Convince me !

[srq2625]

I used to think like you ... That there's little chance that MS would be able to much improve on what WinXP x64 already made available. But, I was wrong. There's more than a few reasons to look at Win7:

• Better memory management. I actually got it to install and run on an 8 year old Toshiba S3000 Satellite with only 800MHz proc, 20GB HDD, and 512MB memory. Didn't run real swift, but it ran and didn't crash. Oh, and didn't eat all the memory in the box. With IE 8 running, there was still some 200MB available.
• Eye-candy - OK, obviously not your thing, but it might be for some.
• Drivers ...
  • Video driver on the Toshiba, not so good
  • On my desktop (see system specs), everything was supported right off the DVD once I had refreshed the MBO BIOS. Video and network drivers where updateable from the H/W vendor. Nvidia works a treat. The NIC, from Asrock ... no issues.
  • On my Acer lappie - The only thing I have yet to get a driver for is the integrated video camera. I never used it before and I doubt I'll ever use it in the future. So not a big deal for me.
• Faster/slower then XP? My experience is that every application is running at least as fast on Win7 as it ever did on XP.
• Better power consumption. Under XP, I never did figure out how to get the i7 920 to "throttle down" when the system was idle - the CPU was always cranking away at 2.6GHz (+/-). I'm not talking about CPU usage as reported by the Task Manager - that, as expected, would always drop to near zero. Under Win7, it's like the various cores go to sleep until they are needed - presumably lowering power consumption and heat generation.
• Vista drivers? There's only one piece of hardware I have for which Win7 doesn't have a driver - a monitor color calibration device. However, the vendor website has software designed for x64 OS. This software runs on WinXP, Vista 64, and on Win7 x64.
• Does it use more memory, when idle, than WinXP. Ummmm .... yes, but so what. The memory management is sooo much better that when/if you run an app that needs more memory, Win7 seems pretty compliant about releasing some of the memory it's using so the app can get to it. Win7 seems to use what it needs (makes it run faster as it's not always going to disk for stuff) until such time that some application needs it. On my lappie (with only 2GB), I've never run into a situation where there wasn't enough memory to fit just one more thing in ... and that without a lot of page swapping. On the old Toshiba ... that's another question entirely
• Stability? When first released, WinXP was not a shining example. It got better with SP2, but really didn't come into it's own until SP3. Win7 seems to have avoided much of those problems and nearly all of the problems encountered by early adopters of Vista. The various Win7 builds have been getting better and better. The RC (7100) was solid, but 7229 is so much more so and some who have it say that 7232 is better yet.

May I, humbly, suggest you install Win7 and see for yourself - dual boot maybe? I think maybe that experience will change your outlook a bit.

 

[rehael]

thank you

 

[Barman58]

One thing that has not been mentioned is that as XP is now on limited support from Microsoft (major security updates only), It is in my opinion a poor choice for a new machine. I believe we will see hardware manufacturers winding down the support for XP over the next year or so

On an existing machine with a mature copy of XP it is a good OS but with the change in status and the hardware changes since it's design, I think the time has come to look forward with a new machine, not backwards.

I have been through a few of these transition periods over the years and found that a new machine should be fitted with the latest operating system for long term reliability.

This of course assumes that the latest OS is reliable and supported which 7, unlike Vista, appears to be. When XP first came out I remember downgrading hundreds of PCs pre-installed with XP to Win2000 and NT for reliability/compatibility reasons.

 

[jackoneill123]

I used to think like you ... That there's little chance that MS would be able to much improve on what WinXP x64 already made available. But, I was wrong. There's more than a few reasons to look at Win7:

