Tests Show Win XP Still Fastest for Multicore

[Guest]

pfft apache_lives, you keep your 64bit vista, and i'll keep my much faster, more secure and all round better made 64bit debian.
While i only have a dual core, with 2gb of ram, i bet mine goes a hell of a lot faster than your quad core 8gb machine.

 

[Blessedman]

yeah you could certainly surf the web and run open office faster with a linux build, but if you actually plan on producing content linux is just about useless... Unless of course you are building your own custom media applications. Linux sucks unless you like running benchmarks or doing simple stuff where all that power is useless to begin with. Stop throwing Linux up as an alternative to windows desktop (because it is not).

 

[rstat1]

[citation][nom]bf2gameplaya[/nom]Read between the lines, the author is implying that DRM schema is sapping CPU cycles. Either you or your programs notice this performance wise, or they do not.I notice and I avoid. NBC has the ability to shut Vista off and *did*. Does NBC have the ability to shut Windows 7 off as well? NBC can't shut Windows XP off.Read for yourself:http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/po [...] tinks.html[/citation]
Firstly, NBC doesn't not have the power to turn Vista off. The DRM in Vista Media Center was at fault here. All it did was stop people from watching a certain TV show.

Secondly, I wouldn't believe anything (especially test results) that comes out of Infoworld, which it appears is where the author of this article got his info from.

 

[lonewarder]

Just to set the record straight, as a member of the Windows7 Beta testing community I can tell you that initial impressions of the Beta are NOT overwhelmingly positive. I know that they will fix everything eventually, but this Beta is very rough, as evidenced by the vast number of valid complaints/problems posted on the Win7 forum. For example, I had to format under Vista before I could even do a clean install. MANY others could not get it to install at all.
Now, granted, Beta evaluation is not intended for noobs, but at least they could get the installation programming right before they released it to the public.
This is not really a slam, as I have a great respect for the expertise required to create a new OS, but let's not mislead people either. The vast majority of people shouldn't be required to have advanced technical skills to install and run a public release OS in any stage of development.
As of right now, Win7 Beta is still too green to evaluate fairly.

 

[gamerk316]

Translation: XP has less bloatware, so it runs faster.

 

[dobie050]

I'm wondering: are we talking about WinXP or WinXP x64? Does anyone ever include x64 in their testing?
I have been running x64 for a long time and I find it much faster and more stable than WinXP. Moreover, x64 will allow the use of up to 32GB of RAM.

 

[apache_lives]

roflmao mikejj when i want to play a game i go to the game store and buy a game - it will work on my PC because i have windows - your OS is not the same class, and if it was on 90+% of the worlds computers we would be in trouble - there no Microsoft.

Windows XP and XP x64 both feel the same past 2gb of ram - i throw 8gb at it and it still feels like XP and 2gb - sad and old.

Vista is aggressive with caching and learns how i use the thing and reacts to it, i dont have to install drivers, i dont have to worry about updates, it just works, and especially with media centre.

 

[hannibal]

[citation][nom]lutel[/nom]I'll stick with Windows XP / Ubuntu until Microsoft remove DRM. DRM is the greatest mistake of Microsoft because it is designed against user, not for user. Remove DRM and I and my employees will be happy with vistas eye-candies even at cost of 20-30% system overhead.[/citation]

Well you have to wait 100 years until Microsoft even consider removing DRM ;-) But you will be fine with Linux, if you are not going to play games in the future.

Customers don't like DRM, I don't, but we are not the one who deside what commercial companies do... and they do like it... *sigh* But, summasummarum, the DRM is to stay in commercial products...

 

[dobie050]

Well apache_lives, if "sad and old" runs fast and stable no matter what I do with it, I'll not fix what works best for me. And, just so you know, when I was running WinXP I started-out with 2GB of RAM and then added another 2GB. I noticed a significant speed increase on my old machine at the time.
That said, we all should remember that every computer system is likely configured differently from other systems, and there will always be differences of opinion about what's best.
Moreover, WinXP and WinXP x64 both will be supported until at least 2014, so I think I'll be patient and see what happens along the way, while learning from other people's experiences and mistakes.

 

[average joe]

I don't see what all the fuss is about. Back when XP first came out everyone complained about how slow it was compared to Windows 95. There were Windows 95 diehards who swore they would never upgrade to XP. There's probably still a few OS2 users out there complaining about compatability issues to IBM everyday. Eventually everybody upgrades or adjusts.

USB support is pretty handy.
So is wireless networking.


Windows 3.1 slowed by 386SX 25mhz down so much I had to make Dos boot discs to play games.

