Windows Xp vs Vista vs 7
Windows is without a doubt the most popular operating system out there today. With the release of Windows 7 just around the corner I thought why not compare all three operating systems to each other. I’ve taken all three operating systems and put them through their paces in a rather large series of tests comparing everything from video rendering to CPU and memory performance. I’ve got some rather interesting results for you, not quite what I expected, and I’m sure not what most people expected either. Continue on to learn how these operating systems stack up to one another…
I’ll start off with the specs of my system for you.
CPU: Intel Q9650 (3ghz)
RAM: 8gigs OCZ Fatal1ty PC2-6400
Motherboard: EVGA NF-680i
Video Card: Sparkle Nvidia GTX260 (896mb ram) –Main Monitor 22” 1680×1050 Res
Video Card2: EVGA 8600GTS (for PhysX)
Video Card2: ECS Nvidia GTS250 –Dual 20” 1680×1050 Res
The operating systems are:
Vista Ultimate 64bit
Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit
Windows XP 32bit
We’ll start the testing off with Crystalmark 2004R3
I like to use Crystalmark because it basically tests all aspects of the system and then also gives you an overall Mark or Score for your system that you can then compare to others.
-Higher score is better
As we can see, XP scores better overall, but why?
here’s the individual testing results with all the scores:
In the OpenGL and CPU Intensive testing we see that Windows XP handles them much better than the other two operating systems. We know that early on there was a problem with OpenGL in Vista, and supposedly it was fixed, but obviously it appears there’s still some problems with both Vista and 7 in regards to OpenGl support.
The next test would be Super Pi Mod v1.5XS and the time to calculate Pi to 32 Million places.
-lower score of time is better
Surprisingly Windows 7 has the best time to complete the calculations, coming in a good 15 seconds faster than Xp and almost 20 faster than Vista.
The next test is a Video Conversion test, I’ve taken a .AVI video file and converted it to .WMV format. I used the same file I got from my WinX DVD Ripper Review a little while ago, the movie is The Hunger. For the test I used WinX Video Converter and didn’t change any settings, it was straight conversion from one format to the other.
The Clip is 1.1oGB in size with a length of 1:36:24 running time.
-lower times are better
Windows XP has the best video conversion performance coming in six seconds faster than Windows 7 and 21 seconds faster than Vista. Really though six seconds isn’t much, and neither is the extra 21 seconds it took Vista. All of them performed the conversions fine, the movie looked perfect.
The next test I’ve got is 3dmark06.
We all know what this one is, so no explanation needed I think.
-higher scores are better.
Windows Xp has a nice lead over both of the other operating systems, not even close really. As we can see Vista would be the worst performance, with 7 coming in a close second.
So far three out of these four tests have gone to Windows Xp.
The next test I’ve got is Cinebench.
If you don’t know what Cinebench is, here’s a quote from their site:
CINEBENCH is a real-world test suite that assesses your computer’s performance capabilities. MAXON CINEBENCH runs several tests on your computer to measure the performance of the main processor and the graphics card under real-world circumstances.
The test procedure consists of two main components: The first test sequence is dedicated to the computer’s main processor. A 3D scene file is used to render a photoreaslistic image. The scene makes use of various CPU-intensive features such as reflection, ambient occlusion, area lights and procedural shaders. During the first run the benchmark only uses one CPU (or CPU core) to ascertain a reference value. On computers that have multiple CPUs or CPU cores and on those that simulate multiple CPUs (via HyperThreading or similar technolgies), MAXON CINEBENCH will run a second test using all available CPU power.
The second test measures graphics card performance and is run inside the 3D editor window. The project file used can test all graphics cards that support the OpenGL standard. In this scene, only the camera was animated. This scene places medium to low demands on graphics cards and tests the maximum speed with which the scene can be properly displayed.
-Higher scores are better
Again we see Windows XP leading in the OpenGl testing, no surprise there, but it then falls behind Windows7, but not by much, in the other two tests. Vista just isn’t too good all around…
To finish off I’ve got several tests from SiSoft Sandra 2009 SP4. Sandra is a great suite of tools to really benchmark and test your system.
The first test is Processor Cache and Memory:
Processor Cache and Memory
Benchmark the processors’ caches and memory access (transfer speed).
Results Interpretation:
Cache/Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Speed Factor (MB/s) – lower results are better, i.e. less difference between processor cache speed and memory speed.
Combined Index: is a composite figure representing the overall performance rating of the entire Cache-Memory performance in terms of MB/s. The value is the logarithmic average of all the results for the entire address space. (Higher is better, i.e. better performance)
Speed Factor: is a figure representing the speed differential between the CPU’s cache and memory. The value is the ratio of the fastest cache (i.e. L1) bandwidth to the main memory bandwidth. (Lower is better, i.e. the memory is not very much slower than CPU’s cache)
The results are a mixed bag with no real winner here in this test. Windows XP though appears to be the better performer but the results are very close for all of them.
Next up I’ve got CPU Arithmetic:
Processor Arithmetic
Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units. Shows how your processors handle arithmetic and floating point instructions in comparison to other typical processors.
Results Interpretation:
Dhrystone (MIPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Whetstone (MFLOPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.
If anything we can see that Vista lags behind in two of tests, it would appear that XP performs a bit better really with more rounded performance results.
Many of us use our computers for multi-media so I think it’s very important to know how these operating system will perform, so the next test is CPU Multi-Media:
Processor Multi-Media
Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units. Shows how your processors handle multi-media instructions and data in comparison to other typical processors.
Such operations are used by more specialised software, e.g. image manipulation, video decoders/encoders, games.
Results Interpretatio :
Multi-Media Integer (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.
Multi-Media Single/Double Float (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.
Clearly for any Multi-Media you want Windows 7, Windows XP lags very far behind in all of the tests, but Vista come in a very close second place.
For the next test I’ve got a GPU centric one called Graphics (GPGPU) Bandwidth.
Graphics (GPGPU) Bandwidth
Benchmark the bandwidth of the memory of the graphics processors (GPGPUs) and the bandwidth of the bus that connects them to your computer.
Results Interpretation
Internal Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster internal memory bandwidth.
Data Transfer Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster data transfer between the GPU and computer.
Very similar performance across all operating systems, so close that you’d never ‘feel’ the differences in the real world. So it’s safe to say that they’re all pretty much the same in terms of this test.
The next test would be memory bandwidth.
Memory Bandwidth
Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer.
Results Interpretation:
Integer Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.
Float Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth
And again we see that Windows Xp is the clear and balanced choice , but still the results are very close overall.
Next up we’ve got Memory Latency and you’d think with the same exact ram in there that this test might be close.
Memory Latency
Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory
The latency of caches is measured in processor clocks (i.e. how many clocks it takes for the data to be ready) as it is dependent on the processor clock speed.
The latency of memory is measured in nanoseconds as it is typically independent on processor clock speed.
-lower scores are better
We see that 7 and XP are almost equal, there’s really no difference between them, at least that you’d ever notice. Vista on the other hand doesn’t do too well here does it?
With dual and quad core processors being so popular, this test is also a fairly important one I think.
Multi-Core Efficiency
Benchmark the multi-core efficiency of the processors.
The ability of the cores to process data blocks and pass them to another core for processing (producer-consumer paradigm) of different sizes and different chain sizes is measured. The efficiency of the inter-connect between cores is thus benchmarked; however, the number of cores (and processors) also counts as more data buffers can be processed simultaneously (aka "in flight").
-higher is better for bandwidth
-lower is better for latency
Windows 7 takes it here, but not by much. Oddly we see Vista with a much lower latency than the other two operating systems. Then again we are talking nanoseconds, so really there’s not much of a difference is there?
