[citation][nom]jeffdeath48[/nom]Actually i think the bugatti motor in a minivan would go faster because the mini van weighs a lot less than the bugatti seeing as the bugatti weighs over 2 tons.Also i dont really see how this argument could have even been applied to what you were saying.[/citation]
In the case of the car, the shape is more important than the weight, half of it's horsepower can get it to 200MPH, the other half is needed to get it to 253MPH because the wind resistance is so much.
My reason behind the analogy is windows xp is a lighter/ faster OS, it loads faster because if you look at almost all of it's files, they are much smaller, it is faster to load less. For me windows xp boots in about 14 seconds to a completely usable desktop with no additional loading, (am using a 7200RPM 1TB western digital black, With a SSD (OCZ) the bootup time was around 5 seconds, (even when I tested with boot vis, there was a delay of about 2 seconds where there is no hard disk or CPU activity, I eventually returned the drive because windows XP does not support TRIM) (i didn't want the drive anyway, I just wanted to have first hand experience of using a SSD)
Anyway, windows xp uses less of everything, it runs faster on current hardware because it leaves more resources available for the applications you run.
Also you need to think of a OS this way, what do you use your OS for, what do you need the OS for.
for almost all computer users, windows xp meets all of their needs, it runs the programs they need to run and allows them to get the work done. If they were to upgrade to windows xp, they would be doing the same thing, just slightly slower because the OS is slower.
If windows 98 supported multiple cores, 4GB+ memory, NTFS and large hard drives, then most people will still be using windows 98 and through that market pressure, will cause application makers to make more programs for it.
If you disable some cores, install around 384-512MB memory and run windows 98, it is lightning fast compared to windows xp, the bootup that you see when you see vista or windows 7 booting from an SSD, windows 98 is much faster than that on a 7200RPM hard drive
(due to lack of hardware support, I am forced to test windows 95 on a virtual machine, and it's bootup is similar to taking a PDA or a iphone out of standby)
The main reason why we upgraded in the past was because the new OS allowed for things such as support for more memory, better file systems, more CPU cores and many other hardware enhancements which allowed the newer os which even though had higher requirements, it ran faster with new hardware.
with windows 7 vs windows xp, even with the latest hardware, windows xp is faster.
Would you upgrade to a slower CPU, memory, and hard drive? you wouldn't even consider it an upgrade. The main reason why people buy new computers is because their old one becomes too slow for what they want to do. Speed sells, and windows xp is faster on current hardware.
The areas where windows 7 is able to excel is in a very select few bits of hardware that to 99.999% of computer users, is not viable due to cost and also to the not needing of it (such as 3-4 way SLI)
Windows xp supports up to 2 physical CPU's and 32 cores, if modern computers had 4 physical CPU's and 128 cores and windows 7 supported it, then you will see everyone switch because even though the new OS is slower, the added support for the hardware will allow for much more speed.
tl'dr
If an older OS does everything you need and runs faster on your hardware than windows 7, then why would you upgrade?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram