# Windows 7 will be faster than Windows Vista and XP



## newtekie1 (Aug 28, 2009)

In my line of work, I have to deal with a lot of people asking me if they should upgrade to the latest version of Windows, and usually they want to upgrade to a new computer also.  I can't even count the number of times I've been asked "If I buy a new computer, should I make sure to still get XP?  I don't want Vista because it will be slower."  The main concern seems to stem from all the complaints about Vista being slower than XP.  The same concerns are now being voiced to me about Windows 7.

I always tell them not to worry, Vista and Windows 7 will be faster.  I don't bother to really explain my reasoning behind it, but someone argued with me this morning about it, so I need to rant.

Before I really start, let me say this:  Yes, I agree entirely that Vista and Windows 7 are slower than XP when all three are run on the same hardware with fresh installs of all three.

Now, the reason I tell the common consumer that Vista and Windows 7 will be faster is two fold.

First, when someone asks me about buying a new computer, and worrying about Vista/7 being slower, I tell them not to worry because when they are buying a new computer, the hardware will more than likely be a lot better than what they were running XP on.  So, to them, Vista/7 will be a lot faster than XP was on their old computer.  I mean, even on fresh install, Vista on a Quad-Core with 4GB of RAM will be faster than XP on a P4 with 1GB(or 512MB even).

Secondly, even if they aren't buying new hardware, they will be reformatting.  And, again, to them this will more than likely make Vista/7 seem faster.  Most people that are doing this probably haven't reformatted ever, so their computers are probably in need of it anyway.  So a fresh install of Vista/7 will, to them, run faster than their old bloated install of XP.

I can say from experience that the second one is true. I've done several upgrades to Vista on oldish machines.  And the people were amazed at "how much faster Vista was than XP".  It isn't really faster, it is just less bogged down from years of their crap sitting around choking the machine.

[/rant]

Comments?


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 28, 2009)

Perhaps if you learn to stop trying to force your personal beliefs on others those individuals won't argue with you.  And you wouldn't have a need to rant.


----------



## KainXS (Aug 28, 2009)

its funny how you mentioned crapware on pc's nowadays, usually every pc you buy comes with it, its almost unavoidable now,

its really annoying

I actually did try windows 7 on my old p4 pc with 512mb of ram, and it performed really good actually, but I had to go back to xp on it, because of driver problems, made me really sad too cause I love 7.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 28, 2009)

7 runs on this pentium d quite well


----------



## Kenshai (Aug 28, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Perhaps if you learn to stop trying to force your personal beliefs on others those individuals won't argue with you.  And you wouldn't have a need to rant.



Someone is coming and asking his personal opinion on whether they should upgrade or not, he is simply stating windows vista/7 will be faster. I don't see how he's shoving his personal beliefs onto someone. If anything he's giving them sound advice as XP can't take advantage of newer hardware as well as vista/7 can, DX10/DX11 to name one. This isn't going to become a flame war, but XP will die at some point.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 28, 2009)

Kenshai said:


> Someone is coming and asking his personal opinion on whether they should upgrade or not, he is simply stating windows vista/7 will be faster. I don't see how he's shoving his personal beliefs onto someone. If anything he's giving them sound advice as XP can't take advantage of newer hardware as well as vista/7 can, DX10/DX11 to name one. This isn't going to become a flame war, but XP will die at some point.



Read his post, in part:


> I always tell them not to worry, Vista and Windows 7 will be faster. I don't bother to really explain my reasoning behind it, but someone argued with me this morning about it, so I need to rant.


And you want to credit him for giving someone his opinion? I have to disagree as it reads as a personal belief to me.  However, I want to also add that it's not about what you say but how it is said which can ignite an argument.


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 28, 2009)

reason why xp wont die is because a good portion of the market couldnt afford a pc or had the skills to use one until xp ...


----------



## Kenshai (Aug 28, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Read his post, in part:
> 
> And you want to credit him for giving someone his opinion? I have to disagree as it reads as a personal belief to me.  However, I want to also add that it's not about what you say but how it is said which can ignite an argument.



I'm sure when someone asks why, he will give them an answer. Someone who could understand the answer better than most. Half the people that ask me don't know the difference between an i7 and an Athlon64. Those are the types of people that don't need any true explanation. Now someone asking as why upgrade, give them a reason. But the people not asking what does it matter to them? 

The guy that argued with Newtekie probably defended XP, him having never used anything other than that for the past 8 years. Probably heard all the flak that Vista got when it first came out. Someone closed minded who won't try new things. True it's the guys opinion, but he can't have a real valid opinion until he tries other things.


----------



## Axaion (Aug 28, 2009)

> I always tell them not to worry, Vista and Windows 7 will be faster. I don't bother to really explain my reasoning behind it, but someone argued with me this morning about it, so I need to rant.


Allright..


> Before I really start, let me say this: Yes, I agree entirely that Vista and Windows 7 are slower than XP when all three are run on the same hardware with fresh installs of all three.



Now wait a second, why not tell them to just format and reinstall XP then?
they will save money they can use on better hardware, or wait till win7 matures, and you wouldent have to lie to them (Or yourself, seeing as you say you know XP is faster than both still) or argue for that matter


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Aug 28, 2009)

why the bitching?


----------



## mrw1986 (Aug 28, 2009)

Isn't 7 faster anyway? I know Vista is fast, even on a fresh install Vista ran faster for me than XP did. XP is just becoming outdated and easier to run so it seems faster.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 28, 2009)

Kenshai said:


> I'm sure when someone asks why, he will give them an answer. Someone who could understand the answer better than most. Half the people that ask me don't know the difference between an i7 and an Athlon64. Those are the types of people that don't need any true explanation. Now someone asking as why upgrade, give them a reason. But the people not asking what does it matter to them?
> 
> The guy that argued with Newtekie probably defended XP, him having never used anything other than that for the past 8 years. Probably heard all the flak that Vista got when it first came out. Someone closed minded who won't try new things. True it's the guys opinion, but he can't have a real valid opinion until he tries other things.



Now you are arguing about it .  You've implied a whole lot that wasn't mentioned in the OP.  It could very well be that the person may have had other concerns not performance related (which may not have been told to him).  Further more, if a person doesn't want a new OS they don't have to try it in order to formulate that opinion 1st.  They don't have to provide you with a reason why they don't want it.  It's called prerogative .  There shouldn't be a sweeping level of hatred toward individuals that may not like what you like.


----------



## D007 (Aug 28, 2009)

Lol I hear what your saying but what you just said is:

Xp runs faster than 7 and vista, but your telling people it doesn't.
with the same hardware side by side, your saying xp runs faster.
So why say otherwise?
That's just confusing lol.

virtually no one who would even come to these forums will run 512 ram or even less than 2 GB memory on xp anyway XD..
If they do, well their kind of a lost cause in the first place and shouldn't be worrying about speed, should be worrying about running at all..


