Seven or XP?

ten said:

Yep. I see so many here saying that 7 is faster than XP but all they are telling you is seat of the pants feeling. I would bet that if they actually ran some benchmarks they would see that in fact it isn't.

I would love to test a quad core with a couple of gigs of fast ram. The differences probably wouldn't be as big but I would still put my money on XP.

Except the fact that benchmarks have already been done all over the internet...also such benchmarks between XP and 7 cannot be fair due to a difference in test variables. OS + 3SPs + 9 years of refinement vs. Pre-Release OS...want some fair benchmarks? Throw XP Pre-SP against 7

It is pretty sad that I have to re-iterate the point all the time and yet people still don't get it

ten said:

BTW,


Windows on multicore test results | Business - InfoWorld

Thanks for the info! :)

Windows Vista and Windows 7 take better advantage of multiple cores than Windows XP, but not enough to overcome XP's greater efficiency.

visy199 said:

So Xp it's better to use on quad core pc's?

It'll be fast as hell.

Zidane24 said:

Except the fact that benchmarks have already been done all over the internet...also such benchmarks between XP and 7 cannot be fair due to a difference in test variables. OS + 3SPs + 9 years of refinement vs. Pre-Release OS...want some fair benchmarks? Throw XP Pre-SP against 7

It is pretty sad that I have to re-iterate the point all the time and yet people still don't get it

Benchmarks are not about 'fairness' - They're about "what-is".

XP + SP3, is.

XP + SP2, is.

XP + SP1, is, and so are all the rest, on down...

If people choose to, they can "benchmark" any version of Windows 7, from build 7600 (the 'real' thing) ,
down through 7100, Beta, or whatever the hell they want to.

"Benchmarks" have always been biased, one way or the other,
usually by the "Independent Agency" conducting the "benchmark".

Most people do not have the 'technical expertise' to initiate their own,
nor do they have knowledge or resources to pit one against the other, keeping all things equal.

You neglect to acknowledge the fact that the "3SPs + 9 years of refinement" heavily contributed to the development of the "Pre-Release OS".

Your post of "non-information" makes one assume that the XP operating system fared better than the competitor.

I haven't read any of the re-iterations , but I certainly do fit into the category of "...yet people still don't get it".

visy199 said:

So Xp it's better to use on quad core pc's?

not neccessarily.all you can take from that is that XP performs better on his system. Zidane makes a great point that far too many people don't seem to get. Windows 7 isn't even released yet! XP has had 3 service packs and years worth of fine tuning. Wait til seven's been out for a while and hardware/software vendors are onboard. If 7 performs this well at this early stage then it's safe to say that it is streets ahead of XP or any other OS currently available

ten said:

Where do you people get this XP has been fine tuned (for speed) over the last 8 years? If anything XP probably got slower when they introduced SP2. I don't recall reading any KB article addressing performance. It's all bug and security fixes.

It's a fact running it on new hardware. :)