So with these results, what do you get from all of this?
To me, it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system. Sure the others look nicer, but in terms of performance I think Xp is the one to go with on average. Yes Vista and 7 have DirectX 10, but how much of a difference does that really make? Vista and 7 have Aero, but again that just makes things look nice, they’re nice tweaks and little improvements to usability but in terms of performance it doesn’t do much except maybe hinder it.
Maybe I could turn Aero off and see what kind of results I get then? I’ve always wondered what kind of impact it has on the system.
Interesting… Good work.
Driver versions?
BrainDedd: They are the latest, I keep my systems fully up to date and make sure they are updated before I run any tests.
Call me when you try it with SSD drive
hello: sure what’s your number?
never mind how much faster xp is or is not than vista/7. xp is very stable and SMALL in the amount of hard drive space it uses, the amount of files it uses, and the amount of memory it uses. it’s the most awesome windows os ever. microsoft should opensource it, but they are too dumb.
you can use programs like xplite/nlite to strip out the junk from xp and have a blazing fast and unbloated os. it’s disgusting how much space vista/7 take up. who cares if you have the space to spare, it’s wasteful, bloated, inefficient and lame.
the only good thing about vista/7 is it can use directx10+ and use more than 3.5gb of ram. both of these are artificial limitations due to microsoft though. and yes, the 3.5gb ram limit in xp is NOT due to the 32-bit architecture. if microsoft wanted too, they could make xp use way way more than that. but driver manufacturers would have to possibly update their drivers too.
Surprisingly none of the operating system dominated, and also how Vista still gets a bad rap when its identical to Win 7 other than features.
Over time Win 7 will win out, and I am using Vista with no problems since SP1. Keep in mind XP sucked until SP2 came out, remember that?
Anyways, I also use Win 7 on another laptop and its very nice, clean, simple and responsive. Hope they keep it that way, but it is Vista 2.5
For perhaps 1% or 2% more performance overall, you’re recommending XP as the best OS? If you had any clue as to the security changes between XP and Vista/7 I doubt you’d recommend XP.
http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/04/malware_on_vista_rare_accordin.php
unpatched XPs have 33 infections per thousand.
XP SP3 has 6 infections per thousand.
unpatched Vista have 3.7 infections PER THOUSAND (half of fully patched XP)
patched Vista have 2.5 infections per thousand.
XP is wide open to 0-day exploits, Vista is hardened and basically immune. That’s worth 10% performance, let alone 1-2%.
Also, your math is off. Though XP wins more benchmarks than 7, Windows 7 wins by a higher percentage overall,
In the higher is better benchmarks, Win 7 is 107.1111% of XP
In the lower is better benchmarks, Win 7 is 99.97838% of XP
It’s early (for me) and my math is fuzzy so I wasn’t able to combine the percentages, but Windows 7 is faster overall, not to mention the vast improvements in security, aero, directx 11, good 64-bit support, and so on. So the articles conclusions are way off, XP is not the better OS, not at all.
Great job, comparing 2 x64 OSs against a x86 one. *golf clap*. Note also that the big difference between XP and 7 in the crystalmark is GDI, which isn’t that surprising when you consider that GDI operations in windows 7 are further translated into DirectX before display.
Lets not also forget that you’ve got a bunch of synthetic benchmarks here which may not bear any relation to real world performance, as would be suggested by the fact that other sites that HAVE done real world gaming tests show windows 7 coming out ahead more often than behind.
@blahblah, from what I can see from the results, Windows 7 is as fast as XP. Most of the tests are synthetics, which are not useful at all since real world performance is usually quite different. Windows 7 is also much more secure than XP.
Your comment about the RAM limit is inaccurate though; it is due to the physical addressing limitations of a 32-bit OS that you are limited to 4GB of RAM.
James: I know all about your points, the point of this was to get a discussion going, and it seems to have worked. I would never go back to XP myself, I’m using Vistax64, and have used it since it came out, I’ve not experienced any of the problems others have, I like the OS quite a bit. I had no problems with the installation, as opposed to XP where it was a nightmare to install for lack of drivers when it first came out, with Vista I had no such problem, everything worked right out of the box. Also I like the fact that you caught that little bit of information, while it looks like XP ‘won’ it really didn’t did it? The basic point of this article was for the discussion, as I mentioned, and to show people that it’s about time to truly retire Windows XP and just let it die.
Tom: I didn’t have much of a choice with XP, the 64bit version lacks driver support still to this day, that particular OS has gone the way of the do-do as it were. The 64bit versions of Vista and Win7 are popular for the fact that they can support more ram which allows people to do more. The 64bit versions of those operating systems are more widely accepted than the 64bit of XP ever was. The point of using those OSes for the testing was from an enthusiast point of view, if you are one then you’ll be using the 64bit version and if you’re serious about using your computer for work, or even just general usage with better performance then you’ll choose the 64bit OS as opposed to the 32bit, there are more advantages with the 64bit than the 32bit.
Having used Win7 on my new i7 860 rig for a week now, I’m ready to install it on ALL of my computers. (laptop, desktop, and work desktop in the office). Performance wise it’s really not any slower than XP as was pointed out earlier (aside from OpenGL). Games wise, other sites have done a comparison and in most cases, Win 7 > XP. I was also one of the people who found Vista an enjoyable experience. To this day, I don’t know why people complained so much about it. I personally believe it was one of those jump on the bandwagon deals. If you’re having any sort of issues, it must be the OS’s fault since Billy Bob and Jane Doe were so vehement about it.
The biggest advantage of Win7 for me personally is the new taskbar and layout. Aero snap (I’ve got a ghetto vista version installed on my work computer) among other features are incredibly efficient for productivity when you get used to them (takes like an hour). Also, it reportedly increases the battery life on laptops (good for my laptop).
Installing it was no problem at all. I’ve done it on 2 separate computers now with no issues. It took ~30-45 minutes. All drivers were detected on the first boot and the only thing I had to really install was my graphics card drivers.
@Rage: I believe blahblah was talking about PAE. Physical Address Extension.
Benchmark windows xp 64 bit please.
So why not use 32bit Vista / 7?
The thing is, its all academic, simple facts
yes Windows XP is quicker in some tests then 7, But it is not quicker overall.
As mentioned OpenGL will be slower, whats intresting is OpenGL tests is the differences between Vista and 7
yes 7 looks pretty and no its not reason to buy it, but tell me, i bet you XP runs faster if you disable its new look GUI and run it in Windows 98 style.
“To me, it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system.”
On average 7 is equal or faster than than XP, looks better doing it and is hugely more secure and stable, just how do you get your conclusion?
This article is deeply flawed!!!
This article is comparing windows XP 32 bit to Vista and windows 7 64 bit. A proper test would use all 32 bit OS or all 64 bit OS. I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from this article.
So, do you really think the results would be much different if I used the 32bit versions of Win7 and Vista?
Kristofer, I can’t believe you made a comment like “do you really think”. Purpose of benchmarking is to have a definite answer. I’m sure you put a lot of effort into this article, but I don’t make conclusions on guessing what an untested factor would be.
Ok, give me a bit… next week I’ll try and toss up a second part to this, with both Vista 32bit and Win7 32bit included and we’ll see just how much of a difference there is, if any. Personally I think the results will be pretty much the same…
Sweet, I can’t wait to see it.
32bit OSs ought to be faster than x64 at certain tasks, particularly on Intel (IIRC AMD implementation of x64 is better than Intel in that Intel loses more performance x86 > x64 than AMD does). This is true for 32 bit apps running in WoW64 (emulation overhead) and also for 64 bit native binaries verses 32bit native binaries. For example, compiling software (which uses pointers very heavily) suffers badly in x64 because suddenly all the memory accesses are twice as big, and memory usage goes up dramatically. This means an x64 app is more likely to hit the page file and incur huge speed hits due to page faults than a 32bit app.