----------



## theorw (Aug 28, 2009)

i dont know what is said above or what u guys think but in my cousins
Athlon xp3500
2*512mb 400mhz
6600GT SLI and RAID 0
xp run blazing speed in fresh install while vista run sluggish!!!!!!
Just to open control panel  or even preview an image took seeeeeeveral seconds...
All this on CLEAN INSTALL!
So vista or 7 can be very fast as long as u have decent hardware...
I have no problem run my vista faster that his xp but the hardware difference is chaotic!


----------



## Kenshai (Aug 28, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Now you are arguing about it .  You've implied a whole lot that wasn't mentioned in the OP.  It could very well be that the person may have had other concerns not performance related (which may not have been told to him).  Further more, if a person doesn't want a new OS they don't have to try it in order to formulate that opinion 1st.  They don't have to provide you with a reason why they don't want it.  It's called prerogative .  There shouldn't be a sweeping level of hatred toward individuals that may not like what you like.



So you're saying for someone to come up with an opinion of a product they don't have to try it first? Especially something like an operating system? 

What I've mentioned is something I've come to realize working in a retail type position, that people form these opinions that won't/can't be swayed. Vista/7 has better hardware support, be it for SSD's or Video cards and others in between. Vista/7 is easier for the basic end user, with automatic driver installation as well as automatic updates for said drivers. 

How can someone form a proper opinion without first attempting to use said product. It's like the so called Mojave experiment Microsoft did. People who had never used Vista were invited to try out Microsoft's new OS Mojave. What they were getting was Vista with a different theme, and they liked it. Not really a big surprise, as Vista is on par with XP with the right hardware (of which nearly every OEM computer now can run no problem whatsoever.) Vista got a bad reputation from the start with the poor driver support from third party vendors.  XP had a very similar problem from the start.



theorw said:


> i dont know what is said above or what u guys think but in my cousins
> Athlon xp3500
> 2*512mb 400mhz
> 6600GT SLI and RAID 0
> ...



Ask him to try 7, I guarantee he'll be more happy than with Vista.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 28, 2009)

Kenshai said:


> So you're saying for someone to come up with an opinion of a product they don't have to try it first? Especially something like an operating system?


That is correct. 




Kenshai said:


> What I've mentioned is something I've come to realize working in a retail type position, that people form these opinions that won't/can't be swayed. Vista/7 has better hardware support, be it for SSD's or Video cards and others in between. Vista/7 is easier for the basic end user, with automatic driver installation as well as automatic updates for said drivers.


That maybe important to you.  That doesn't make it important to everyone else. 



Kenshai said:


> How can someone form a proper opinion without first attempting to use said product. It's like the so called Mojave experiment Microsoft did. People who had never used Vista were invited to try out Microsoft's new OS Mojave. What they were getting was Vista with a different theme, and they liked it. Not really a big surprise, as Vista is on par with XP with the right hardware (of which nearly every OEM computer now can run no problem whatsoever.) Vista got a bad reputation from the start with the poor driver support from third party vendors.  XP had a very similar problem from the start.
> 
> 
> Ask him to try 7, I guarantee he'll be more happy than with Vista.


Because people don't always deal with situations like this in "absolutes", that's why.  What you believe in is something that suites you. The problem I see here is that you cannot see anyone else's.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

EastCoasthandle said:


> Read his post, in part:
> 
> And you want to credit him for giving someone his opinion? I have to disagree as it reads as a personal belief to me.  However, I want to also add that it's not about what you say but how it is said which can ignite an argument.


 Replace "my" with "the" and i think you come back to the point he was making.... your argument is based on ill wording of a post, which i completely understand where Newteckie is coming from, People need to be informed of the best possible solution for their needs which as of now is not XP, unless it's an XP era only pc. I can understand his frustrations as peoples ignorance of Vista and 7 are impeding progress.


----------



## EastCoasthandle (Aug 28, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Replace "my" with "the" and i think you come back to the point he was making.... your argument is based on ill wording of a post, which i completely understand where Newteckie is coming from, People need to be informed of the best possible solution for their needs which as of now is not XP, unless it's an XP era only pc. I can understand his frustrations as peoples ignorance of Vista and 7 are impeding progress.


No, I didn't based my opinion on wording.  I said how it was said not the words themselves.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 28, 2009)

For most users Windows 7/Vista will be faster then XP as it pre-caches things better, and handles RAM better. It will boot faster, it will be a bit more secure, and yes a new install will run better.


So for all intents and purposes they are faster.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

Steevo said:


> For most users Windows 7/Vista will be faster then XP as it pre-caches things better, and handles RAM better. It will boot faster, it will be a bit more secure, and yes a new install will run better.
> 
> 
> So for all intents and purposes they are faster.


Not sure about faster (for all machines anyways) but simply more capable


----------



## exodusprime1337 (Aug 28, 2009)

to be completely honest i feel like many others of stated and seen that windows 7 is feeling a bit ligther then windows xp.  I just bought a new laptop which came with win vista home premium x64 and it seemed snappy at first, and then i upgraded to windows 7 and holy sh*t is it much nicer.  Things just feel better, they open quicker run smoother, and generally i like the look of windows 7.  It  gives me this feeling of orginization i just didn't see with vista and certainly not with xp.  All in all, i'm extremely happy about the notebook and i'm looking forward to many many updates and of courese the free version i get when it releases because my laptop came with the free upgrade.


----------



## raptori (Aug 28, 2009)

I didn't see any software or OS that has more quality and capability and run faster (@ the same time) than the its previous version on the same hardware ..... the most important thing is how the OS will run applications or games who care about "I can explorer my computer or folders faster on vista or on 7" its about applications that run under certain OS ........ very important softwares get screwed under vista comparing to XP and I'm talking about 2009 version of 3ds max i need double the power of my PC to run 3ds-max on vista in the way that I'm running it on windows xp now and have them both on my PC  ....... also I can say that 85-90% of the games run faster on xp than on vista within the same hardware and image quality like DX9 for both ...... i wish that we will not have same situation with vista and 7or XP and 7.


----------



## suraswami (Aug 28, 2009)

This is what I have been working on past week or so.

Hardware
ECS 780GMA v1.1
X2 5600 F3 @ 3Ghz (slight OC only)
6GB DDR2 6400 ram
80GB WD IDE drive.

Installed XP pro 64 bit, W2K3 EE 64bit and W7 Ultimate 64bit.  All are fresh install and drivers etc updated to latest.

To me it feels like this 
W7 Faster than W2K3 Faster than XP pro.

For instance wake up from sleep is instantaneous in W7, but in other 2 OSes it takes few seconds to wake up and show the desktop.  Network card is connected instantaneous and i click on IE and boom home page is there with W7.  With Other OSes network card takes about 15 to 20 seconds to connect and open IE with the home page.

Yet to do more tests like File transfers, Zipping, Media file opening etc.  If I have some numbers I will post.

Till now I love W7.  Need to try the 32 bit version to see how different the performance is.

To be honest vista 64 bit on pre-built HP/Dell machines with Quad-core seems to be faster than 32bit ones.


