Xp or Windows 7

[xmusashix]

win 7 has 2 model x86(32bit) & x64(64bit)
advantage
+Sometime win 7 capables to resolve the troubleshooting by using their fix tool (hooray)
+You can upgrade memory more than 4 gb
+Better performance than xp
+/-Better sistem repair, but sometimes it can't work well

disadvantage
- Some device maybe difficult to get driver instalation or maybe the driver doesn't exist (i have canoscan 5000f & i can't found anysite related to my device's driver sob)
- If you want to use printer on win 7 & you want to share it with xp, formerly you have to install the device driver on xp
- Not every 32 bit application can be used in 64 bit
- Some printer Hp has conflict with microsoft office

*Win 7 has difference way to install network application
*Destop dispaly Aerocool is better than xp but prefer to Lion
*Use more than 1 Operating System to fix the problem
example : Linux can't be infected with win 7 virus, so you can eliminate some virus by using Linux (Ubuntu, Redhat, ....)

Maybe those just a little info to be considerated

 

[forumguy87]

It's not a standard copy and paste answer. If you're just doing basic stuff, win xp is much faster because of it's low memory usage. Chances are though that if you're on this forum, you need win 7 64 bit.

 

[Automata]

It's not a standard copy and paste answer. If you're just doing basic stuff, win xp is much faster because of it's low memory usage. Chances are though that if you're on this forum, you need win 7 64 bit.

Except Windows 7 has better memory management, pre-loads commonly used application in memory to speed the system up, and likely has considerable optimizations for everything else. I've run Windows 7 on a single core Pentium 4 with 1gb of RAM and it ran noticeably faster than XP. There really is no reason to run XP outside of specialized cases.

 

[TollhouseFrank]

Define 'by age' and 'by scalability'

Age - Running XP now is like running Windows 95 in 2006. It didn't make sense then. Doesn't make sense now (unless you are business or govt. in which case change is glacial in coming).

Scalability. Windows XP, when it was released, did not scale to the hardware. It could not cut back on resources and demanded more and more to run faster. However, once you reached a certain level of resources, it really couldn't get any faster (limitations of the programming and hardware well exceeding what XP required).

7, on the other hand, scales itself up or down to the system. I've had it on a system with a Pentium 4 and 512Mb of RAM (running circles around XP), on up to my current system with 16Gb of RAM. It scales to fit what hardware it has while maintaining speed (or even increasing it with enough RAM as i have found out with my current system). It doesn't slow down, even when on Minimum specs (whereas XP was famous for being a sluggard unless you fed it's RAM addiction up to the 1Gb point where i really was happy finally happy).

 

[c627627]

I suppose it is a different topic to talk about old hardware. But on new hardware perfectly capable of running both, I always go back to the insurmountable problem of mandatory auto arrange on Windows 7. You cannot move files or folders around your screen anywhere on Win7 except on its desktop. i thought it was me but...

...Last week I observed a somewhat computer illiterate person using Windows XP: She would do research, add links to Favorites.
Then she would simply drag the links from Favorites to a folder where she then would sort out the many links by moving them around the screen and grouping the similar ones together. I smiled and asked her if she knew that she could not do what she was doing there if she was using Windows 7.


I always sort files and folders by initially grouping them on my screen. Every single Microsoft representative i talked to at the Consumer Electronics Show 2012 had the "why would you want to do that" look on their face when I asked them WHY we cannot move and group togeher files or folders under Windows 7 like we can under Windows XP. I feel like i will use Windows XP more than 50% of the time and reboot into Win7 and Win8 less than 50% of the time because of this.


I also dislike the circus eye candy way files and links move on Windows 7. basic operations just seem faster without the eye candy.

And why do all files appear instanteneously on Win XP and you have to wait a fraction of a second for that green line on Win 7 when looking at the same exact folder on a dual boot Win 7 / Win XP system?

 

[neo668]

Time to move on with the times.

 

[mjw21a]

Windows 7 wins hands down. It's noticeably faster on current hardware than XP is. The interface is much improved also.

 

[ztdesigninc]

I know windows 7 is the way to go and I am using it in the office at the moment, but XP it was just so simple so open, no little gizmo's, no pissing around it just worked - There sould be an XP honours page!! after all the operating systems either side of it were complete failures! (THANKS VISTA)

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

It doesn't slow down, even when on Minimum specs (whereas XP was famous for being a sluggard unless you fed it's RAM addiction up to the 1Gb point where i really was happy finally happy).

That's not the experience I had with XP. Windows 7 will run like crap at 512.

 

[ztdesigninc]

I must agree i cant remember xp slowing down but windows 7 i did need to run 2 gbs of ram - now i'm running 4 gbs dual so very happy indeed.

 

[TollhouseFrank]

i've run 7 on 512mb of ram and it ran circles around XP. It is hyper efficient with almost any amount of memory.

 

[mjw21a]

My experience with XP is this:

1. On modern hardware everything is noticeably slower than in Windows 7, explorer constantly has temporary freezes.
2. End user facing things in the UI appear slower and clunkier
3. Click on something a few times, a minute later you get 15 windows
4. Less stable than Windows 7
5. Boots slower than Windows 7
6. Slows down over time, generally requiring a rebuild every 12 months to keep system performance up
7. Requires you to do regular disk defrags (Win 7 does this automatically in the background)
8. Better memory management in Win 7, more regularly releasing unused portions of memory, XP just holds the memory and never releases it.

The list goes on, these are just the most noticeable issues. Many of these things are only things you notice once you've gone to Windows 7, and then try and change back to XP. I know, as I was supporting a Windows 7 environment for years with the Dept of Education, then came to my new job and they're still on XP. Painful. XP has the singular ability to make brand new hardware perform like old hardware, probably due to lack of support for multiple cores etc.

On the downside, one definite negative with Windows 7 is file copy speed. It's noticeably slower than it was under Windows XP. Likewise, from a tech support perspective, you actually have to make changes in the registry when resetting someones local profile, you can't just rename it as you could under XP.

 

[TollhouseFrank]

i noticed the file copy speed thing as well... i tried teracopy (free program) and it got me to my theoretical max on all my drives.

 

[mjw21a]

Yeah, the problem is that Teracopy is fine for larger files, but absolute rubbish with a large number of small files. In that instance it end up being slower than the inbuilt Windows 7 file copy.

I find if you're just copying a single large folder with losts of little files (mp3's for example) then FastCopy is actually your best bet.

 

[ztdesigninc]

I would like to thank everyone for their comments - clearly windows 7 is the winner and i have decided on going for that choice! THANKS EVERYONE!

 

[RJARRRPCGP]

My experience with XP is this:

1. On modern hardware everything is noticeably slower than in Windows 7, explorer constantly has temporary freezes.

I'm not having those problems with LGA 775 systems.
The only real advantage of Windows Vista and Windows 7, is the 64-bit support.

Windows Vista and Windows 7 seem to always use more RAM at a minimum, without other stuff running.

So you're gonna need more RAM than with XP for the same speed, especially a stock Vista and 7.

And the only problem I really had was Firefox seemingly fails to release RAM.

If you're having low-RAM issues, I suggest that you stop using Firefox at this time.

All of a sudden one day, Firefox hung like it was on a 486 SX 25 Mhz and the HDD started cranking.
It was like 0.03 FPS!