Oops. Hit publish too early.
On the other hand, some 64 bit native apps will gain a lot of performance over their 32bit native counterparts. Those which are compiled to use the additional GP registers in x64 will gain, as will those which make heavy use of 64bit math or use a lot of RAM. It’s a real mixed bag of gains and losses that can only really be sorted out by benchmarking the particular app you’re interested in.
In short, x86 vs x64 is an apples and oranges comparison from which you must draw your conclusions carefully.
So there is virtually no performance difference between 3 generations of Windows..
Wow. Microsoft at its best.
The rigs that these OSes were compared against do not remotely resemble mainstream business or personal rigs. Run the same tests on an average rig: ~2+GHz Core-2 Duo, integrated graphics with shared memory or low-end graphics card with ~256MB, 2-4GB <=800MHz RAM & SATA disk. These are the platforms that most businesses have on the desktop.
Really… you compared a x86 version of XP to two x64 OS’s. Results I see are fairly invalid of you saying that XP is the better. The reasons of why are scattered though out these comments. Not to mention the 64 bit OS’s really are not cracked up to what they should be. I test them everyday from where I work, and I will say…stick with 32 for now. Very little has the capability let alone the want to use hyper threading and 64 bit systems.
agreed on the 32/64 difference. looking forward to next weeks results.
+1 for “this test is deeply flawed”. It’s not an “apples to apples” comparison.
You report using 8 GB of RAM. Win XP/32 bit can only use about 3 or 4 Gb of that whereas the 64 bit Win vista and 7 can use ALL of it, effectively doubling the RAM they have.
I am z bit surprised that differences were so tiny. I was expecting xp to be much faster than vista and win7. your tests show that the choice of operating system does not have any bigger difference on the speed. thanks. i will go for win7 as it is the newest and has plenty nice features.
Please, do benchmark XP 64-bit, which has been available.
Or, use the 32-bit builds of Vista and Win7.
What’s the justification for mixing the two? Maybe you just don’t like the outcome…
Oh I was wrong about XP winning more benchmarks, actually it’s like this:
Win 7 wins against XP in 11 benchmarks
Win 7 ties xp in 3 benchmarks
Win 7 loses against XP in 9 benchmarks
Together with the higher overall percentage win for Win 7, and I think you should rewrite the conclusion to say Windows 7 won.
I have got Win7 BETA running on my laptop. Runs better than anything i have ever used on my laptop.It came with Vistax32 but that was FAIL!!! Win7 runs nice
You used WinXp 32 bit version. I believe you would achieve better results while using WinXp X64. It has better kernel and performs faster in many ways.
Since windows 7 is a new system it is quite fast. But that is only for now. Remember how fast was first version of windows Xp? How slow is windows xp sp3 compare to first windows xp build? I believe the same will hapen to windows 7 after couple of years.
I would go to windows 7 only if it could give MUCH higher performance than windows xp can give. Now I say big fat NO. And I’m OEM builder and none of machines i made uses 7 nor Vista.
I’d rerun the tests with w7 32bit. I just upgraded from XP SP3 and it seems faster for me
(after tweeking and removing all the stupid graphics fadeouts etc)
Do you need DirectX10 to run games such as crysis?
Should have done a Crysis benchmark, anyway as far as I can tell XP is still the king for gaming. Guaranteed 5-10 less fps in Vista/Win7 vs 32bit XP using DX9.
What about doing what the last line of your post says, namely, turning off the eye candy features in each OS and testing the core speeds? I agree with the 32/64-bit issue for TRUER
Crap…
for TRUE benchmarking, but in reality I haven’t seen much difference in the two versions of any system.
I think, though, that if you disable all of the “extras” in XP/Vista/7, you’ll see 7 come out worlds ahead. 7 has a ton more visual features enabled by default. I like them, but if you don’t, turn them off and get pure speed. I’m currently on a laptop that started off as an XP machine, moved to Vista and is now running 7 RC (soon to be 7 Ultimate RTM). By far, when you factor in driver support, speed, installation ease, RE-installation ease, program support, etc… Windows 7 is the best OS I’ve ever had on this machine. And it’s all been with basically the same components (2 hard drive upgrades).
Synthetic benchmarks may prove one thing; my personal experiences prove another.
On the installation point: my experience is, XP installation 1+ hours, plus driver download (mostly on another machine due to lack of ethernet support), Vista installation about an hour, 7 installation about 20 minutes with most (if not all) drivers already installed. That’s progress to me
.
I’m working on all of it… I write for several sites, and there are only so many days per week with so many hours in a day….. I’ve got to get some free time to re-install 32 bit versions of the operating systems then re-do some tests, which includes some gaming as well, please bear with me…
TinyXP Rev09 – the best at the mo
Thanks for the comparison. I’m still using XP and am very happy with it. Tried Vista, but had so many problems (on a new and pretty good hardware), and although I miss the Vista interface (XP on a big monitor is a constant struggle…), I find XP the most reliable OS so far. I would like to switch to 7, but in case it’s still not up to XP in terms of performance, stability etc. I would be a great loss of time for me to go back to XP. So, I find your comparison very helpful.
As a some sort of test, I installed 7 on VirtualPC. I have an XP installation there too, which I use for experiments and which is bloated with software I would never install otherwise. And it still performs far, far better than the fresh (without a single app installed) windows 7 installation. Pity. It seems I won’t be changing my XP in the near future.
Good work, very nice comparison!! No point switching to windows 7 yet. I run Maya on XP 64, no problems at all.. If I could, I would still be using Windows NT 4, it used only 12mb of ram! On my NT 4 machine I had 64mb of ram and I was running Softimage 3D 3.7 | Extreme (It was used for Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers, Jumanji..) Clean and fast OS.. Not like the bloated crapware MS releases these days. Don’t care much about how pretty the start button looks like in Windows 7, I don’t have sex with my operating system, I just click start and run the desired app. New technology in windows 7, like touch screen? Do you seriously want those smudges on your screen from those greasy fingers?? Yes, XP has security issues, so does every other microsoft product since the beginning of their monopoly. If you care about security use Linux.
lol this is wrong i have run all 3 of these and xp is not the best, i currently have Windows 7 and is my computer science class we have torn this OS apart and it’s by far better than these bench marks you have set. Also it helps when you run the same Bit OS against each other, this test is faulty.
I also want to add to the discussion that is quite important to notice about the fact that the benchmarking software must be compiled and optimized to 64bit (if benchmarking is done over 64bit OS).
When OS is made for 64bit all software should be made for 64 bit in order to achieve a good and real idea of performance.
good luck playing the newer games on that XP rig. DX10 will make XP obsolete
Not that it makes a large difference in the standpoint of how fast will my operating system allow me to run a game or even a benchmark. But when arguing the efficiency of an OS overall, should you not also take into account the fact that without a doubt, while benching at essentially the same as an older OS, the newer has a huge amount more going on in the background. Not to mention background processes running to ensure the operation of hardware and software not even supported by the older.
