Question about OS

[gyrene81]

Basically, it sounds like, "If it aint broke, don't fix it".

That's what I said about Win2000...and it was broke just like XP...only difference this time is Win7 ain't broken out the box the way Win95, 98, ME, 2000, XP and Vista were.

[kilz]

i am noticing that. however i do like to reinstall windows ever two years to keep my PC clean and free of space.

[Motherland]

Guys, correct me if I'm wrong but isn't:

resemble = look alike something

resent = disapprove/dislike something?

It's a play on words. The saying is 'I resent that remark', but since resemble kind of sounds like resent it's used in a kind of a sarcastic way.

On the thread topic, personally XP runs better on my computer than Windows 7. The next computer I get will have Windows 7 but until then I'm going to stick with XP. I don't see the point in upgrading.

[kilz]

gents let that topic die and start your own thread before mine is locked. i would really like to see what anyone else has to say or debate about this subject

[Ghosth]

Dual Boot!

Keep XP for gaming, play with Win 7 in your spare time, make up your own mind.

That being said, I have to agree with skuzzy. Until I see a compelling reason to, I'll stick with XP.

[gyrene81]

Regardless, with Windows 7, you have to double the amount of RAM to do the same things you could do in XP.

Actually, with the 64bit yes that is quite true, but like the other 64bit OS's out there, that is it's intended design...to utilize hardware resources beyond the 32bit hardware limitations. As for the 32bit version of Win7 vs WinXP SP3, I just finished a test...on an HP laptop 4GB RAM and Intel P8700 2.5Ghz dual core processor...Windows XP SP3 recognizes only 2.57GB of RAM and Win7 32bit recognizes 2.96GB as usable...after disabling all the eye candy and some fluff leaving all built in processes running...Win7 32bit is faster loading on login...and loading apps, especially the hogs like Outlook 2k7, IE8, Acrobat 8, etc...the full suite of Office 2k7 opened, with IE8 and Firefox 6 tabs each on different sites with at least 1 using a flash intro.

I might try it on a P4 system I have in my office...but it's a lot of work...Vista dogged it so if that's any indication, Win7 won't do any better.

[38ruk]

i am noticing that. however i do like to reinstall windows ever two years to keep my PC clean and free of space.

Every 2 year ? hehe I reformat every 6 months atleast  .  Most of the time it's voluntary  8).   
 

[Skuzzy]

Actually, with the 64bit yes that is quite true, but like the other 64bit OS's out there, that is it's intended design...to utilize hardware resources beyond the 32bit hardware limitations. As for the 32bit version of Win7 vs WinXP SP3, I just finished a test...on an HP laptop 4GB RAM and Intel P8700 2.5Ghz dual core processor...Windows XP SP3 recognizes only 2.57GB of RAM and Win7 32bit recognizes 2.96GB as usable...after disabling all the eye candy and some fluff leaving all built in processes running...Win7 32bit is faster loading on login...and loading apps, especially the hogs like Outlook 2k7, IE8, Acrobat 8, etc...the full suite of Office 2k7 opened, with IE8 and Firefox 6 tabs each on different sites with at least 1 using a flash intro.

I might try it on a P4 system I have in my office...but it's a lot of work...Vista dogged it so if that's any indication, Win7 won't do any better.

That is mis-stated.  The 32 bit version of the Windows OS has to allow the space requested by drivers, and ROMS.  That space is private.  The reduction in address space is not under Microsoft's control.  It is the drivers and other physical address requirements of the hardware that cause the reduction of user addressable memory.

In a laptop, it is all over the place as the video driver will merrily steal away any amount of RAM it wants.

Try running a video application in 2GB of RAM on Windows 7 versus XP then come back and tell me which is faster.  That was my whole point, specifically.  I can do in 2GB of RAM what requires 4GB of RAM with Windows 7 or Vista. The 32bit version of Windows 7 does not allow a user to access all 4GB or RAM.  It will depend on the video card RAM more than anything else.

You ever try running Windows 7 (32 bit) in 2GB of RAM and actually try to get any work done?  Chug, chug, chug.

For me to run Windows 7, I would have to buy 4GB of RAM and the operating system.  All for the pleasure of not gaining anything at all.  On what planet does that make any sense?