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 28, 2009)

I cringe everytime I have to install an old OS. When someone asks me to reformat the pc etc to get rid of the virus' I say you'd be better off with vista or win7 simply because it is the fastest, most stable and most secure OS on the market. If we all stuck with XP simply because it's faster at a few things compared to vista or 7 or because it simply worked then there would be no need to upgrade anything at all so long as it simply worked. 

At least in my opinion vista and 7 are easier to use and more manageable and I've never used an anti-virus on any of my home pc's and only had one virus between the three until I got our netbook which is on XP and already had numerous virus'


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

I understand how your feel newtekie1. By argument, do you mean someone that doesn't know anything about computers belligerently arguing with you and getting all his facts wrong, but not letting up regardless? Those types piss me off too and I just want them to take my good advice and shut up.  Or was it more of a slight disagreement with someone a bit more knowledgable? I'm really quite curious. 

In my experience, 7 feels faster than Vista and XP - and that's on a new install for all three. Note that I'm not talking benchmarks here, just how the responsiveness of the desktop feels to me. If you turn off all the transition effects (which are actually quite nice) then it really flies. Having said that, even Vista isn't so slow nowadays, what with all the patches it's had.

The slowest computer I tried 7 on was a Compaq D510 - a rather underperforming computer even in its day in 2003 and fairly useless now (i810 chipset?) but with 7 it was sort of tolerable. The basic specs are P4 2.4GHz (no HyperThreading) upgraded with 1GB DDR RAM (single channel) and an nvidia 6200 AGP graphics card.


----------



## El Fiendo (Aug 28, 2009)

The thing I never understand is why people vehemently defend XP. You know, it was shit when it first came out. People hated the idea of leaving 98 to go to XP, and ME was a joke. SP2 made XP usable and I don't know why people don't remember this. Everyone seems to recall XP being diamond encrusted diamond from day 1. It wasn't. SP2 was heralded as a bloody godsend/savior. Everything from there was gravy. 

Vista, if you have the hardware, is faster due to its pre-cache and all that. A boot to desktop takes a fraction of the time (fresh install to fresh install) and reinstalling the operating system in Vista is probably 10x easier. It feels that much less painful anyways. Networking issues of XP are solved in Vista far better then they ever got solved in XP. And low and behold, by Service Pack 1, most of people's complaints with the product were remedied. Did they try the product? Well no, they'd already started hating it.

Yet we have people _offended_ because they aren't upgrading their OS and people suggest they should. "I will stick with my choice because its the best ever", they say. You know what I say about XP? It was good, but I don't regret upgrading. 

Vista at the beginning was a piece of shit, just like XP. Vista now has been nothing but smooth to me. BSODs? Rarely. See, instead of locking up, most times windows kills the driver and reloads it in Vista. In XP if that driver failed, BSOD. In Vista, you get a handy little message saying something, like Nvlddmkm has stopped working, blah blah restarted. That's it, you go along your way. What do I say about Vista? It's good, but I don't mind upgrading.

Windows 7 so far has been pretty good. Nothing deal breaker, nothing really to piss me off. My only complaint is that everything is different because its new. I don't blame the OS for this, just like I didn't blame Vista for being new. 

I don't hate XP, it didn't kill my family. I don't hate Vista, it didn't rape my sister. I probably won't hate Win7 because it probably won't do some treacherous thing to me. So why the hell does everyone else *hate* these OSes and the thought of upgrading?


----------



## Champ (Aug 28, 2009)

I have never in any case seen XP do anything faster than Vista.  I mean from startup to gaming to opening a document.  My 64-bit Vista is fast as I could possibly imagine.  I'm hearing Windows 7 so suppose to be like XP to Vista in comparison to Vista, but I don't believe it.


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

*+1*



El Fiendo said:


> The thing I never understand is why people vehemently defend XP. You know, it was shit when it first came out. People hated the idea of leaving 98 to go to XP, and ME was a joke. SP2 made XP usable and I don't know why people don't remember this. Everyone seems to recall XP being diamond encrusted diamond from day 1. It wasn't. SP2 was heralded as a bloody godsend/savior. Everything from there was gravy.



Nice post El Fiendo, I agree with you.  People most certainly do look back at XP with rose tinted glasses.

The only thing I'll say is that XP was _waay_ better from day one than the 98 SE I was using. 98 SE would BSOD with no effort at all - boy was it a 'joy' at work and no better at home.  It really was an unstable piece of shit.

XP on the other hand was very stable from day one, being based on the solid NT kernel. At the time it came out, I was unknowingly running it on a motherboard which itself was very unstable (PC Chips, 'nuff said). It had a habit of killing Internet Explorer mainly, but then XP just continued on its merry way. Sometimes, XP _would_ get corrupted so that it wouldn't boot. However, a repair install would always bring it back just fine.

The minute I realised the motherboard was garbage and replaced it with something decent (Asus) I seldom saw any more BSODs.

And Vista at release was a shoddy beta that loved to blue screen, but all that's long gone with the service packs and other patches. And dare I say, it's quite snappy, too. People just love to hate it, because "It's that crap OS!" and talk out of complete ignorance. Vista nowadays has far fewer gremlins and quirks than XP and has been superior this way for a good year or so.


----------



## BrooksyX (Aug 28, 2009)

Been using final release of Win7 Professional (thank you WSU for the free copy ) for the last couple days and I must say it is very snappy. Much faster than xp I would say. Everything opens quickly and I have had no problems so far. Will be installing win7 on my lappy tonight or tomorrow. Should run very well as well. Win 7 = the way to go.


----------



## El Fiendo (Aug 28, 2009)

qubit said:


> The only thing I'll say is that XP was _waay_ better from day one than the 98 SE I was using. 98 SE would BSOD with no effort at all - boy was it a 'joy' at work and no better at home.  It really was an unstable piece of shit.




I didn't have that many issues with 98SE towards the end. But that's because I realized you had to do a fresh install every 3-6 months to keep it running happy. But yes, XP was a system that offered stability over 98. Then again, 98 was vastly more stable than 95.  

XP was pretty stable on release, yes, as long as you stuck to 'new' hardware and software. I had far more things lose functionality going from 98 -> XP than when I transferreed from XP 32bit -> Vista 64bit. Most BSODs I got from XP were incompatible software / hardware related.

All I know is that when I go from my Vista SP1 machine onto one of my XP machines, I notice the difference. The OS feels more sluggish, and because alot of the GUI has been streamlined in Vista I get things done quicker. The search in the Start Bar is probably my most used feature hands down. Navigating folders is dead easy, and I love the breadcrumb style that allows me to click on a folder thats higher up in the tree in the address bar to take me straight to that folder. I'd say once I got used to it and it stopped being new to me, my productivity on the computer saw a good increase. Mind you, these are my opinions based on what I've observed.


----------



## qubit (Aug 28, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> *I didn't have that many issues with 98SE towards the end.* But that's because I realized you had to do a fresh install every 3-6 months to keep it running happy. But yes, XP was a system that offered stability over 98. Then again, 98 was vastly more stable than 95.