In response to the people saying that unpatched xp machines have 6 infections per thousand, are you taking into account that XP still holds about 66% of the market share for ALL operating systems? So you would expect a higher infection ratio for XP than Vista. There’s a reason why XP is still the most widely used OS today (8 years after it was released). Vista is just flat out unreliable and the system requirements are a joke: 15GB of space is required to install Windows vista, 16GB is required to install Windows 7, while XP only requires 1.5 GB of space. (That’s 10 times more than Windows XP). I’ve had my XP machine for years and haven’t even used 16GB of space yet. I think that 16 GB is way too much for the operating system. I’ve used Vista and I was very disappointed in how much slower it was than XP. You need at least 2 GB of RAM to get a semi-decent performance out of Vista while XP only really needs 512MB of RAM to get a better performance than Vista using 2GB of RAM. Overall Windows XP gets by with much less than Vista and Windows 7 and has less of an impact on the system performance. On a different note, XP is by far the most stable OS today and people aren’t seeing a good enough reason to upgrade from XP to Windows 7…I know I’m not…Although I do admit, reluctantly, that XP is transitioning into a legacy operating system and in the end will get phased out, but until I see a better OS than Windows 7 and Vista I’m going to stick with XP.
Kristofer, thanks for the test results. I had been wondering, and you mostly answered it for me. But, I still wonder…
Your tests put three OSs to work on hardware that gives them all more than enough to work with. None of the OSs really had to break a sweat, and all of them came out pretty close. I suspect that on more modest machines, Vista and 7 would choke long before XP. It seems to me that Vista/7 need all that extra memory just to catch up to XP, memory that XP probably doesn’t even need to use to do the same work. I think XP could probably do the same amount of work as the others, with a lot less hardware.
I guess to put this in terms of “bang for your buck”, if I had $20,000 to equip an office for as many workers as I could afford, be they secretaries or video game testers, with which OS would I be able to get the most workers working?
Honestly, I’m thinking about upgrading (replacing) my Windows 98 machine, which is still running just fine with 64 MB of memory. I could buy a new XP box for under $400 that would be killer fast. If I bought a $400 Vista/7 machine, would the performance be back to what I’m getting with Win98??? (LOL, remember 233 MHz MMX?)
XP Pro 32! Why change?
Oh god, if you didnt turn off Aero and optimize both Vista and 7 for performance you have really compared Apples to Oranges here.
This article is a complete botch because you are showing off new technology and running 10’s if not dozens of processes that NEVER RUN in XP.
Turn off the crapware that is attached to Vista and 7 and redo this.
Horrible execution but a point for effort.
so many opinons from so many people more wise than myself! I am running a i7 860, 4g ram, 1T hard drive. I am mainly using it for 3D cad, using ProE, 3D max etc and adobe suite. And the occasional game when im sick of working…..
My question is what OS should i put on? iv read through all these comments and the article, but cant come up with a decision……cheers
Did you also happen to notice BOTH Vista and 7 are 64 bit while Xp is only 32? Try using the professional 64 bit edition of XP, or switch V/7 to 32 bit and try again.
pls compare windows 7 xp and vista when they are all the same arkitecture. not different. they see the difference!!
Something told me that XP would win out over MSFT 7. XP works.
“CPU: Intel Q9650 (3ghz)
RAM: 8gigs OCZ Fatal1ty PC2-6400″
“Maybe I could turn Aero off and see what kind of results I get then? I’ve always wondered what kind of impact it has on the system.”
Lol, newr read such a pointless test. You’r megadonk.
David…Yes, XP has about 3x the market share of Vista, so infections will be somewhat higher, but a lot of malware that runs on XP also runs on Vista, it’s not like Mac vs. Windows, also compare Vista unpatched vs. patched infection rates, unpatched Vista is not several times the patched Vista in infection rates, it’s almost the same, because Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code and tech. built in, that XP lacks, anyways…
As far as sys. requirements and stability, I found Vista waaay more stable than XP, I ran Vista for 2 years 24/7 with no blue-screens/random reboots, the only problem I ever saw was dying hardware. Sys reqs. Well it’s called Moore’s law, XP uses more resources than Windows 98, and MS-DOS. It’s natural for software to require more resources over time, but really Vista requires LESS hardware than XP, if you factor in costs at the time of release. At XP’s release, 512MBs of slow DDR ram ran about $200, at Vista’s release you could get 2GBs for $200, and Vista runs better on 2GBs than XP runs on 512MBs. So in absolute terms, XP is less resource hungry, but cost relative Vista requires less. Same for hard drive space and CPU power.
WINXP=WIN7+AERO
Uhh,, that Pi to 32 million places test
on Windows Xp x64, with Q6600 Quad core, 9600GT nvidia, 8gb of ram
it took 14.4 secs
That did suprise me as most of these tests are memory and processor and video card determinate
to what hardware you have installed.
My system on the whole should be slower, due to CPU and Graphics card differences
I welcome the XP(32bit) vs Vista/7(64bit) comparison because my computers have 64bit processors but are currently running XP32.
I reckon this is the case for a great many people since most of the processors sold for the past couple of years have been 64bit*, whereas nobody uses the 64 bit incarnation of XP because all the drivers are crap and nobody releases 64bit software for it.
(* seems to me anyways, I’ve not researched this at all)
Just picking up on the comment from James Gentille, I don’t find it natural at all that software consumes more resources over time; why should each new version be slower than the previous? It’s important to mention that there are huge numbers of office workers who for years have used their PCs just for basic tasks like word processing and sending emails. Upgrading all these machines just to ‘keep pace’ with the latest (slowest) new software is not only sad, it’s also a very real environmental problem. We should be moving towards more efficient systems that use less energy and last longer. Credit must go to Microsoft; for once the latest version of Windows is not the slowest ever.
now i dont agree with the Vista and 7 defenders, ive used XP for more than 4 years and im delighted with it, i used Vista for 1 month and a half on my laptop, then found a way to get XP working, so now im writing this from my laptop runnig XP
for month and a half i didnt see anything in Vista that was better than XP, only bad things – even when i turn off themes service and use classic, Vista is not faster in any way, no matter how i optimize it, its still the same, and the time it takes to boot.. ohhhh!!! and again – when i connect to the net – it shows progress, then leaves me the window to close it by myself, in XP i could tweak it so it just connects and displays a note if it is connected or not. i was _NOT_ satisfied with Vista and i wont waste my time with 7, XP is the number one in ANY way and i will use it until its COMPLETELY out of support, then i will leave windows (for i use pirated copies) and switch to Linux, so i wont be a lawbreaker anymore, and have the bes a person can get from a single OS
thats my word to you, Vista and 7 defenders, i wish you nice time with the OS you desired, but i cant agree with you it is the best choice for windows out there
good luck and take care!!!
(and remember – XP will warmly welcome you back if you need Him (x )
this entire test is flawed, and is a joke, and raises the question of the competence of the person who actually did the benchmarks,
under no circumstances can you mix 32bit and 64bit operating systems together,
that’s cheating, all operating systems should be 32 bit, or 64 bit,
I’m actually discussed that testfreaks.com would even allow this test to be published to the public,
in fact i think more people should express there feeling on this outrageous test being permitted as being FARE!!!!!, come on people you should insist this test gets disqualified on the basis that one of the operating systems in in another type of language (32BIT),
two 64bit operating systems, and one 32 bit, Kristofer Brozio you are a cheat or just plain negligent.
Windows Xp is better OS than Windows Vista and Windows 7
This is a very useful benchmark. Most people who are considering the (upgrade?) change from windows XP to 7 are using a 32bit OS with a very high chance of having a 64bit capable CPU, changing to a 64bit version of windows 7 may seem the logical choice, however knowing the performance hit involved in such a change is informative. I for one won’t be making the change from XP to 7. As XP starts to date over the next couple of years I’ll push further into a good Linux distro as I feel will many others. So for all the the comments banding around statements of ‘competence’ in the quality of work in taking these benchmarks I say, lay of the caffeine and chill the f**k out.