[gyrene81]

That is mis-stated.  The 32 bit version of the Windows OS has to allow the space requested by drivers, and ROMS.  That space is private.  The reduction in address space is not under Microsoft's control.  It is the drivers and other physical address requirements of the hardware that cause the reduction of user addressable memory.

Not to be argumentative but...that being the case, Win7 must be looking at things differently to have nearly 1/2 a gig difference being reported as usable.

Try running a video application in 2GB of RAM on Windows 7 versus XP then come back and tell me which is faster.  That was my whole point, specifically.  I can do in 2GB of RAM what requires 4GB of RAM with Windows 7 or Vista. The 32bit version of Windows 7 does not allow a user to access all 4GB or RAM.  It will depend on the video card RAM more than anything else.

You ever try running Windows 7 (32 bit) in 2GB of RAM and actually try to get any work done?  Chug, chug, chug.

For me to run Windows 7, I would have to buy 4GB of RAM and the operating system.  All for the pleasure of not gaining anything at all.  On what planet does that make any sense?

If you're doing video rendering, that I can understand. Win7 32 bit wouldn't do a thing for you, and upping to 64bit would require more hardware for only a marginal performance gain. With general applications, that don't do a lot of read/writes...I'm seeing slightly better initialization and save times in Win7 32bit over XP SP3.

[Spikes]

I built a comp for my grandfather and only put 2GB into it (due to money constraints, plan was 4GB). It seemed to run fine. Specs were as follows:
AMD Athlon II 2.9ghz upped to 3.0ghz (to make it simple)
2GB Mushkin Blackine Enhanced 1066
Geforce 7200GS GFX card (just something so the comp wouldn't take Ram away to use for video, worked out great).
Windows 64 bit...(don't think 64 and 32 matter when it comes to the usage of RAM and performance if only it has 2GB anyway).

IIRC lower amounts of RAM run better with XP because XP uses clickable images instead of rendered stuff for Vista/W7...

[Vulcan]

That's what I said about Win2000...and it was broke just like XP...only difference this time is Win7 ain't broken out the box the way Win95, 98, ME, 2000, XP and Vista were.

Win 2K was a good O/S. How old are you?

[68Wooley]

Win 2K was a good O/S. How old are you?

It wasn't that good. It just seemed like it to anyone moving from ME. 

Vista was a dog - no two ways about it, but for most folks, Win 7 will work out just fine. That said, other than better 64 bit support and some eye-candy, I've yet to find a compelling reason to upgrade from XP.

[Vulcan]

It wasn't that good. It just seemed like it to anyone moving from ME. 

Who was dumb enough to fall for ME?

Funny thing about MS OS's, even though they've dropped a couple of lemons on the market you've been able to skip em (ie most people stuck with XP waiting for Win7). Whereas some other companies force you to upgrade at every step (*cough* apple *cough*) or find you OS no longer supported very very quickly.

BTW, I've been very impressed with Win 7, I've installed on half a dozen machines so far and it's been perfect.

[humble]

I think a lot of this goes back to area's skuzzy already hit, Configuration. If you installed XP without bloat and bought quality compatible hardware and installed best case drivers and have not loaded your system down with a lot of misconfigured or poorly designed stuff then XP stands head and shoulders above Vista and Win7 for a vast majority of uses. The flip side is as follows...if your not a wiz configuring your system or you have a branded box...especially an older one win 7 can actually be a tremendous upgrade because it's so seamless to install.

As a personal example I have an old toshiba R15-S822 Tablet. I used it as a primary workstation back when I was traveling and my daughter has it now. Like all branded stuff it came with a lot of bloatware and marginal driver support. I spent hours tweaking and eliminating junk before I got what I felt was a reasonably tuned system I could disk image before I loaded up all my business stuff. When win7 came out as an open beta I decided it would be a great test bed. The benchmarked performance across every measure is significantly better then the factory default OS install (by a huge margin) and still much better (15%+) then my tweaked load out. Further every driver is better and more efficient and the system significantly more configurable then I could manage with all the crap bundled in and indecipherable to me despite my best efforts. To me for the "average user" Win7 is potentially a big step forward over XP despite a lot of drawbacks it imposes...

[Skuzzy]

Well said humble.