Convince me !

Not sure if this has been said, 7 pages of posts, but the only way we can truly convince you is by installing 7100 or 7229 on your computer so you can see for yourself. Everything else is heresay and personal opinions, you are the only one that can change your mind all the way.

I must to say that all depends on your hardware configuration. Windows 7 IS NOT less "resource-eater" than Windows XP. It depends mostly on your hardware.
If you're using old hardware, like PCs with 1 GB. of RAM, you'll get better performance with XP than with 7. But, if you've a PC with 1,5 GB. of RAM or more, and a nice processor, nice motherboard's chipset, etc. you'll get much better performance with Windows 7 than with XP, because it takes advantage of new hardware's technologies, thing that Windows XP can't do because it's a mature OS.
Windows XP and his kernel was released 8 years ago and was designed for machines of that times. There's no way that Windows XP can run like Windows Vista or 7 in new PCs, because Microsoft will not compile a new Windows XP kernel for new PCs, because for that is the new operating systems that Microsoft himself created, or not?
Is just as easy to explain as this: Old Windows XP for old PCs; New Windows 7 for new PCs.
I can say that because I'm installing and reinstalling around 5~20 PCs per day, each one of different categories and configurations since 5 years ago, so I think that my experiences have some validity.

Hope it helps somebody to decide the right option.

GatoSoft said:

Is just as easy to explain as this: Old Windows XP for old PCs; New Windows 7 for new PCs.

Have to disagree - at least a bit! I built my PC on the cheap at least 4 years ago. It was all good quality, but there's no hiding its age, esp the fact that its single core. But it always ran XP OK - no complaints, tho of late things like PhotoshopCS4 started to struggle.

Whilst I haven't run benchmark tests I can say without doubt that everything runs snappier and better on the same rig under Win7! The best example is again PhotoshopCS4. It is absolutely at home. I've worked on top of the line dual core rigs only a year old and my experience there is no better within PSCS4 than on my rig.

What is noticeable is the amount of RAM the system uses - really I should say RESERVES. Its here that 7 is the out and out winner - its not the memory it uses per se but the way it manages that memory.

So its WIN WIN. Old rig - runs better, new rig runs in sync with its hardware.

Take all of your Vista opinions and throw them out of the window. I never thought vista was *that* bad, but I know people who downright hated it. Windows 7 is by far Microsoft's best operating system. With so much fuss over vista, I guess they decided to get their Sh** in gear and roll out something truly great. But Vista used NT6.0, while 7 uses NT6.1. Also, everyone hated windows me, which was NT5.0 while xp was NT5.1. All of the 'NT*.0' will never be as good as the 'NT*.1'

But yeah. Dual Boot xp and 7 and go crazy

EDIT: Windows 2000 was NT5.0, and IT was the one that was terrible. Mistakenly said Windows ME instead of Windows 2000

grouchpunk08 said:

Take all of your Vista opinions and throw them out of the window. I never thought vista was *that* bad, but I know people who downright hated it. Windows 7 is by far Microsoft's best operating system. With so much fuss over vista, I guess they decided to get their Sh** in gear and roll out something truly great. But Vista used NT6.0, while 7 uses NT6.1. Also, everyone hated windows me, which was NT5.0 while xp was NT5.1. All of the 'NT*.0' will never be as good as the 'NT*.1'

But yeah. Dual Boot xp and 7 and go crazy

Actual, Windows ME had nothing to do with NT. Windows ME was based on the Win9x kernel (Windows 95 and Windows 98)

And for the record, out of all the Win9x operating systems released by Microsoft, Windows ME was the one where "they got it right".