WORD!
Next will be Linux/GNU. No more of this bullshit.
Jimmy Jay – OK, go play with your MS-DOS on a used 486 (you can find them real cheap); the rest of us will move on. For all the people complaining about bloat, if you stayed with old versions of the software on old hardware, then computer companies would cater to you and your type more. But since nobody does that despite all the talk, companies cater to reality instead.
Abdul: When you say 32bit is in a different LANGUAGE to 64bit, this is isn’t entirely true. The ‘bits’ refer to the ARCHITECTURE of the processor/ hardware and hence the compiled code – the language can be the same or different – it is the final code that is different.
I think this is a useful article, because as mathias put it, in terms of XP installs, most are 32bit and many ppl will be upgrading to 64bit (due to the 3GB/ 4GB memory limit, if nothing else).
I agree that a like for like comparison (all 32bit and all 63bit) would be interesting (but probably not as useful, since fewer ppl use 64bit XP and perhaps 32bit Win 7).
Sorry Abdul, it was the post above yours (registered) that I was referring to.
And oDD, not mathias! :-!
Nicely presented review, unfortunately the tests aren’t appropriate for comparing operating systems. They are essentially CPU- and memory-intensive tests and would be used to compare say Intel and AMD CPUs, or different motherboards with the same CPU to check out BIOS and support chip performance differences. I would have expected all tests to come out pretty much the same. The slight differences are probably due to XP being 32-bit and the others 64-bit. Assuming the same software was run in each test, then it would have had to be all 32-bit software else if wouldn’t have run on XP. In any case, the differences aren’t enough to justify the choice of one operating system over another.
My thoughts are this: anyone running Vista now should definitely upgrade to Win 7. It looks similar but is much, much nicer and faster. And all your applications and hardware should work if they work in Vista. If you’re running XP now, the decision isn’t as simple. If you’re happy with XP, keep using it. If you want something sexcier, Win 7 will fill the bill, but make sure your hardware, software and peripherals are supported.
Incidentally, Ubuntu 9.10 was released at the end of October, and it looks great. It’s free and works well on older hardware.
Cmon Guys ! Win 7 are like some months old, Vista couple of years and on the other hand XP are for 8 years, had lots of improvements and fixes to become what they are now.
I wish someone could find some tests of XP against 2000 back in 2002…
Back then everybody said XP suck big time and they needed 8 years to became TOP OS !
Let’s wait couple of years and see after the Service Packs and fixes for the Win 7 arrive…
I don’t think this is a valid way of testing OS performance, as it doesn’t reflect real-world usage.
It is true that graphics performance will not be as optimal as in XP because video drivers can now run most of their code in user-mode as apposed to kernel mode, the advantage though is much higher reliability, and if a video driver has a bug it won’t crash your system unlike in XP. In addition the slight performance loss is so minimal it is almost un-noticeable (expect in benchmarks)
In addition if you looked at real-world tests – intalling the OS, startup/shutdown, installing an application, opening large Word document, copying large files you will find windows 7 outperforms XP.
Looked here because I’ve wondered if I should change my OS to the new WIN 7, too. Wow, since its release can’t say I’ve found any seriously compelling reason to make the investment, yet.
It’s definitely one of those keeping my mind open quests.
I have or should say I HAD a Vista 64bit running 6GB of ram, with 500GB HDD, and 512MB video card, on a laptop. I paid $1249 for it, I recently bought a Netbook, upgraded the Ram to 2GB on a 32bit XP system. Now I did what I call a “My World Test” I put the Vista with 6GB of ram and the Netbook running 2GB of ram side by side, pressed on at the same time. The little Netbook with 2GB of ram beat the heck out of the vista machine with 1/3 the memory and less than 1/4 the processor! Thats some crazy stuff. Shutdown also faster on netbook with XP! So I sold the Crappy Vista PC, and will forever love, cherish, and use my XP Machine, until it flat out dies. Microsoft needs to work on updating OS’s not making new ones, they suck at it. Just my opinion. GO XP, Long forever live XP! Did I mention Vista Sucks, and that there is no way Im spending my MONEY on 7, until it proves itself better, faster, and more efficient than my 2GB Netbook with XP. I said my 2 cents worth. Later guys.
Correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t xp 32 bit limited to 4gb of ram? even if there are 8gb installed, it would only be able to make use of half of it.
LOL I’ve said this all along. I’ve got XP Sp3 but, patched with Win7 /Vista type programs that simulate Aero, Expose and visual styles. It is still faster even with extra programs loading up eye candy. I’ve done video editing under x64 with 64 bit programs and codec and it is still dog slow or at least not any faster.
There is not one thing that is offered in 7 or Vista that makes a compelling sell. Less driver support isn’t a selling point. UAC isn’t and besides I have a small program that is setup to nag just like this. I have 7 and Xp both under dual boot and the hardware compatibility thing makes it a nuisance to boot into. As previously mentioned this is not a 486 but, a brand new pc.
My workplace will not go with 7 due to hardware incompatibility. It is more likely that when xp retires we will be going with linux to run software/hardware under wine because it has better compatibility than Vista/7. We bought 68 new pc’s and were refunded for 7 and installed XP.
Don’t get me wrong here, I LOVE XP and perfer it over Vista!
I agree with your statement about turning off Windows Aero, as well as the sidebar. If anything they are only used to make things look better, and not very ‘useful’.
I agree 64-bit vs 32-bit isn’t a fair comparison. And while we’re on the subject of versions, are these fresh installs of the FULL RETAIL VERISON or upgrades or betas? Don’t ever, EVER upgrade windows versions. Always get the FULL RETAIL version and do a fresh install. 95% or more of the problems people come to me with Vista have upgraded from XP then complained that nothing worked even after installing new drivers. This upgrade issue has been around since the 95/98 upgrade, but a fresh install of the full version fixed the problem. A few more problems have come from what I call ‘manufacture interference’ where they modify the Windows installation to include thier drivers/wallpaper/programs ect. You find this a lot with Dell, Compaq, and HP, which is another reason to get the retail version.
Lets be honest here. A lot of these tests are so close there’s really no difference, which makes sense when what you are testing is more HARDWARE based than software/OS based. And the differences between them are so close they can be easily explained by a high draw of power that can slow the hardware just a little bit (ie washing machine, dryer, vaccum cleaner, fridge) and throw off the test. When you’re talking about milliseconds and billions of calculations per second are you really going to notice much of a difference between 2 and 4 ms or an extra 1000 calculations per second? Unless you are an extreeme gamer or doing some serious video editing and rendering, more than likely you’re not going to notice a difference. So what really does matter here is code writing and interface and how smoothly they all get along or the feel of the operating system as you use it…lets get THOSE numbers.
Vista has a lot of sloppy code and a lot of eye candy that’s not very useful and is a drain on resources and can make things a little slow and sluggish on your average computer and a nightmare on a laptop. XP has cleaner code resulting in a faster ‘boot time’ and an overall quicker response and feel to it. It may not look as sleek as Vista, but it gets the job done time and time again. Vista is nice and sleek and can run as smooth and fast as XP on higher end custom desktops. I’m not talking about the boxed specials from Dell, Compaq, and HP. If you disable most of the eye candy, it should run close to XP on most of your average systems.
From day 1 in beta testing I can remember Microsoft saying that Vista was not meant to be used on laptops because it is a resource hog and Aero and other new features would not work. Why that changed a couple months after it’s final release, I have no idea. Vista on laptops has been nothing but trouble from the very start.