• Better memory management. I actually got it to install and run on an 8 year old Toshiba S3000 Satellite with only 800MHz proc, 20GB HDD, and 512MB memory. Didn't run real swift, but it ran and didn't crash. Oh, and didn't eat all the memory in the box. With IE 8 running, there was still some 200MB available.
• Eye-candy - OK, obviously not your thing, but it might be for some.
• Drivers ...
  • Video driver on the Toshiba, not so good
  • On my desktop (see system specs), everything was supported right off the DVD once I had refreshed the MBO BIOS. Video and network drivers where updateable from the H/W vendor. Nvidia works a treat. The NIC, from Asrock ... no issues.
  • On my Acer lappie - The only thing I have yet to get a driver for is the integrated video camera. I never used it before and I doubt I'll ever use it in the future. So not a big deal for me.
• Faster/slower then XP? My experience is that every application is running at least as fast on Win7 as it ever did on XP.
• Better power consumption. Under XP, I never did figure out how to get the i7 920 to "throttle down" when the system was idle - the CPU was always cranking away at 2.6GHz (+/-). I'm not talking about CPU usage as reported by the Task Manager - that, as expected, would always drop to near zero. Under Win7, it's like the various cores go to sleep until they are needed - presumably lowering power consumption and heat generation.
• Vista drivers? There's only one piece of hardware I have for which Win7 doesn't have a driver - a monitor color calibration device. However, the vendor website has software designed for x64 OS. This software runs on WinXP, Vista 64, and on Win7 x64.
• Does it use more memory, when idle, than WinXP. Ummmm .... yes, but so what. The memory management is sooo much better that when/if you run an app that needs more memory, Win7 seems pretty compliant about releasing some of the memory it's using so the app can get to it. Win7 seems to use what it needs (makes it run faster as it's not always going to disk for stuff) until such time that some application needs it. On my lappie (with only 2GB), I've never run into a situation where there wasn't enough memory to fit just one more thing in ... and that without a lot of page swapping. On the old Toshiba ... that's another question entirely
• Stability? When first released, WinXP was not a shining example. It got better with SP2, but really didn't come into it's own until SP3. Win7 seems to have avoided much of those problems and nearly all of the problems encountered by early adopters of Vista. The various Win7 builds have been getting better and better. The RC (7100) was solid, but 7229 is so much more so and some who have it say that 7232 is better yet.

May I, humbly, suggest you install Win7 and see for yourself - dual boot maybe? I think maybe that experience will change your outlook a bit.

Well put..if that doesnt convince him, nothing will lol
I got 7229 too..thought x86..and love it

 

[sup3rsprt]

When XP first came out I remember downgrading hundreds of PCs pre-installed with XP to Win2000 and NT for reliability/compatibility reasons.

Yeah, I hated XP when it first came out just like I hated Vista when it first came out (and still do). I like Win7 much better, but I'm still having a hard time making the transition even with all the praise coming from you guys.

 

[Boris]

And not to forget its free! Till medio next year

Get 64 bit, its the future

 

[srq2625]

And not to forget its free! Till medio next year

While true, I don't think that will move the OP as he already has a copy of WinXP.

 

[bjs53]

stable and much faster

For me XP has been comfortable and stable enough. It was not any serious crash in few years. I have skipped Vista becouse my laptop 5 years old, with 1.25 GB RAM is not able tu run it and most comments on Vista was not encouraging. Now I use Win 7 RC and I noticed that it needs less RAM then XP with the same set of application I ususally keep open (550 vs. 850). It boots much faster and is stable. Installation was smooth and almost all devices work from the start. The only problems are my CD card reader (I think because of special driver covering in my case both PCMIA and card reader - solved so far by external usb reader) and still no solution for wake up (old graphic card and lack of driver for catalyst control).
What is actually big advantage it is ability to recover if I go too far with experiments I do every day. Two weeks of my experience with Win 7 convinced me that this system is an interesting improvement.
What can be serious obstacle to apply it next year is the price. I am not sure I am ready to pay 250 $ for it.
Maybe better solution will be to buy in future new notebook for some 800 $ with this system. It will be difficult to go back to XP when RC expires in March.
regards,
bjs

 

[digitalrurouni]

If you dont have any problems with XP then stick with it. I am not sure if you are using XP x64 or not but thats a very solid alternative.

If you are looking for the latest and greatest and are a gamer etc etc then I think you might like Win 7 esp with DX 11.

There is no doubt Vista was a fail but it has gotten a LOT better after SP2 got released. Still I think Win 7 is great considering i jumped ship from XP 64 to Win 7 a few weeks ago and have not looked back. It just works!

 

[sup3rsprt]

My experience is that every application is running at least as fast on Win7 as it ever did on XP.