XP was so slow on my Cyrix 586 120 I uninstalled and ran Windows ME instead. Don't get me started on Windows ME.

 

[that_aznpride101]

The theory is that as the improved multicore support of the newer Windows versions become more apparent as core count increase. The key question is where exactly (or how many cores) the newer Windows with its added bulk will surpass the leaner but less optimized XP.

How optimized is the programming code for Windows Vista and Windows 7? Personally, I think the programmers should constantly improve the efficiency of the code rather than us consumers buy newer processors with more cores. To me, that makes more economical sense.

 

[average joe]

I have Windows 7 64 bit running on a dual boot setup. It installed fine except there's no driver for the X-Fi cards so I have no sound.
The install went faster than Vista's and it got more drivers right right out of the box. I really cannot tell much difference between Vista 64 SP1 and Windows 7 64 in terms of speed. I haven't done much with it. IE 8 seems different than the IE 8 beta for XP. I should mention that I like Vista and I think it got a bad rap. Service pack 1 did wonders to fix things. But there are a few bugs still. Data transfer rates are slower than XP and the battery life in Vista is lousy.

If Windows 7 fixes thoses things it will be great.


I agree that there is definately some code bloat with each new OS. But there are also more features. Whether the comsumers wanted it or not these features are there and there is a performance cost associated with them.

Active desktop was a big XP/ME innovation. The only people who use it that I can think of are spyware sites... Winfixer.

I would imagine the side bar gadgets would eat up alot of bandwidth in a corporate enviroment. They don't enhance my productivity at all. I end up surfing the web all day unless I disable them. RSS feeds are more interesting than Exim logs..

 

[Guest]

My Windows 7 eval.copy stopped downloading 7 times.
It interrupted install at around 70%; I wasted a DVD to it.

My idea to Winxp / Vista is:
if it only takes 30cpu lines to load a code in xp, why do the same in 65 lines on Vista (and probably 45 in win7)?

Why enable background services you only need once every 3 months?

Why install an OS that takes 16GB,when a 4GB one does just fine?

Why the 'need' to do a defrag every day,when for many twice per year is more than enough? (eg: those who have 25GB used out of their 250GB HD).

Why is your computer 'unsafe' and needs a virus scan, when you just did one 2 weeks ago, and have not connected to internet/CD/USB? Why does a virusscanner always needs to be present and active, even if in reality checking once every 3 months is more then enough?

Why does my pc even starts background tasks, when I'm not connected to the AC,and the battery is running empty?

Why can't they import DX10 to XP?

Why can't they create a 48-bit XP, that supports upto 16GB of RAM?

Why is the os boot and shutdowntime still as slow as in 1987? (it took about 2,5minutes to load something like a Commodore 64 OS of a few hundred kilobytes.

Why does an OS force you to buy new hardware,and only by the end of it's lifespan has fast enough hardware to support it? (XP 'died' under core2duo / quadcore; Vista dies under Corei7)

Has anyone wondered why pc's kind of have kept their powerdraw (150-350W), and pricetag ($500-2000) ; despite time moved on,and machines got faster?

anyways... A lot of these questions make sense when kept in mind when creating an OS. Not everyone is for this 'heavier &bigger must mean better' mentality.

 

[lonewarder]

To ProDigit80. That was pure poetry man. The lack of common sense being exhibited during the OS creation process is profound. Reminds me of the old story about Albert Einstein not being able to tie his own shoes. (But at least he was the only one that suffered as a result

 

[A Stoner]

Just to clarify here. No, not all reviews of Windows 7 is positive. My review says it is Vista in a new dress and I do not like Vista. The software is overburdened with too much security. So much so that it is an unwelcome guest in my home, out of a total of 6 computers in my home, only one, my wife's new laptop is Vista, and it is starting to wear her down to the point that she will likely be asking me to downgrade her to windows XP within the next few weeks. The problem is that when we go to install programs into Vista it takes forever to do because of the constant nagging of the software asking us if we are sure we want to do this. When you go to patch something, it just makes it even worse. I have about 3 terabytes of software backed up that I have used over the last 5 years, all of which works on Windows XP, of that, only about one in five works in Vista, many times the company that made the product released a new version which costs more than the original did that will work in Vista. All of the programs are still perfectly valid for use, as long as I install them into Windows XP.

Knowing that my computer is more productive using windows XP is just icing on the cake. A nice smooth dark chocolate glaze.

Just to clarify. I like having a secure work environment on my computer, and if Vista and Windows 7 offers more security, all the better. But there has got to be a way to improve security that does not involve redundant questions on whether I am sure I want to install software. Especially when I have up to date anti virus software that supposedly informs windows if there is a virus.