The only reason I have Vista on my desktops is because the networking is a lot easier to troubleshoot and configure. I’ll be honest, they’re both high end custom builds and it’s nice to show that off. But I also hate not having a BACK or UP button when browsing my computer Microsoft needs to bring that thing back. The account protection is annoying, as is windows defender. I have more of what I hate about Vista than what I like about it, but at least I could turn most of it off. But I can also understand with the hardware advancement people wanting something sleeker and full of eye candy. I just think Vista had bad timing in the market.
Overall, I love the speed and dependability of XP and was sad when I heard Microsoft abandoned it. I was able to save 6 full retail copies of XP Pro with SP3 before they were pulled from the shelves to be destroyed…and I am proud to say that 3 of those found good homes, one I opened and used, and 2 are still in the shrink wrap on my shelf….next to my Commodore 64 manuals…
Hey,
Well, this test is not what I expected. LOL. Well let me clear, I have used XP for couple of years. Vista for two years and 7 for about a year. I never found any big problem in any one of them. 7 used to give blue_screen problem but I suppose that was because it was in beta version. I think if you have a powerful system and you are using XP, Vista or 7 is almost same. Not a remarkable change in speed. As far as the ease for the users is concerned, I think Vista and 7 are not so difficult to use, its just simply a question of little bit of time and interest, but if someone hates something, it is forever….! If some one have put in their mind that Vista and 7 are bullshits……! then for them it is, but for me, I never had any major problem using them, so never mind………..!
Best of luck,
Faisal.
It only confirmed the account of my thoughts on Windows Seven
It only confirmed the account of my thoughts on Windows Seven!
I’ve been looking at reviews comparing the different versions since the RC version of 7 has come out. They are very dependent on the system that is used and the tests run on them. I’ve seen both XP and 7 on top, with Vista usually coming in last. However, tests that are more dependent on the OS “generally” show a slight to moderate advantage to 7 (boot times, java scripts, etc.), especially on newer machines. With older machines (those built in the XP hey day) show that XP continues to hold it’s own.
The tests here are interesting but are more dependent on hardware than the OS that is chosen. Thus we see very close scores on many tests. So while it showcases the system that is being used it’s not a very good tool to differentiate the OS’s.
In the end I’m going to be moving forward with DX11 games, more multimedia and online content, with quad and hex core procs. So 7 is where the action will be. By the time it has a decade of support behind it as XP does it will hopefully be just as highly polished and vaunted.
I don’t understand why they did not use XP64. XP32 only utilizes 3.5GB’s of ram. So half the ram went down the drain, and XP still won!
XP SP3 FTW!
I have used XP since release and have recently moved on to Windows 7 Ultimate, that being said as far as performance on all my games i havnt really noticed alot of difference, what i have noticed is the visual quality of windows 7 is alot better than XP, some of you say no difference between DX9 and DX 11, you are obviously stupid or blind, the level of detail is clearly alot better with 7 and all the desktop visuals are top notch. Im not on a cutting edge machine or anything but windows 7 also seems to handle multiple tasks and demanding task better as well. Opinions are like assholes, everbody has one, but some of these here have skidmarks.
………
…………..
I still liked the vista better than the other two.
=)
….
THE BEST OS IS STILL XP PRO 64 BIT,,, BUT BILLY GATES WOULD NOT SUPPLY ALL THE DRIVER’S… ALL MICROSOFT HAD TO DO,IS ADD THE NEW MEDIA CENTER ( THAT IS IN WIN 7 )TO IT, AND SUPPLY ALL THE DRIVER’S TO IT…. AND KEEP OUT ALL THAT USELESS CRAP THAT THEY PUT IN THAT BLOATED WIN 7….
Just XP
wonderful experiment dude! keep up the good work.
I wonder what the test results would be though, had you used the XP 64bit
Thanks very much for the performed tests! I’ve been considering whether to upgrade to Windows 7 for a few days. And now I seem to find my answer to this question. Thank you, good job!
Sophie, wich will you choose?? I’m in the same position and I love my XP but I’m ready for something new… windows7 or not windows7…that is the question???!!!
Analysis of most guys was about accurate, i just want to point out few things:
1-everyone who is asking about XP64, it is better to forget about it, it’s the worse OS ever because they barelly worked on it, no driver support, even many software/solutions companies refuse to make compatible versions of their product that support XP64, install win 7.
2- if you have XP32 bit don’t install Win7 because in real performance it’s about the same or in very few cases, worse. Install win7 when it’s time to format your PC (because you can’t upgrade from XP, there few tricks to do that but they cause many problems) or you need the perks like gadgets and better visuals.
3-If you have vista32, switch to win7 32. for many many reasons.
4-if you have vista64(especially after SP1), you will not feel the difference.
it is the 1st time the 1st windows release is very good, remember how XP was useless before SP2, and vista before SP1
and another advantage for win7 is that there is no issue with drivers till now.
So choosing win7 is not a bad option
Just for the fun of it:
Could you include Windows 98 in the next benchmark?
I’d say just stick with Vista. soon prices will go 7 so u can upgrade than.. I dont see any thing better in Windows 7 apart from the word ‘NEW’
I run Win XP 32 with WindowBlinds and it is the fastest combo with eye candy you can get. I am not saying Vista or Win 7 are bad, but they really don’t offer me anything I can’t get for free or on the cheap with XP. OS’s should cost as little as a tenner or free. The Windows cash cow is at an end, but they just keep milking it! Those udders are now bone dry and they still keep pulling on them! The world awaits a brand new, written from scratch, OS for the future platforms we will be witnessing soon – like 256-bit computing with GPU/CPU interoperability for calculations, transparent internet connectivity (if you’ve got it, it can use it without you having to tell it anything at all!), seamless multimedia support (I can stick a DVD in the DVD/BluRay drive and it will play it without complaining about lack of codecs, or me having to download and install K-Lite Codec Pack, before I can see anything), and a basic, but capable of genuine work production, suite of applications that enable you to create DVDs, pictures, music, programs, and my own OS’s! Windows falls short in nearly every department, and they never seem to learn on each incarnation of their glorified “Windows” rubbish. This is why XP’s 3rd party software market is still so vibrant and active.
i like windows xp and windows vista in windows vista they got gadgets on windows vista not on windows 7
the only reason i refuse win 7 is because it is vista. Not that i have had any problems with vista at all. the average joe complains about vista and is just led to believe its bad. Propaganda about 7 made joe think ohhh it must be good. Of course windows seven has more driver support than vista on launch, becuase they use the same! vista was out long enough to build driver support so when its twin came out there were no problems. Vista was released with out much. Similiar with 98/2000/xp. windows 2k/me was complained about to no end when xp came out which is off the same nt kernal there was support that existed for it already. And yet people clung to win 98. I thought if MS just stuck it out with vista eventually people would switch over in time for the “latest” next OS to come out. For now xp handes tasks just fine. In my new custom high end machine xp boots completely in 13 secs from loading screen to the last quick launch item, something i wont ever get from vista or 7. Plus i believe vista and 7 are an interim os for the new OS MS is still working on to be released on 2011/12 i think. So for now i will put lip stick on the pig and keep using Xp. And about these test results… I want each of you whiners to find someone who actually uses 64 bit xp or 32 bit vista/7 . Those people are far few thanks to dell and HP. that said vista and 7 are pretty slick.
remember windows XP ran 32 bit and vista and windows 7 ran 64 bit , so thts why it had better times , windows 7 is the best then its XP then its Windows 1998 ! LOL Vista was blown up by Bill Gates with anger!
