Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: windows 7 compared to XP Pro

18 Dec 2009   #31
chrysalis

windows 8.1 Pro x64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by vicvic View Post
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).


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
18 Dec 2009   #32
dakrisht

Win XP SP3, Win 7 Pro 64-bit, CentOS
 
 

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!!!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
18 Dec 2009   #33
win7clutz

Windows 7 Ultimate (64)
 
 

Quote:
..... Microsoft, please hook me up with a few hundred $$$ for this writeup!!!
Funny stuff!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

18 Dec 2009   #34
jimbo45

Linux CENTOS 7 / various Windows OS'es and servers
 
 

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
My System SpecsSystem Spec
24 Dec 2009   #35
kemo

Ubuntu 10.10 64bit, Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by dakrisht View Post
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
My System SpecsSystem Spec
25 Dec 2009   #36
Frostmourne

Windows 7 Ultimate x86-64
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by kemo View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by dakrisht View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
25 Dec 2009   #37
sbrads

Windows 7
 
 

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!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
26 Dec 2009   #38
dakrisht

Win XP SP3, Win 7 Pro 64-bit, CentOS
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Frostmourne View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by kemo View Post
Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by dakrisht View Post
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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
26 Dec 2009   #39
gregrocker

 

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.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
26 Dec 2009   #40
ggrrttdd

7 Pro x86
 
 

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

I have found small gains, approx. 5-10%, in some areas.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 windows 7 compared to XP Pro




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Is windows 7 firewall good enough, compared to special programs ?
Hi all. There are some good free antiviruses like avast or avira. Can i use them with windows 7 firewall together ? Because i wonder to know if there is a much difference between it and the firewall of internet security programs. How much good is this firewall ?
System Security
Windows sound not too aidible compared to media
All my media players play sound well (including internet based ones), both music and video but Windows default sounds are barely audible. Why s this so and is it fixable? I think this happened after installing a bluetooth 4.0 dongle. OS: Win 7 Home Prem. 64 bit Sound-related hardware: on board...
Sound & Audio
Windows 7 is VERY slow at copying files compared to XP
Yesterday I needed to copy some data stored on a DVD and it took more than ONE hour to transfer the files (11250 files and 151 folders for 625MB) to the hard drive. I booted on my WinXP partition (so the very same hardware was used) and it took 20 minutes for it to complete the same task. The...
Performance & Maintenance
Windows 7 Freezes Compared to XP
Hey, My Friend Said XP doesnt freeze as much as Windows 7. Is This True?
General Discussion
Half the ram used in windows 7 32bit as compared to windows xp
When running task manager in win xp it doubles the physical memory into virtual memory whereas in windows 7 32 bit, resource monitor & all cpu meter gadget shows only the real amount of physical memory. when my system reaches above 75% of physical memory in windows 7 it crashes, i did clean install...
Hardware & Devices


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

© Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:59.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App