Convince me !

[Lebon14]

So basically, upgrade your hardware so you can get the same performance you are getting now.

Hum... try running a Core 2 Duo 2.4GHz with 2GB of RAM, Win7 and try it also with a Pentium Dual-Core @ same frequency with 1GB of RAM.

I'm positive that the Core 2 Duo will be faster. Sure, it's an upgrade, but a meaningful one

We're all fans of XP,

Not anymore.(I think I've said it enough).

 

[Avien]

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.

 

[GatoSoft]

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.

 

[bjs53]

I appreciate your explanation. It seems reasonable. In fact it is not that kind of issue like long lasting disussion about Linux and Windows - more interesting is that Win 7 works smooth on quite old hardware. In my case it is laptop 5 years old, P4 and 1.25 RAM. Installation is significantly faster (moreover no need to update to SP 2 or SP 3), no need to install many additional drivers (graphic card, audio, lan, wifi, etc). All typical applications work without problem, system is modern, nice, easy to adapt and offers many new convenient solutions. In short, for everyone not sure and asking: should I install and check it - I would say yes.
Regards,

 

[njel]

I appreciate your explanation. It seems reasonable. In fact it is not that kind of issue like long lasting disussion about Linux and Windows - more interesting is that Win 7 works smooth on quite old hardware. In my case it is laptop 5 years old, P4 and 1.25 RAM. Installation is significantly faster (moreover no need to update to SP 2 or SP 3), no need to install many additional drivers (graphic card, audio, lan, wifi, etc). All typical applications work without problem, system is modern, nice, easy to adapt and offers many new convenient solutions. In short, for everyone not sure and asking: should I install and check it - I would say yes.
Regards,

Tell that to this guy

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-...nstalling-solars-7260-iso-but-i-get-bsod.html

or to this one

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/13799-rolling-back-xp.html


I am not sure theyl think the same...:huh:

 

[Charles Kane]

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.

 

[bjs53]

Tell that to this guy

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-...nstalling-solars-7260-iso-but-i-get-bsod.html

or to this one

http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/13799-rolling-back-xp.html


I am not sure theyl think the same...:huh:

Any case may be different - First, I have installed official 7100 RC build. Any leaked version from unknown sources is another story. Second, we all make some experiments with different builds and not final versions and in some cases we find troubles and issues we need to solve. It gives us possiblity to analize how system works, what are advantages and weak points. We exchange our opinions. You may find a lot of valuable advises here. It is great opportunity to learn how his new system works, to compare its behaviour with previous solutions like XP or Vista. There is of course also a room for critic opinion. Thats how we get some knowledge. For some who are not pro - and I am not - it is excellent opportunity to know what I can buy in future.
best regards,

 

[grouchpunk08]

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

 

[Dzomlija]

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".

 

[grouchpunk08]

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".

Well I read the NT5.0 being windows me or 2000 somewhere, i guess it was a bad source. But thats beside the point, I definitely think he should try out Win7

EDIT: Windows 2000 is NT5.0, and windows 2000 was the one that sucked, I mistakenly said windows ME instead of Windows 2000 in my last post. My bad

 

[GatoSoft]

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.

I was talking in general terms. Your machine is 4 years old, but 4 years ago the common amount of memory used was 256/512 MB. of RAM and your machine have 1,5 GB. of RAM right now.
Maybe you have upgraded your RAM, but that helps Windows 7 a lot. Also, a K8 motherboard with an oldie 64 bits processor is not something that we can call an OLD computer.
Also, all we know that new Windows editions needs more RAM than processor or motherboard chipset's power. So, you can have a great motherboard with a dual-core processor, but if you doesn't have enough RAM, then the HDD will start to scratch just after every double-click you do.

 

[Dzomlija]

I definitely think he should try out Win7

I concur! Windows 7 is defintely the best OS I've ever seen Microsoft release.

 

[PhreePhly]

Well I read the NT5.0 being windows me or 2000 somewhere, i guess it was a bad source. But thats beside the point, I definitely think he should try out Win7

EDIT: Windows 2000 is NT5.0, and windows 2000 was the one that sucked, I mistakenly said windows ME instead of Windows 2000 in my last post. My bad

Windows 2000 most certainly did NOT suck. Windows 2000 was extremely successful and well regarded. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it is wrong.

PhreePhly

 

[Shak 10]

Windows 2000 most certainly did NOT suck. Windows 2000 was extremely successful and well regarded. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it is wrong.

PhreePhly

+1 Windows 2000 was awesome and remains to this day still a secure and very successful OS.

 

[WindowsSe7en]

DirectX 11. Possibly increased hardware support. More features than XP.

Yes XP takes less RAM and runs faster but sooner or later we have to give up on it. For now, just do a dual boot setup and get the best of both worlds.

XP will die out eventually. XP uses less RAM so it runs faster, but Windows 7 has a lot of features, it's easier to use, and it has eye candy.

 

[patio]

Win2K was the most solid release to come out of Redmond up to this point...

 

[PhreePhly]

Win2K was the most solid release to come out of Redmond up to this point...

I would say that AT the time, Win2K was the most solid release to come out of Redmond. Frankly Vista is a much more solid release than even Win2K was. Win2K was great for the business environment, but it still had issues with general hardware and software at the time. There were plenty of games that would not play on Win2K because the video driver model was so different than the Win9X line.

Win2K's security was good for the time, but it is certainly not good enough for today, anymore. It has all of the buffer overrun problems that XP had. It has all of the same holes that XP had in it's kernel.

Vista and Win 7, with the SDL (Security Development Lifecycle) process, are far more secure than any previous MS OS.

PhreePhly

 

[Charles Kane]

Windows 2000 was, for its time an excellent, very stable windows platform, designed for business use. It is still deployed in some businesses I know today! Wasn't so good for gaming, but it was never intended to be.

Windows ME was a complete disaster, probably the most reviled OS in history - and with good reason. Stop-gap, ill thought out and implemented. One of the reasons public and geek trust in Microsoft was lost.

 

[grouchpunk08]

Windows 2000 most certainly did NOT suck. Windows 2000 was extremely successful and well regarded. Not sure where you're getting your info, but it is wrong.

PhreePhly

The part about Windows 2000 sucking was my own opinion, and was not meant to offend anyone. I never liked it at all.