Well ,… everyone do not forget that he used vista & 7 64 BIT operating systems that makes a huge difference between 32 & 64 for windows vista & 7 …. even though with that xp turned out to be in over all better …
- not to add that there are many applications that dont run on 64 bit … besides many applications dont run on windows 7 either …
- there would be a huge difference if he made the test on 32 bit vista & 7 …. ive tried all 3 operating systems … xp is the best for professional users…
well to be honest i run all them and sofar windows 7 has lots of hardware trouble it donr work as stable as all you say infacct lot my dvd drives dont reconize untill do update driver then not good also lot of my movie files dont read as video files oly as a music file so see winow 7 sucks but aftre a sp2 yea maybe its good but now stick to windows xp pleaseeeeeeeeeee
I’ve tried all XP/Vista in 32 and 7 in 64. All on different machines though so can’t really give much insight performance wise. However, I prefer XP.
Vista I’ve always had problems with, constantly crashing and the 7 “Are you sure?” messages just to delete a file was annoying.
7 seemed far more stable, I could actually open up My Computer without “Windows” restarting. The new layout however just seems counter intuitive. The old taskbar was fine, don’t fix what isn’t broke so to speak. It told you how many of what application was open, new one doesn’t, need to mouseover then count. The “Empty recycle bin” in the recycle bin is now at the top with no icon that is hard to spot at first, having it on the side was fine. No issues with crashing though.
XP is far simpler to use, a lot less junk and flashy stuff, just a good solid OS that allows you to build your computer however you want really. That’s how I see it. Vista/7 seem to be trying to be OS’s with everything built it, not what I like. So XP is still my favourite.
@ James Gentile : u could lay all the statisticians in the world end-to-end and never reach a conclusion!
anyway it was a great read… and as a big time windows xp sp2 fan i wudnt be switching over to windows 7 unless it is proved to be much much faster than xp…and DUH! protection…why the hell wud one want to depend on the OS for tht?!?
hail ESET NOD32 B-)
god bless…
cheers
sasquatch
Well, u all can see WinXP already 8 years with us. Microsoft fix it many times. So, same as WinVista or Win7, they will fix it. Maybe WinVista/Win7 will be better after few year. But i still using WinXP cause its most stablely this time
Use XP at work. Used Vista, now use 7 on personal laptop/PC …..XP wins for me!
Above comments from RPNova are spot on!
Could Microsoft not just build an OS with the functionality of 7, but with the look and feel of XP?
I’ve read comments from various forums, discussed with friends/colleagues & had first hand experience of all 3 OS’s …..surely I can’t be the only one to make this observation???
Boy, if this doesn’t illustrate the law of diminishing returns what does ? As far as I can tell the issue is style over substance, there is no real advantage in switching from XP to Vista or 7.
I couldn’t count the number of times I heard someone claim that people using XP refused to switch to a new O/S simply because they didn’t want to learn something new. While there is no doubt that there is truth in this claim it is also equally true that some will simply switch because its “new”.
One thing that’s certain, you can’t teach wisdom !
I’m a noob. But this what’s on my mind… Vista/7 requires at least 1gig processor,1gb RAM and 16 GB hard disk space. It’s like a big car requires a big engine. While XP requires only atleast 300mhz processor, 128mb RAM ang 1.5gb hard disk space. More like a small car and a small engine. How about put this thing this way? Put the big engine in a small car? Isn’t this basicaly race cars do have?
One more thing! Are there any applications that doesnt works with XP anymore?
Vista/7 do take more resources than XP. On that note, computers have advanced considerably since XP was released. 3-4GB of memory is becoming standard, 2+ GhZ processors are becoming standard, and if you are really sweating over 16-20 GB of hard drive space, a 320GB hard drive is under 60$. Since 300-500 GB is becoming pretty standard, I don’t think Vista/7 is really asking much from computers. If your computer is struggling with Vista/7, you may want to consider upgrading before your computer starts having problems running newer software. Yes, XP takes less resources, but does it matter if you have more than enough?
XP was released almost 10 years ago. Vista/7 is only a few years old. Why would a company build an OS to run on legacy computers? Hey! We’re going to stay in buisness by making outdated software that doesn’t compete! But your legacy PC will still run it ok! We wanted to incorporate support for new, more powerful software, but since your legacy PC won’t run it anyway we didn’t bother! Hope you enjoy a new OS that does the same as your old one!
By the logic that we should never expect new software to require more power, we should all still be enthralled by ski-free on windows 3. Ski-free runs great on just about anything. Calculators can play ski-free. I think my g-shock watch has enough computer power to play ski-free. Technology moves forward. Get on the train.
almost forgot – blahblahblah you are wrong.
“and yes, the 3.5gb ram limit in xp is NOT due to the 32-bit architecture. if microsoft wanted too, they could make xp use way way more than that.”
32 bit architecture is the reason only 4 GB of ram work. That is why Microsoft released a 64bit version of XP. Learn about what you’re talking about before making up facts.
2 to the 32 power (the number of memory address 32 bit architecture recognizes) is 4,294,967,295 (4 GB).
2 to the 64 power (memory address for 64 bit) is 18446744073709551616 (about 16 EXAbytes).
It’s not Microsofts fault. It’s math’s fault.
When 32 system architecture was concieved some 20-30 years ago it was believed that 4 GB of ram would be more than anyone could ever use. When I took computer class in middle school our teacher informed us that there would never be a terabyte sized hard drive. 20 years ago 32mb of ram was a lot for a home PC. 10 years ago it was 2gb. What will it be in ten years?
Hi guys. Nice reading… This is like the neverending story hehe I changed to 7 hoping it would handle modeling software better. I first tried Cinema in pure XP 64 Bit. And it did. sort of.. so i felt confident in going to W7 64 Bit but altough it was faster in some ways, I just dont feel the power… it also is full of small bugs.
I recently increased my RAM and keep missing XP but unsure if going back to XP would be productive. i saw the 3dmark06 and cinebench tests and XP semmed better. Maybe i just got used to W7 speed and want more.
i knooo my Lap isnt the best model but its all i got…
Software i need power the most is
AUTOCAD 2010
CINEMA 4D
my Lap model is ummm
del Inspiron 1501
Dual Core 1.8 GHZ
And 4GB of RAM
What do you guys think? Should i hope for W7 updates? may be it’ll improve?????
I still prefer XP..
“Vista and Win7 are less vulnerable” So? I haven’t *ever* been infected without knowing about it and removing it either manually or with my antivirus.
If you use the right applications, XP can indeed look better than Vista or 7. Tweak XP and Style XP.
It really made me laugh when it said “make your browsing experience faster, easier and safer than ever before with IE8.” Come on! It’s *slower, harder, and less safe*! Get Firefox!
Anyway, I can’t upgrade due to the fact that I only have 10 GB of space left. So what? I’m a gamer.
I haven’t experienced a BSoD. Never will. They are related to hardware or a sloppy OS.
Gmail + Thunderbird = Safe emails.
Windows XP can run DX10! Not that I need it right now.
Give me reason! I can fight Vista and Win7 forever! And I mean forever!
@Bulubuk: Nothing *needs* Vista and Win7 to run. Yet. Then I can start looking for Win 7 productivity mode.
- my specs:
Windows XP SP2 Professional 32bit
nVidia 6150SE integrated
2GB of ram (no reason to upgrade here yet)
AMD Sempron 140 2.7 Ghz [wanting an upgrade soon]
Fact: Most things created by Microsoft (Windows Media Player, IE, OE) are less safe and don’t work as well as 3rd party apps (Realplayer, FF, Thunderbird)
I’m not criticising Microsoft, I understand that they have to focus on lots of things at once. And they own the market share.