Get 64 bit, its the future

The following screenshot shows my experience.

 

[digitalrurouni]

I hate to burst your bubble. Take a look at the following comparison. This is only one example.

Wow 3dmark03. Thats really current mate. No bubble bursting here but try running something like vantage and see if you can replicate the results. I would be curious.

There could be n number of reasons why I am not taking your screenshot seriously.

- You are running a NOT RTM version of the OS
- You are probably running a driver that for some reason got a bump in one software but lost some performance in other. That happens quite often.
- 3dmark03 is ancient.
- It could be your current hardware/software/driver configuration could be resulting in something like a 5000 score difference.
- ANd on top of it you really must look to non-syntehtic benchmarks as the final word mate aka games, real world apps. 3dmark is great and all to see if what you put together is in the same ballpark as the other machines out there with similar configurations but thats about it.

 

[dmex]

+10 can someone link to some detailed info about this?

Sure,

I dont think anyone could give you more detailed information than Microsoft's developers themselves

Here are the links to the best videos from Microsoft's developers talking about every architecture change they have made

Im sure you will find hundreds of reasons to dump XP after watching these Videos from the developers, Yes some are long but each one contains a fair amount of discussion on new features and architecture changes they made that make Vista and Win7 different to any previous Windows Operating System.

Mark Russinovich is one of Microsoft's top Kernel developers, His videos are the best
He talks about various Kernel changes resulting in better performance handling and so forth in this Video:
Mark Russinovich: Inside Windows 7 | Going Deep | Channel 9

(LOL at the "we aint Microsoft unless were developing a death ray" )
new audio architecture and handling capability's:
Larry Osterman: Windows 7 Audio - What's New | Charles | Channel 9

This is part 5 of Kernel developer Dave Probert's "Going Deep: Kernel Architecture" talks, You can find the other videos linked on the description )
Dave Probert: Inside Windows 7 - User Mode Scheduler (UMS) | Going Deep | Channel 9

Services and Controller changes:
Chittur Subbaraman: Inside Windows 7 - Service Controller and Background Processing | Going Deep | Channel 9

DirectX:
Windows 7: Unlocking the GPU with Direct3D | pdc2008 | Channel 9

Graphics Architecture:
Windows 7 Graphics Architecture Overview - Part 1 | yochay | Channel 9
Windows 7 Graphics Architecture Overview - Part 2 | yochay | Channel 9
Windows 7 Graphics Architecture Overview - Part 3 | yochay | Channel 9

Multi-Touch:
Windows 7 Multi Touch Overview | yochay | Channel 9

Taskbar Advanced Features:
Windows 7 Taskbar: Advanced Features | yochay | Channel 9

There are hundreds of Videos from Microsoft available at Channel9, Nearly anything you every wanted to know/hear about from Microsoft's Developers can be found there

Hope it helps

Steven

 

[sup3rsprt]

Real world gaming is slower in Win7 for the most part. So is overall performance of the UI.

The 3dmark benchmark was just an easy way to show the performance difference. 14% is pretty significant IMO.

My experience is that Win7 is not faster than XP. 64-bit is not faster than 32-bit since most apps are not 64-bit anyways.

 

[jackoneill123]

Real world gaming is slower in Win7 for the most part. So is overall performance of the UI.

The 3dmark benchmark was just an easy way to show the performance difference. 14% is pretty significant IMO.

My experience is that Win7 is not faster than XP. 64-bit is not faster than 32-bit since most apps are not 64-bit anyways.

well for me, Crysis in faster on Win7 than on XP... both 32bit...

 

[srq2625]

I should have been a little more precise in my claims of faster performance under Win7 vs. WinXP.

Specifically, Adobe Lightroom 2.3 (64-bit version) the only application running/loaded (not even an email client or browser), converting 100 full sized RAW files from Canon 50D dSLR (each file ranging in size from 20MB to 27MB) to generate straight out of camera (SOOC) JPGs. Running on WinXP x64 and using the same collection of RAW files, timing was approx 1.95 JPGs generated per second. On Win7 x64, Build 7100 (the RC ), timing was approx 2.15 JPGs generated per second. Not a significant difference, but it is illustrative and, for me, real-world and repeatable.

