Seven or XP?

ChuckR said:

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".

XP and 7 are two completey different OSes, both under the hood and in appearence. XP had a 5.x kernel while Vista and 7 share the 6.x kernel. If you said that Vista heavily contributed to the development of 7 than you would be absolutely correct...remember than even Vista wasn't based on XP as that development was reset. You want me to list out benchmarks here but why should I waste time..."Windows XP SP2 vs Windows Vista SP2 vs Windows 7 RTM" in google will get you all the information you want

Antman said:

OK, I will play. I use XP and Win7 everyday. I simply do not experience a difference in performance or stability. Both are equally responsive. The tasks that I use each for are accomplished equally.

I ran a couple of different benchmarks on XP in the past. Each time I got similar results - "That's interesting and nearly meaningless information with no practical application." Benchmarking hardware is a different matter.

Maybe, I don't get it.

Just a pun, Z.

lmao I was wondering when you were going to jump in on this Antman

Antman said:

Author: Randall C. Kennedy

lmao...that is funny that members posted news from him...remember folks he is extrmeley biased about XP and haas been known to post bogus articles...just check the forums on his supposed showstopper bug that would prevent 7 from being released...a chkdsk error that really doesn't exist

Antman said:

Author: Randall C. Kennedy

And we all know that's a reputable source ...

Tews said:

And we all know that's a reputable source ...

Antman said:

I think you are misinterpreting one aspect of something ChuckR said.

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

I read, Windows 7 a new bag of candy. A variation on a theme.

On the surface, it may seem that ChuckR is hitting you a bit too hard, he is not. He is hitting you on the wrong cheek. ChuckR argues that Windows is Windows, built on a compromised technology.

In a manner of speaking, most of the respondents are describing a building that they have studied by looking out the window(s).

I see your argument there and can see how that statement could have been applied