I’ve been on 7 Ultimate for a couple weeks now and have had numerous problems that I would have never had with XP. I don’t think 7 is a bad OS but I really do not like how its so integrated in itself. I do like a lot of the visual aspects of it, it has a clean look and ads a lot more graphical advances but overall I’m not getting it. Never had vista but hated when I had to work on it, it was just horrid. 7 is nice but I just can’t see staying with it, xp may be more vulnerable but most people have a 2nd or 3rd party security software with either OS and it’s always recommended that you do,. As far as speed, 7 is more hoggish and sorry but it’s just not as fast as XP. I mean with a fast system and most applications your talking about milliseconds of a difference. But using them 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off, it’s pretty easy to say XP is faster for the speed demon in you and is more user customizable. BTW the new Windows Media Player is terrible either way. I’ve also had more than a few programs that wont work right in 7 but once I switched back to XP and my company based drivers as opposed to Microsoft based..no problems. Its probably a good system for those who aren’t computer literate or for some who well…just like it. Microsoft has been going in the wrong direction in my opinion for awhile now, whether it’s there windows mobile OS, regular OS, hotmail, Office 07, XBOX 360. Really going down the drain in my opinion. If Microsoft wants to make money just make a better XP but stay open and not so integral, I’d buy it. I agree with the last post, firefox is so much better than IE even though some websites demand you use IE.
Very impressive review. Thank you for the effort.
I’m about to replace Vista with XP on my girlfriend’s poor performing laptop.
Like so many people, she was the victim of what is known as mis-selling. I call it “sales fraud”. When a salesman, either through fraud or poor training deceives a customer into buying a low quality product.
A plague of PC World’s and Future Shops started selling low end hardware that wasn’t fit to run the CPU and RAM intensive OS that is Vista.
She’s got an Acer Aspire 5100 with 2GB RAM and an ‘AMD Turion 64 x2 TL-52′ 1.6Ghz processor.
In my view, if you aint got 3Gb of RAM you aint ready to run Vista. 1.6Ghz processor is so on the cusp of entry level it also raises questions.
When the UK pension industry missold personal pensions in the 1980’s, the Government intervened and the industry was forced to pay out billions of pounds in compensation to the victims. The victims were people who has gone into a shop and asked a salesman for honest advice on what to buy. They were sold the wrong product and were soon dissatisfied.
Sound familiar? Except that this latest large scale, international conspiracy to mis-sell PC equipment has not aroused any notice from goverment or watchdogs. Why?
Well…. I can’t believe I read thru this whole page!! As for me, I have used a 387, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 98, and am still using Win XPP since it came out. Each upgrade was significant enough to warrant the extra $$. But now with Vista & 7…I don’t agree that it’s worth trashing XP just to get some eye candy, and a faster open/close!! My XP has NEVER crashed since day one! It has done everything I wanted it do do. So I guess it’s like owning a used car…..if it takes you where you want to go, costs you just for gas or routine maintenance, looks fine, runs fine….why change?? There are those who soothe their ego by always wanting the “newest and shiniest” things on the shelf, that’s OK….it’s your buck/s. Well, I paid around 100 bucks for Win XP, have had it since day 1, Win 7 now costs twice that much, with very little improvement! What would I gain to pay that much for very little improvement, I would have to get a new PC with a faster processor, more RAM..etc….etc.. so….after one does the math, is it worth hundreds of dollars more just for what little I will gain in a new OS?
NOoooooooooooooo…. thank you very much!! Eash day, year I keep using XPP, I am saving $$$, & getting the best use out of it. I “clean” it regularly, run scans, with “free” cleaning programs like AVG, Superantispyware, Spybot & Malwarebytes. So far, so good.
I will keep my loving little Win XPP until it breathes it’s last. It has been my faithful friend……….who knows….we may just die together. Thank You XPP for all the happy years………….
I own a Sony VGN-P530H/Q. It is a tiny 1.4 lb notebook with an 8 in screen, 1.33 GHZ Atom processor, 32 GIG SSD hard drive, 2 GB RAM. It’s not a super computer by any means! It is for those of us on the go who need serious portability. It came with a nasty, bloated Vista Basic. I wiped the hard drive and put a fresh copy of Win XP Home. Oh so beautiful! Vista makes me want to vomit. I’ve also got a Sony VGN-P688E/G that has Vista Home Premium with free Win 7 upgrade on the way. We’ll see how that goes. I can tell you that I really prefer using XP over Vista on these little wimpy netbooks! Without a doubt!
XP is still the best! Very helpful info. Thanks
I think windows ME is still the best i haven’t had problems with it since i installed it in 2000
I think Win Xp it’s da best of them all but now i can hear some people saying we want Vista instead of Win 7 or we want Xp instead of Vista it is just everyone is just confussed about this Os. I think Microsoft must just introduce Windows Xp 2nd Edition.
I’m on the cusp of upgrading my computer and was thinking of putting on Windows 7 Ultimate 32gig version to replace XP Pro. Most of my software and hardware is 32gig and I see 64 gig as a bit of a gimmick at the moment unless you are a hardened gamer and need ram beyond 4 gig, so, anyway, my 32gig stuff would be compatible with the new OS, except for my WD3200JB EHDD (so WD have informed me). That alone is a deal breaker for me, as I would have to transfer 1000s of images to a compatible drive, and that adds extra cost and time to the deal. If I’m to start paying out more than I need to I would sooner take the plunge and move to an Apple iMac and put up with the nuisance just once. I’m pleased your review falls on the side of XP though, and may stick with it after all. But won’t Microsoft stop supporting it soon? That’s another Bill Gates problem to consider.
in my openion for quad proccesor win xp is better than vista and 7
To every Win 7 fanboys .. roootfl. win 7 is not even close to be secure. it get same holes like vista . its drmed piece of junk with god know how much holes. U say that there is no much holes in windows 7 .. u should say there is no muc holes in win 7 that microsoft was make to admit due of evill haxiors publish it in net.. Windows 7 compared to any linux or mac osx just sux like big time in any performance/security tests u can imaginate.
windows is simply deprecated os so nice that i need install in my rack server a floppy drive cuz some idiot want windows server and that retardet *** dont have raid drivers and uu can only use floppy and no real server got any fu** floppy from 1998 year or so Win 7 is simply vista in new clothes and after liposuction . its sux badly
I think you’ve all missed the point, I have 7 ultimate 32bit, switched off all the fancy bits, (I nead a seat belt), I did the same in xp pro & vista ultimate,
2ghz c2d 4gb ddr2 320 hdd, 7 is at least 20 to 30 % faster on my my laptop, we moan that windows doesn’t have all the gadgets like linux & mac, yet when they give us them we twist that if if if if? get a life, windows 7 is going to be a hard act to follow( even for ms) thats why it’s the fastest selling OS ever, thank you microsoft for listening
Good article. As an Information Technology and Accounting professional, I would be very interested in see an independent cost-benefit analysis of upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7. Based upon Kristofer Brozio’s article, it appears that the cost associated with upgrading to Windows 7 my not be worth the minimal benefits.
Hi,
I was looking for something to help me decide what to use for my game system. win7 or XP, but since I want to enjoy DX10, I guess I’m stuck with win7. Do anyone know how to strip it down of all the crap in there (except security).
Also I’ve been testing win 7 for the past 3 months on a laptop (Dual Core 2.6GHz, 4Gb RAM), working everyday, running applications, heavy on java and stuff. then when I went back to XP, you can feel how much faster it is to work on. Just damn the security holes… Guess running zone alarm to stop them is a must.
But as you all know, you cannot stop progress, and in a few years, XP will be history, as soon as MS stops supporting it. And win7 is the future… So choice is clear… Win 7 Ultimate is the way to go on new powerful machines. while win XP is for the old hopefully soon recycled stuff.