Time to perform/complete the above described operation was measured using a digital stopwatch. This could have introduced a small error if the run had been done only once. I repeated the run 3 times under each scenario to kind of smooth out that kind of thing.

BTW - all was done on the same machine. The Win7 was installed on and the scenario run completely from a slower drive (the RAWs were copied from a back-up to the intall drive in each case).

 

[sup3rsprt]

well for me, Crysis in faster on Win7 than on XP... both 32bit...

Faster in XP for me.

srq2625,
Sure, I'd still prefer Win7 x64 to WinXP x64 any day.

My comparison was between WinXP 32-bit and Win7 64-bit. WinXP 32-bit is faster in a lot of things, and that's pretty sad if you ask me.

I'm hoping things will improve when I go dual core on my desktop. But I think they probably won't, because my laptop is already dual core and Windows XP runs faster on that too.

Here's a 7-zip benchmark, Ultra compressing a 200MB AVI file on my Desktop

WinXP 32-bit = 3:20
Win7 64-bit = 3:33

It took 13 seconds longer to compress the same file in Windows 7. And I even used the 64-bit version of 7-zip.

 

[Captain Zero]

This is pretty simple, really.

OP, you need to change your thinking on what RAM is and what it's for. Here's a simple test for you that should 'convince' you.

1 - Install x32 7.
2 - Disable the page file entirely.
3 - ????
4 - Profit!

With 8GB, you could easily run x64 without a pagefile and it's much faster and responsive. No drive thrashing or ridiculous space wasted and not to mention fragmentation!

We're all fans of XP, it was a reliable work horse and stable to the end. But it's time to move on. Consider that 32bit OS' have been around for almost 30 years. There are kinks to work out in 7 but they will be resolved in short order. Get on board now or be left behind.

 

[sup3rsprt]

XP didn't have multi core support full stop since they weren't around then.

Processors were still in Mhz rather than Ghz never mind multi core support.

Then could you please explain to me why Cinebench R10 CPU benchmark finishes 4 seconds faster in Windows XP? (btw, my laptop is Pentium dual core and the power options are set to High Performance).

Where are the multicore improvements, because I don't see it.

 

[Dzomlija]

Faster in XP for me.

srq2625,
Sure, I'd still prefer Win7 x64 to WinXP x64 any day.

My comparison was between WinXP 32-bit and Win7 64-bit. WinXP 32-bit is faster in a lot of things, and that's pretty sad if you ask me.

I'm hoping things will improve when I go dual core on my desktop. But I think they probably won't, because my laptop is already dual core and Windows XP runs faster on that too.

Here's a 7-zip benchmark, Ultra compressing a 200MB AVI file on my Desktop

WinXP 32-bit = 3:20
Win7 64-bit = 3:33

It took 13 seconds longer to compress the same file in Windows 7. And I even used the 64-bit version of 7-zip.

All you've proven is how well 7-zip works between XP and Windows 7. 7-zip is neither Microsoft nor is it bundled with Windows 7, so you've given nothing about the difference beftween XP and 7.

To properly gauge this, use Windows XP Compressed Folders and Windows 7 Compressed Folders to compress the same file. Repeat the test several times to help average out any margin of error, especially if you're using a manual stopwatch.

Then we will see the real difference between XP 32-bit and Windows 7 64-bit. Who knows, you may end up coming to the same conclusion as before. But you might not, either.

At least your result will be more believable if you're talking about testing the performance of Windows 7 and it's features. NOT the 3rd party utilities run on it.

 

[sup3rsprt]

All you've proven is how well 7-zip works between XP and Windows 7. 7-zip is neither Microsoft nor is it bundled with Windows 7, so you've given nothing about the difference beftween XP and 7.

To properly gauge this, use Windows XP Compressed Folders and Windows 7 Compressed Folders to compress the same file.

I don't use the built in compression features (besides NTFS compression) if I can help it, because the performance and lack of features is horrific. I've already found that out by messing around with archives. I immediately installed 7-zip and WinRAR and now much happier. So, I think my test is valid (no doubt most people will be using these same tools).