Actually, that reminds me that at that time, I didn't know half as much about computers as I do now. So to be fair to 98 SE, I have to confess that I never used Windows Update to patch it, therefore I guess it's somewhat unfair to judge it in its unpatched state. So perhaps it was reasonably ok by then, I guess.



El Fiendo said:


> XP was pretty stable on release, yes, as long as you stuck to 'new' hardware and software. I had far more things lose functionality going from 98 -> XP than when I transferreed from XP 32bit -> Vista 64bit. Most BSODs I got from XP were incompatible software / hardware related.



Yes, I remember the hardware compatibility glitches! Not that different to that of Vista when it was new...



El Fiendo said:


> All I know is that when I go from my Vista SP1 machine onto one of my XP machines, I notice the difference. The OS feels more sluggish, and because alot of the GUI has been streamlined in Vista I get things done quicker. The search in the Start Bar is probably my most used feature hands down.



I've long noticed that there is a noticeable pause when bringing up menus such as Start in XP, regardless of the speed of your PC. It's weird, it's like there's a built in delay. And of course, that delay can shrink a bit sometimes, just to make life interesting.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

El Fiendo said:


> I didn't have that many issues with 98SE towards the end. But that's because I realized you had to do a fresh install every 3-6 months to keep it running happy. But yes, XP was a system that offered stability over 98. Then again, 98 was vastly more stable than 95.
> 
> XP was pretty stable on release, yes, as long as you stuck to 'new' hardware and software. I had far more things lose functionality going from 98 -> XP than when I transferreed from XP 32bit -> Vista 64bit. Most BSODs I got from XP were incompatible software / hardware related.
> 
> All I know is that when I go from my Vista SP1 machine onto one of my XP machines, I notice the difference. The OS feels more sluggish, and because alot of the GUI has been streamlined in Vista I get things done quicker. The search in the Start Bar is probably my most used feature hands down. Navigating folders is dead easy, and I love the breadcrumb style that allows me to click on a folder thats higher up in the tree in the address bar to take me straight to that folder. I'd say once I got used to it and it stopped being new to me, my productivity on the computer saw a good increase. Mind you, these are my opinions based on what I've observed.


You should try SP2 made my system just a little more snappy, I love Vista and will miss it when I upgrade to 7, but that is the way things go, I don't however miss XP,NT(build 4.0) 98, 98SE but I do miss 95 and MS DOS 5.0-with win 3.5, and DOSSHELL and QBASIC....I'm an odd one.....I liked XP but couldn't wait for something better and in FEB,07 I got a pre-built system with Vista that actually came with a Cannon printer that did not work with Vista till August of 07, and yet i still liked Vista better than XP, I must have spent 16 hours on the phone with MS tech TEAMS resolving problems for weeks (that was neat) and i still like vista better


----------



## lemonadesoda (Aug 28, 2009)

Would you rather I gave you $10 for free? Or would you play with me; 50/50 you pay me $10 or I pay you $25? Surely the second option is the better "expected outcome"?

That's the issue with Vista/Win 7.  Play safe, the devil you know, or play for wins, but could lose.

Horses for courses.  If I was running my business's accounting system and I KNEW it was 100% reliable on XP, would I want to "upgrade" to Win 7? Not really. No need. No benefit. Possible risk.  Same issue if just using my corporate email/MS Office. The disruption with "down time" and having to catch up on work days later or staying late? No thanks.

If PC's were just for fun, entertainment and gaming, would I upgrade to Win 7? Sure thing. 

Horses for courses.

AT WORK... EXPECT people *for the right reasons*... to want to stick with XP.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 28, 2009)

lemonadesoda said:


> Would you rather I gave you $10 for free? Or would you play with me; 50/50 you pay me $10 or I pay you $25? Surely the second option is the better "expected outcome"?
> 
> That's the issue with Vista/Win 7.  Play safe, the devil you know, or play for wins, but could lose.
> 
> ...


But of course with any business plan you have to put forth risk in order to stay ahead and not fall behind, XP is more of a risk than 7 as it will have no more support very soon, except for in a virtual drive in 7


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 28, 2009)

Ok, I think I need to clearify.  The people are coming and ASKING MY OPINION, I'm not forcing on anyone, they are ASKING ME FOR IT!

Now, as for why I don't recommend simply a re-install of XP.  While that would seem like a good solution, there are other reasons go move away from XP.  These are people that are interested in moving to Vista/7 because they want the extra features and benefits and are concerned about the negatives.  They are taking one negative, blown out of proportion, and are concerned enough to consider not moving to a better OS.

There are definitely some legitimate reasons to stick with XP, but for most consumers, there aren't.  And the main reason I hear is that Vista/7 is slower than XP, and for the average consumer, that simply won't be true.  

The person that argued with me actually did more of the shoving their opinion on others than I did.  I was asked for my opinion, he just butted in and gave his.  And the explanation I give in my first post was almost exactly the explanation I gave to him.  And yes, he was one of those that never actually used either Vista or 7.  Of course he also wanted to argue that 2000 was still a great OS to use today...  The majority of people asking me don't want and explanation, they just want an answer, if they ask why I'll tell them.


----------



## Steevo (Aug 28, 2009)

People who had issues with 9X had hardware issues, or virus problems. 


I took a 95 machine and changed from a Intel to a K6 new MB, and everything, hacked it a bit and had almost a full year with no reboots and no BSOD. I only upgraded to XP to get better/more memory support.


----------



## timta2 (Aug 28, 2009)

You guys can argue all you want until you are blue in the face but the numbers don't lie. "Feeling faster" is not faster. I have yet to see any tests/benchmarks where XP was outperformed by Vista or 7. If I'm wrong, feel free to post some links for me.


----------



## El Fiendo (Aug 28, 2009)

Here's some.

Link

In some, XP does still shine, in some it get its ass handed to it by W7 or Vista.

Also, you know how they say choosing hardware based solely on benchmarks is shortsighted and foolish? Well, it applies to software too. There are far more things about an OS than how fast it can zip a folder of a specific size. Enough people say it 'feels faster' to make me think that there is something there that perhaps a benchmark can't pick up. Maybe there actually is change in a window's popup delay that we notice. Or maybe its explained in the link I sent you. Dunno, we haven't been doing benchmarks. We've just been basing it on our personal experience. 

Have you tried anything past XP?


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 28, 2009)

Just installed win7 on a neighbours pc and they seem to like it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 28, 2009)

timta2 said:


> You guys can argue all you want until you are blue in the face but the numbers don't lie. "Feeling faster" is not faster. I have yet to see any tests/benchmarks where XP was outperformed by Vista or 7. If I'm wrong, feel free to post some links for me.



I haven't seen any tests with an XP machine that has been installed for years vs. a fresh install of Vista/7.  Have you?  If so, can you show me some?  I'd like to see these numbers that "don't lie".


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> I haven't seen any tests with an XP machine that has been installed for years vs. a fresh install of Vista/7.  Have you?  If so, can you show me some?  I'd like to see these numbers that "don't lie".



Oh no... don't remind me of a bogged down Windows that's been on there for years!  lol I'd like to see those numbers too.