 

[crom]

Vista = FAIL.

 

[average joe]

I think the User Access Control is a necessary evil. I agree it is totally annoying. You can always turn it off. I leave mine on. So much spyware tries to sneak through with legitamate web surfing and background traffic that user access control was the only way to attempt to blcok it. Think about how many times a day you see that message. Now imagine you are using XP. All that crap is still is happening. You just don't get to know about and cannot control it. User access control is not any different than Zone Alarm or any security suite.
Maybe in Windows 7 they will make the firewall smarter so it learns to stop asking when its on a list of approved services, but that could be exploited.

 

[thegh0st]

wow another post with apache_loves Vista bloat-ware - go figure. dude get off your trip about people's hardware. saying it over and over does not make it so.

 

[thegh0st]

I have to say I think there is a difference in when XP first released and Vista first released. I believe the hardware was not up to par with XP for the most part and that was why it was slower. As for Vista if today's hardware is not up to par I can not imagine the hardware it does need - a Cray? anyways I think Vista's release issue is not soo much slowness as just plain problems, inconsistencies, and misrepresentation/poor marketing about all the different versions.

Both however equal complaints when they were first released - but that is about as far as the similarities go. So comparing that both had complaints at release is really just an attempt to slant a bad quality off of Vista.

 

[apache_lives]

dos users that hate windows? windows 3.11 users that hate windows 95? windows 95 users that hate windows 2000? windows 2000 users that hate windows xp? and now we have the same people who hate vista and prefer there dinosaur - give the big scary OS a chance wusses

A few clicks and its faster then XP if you know what to do

 

[thegh0st]

apache_loves - get over it already. I have tried Vista - on multiple computers and 2 different versions as I have stated before. I will admit I am one of those people who resist's changes usually. But with Vista - I was one of the first onboard. Even the guy I work with could not believe I was purchasing Vista Ultimate when it first came out since I never do that. I even ran Vista-Beta forever at work. To put that in perspective somewhat, I stuck with a Pentium III forever before finally using Pentium 4's. I stuck with WinME forever before going to XP. I could argue like you that ME worked great you just needed the right hardware but I know that is foolish as many people had issues with WinME. I however never had any problems with it. And neither did my parents until they got a virus that tried hiding in the system restore files. But that's a whole other issue. I even tried Win2K eventually and ran it at work but at home it just did not game as well as WinME or Win98SE. Certain games I played showed issues so it was not worth using and I went with a dual boot setup but hardly ever used Win2K. And I resisted XP but I finally made the switch it was no where near as "sensitive" as some instances of Vista have been. Sure some installs of Vista run smooth as my WinME did but saying all installs of Vista should run great is just as stupid as saying people only had issues with WinME because they had the wrong hardware. When it came to Win95 I went to that relatively quick but that was because of the place I worked at when it was released. I can still remember trying to make it look and feel like Win3.1 though by trying to still use the program manager. That did not last too long though. And I resisted leaving Win95(C) for Win98 to. Hell, I did not like giving up Netscape for IE either back in the day. I know all about resisting change. And that has nothing to do with the issues Vista has with some hardware and drivers. I have also said those issues might be more noticeable on (or maybe even just plain related to) Vista 32-bit versus Vista 64-bit. But all you do apache_loves Vista is stick your head in the sand and claim something over and over like a little kid who can not be told different. Trying being more constructive and just a tad more open-minded to the real world. I am sure I am not the only example either of a person resistant to change. Obviously that is the majority or it would not be brought up just as people who have had and seen problems with Vista would not constantly be mentioned if it wasn't so. Hey maybe you can call Bill G. up and tell him to explain to the judge in the class action law suit that all those people just had crappy hardware and did not spend enough money and Mojave's image will be all better. =P

As for Vista being faster than XP - uh yeah sure thing dude. That even contradicts the article. I am not saying Vista is slow but don't say things just to say them because you're a fanboy please.

 

[apache_lives]

long enough reply?

 

[dobie050]

I'm wondering why all this commentary went from being about WinXP being faster when using multi-core processors to a tug-of-war between WinXP and Vista.

How about we all stay on the topic of the above article, and save our complaints about the differences between the two operating systems for another article about that particular subject.

This is getting childish and boring real quick.

 

[thegh0st]

I apologize for slanting off topic dobie050. I was responding to apache_loves tunnel vision on Vista. he's a fanboy or some Microsoft's CEO's son or something. thats off topic to though. In a round about way I was saying how XP is faster even if not by a lot just like the article says.

 

[apache_lives]

And my windows 3.11 pwns you all