record them running 1650x1050 or more high what ever.

i laugh so hard when folks cry his new system cant run some of his games on max settings and then see he has some extra large wide screen and running 1920 by god what ever high res. its just so funny.. ha ha them extra high res are just great for glorified surfing or porn or viewing movies.. but might be to high to run many games. and they are stuck with it. and have not put it together in their heads yet..

to just game. i can play most my games high settings 1600x1200 @ 85 hrz. but for performance while recording or for larger text when reading on my desktop i run 1024x768 @ 75hrz i adjust brightness on the fly as needed. my eyes do not bother me. room light the more bright helps too..

to each his own.. but you can get ghosting while gaming even on the fastest lcd what 2ms.. for gaming crt's is still best. other than that. ya lcd's are fine.. but i will be forced to use lcd when this monitor goes to heaven. you cant really buy crt's any more..i will hate the day my crt dies for sure..

see ya

To me it doesn't really matter what some random website says when all evidence points to another conclusion.

I would challenge someone to post evidence (screenshots) proving that Windows 7 is faster, but the sad reality is that most people don't know what they're doing when it comes to benchmarking.

ha ha

well i can just read pretty much 1 sentence and tell ya off the bat. xp is the better performer with just 2 gigs of memory versus 4 to 8 gigs or more to use vista or w7. why is so much memory needed for vista or w7 because its tons of godless garbage running in the back ground or something. tracking cookies or some thing what ever ms is doing in the back ground. or 50 screens in screen or what ever. im sure i dont need it what ever it is.. i run my games and record them and use my desk top just fine with 32bit xp and just 2 gigs of memory.

if its more fancy and uses more resources than xp and ie6. its more than i need period.. is how i feel about it.. id use 3rd party programs and strip down xp for gaming if i did not think it was to much a head ake.. but ive learned to work with tweak and like xp pretty well. so..

and another thing trips me out. its still maybe 2 to 1 computers on this earth that use xp over vista. and ie6 its native browser. all of these sites are trying to force you to use ie7-8 or ff or some google junk. well i avoid and skip them sites. if they do not support my ie6 i dont need their sites for anything.. i dont need all of that bloated garbage and more used resources or indexing none of it.. but will be forced to at least use ie8 when i upgrade to w7..

and ya. i did skip vista. but its said w7 is better. so i will gladly upgrade to w7.

Yeah no doubt Windows 7 is much better than Vista. There are a few things that still disappoint me about Windows 7 but I'm not going to bash it too hard because it's a good system overall.

sup3rsprt said:

sad reality is that most people don't know what they're doing when it comes to benchmarking.

You're right, which is why those sites are even MORE important, because they use actual games, and not synthetic testing, such as 3DMark. You need to be very careful in how you present your opinion, because it differs from "all evidence". All evidence, if you want to use such a blanket statement, is pointing towards Windows 7 being faster. You're own individual experience doesn't agree, but that isn't "all evidence". This can be very misleading to someone posting in here asking for advice.

One person's experience doesn't trump repeatable tests...that's the basis of the scientific method...of testing anything. This isn't an Xbox, where everyone's hardware and software levels are identical, so it is certainly possible for one person to have a different experience....but we can't pretend that supersedes anyone else's experience, or repeatable tests.

ezeht said:

well i can just read pretty much 1 sentence and tell ya off the bat. xp is the better performer with just 2 gigs of memory versus 4 to 8 gigs or more to use vista or w7. why is so much memory needed for vista or w7 because its tons of godless garbage running in the back ground or something. tracking cookies or some thing what ever ms is doing in the back ground. or 50 screens in screen or what ever. im sure i dont need it what ever it is.. i run my games and record them and use my desk top just fine with 32bit xp and just 2 gigs of memory.

I'll politely say you have a lot to learn about memory usage and memory management before you can accurately compare Windows 7 and XP. Please don't pass judgement on a product you haven't used, haven't tried, and don't understand. Yes, that makes me sound like an ass, but it is for everyone's benefit.

If you do take the time to read about Vista/Windows 7 memory management features, Superfetch, etc, you'll be pleasantly surprised.

There's no point in putting memory in your system and then trying to use as little as possible. Do you buy a car with a ton of horsepower, and then try to use as little as possible? If your memory is being wasted, I'll agree, but if it is using your system memory more effectively, to boost performance, especially under load...how is that a bad thing?

In all seriousness, do yourself a favor and and read up on Windows 7, and then download the 90 day trial of Enterprise RTM before you decide to bash it.

DeaconFrost said:

You're right, which is why those sites are even MORE important, because they use actual games, and not synthetic testing, such as 3DMark.

Synthetic benchmark or not, if it's faster in Windows XP, there's a reason. And in just about every case where 3dmark is faster, so are games. It's partly the reason 3dmark was designed and sold.

Of course I benchmark games too and 99% of them run better in Windows XP. On ALL of my computers, single-core, dual-core, or otherwise. Even many console emulators perform better in XP 64-bit than Windows 7. What else is left to prove?

the thing is. im not trying to bash it. and ive already bought it. if anything im playing devils advocate and trying to learn. and no i do not see any of you folks as bad or pushing w7. you have your opinions and experiences.. im just trying to pick all of your brains is all..

im sorry if i seem like im bashing w7 im not. but as said i do read a lot. and i prefer the common mans options versus a home or fan boy site.. naturally a home or fan boy site will push hype lies and garbage and just hope to sell. they can care less about us the user or common man.. and if ms did not have its head up its butt with vista. well. it would have been better and sold more too maybe.. but only because of poor sales and companies like dell refused to push vista on folks. did ms try and do better with w7 period. so.

im just talking and trying to learn. and im already on the hook for w7 and my 4 gig mem kit on the way so. its all good. im not trying to give you folks a hard time. im sorry im not elegant either.. ha ha

ha ha 1 more thing. i have friends that own or run businesses and spent thousands of bucks to upgrade hard ware and then buy and have vista installed and had to pay 3rd party companies to do so and maintain vista. it was a night mare. nothing but problems and cost ran to high. they took a loss and dropped vista and went back to xp. so. i dont have to make any of this up. again i do read a lot and have friends some like it vista but most all hate it for the most part is just the truth.. but most say w7 is a lot better and more like xp. or w7 is to vista what xp was to me or 2000 what ever it was. people hated me or 2000 but loved xp.