This reminds me, in my job in IT support, they've got lots of ancient PCs with slow P4 CPUs, 256MB RAM and running Windows 2000 which hasn't seen a defragment in its 7 or 8 year life. Starting the PC often shows a 90% full 20GB drive and performance like they're wading through treacle - no word of a lie, I've seen them sit there for 20 minutes while they boot. The users of these machines often  A defrag and temp file clearout helps a fair bit, but a fresh, fully patched image of XP is what helps the most. Sometimes the drive is actually too full to defrag, so that I have to repartition it to make more space available on C: (they've usually got two partitions).

The icing on the cake of course, was the PC that was like this, plus had the bonus of not actually showing _any_ free space on drive C: !! Heck, I'm surprised it didn't blue screen at startup. I did eventually manage to clear out enough temp files to put Partition Magic on and enlarge the C: partition. This one was a nice challenge and a memorable job.


----------



## AsphyxiA (Aug 29, 2009)

So I feel I should put in my two cents here:

1.  I tend to agree with newteckie mostly because people are dumb or just plain ignorant.  Most of the people who view this forum have at least some knowledge of the latest hardware/software.  It's very easy for us to take this knowledge for granted so when a rant like this arises, we flame.  That being said I believe that you are right in telling people that Vista/7 is faster than XP.  But I think that a different hands on approach would have better.  If you are trying to convince someone that a system, let them take it for a test drive.  New and shiny always catches the to most people and theyll probably upgrade.

2.  The second reason why he should be telling people they should get rid of XP is because he is (most of the rest of us) are early adopters.  We are the testers, and the stupid average "Joe Bag-of-donuts" are the REAL consumers.  Way to go to ending the XP era, it needs to die already!

3.  Whoever tried to bring business into this discussion, I know where you are coming from but you can't compare business class to consumer class because most business class tech is years behind new tech; t's safe, cheap, and reliable.  If they could, they'd still run 2000, oh wait, Kellogs still runs 2000 as their primary OS even though it isn't supported.
You can't compare a business to a consumer because a consumers needs are much different than something like a major distribution company such as Amcon.

4.   Anyone who says XP is better that Vista or Seven needs to really grow up. you are no better than people who believe that a zombie apocalypse will happen, or the Mayan calender does mark the end of the world, or that vaccines cause Autism.  Think about it, software is created for current tech.  So your 24 GB of ram, 64 core 18GHZ cpu , 16 Video card behemoth is definitely gonna run XP faster than a 939 AMD64 x2 with a gig of ram and an X800 card because the hardware is better!   

XP needs to die, and we all know it.  People who are afraid to adopt the new technology, stop bitching at the people who do because they're inventing new things and finding/fixing bugs for you, you pansy ass whiners. 

Newteckie, find a hands on approach to show people new tech, they'll appreciate it.


----------



## freaksavior (Aug 29, 2009)

@ op,

i agree, at best buy peopel ask my opinion then ignore it. I wonder why they ask me anyway. I tell them vista is fine and to kill there friends who didn't like it or switch to a mac (yes i know "macs are overrate and over priced/ sarcasm" ) but they wont listen and blab on " i want xp, its good, vista sucks, whats this new windows 7 whatever"

a typicle day in pc sales


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 29, 2009)

AsphyxiA said:


> So I feel I should put in my two cents here:
> 
> 1.  I tend to agree with newteckie mostly because people are dumb or just plain ignorant.  Most of the people who view this forum have at least some knowledge of the latest hardware/software.  It's very easy for us to take this knowledge for granted so when a rant like this arises, we flame.  That being said I believe that you are right in telling people that Vista/7 is faster than XP.  But I think that a different hands on approach would have better.  If you are trying to convince someone that a system, let them take it for a test drive.  New and shiny always catches the to most people and theyll probably upgrade.
> 
> ...


Most consumers do not know more than "Click"-"Click", anything beyond that and most people are lost, It's very sad, but true. Point being if you take a system such as mine of course XP is gonna "click" quicker so why move on? right... That's how most people see it, they think the only "extra's" you get is "eye candy" so there is no point, most consumers have absolutely no idea of what there computer can do, let alone what a new OS could do for them and the worst part is because they fear change, even if that change makes life easier, so why change......
I guess i have A>D>D cause i look forward to change


----------



## Mussels (Aug 29, 2009)

Just tell these people that if they want a fast OS, go back to windows ME or 2000.

Oh yeah, they're terrible looking, hard to use, lacking features we all know and love, and modern hardware doesnt work on them.

I just tell people to go 7, because it saves them long term hassle. its like a few people i know still on win 2K who are pissy they cant use 8GB of ram, or trifire/quad SLI - the OS just wont cut it, and they say they dont want to upgrade because its 'slower'


slower, or unusable due to lack of features?  choose 'slower' (and 7 is soooooo slow, its terrible )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Aug 29, 2009)

Most people don't want to upgrade from XP (or even older) because of software compatibility issues.  If everything was backwards compatible without a doubt, I think that would convert the bulk of users including me.


----------



## PVTCaboose1337 (Aug 29, 2009)

Are we defining faster as feeling faster, or actually faster?


----------



## vbx (Aug 29, 2009)

Win7 isn't faster than XP.  It might boot up faster, but running programs in XP is still faster. 

Win7 is faster than Vista.   

Win7 also installs faster than XP thats for sure.

I'm sticking with XP Media Center.  I would Get Win7 Ultimate but 300+ is to much. Maybe if I get a new prebuilt and it comes preloaded with Win7 Ultimate, I would get it. 

I'm dual booting now and Win7 is running smoothly.  No compatibility issues at takes up a lot less resource than Vista ever did.  But it's not faster than XP.

For examples: I have over 50 movies in my external HD.  The video thumbnails takes less than 2 seconds to load on XP.  On Win7, it takes up to a full minute to get all the thumbnails loaded. 

Same goes with photo gallery. All the thumbnails loads faster on XP.


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2009)

vbx said:


> I'm sticking with XP Media Center.  I would Get Win7 Ultimate but 300+ is to much. Maybe if I get a new prebuilt and it comes preloaded with Win7 Ultimate, I would get it.



You don't have to spend so much money. Media Centre is available in the Home Premium edition, which costs much less than Ultimate:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare-editions/default.aspx

No need to stick with XP.


----------



## vbx (Aug 29, 2009)

Interesting.  I thought the media center would only be available in the "ultimate" version. 

It's still $200.  Can we "upgrade" or "downgrade" from Win7 Ultimate (RC) to Win7 Home premium?


----------



## DrPepper (Aug 29, 2009)

I think you need vista to be able to upgrade.


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2009)

vbx said:


> Interesting.  I thought the media center would only be available in the "ultimate" version.
> 
> It's still $200.  Can we "upgrade" or "downgrade" from Win7 Ultimate (RC) to Win7 Home premium?



MC was only available in the Ultimate version of Vista, which is why you were confused. As far as I know, you cannot do an in-place install over 7 RC, it must be clean. Even if you could, I wouldn't recommend it, because it's asking for problems.


----------



## AsphyxiA (Aug 29, 2009)

Newteckie, just tell them to install linux and be done with it!  No viruses, plenty of free programs and it runs faster than XP!


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 29, 2009)

vbx said:


> Interesting.  I thought the media center would only be available in the "ultimate" version.
> 
> It's still $200.  Can we "upgrade" or "downgrade" from Win7 Ultimate (RC) to Win7 Home premium?



Nope, it is available in both Home Premium, Professional, and Ultimate editions of Windows 7.  It was only avialable in Home Premium or Ultimate with Vista.

Also, you bought XP MCE as an OEM, as it was only available in this form, so why not consider the OEM prices of Windows 7?  Home Premium will be $99 for the OEM version, and that is the equivalent of XP MCE.



qubit said:


> MC was only available in the Ultimate version of Vista, which is why you were confused. As far as I know, you cannot do an in-place install over 7 RC, it must be clean. Even if you could, I wouldn't recommend it, because it's asking for problems.



It was also available in Home Premium.  Vista's versions were a little confusing.  I like how they revamped them for Windows 7.  With Windows 7, each version includes all the features of the versions below it.

With Vista, Home Premium had certain features, and Business had other features.  Ultimate had all the features of Home Premium and Business and a few extra features.

With Windows 7, Home Premium has certain features, Professional has all the features of Home Premium and a few extra, and Ultimate has all the features of Professions and hence Home Premium and a few extra.



AsphyxiA said:


> Newteckie, just tell them to install linux and be done with it!  No viruses, plenty of free programs and it runs faster than XP!



You forgot, less functionality, less user friendly, and even worse compatibilty than moving to Vista/7.

No thanks, I am trying to recommend the better solution here, and linux is not it.


----------



## qubit (Aug 29, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> It was also available in Home Premium.  Vista's versions were a little confusing.  I like how they revamped them for Windows 7.  With Windows 7, each version includes all the features of the versions below it.
> 
> With Vista, Home Premium had certain features, and Business had other features.  Ultimate had all the features of Home Premium and Business and a few extra features.
> 
> With Windows 7, Home Premium has certain features, Professional has all the features of Home Premium and a few extra, and Ultimate has all the features of Professions and hence Home Premium and a few extra.



Heck, it _was_ confusing - I see that I was too and stand corrected.


----------



## farlex85 (Aug 29, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> In my line of work, I have to deal with a lot of people asking me if they should upgrade to the latest version of Windows, and usually they want to upgrade to a new computer also.  I can't even count the number of times I've been asked "If I buy a new computer, should I make sure to still get XP?  I don't want Vista because it will be slower."  The main concern seems to stem from all the complaints about Vista being slower than XP.  The same concerns are now being voiced to me about Windows 7.
> 
> I always tell them not to worry, Vista and Windows 7 will be faster.  I don't bother to really explain my reasoning behind it, but someone argued with me this morning about it, so I need to rant.
> 
> ...



Here's a 3rd, most perceived differences b/t those 3 OS's are either due to placebo effects (pre-dis-positioned to believe something) or doing benchmarks that show one is a few milliseconds faster than the other. To me all 3 OS's are of fairly comparable speed, just b/c one does things a few milliseconds or even a few seconds faster doesn't mean I'm going to sit there tapping my foot screaming at my computer to go already. And if I do, then perhaps it's time to see a psychiatrist. Features are more important, and Vista and now 7 after it have successfully upgraded the features of Windows significantly.

That's for performance driven users, who know what a benchmark is and want the most out of their computer. For average users who don't do much I'd tell them if there is any difference b/t speed of the OS then something isn't set up right and needs to be re-evaluated.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 30, 2009)

vbx said:


> Win7 isn't faster than XP.  It might boot up faster, but running programs in XP is still faster.
> 
> Win7 is faster than Vista.
> 
> ...



i dont get that. It may be related to any codec packs you have - excepting my slow arse card reader, all my thumbnails load instantly, or were cached from previous visits to that folder.



vbx said:


> Interesting.  I thought the media center would only be available in the "ultimate" version.
> 
> It's still $200.  Can we "upgrade" or "downgrade" from Win7 Ultimate (RC) to Win7 Home premium?



As someone else said, home premium and up have it now.
You can upgrade by putting in a higher level key, but you cant downgrade as far as i know.



farlex85 said:


> Here's a 3rd, most perceived differences b/t those 3 OS's are either due to placebo effects (pre-dis-positioned to believe something) or doing benchmarks that show one is a few milliseconds faster than the other. To me all 3 OS's are of fairly comparable speed, just b/c one does things a few milliseconds or even a few seconds faster doesn't mean I'm going to sit there tapping my foot screaming at my computer to go already..



i agree with this. in many benchmarks XP and 7 are completely tied  - in usability it hardly matters if XP can load your program in 2 seconds less, if 7 has a better interface and lets you find what you're looking for 2 seconds faster.

7 has far better searching features, and system features right in front of you - its faster to *use*


----------



## ASRockIQ (Aug 30, 2009)

[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> why the bitching?


LMAO!!!


----------



## vbx (Aug 30, 2009)

Mussels said:


> i dont get that. It may be related to any codec packs you have - excepting my slow arse card reader, all my thumbnails load instantly, or were cached from previous visits to that folder.



Ok, you're right. The 1st time use, it would take a minute. But after that, it would load instantly.   Not sure if it would load instantly after a reboot.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 30, 2009)

vbx said:


> Ok, you're right. The 1st time use, it would take a minute. But after that, it would load instantly.   Not sure if it would load instantly after a reboot.



no idea on reboots, i'm a hardcore sleep/hibernate user.


----------



## SonDa5 (Aug 31, 2009)

Just installed W7 ultimate 64bit RC from XP 32 bit.

First impressions.


Looks great. Easy to use. Very nice.

Faster???

Not sure yet.

It will take me some time to see if W7 will take my system faster than XP did.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Aug 31, 2009)

DrPepper said:


> I think you need vista to be able to upgrade.


That's true,if you buy the upgrade, from XP you will have to do a fresh install, instead of just upgrading like Vista
I'm gonna cancel my preorder for 7 cause I'm going to school for computer science and i now get 4 copies for $19 yay!!


----------



## Steevo (Aug 31, 2009)

And all your files will be in a folder called windows.old and you can import them from there.

After running XP, Vista, Win 7 tri-boot I am always using Windows 7, it is fast, stable, and yes resume compared to XP is insanely fast, as is boot, and networking, and alot else.


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 31, 2009)

qubit said:


> MC was only available in the Ultimate version of Vista, which is why you were confused. As far as I know, you cannot do an in-place install over 7 RC, it must be clean. Even if you could, I wouldn't recommend it, because it's asking for problems.



Actually its in home premium too.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 31, 2009)

vistas lineup was just confusing since a version 'above' could miss features from the 'lower' editions.

Media center was in home premium and ultimate, and nothing else in vista. in 7 its in home premium, professional, and ultimate. (i havent checked the 'business' side of things)


----------



## CrAsHnBuRnXp (Aug 31, 2009)

Mussels said:


> vistas lineup was just confusing since a version 'above' could miss features from the 'lower' editions.
> 
> Media center was in home premium and ultimate, and nothing else in vista. in 7 its in home premium, professional, and ultimate. (i havent checked the 'business' side of things)



I dont think there even is a business version. I think its just Home, Pro, and Ultimate. Though there _might_ be a basic. Im not sure.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 31, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I dont think there even is a business version. I think its just Home, Pro, and Ultimate. Though there _might_ be a basic. Im not sure.



i meant things like server, business, whatever else there might be. There is a basic - i'll get a list

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/04/30/windows-7-whats-the-difference-between-the-editions








enterprise is what i was thinking of, but it seems to match ultimate in features.


----------



## newtekie1 (Aug 31, 2009)

It seems to me that Ultimate has really become a waste for most enthusiasts, and Home Premium or at the most Professional should suite out needs.  I don't really see a need to buy Ultimate for most, though I didn't see a need for Ultimate with Vista either.  I got buy with Business Edition just fine.

I do know that there were at least some people that were tricked into thinking that the Business Edition couldn't handle any media functions at all because it didn't have Media Center.  They believed that Media Center was required to watch videos and listen to music, so they bought Ultimate to get it along with the features of Business Edition....  That shouldn't be an issue with 7 though.


----------



## Kenshai (Aug 31, 2009)

CrAsHnBuRnXp said:


> I dont think there even is a business version. I think its just Home, Pro, and Ultimate. Though there _might_ be a basic. Im not sure.



From what I see the Professional version replaced the Business edition.


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Sep 4, 2009)

I tried all 3 OS's over and over again on the machine i have now. I use to think that XP was the fastest OS ever, but after using Vista for the past few months, gaming performance Vista vs XP, Vista wins by a landslide, seriously. I get like triple the performance in Vista over XP. Only problem at the moment, recording very demanding games is a hassle compared to recording them in XP. 
But i think thats more at fault with PCI cards, then the OS itself. 

Anyways, Vista is the BeST OS IMO so far, XP is next and Win 7 is next. Win 7 is more demanding then Vista i have notice.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 4, 2009)

u2konline said:


> I tried all 3 OS's over and over again on the machine i have now. I use to think that XP was the fastest OS ever, but after using Vista for the past few months, gaming performance Vista vs XP, Vista wins by a landslide, seriously. I get like triple the performance in Vista over XP. Only problem at the moment, recording very demanding games is a hassle compared to recording them in XP.
> But i think thats more at fault with PCI cards, then the OS itself.
> 
> Anyways, Vista is the BeST OS IMO so far, XP is next and Win 7 is next. *Win 7 is more demanding then Vista i have notice.*


I think you're probably the only person here that thinks that. Might be related to using PCI cards tho. I know 7 doesn't like AGP, so it serve to reason it probably like a more antiquate interface even less.

Short version = buy a PCIe card and compare again.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I think you're probably the only person here that thinks that. Might be related to using PCI cards tho. I know 7 doesn't like AGP, so it serve to reason it probably like a more antiquate interface even less.
> 
> Short version = buy a PCIe card and compare again.



windows 7 makes me happy in my pants.

Theres just some very cool stuff built in, like its default codecs having hardware acceleration, the ability to stream/remote control windows media player from other machines, stuff like that.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 4, 2009)

Mussels said:


> windows 7 makes me happy in my pants.
> 
> Theres just some very cool stuff built in, like its default codecs having hardware acceleration, the ability to stream/remote control windows media player from other machines, stuff like that.



I can't get hardware acceleration running on mine yet. Even tried forcing it to use the MPC DXVA codecs. (Not that it's 100% needed with an OCed quad.) Would be nice to figure out for the lappy and STB HTPC tho. Not needed on my secondary rig tho, as I just force registered the CoreAVC codec and use CUDA on the 8800GT. Heard that maybe it's the fault of the ATI drivers. Any truth to that?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I can't get hardware acceleration running on mine yet. Even tried forcing it to use the MPC DXVA codecs. (Not that it's 100% needed with an OCed quad.) Would be nice to figure out for the lappy and STB HTPC tho. Not needed on my secondary rig tho, as I just force registered the CoreAVC codec and use CUDA on the 8800GT. Heard that maybe it's the fault of the ATI drivers. Any truth to that?



you need to run in the EVR custom rendering path, and force the "Microsoft DTV-DVD Video decoder" as the preferred codec.














CoreAVC + cuda is a lot easier to get working, ATI's methiod works fine in 7 - they just havent fixed one setting yet where some files come out corrupted (not many, just some)


----------



## Wile E (Sep 4, 2009)

Mussels said:


> you need to run in the EVR custom rendering path, and force the "Microsoft DTV-DVD Video decoder" as the preferred codec.
> 
> 
> CoreAVC + cuda is a lot easier to get working, ATI's methiod works fine in 7 - they just havent fixed one setting yet where some files come out corrupted (not many, just some)



Yeah, I'm running EVR, and I tried forcing the MS codec as well as the MPC codec with no success. What cat are you using?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2009)

see images -  TPU capture.


works for me in cat 9.7, about to test in 9.8

what version of MPC are you using? i'm using the latest beta from the CCCP pack








started up a HD movie, as you can see - DXVA is showing in the bottom corner


----------



## Wile E (Sep 4, 2009)

I'm not using MPC. Already had it working in that. I'm trying to get it running in Media Player, and therefore every other media player.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I'm not using MPC. I'm trying to get it running in Media Player, and therefore every other media player.



ohhh, well you're likely screwed 

you need a REAL media player


----------



## DailymotionGamer (Sep 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I think you're probably the only person here that thinks that. Might be related to using PCI cards tho. I know 7 doesn't like AGP, so it serve to reason it probably like a more antiquate interface even less.
> 
> Short version = buy a PCIe card and compare again.



Well yea i will see soon enough.


----------



## Wile E (Sep 4, 2009)

Mussels said:


> ohhh, well you're likely screwed
> 
> you need a REAL media player



lol. For viewing on my computer, I use Zoom or MPC. Both work fine. But I need a 10ft interface for the HDTV, so I need it to work in WMC and WMP, unless you can suggest a good WMC alternative that works with media center remotes and uses dshow.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> lol. For viewing on my computer, I use Zoom or MPC. Both work fine. But I need a 10ft interface for the HDTV, so I need it to work in WMC and WMP, unless you can suggest a good WMC alternative that works with media center remotes and uses dshow.



 easy peezy, MPC-HC has global media key support (not always on by default)

for media remote, just use the software intelliremote - it has default profiles for MPC and VLC


----------



## Wile E (Sep 4, 2009)

Mussels said:


> easy peezy, MPC-HC has global media key support (not always on by default)
> 
> for media remote, just use the software intelliremote - it has default profiles for MPC and VLC



But by 10ft interface, I mean I also need Library integration. You know, like WMC where you can use the remote to easily browse your library.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 4, 2009)

Wile E said:


> But by 10ft interface, I mean I also need Library integration. You know, like WMC where you can use the remote to easily browse your library.



http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2049678


and now thats out of the way 

Unfortunately i dont know. in 7 if you use WMP or MC, it should use hardware acceleration - however they dont support the MKV format which means no accel for you with those files.

so you have a choice between hardware acceleration, or a 'more usable' interface.


----------



## mtosev (Sep 4, 2009)

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/
Benchmarks


----------



## SonDa5 (Sep 5, 2009)

mtosev said:


> http://firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/
> Benchmarks





I've had the W7 RC 64bit Ultimate for about a week now. I upgraded from XP 32bit.

The first few days I experienced stability problems with my system's XP OC settings. I had to start over with tweaking to maximize my systems performance. After 1 week I am back to where I was with XP for system stability. 


So I now know for myself that W7 is just as fast as XP but it doesn stuff better. It looks way better. 

I think the ATI drivers still need some work though but it is going well so far.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

SonDa5 said:


> I think the ATI drivers still need some work though but it is going well so far.



ATI drivers definately need some work - but i'll cut them slack since the OS hasnt officially launched yet and *most* things work.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Wile E said:


> I think you're probably the only person here that thinks that. Might be related to using PCI cards tho. I know 7 doesn't like AGP, so it serve to reason it probably like a more antiquate interface even less.
> 
> Short version = buy a PCIe card and compare again.


Nope, I actually did a fresh install on both of them (dual boot) and Win 7 do indeed use slightly more resource than Vista, but Win 7 do indeed feel snapier. 
When I mean slightly, its like 7 uses ~100MB more ram.
BTW, its Win 7 Ultimate RTM (Build 7600) vs Vista Ultimate SP2, and sure Win 7 is the better OS but not by much.
Win 7 (Windows 6.1) vs Vista (Windows 6.0) is basically XP (5.1) vs 2000 (5.0).


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2049678
> 
> 
> and now thats out of the way
> ...


Make sure it is MPC-HC that is used.
About MKV, WMP acutally will play some of the MKV files, as long as it is coded in H.264 or VC-1.
The thing about MKV is that it is a very versatile container format, whats inside matters.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> Make sure it is MPC-HC that is used.
> About MKV, WMP acutally will play some of the MKV files, as long as it is coded in H.264 or VC-1.
> The thing about MKV is that it is a very versatile container format, whats inside matters.



it cant play them without an external splitter installed such as haali - and when you do, it uses external codecs such as FFDSHOW instead of MS's default one (thus disabling hardware acceleration)


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> it cant play them without an external splitter installed such as haali - and when you do, it uses external codecs such as FFDSHOW instead of MS's default one (thus disabling hardware acceleration)


Actually Nope 
Supernatural Event?
Its an MKV file playing and UVD is going


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> Actually Nope
> Supernatural Event?
> Its an MKV file playing and UVD is going
> http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y243/chimeradragon/UVDatwork.png



well hello - what drivers are you on? i last tested with 9.6.

What codec packs do you have installed, if any?
I did notice cat 9.8 installed some MPEG codec with it, actually.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> well hello - what drivers are you on? i last tested with 9.6.
> 
> What codec packs do you have installed, if any?
> I did notice cat 9.8 installed some MPEG codec with it, actually.


The point is, even with an external spliter, you can still get DXVA.
Yes it is 9.8, and I did it with 9.7 not sure about 9.6 that shit gave me flickering problems.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> The point is, even with an external spliter, you can still get DXVA.
> Yes it is 9.8, and I did it with 9.7 not sure about 9.6 that shit gave me flickering problems.



still, list what codecs and splitters you are using. you may have found a combination that works, but it sure didnt by default


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> still, list what codecs and splitters you are using. you may have found a combination that works, but it sure didnt by default


K-lite it is.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> K-lite it is.



well, no wonder i never found that combination. i'll never use (or let anyone i know) use that codec pack due to the god almighty amount of problems it caused me in the XP/early vista days,


----------



## Kenshai (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> well, no wonder i never found that combination. i'll never use (or let anyone i know) use that codec pack due to the god almighty amount of problems it caused me in the XP/early vista days,



Good to know that I wasn't the only one with issues with K-lite.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> well, no wonder i never found that combination. i'll never use (or let anyone i know) use that codec pack due to the god almighty amount of problems it caused me in the XP/early vista days,


Interesting enough, I can't actually find the spliter that is running


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

oh and your screenshots in chinese so i cant read much of it, but its showing 7% GPU activity on a 4850. I get this:






playing a 480P avi file with DivX encoding.




i'm not sure your screenshot proves anything - i get GPU usage from an Xvid file with no acceleration, so what does yours prove?


some more useful screenshots:
Paused, 0%





playing, 2% (not as much as the other shot, but its in a smaller sized window for the screenshot)






MPC-HC cleary shows "DXVA" down the bottom when its working, and it isnt for this file - yet i'm still getting GPU activity which proves your 'evidence' inconclusive.

if you can get a high bitrate file going and it shows me something like 30% GPU usage, i'll beleive that - but <20% doesnt prove anything.

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=103158

thread is here, but empty for now. its going to take some time to find suitable files and test methods, and then screenshot them all.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

That is indeed very interesting, because I checked with GPU-Z also to make sure it isn't Catalyst going coo coo again.
I don't actually see a GPU load when the video is stop, can it be anything running in the background?


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> That is indeed very interesting, because I checked with GPU-Z also to make sure it isn't Catalyst going coo coo again.
> I don't actually see a GPU load when the video is stop, can it be anything running in the background?



my point is that you get GPU activity playing files with or without hardware acceleration - the GPU *is* active playing the video, its just not hardware accelerating the playback

i'll do a comparison in a minute once i finish watching MAR with a 1080P file and DXVA on and off - i may move it to another thread and link from here.


----------



## Zubasa (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> my point is that you get GPU activity playing files with or without hardware acceleration - the GPU *is* active playing the video, its just not hardware accelerating the playback
> 
> i'll do a comparison in a minute once i finish watching MAR with a 1080P file and DXVA on and off - i may move it to another thread and link from here.


Great 
I am eager to know wtf is going on.


----------



## Mussels (Sep 5, 2009)

Zubasa said:


> Great
> I am eager to know wtf is going on.



http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=103158

not much there yet as i'm getting ready to go to work, but theres enough for you to tell yourself if you're getting DXVA or not, based on CPU usage and GPU activity. (i'd assume your GPU activity numbers would be higher than mine, considering mines a higher end card - i was wrong about it being higher than 20%, however)


----------



## BababooeyHTJ (Sep 5, 2009)

Mussels said:


> ATI drivers definately need some work - but i'll cut them slack since the OS hasnt officially launched yet and *most* things work.



Nvidia drivers are no better. Gothic 1 and 2 as well as Messiah don't work. Crazy artifacts and hitching. Also the latest patch for Sacred 2 dosen't work but runs fine on Vista. I'm on Win 7 Pro RTM, btw.

I'm also not really liking the castrated superfetch. I don't see the need to move from Vista to 7 yet, tbh.


----------

