Windows 7 Review - XP Vs Vista Vs 7 in 80+ Benchmarks - Maximum PC

07-Feb-2010 Windows 7 Review: XP vs Vista vs 7 in 8…
MacLife P CHa rdwa re Blips Te chBlips Ga dge tBlips TechR ada r Fo llo w Max im um P C o n Twitte r Be co m e a Fan on Faceboo k
Member Login
Login
Don't have an account? Register Now ! Forgot passw ord?
HOME NEWS REVIEWS FEATURES HOW-TOS FORUMS PDF ARCHIVE NO BS PODCAST TECHMART MAXIMUM IT SEARCH
GEEK TESTED: BEST OF THE BEST GAMING RIGS HARDWARE BUILD A PC MOBILE SOFTWARE WINDOWS CONSUMER ELECTRONICS LINUX
Najpovoljniji laptop DOS Print driver for USB Develop: Embedded Systems
Acer je sigurno pogresio kad je Printfil capture PRN: or LPT1-9 ARM XScale and Intel Atom boards
formirao cenu ovog modela :) forward it to USB or other printers Z510, Z530, PXA270, 300, 310, 320
www.BCgroup-online.com www.PrintFil.com www.toradex.com/Embedded-Computers
Related Articles
REVIEWS
20 Windows 7 Tweaks & Tips –
Windows 7 Review: XP vs Vista vs 7 in Every Secret Uncovered to Date
80+ Benchmarks A Closer Look at Windows 7's

Approach to System
Posted 10/19/09 at 02:00:00 PM by Will Smith
Performance
Comments Print Email Hands-On with Windows 7
Windows 7 Feature Focus –

Backup and Restore
Windows 7 Feature Focus: Must Read Articles

Recovery Environment
FEATURE
15 Most Powerful Dropbox Hacks
Maximum IT
REVIEW
Finally, M icrosoft releases a successor worthy of Windows Research Firm Predicts IT
Windows 7 Reviewed! XP vs Vista
Spending Will Rise 3 Percent in
XP vs Win7
2010
For the Windows faithful, it’s been a tough eight years. With the launch of Symbian Opts for Open Source
FEATURE
Windows XP in 2001, we thought we were poised on a brink of a new world Ahead of Schedule
Build a Kick-Ass PC for Your
of NT-based goodness—but two years and uncountable exploits later, the Lenovo Reports Record Market Budget!
future of Windows was grim. Facing a never-ending torrent of new ‘sploits, Share in Third Quarter Report
worms, and trojans, Microsoft fired back with the single greatest operating
SEE MORE MAXIMUM IT FEATURE
system update of all time—Service Pack 2. In the single fell swoop of SP2, ATI Radeon 5970: Dual-GPU
Windows XP went from Swiss cheese to secure, and once again we were Greatness
poised to enter the promised land with… (wait for it)… Vista. News
FEATURE
Of course, we all know how Vista turned out. Haunted by poor performance Rumor: Samsung to Debut Comic-Con 2009: 600 Amazing
in everything from games to disk access to networking, Vista is widely Transparent Screen Laptop this Cosplay Photos
considered to be Microsoft’s biggest failure. Nonetheless, Vista laid the Year
groundwork for a host of new technologies, all absolutely vital to pushing eSATA is Still Faster Than USB
Windows into the 21st century. Vista’s new, modern driver architecture was 3.0
designed to move core functionality from the kernel (where any instability can Mozilla Confirms Infected Firefox
bring down the whole system) to user space—an absolutely necessary Extensions Slipped Past Security
development. Likewise, Vista’s proper enforcement of permissions for both
Intel's Sandy Bridge CPUs to
users and applications enhanced security, even though UAC remains very Have 2x the Graphics
annoying. And once vendors fixed their driver flaws and Microsoft squashed Performance
some underlying bugs, Vista morphed into an entirely workable operating Dell Precision M6500 First Dell
system, even if we still wouldn’t describe it as “good.” PC with USB 3.0
SEE MORE NEWS
Most Popular Articles
NEWS
54 Apple Finally Announces "iPad" Tablet
COMMENTS
NEWS
42 Rival Tablet PC Makers Worry About the
COMMENTS iPad's $499 Price Point
HOW-TOS
41 How-To: Properly Apply Thermal Paste
So, as 2009 draws to a close, we find ourselves testing another new Microsoft OS: Windows 7. Building on the COMMENTS and Install a CPU
now-mature technologies introduced with Vista, but with a renewed focus on performance and ease-of-use, NEWS
maximumpc.com/…/windows_7_review 1/18
07-Feb-2010 Windows 7 Review: XP vs Vista vs 7 in 8… NEWS
Windows 7 seems poised to succeed where Vista couldn’t. We’ve finally received a final build of Win7, and have 35 BitTorrent Census Proves 99% of Files
COMMENTS Downloaded are Illegal & DRM Might be
run it through the wringer in both the Lab and in the real-world. Here’s what we found.
to Blame
NEWS
New Features 33 EVGA’s W555 Motherboard has Room
COMMENTS for Seven GPUs
While support for new hardware and improved security are perfectly valid reasons to upgrade your OS, the sexiest
benefits of an operating system upgrade are all the new features. Indeed, from a completely revamped user
interface to brand-new features designed to make organizing and sharing your files easier, Windows 7 delivers
Sign up for
much more than some new wallpaper and a different color Taskbar. (Though there are lots of new wallpapers.) the Maximum PC Newsletter
User Interface Enhancements

Submit
The most obvious changes from previous versions of Windows to Windows 7 can be found in a redesigned user
interface. Sure, much of the interface remains the same, but Microsoft has completely overhauled key elements, HTML Text
starting with the Taskbar.
The New Taskbar This Month's Issue
FEATURE
Build a Crazy-Fast $647 PC
FEATURE
Six Single-Band 802.11n
Routers Reviewed
HOW TO
Tweak BitTorrent and Firefox
FEATURE
Close Look at Clarkdale
WHITE PAPER
LCD Panel Technology
SUBSCRIBE NOW
After 14 years of nothing more than cosmetic changes, Microsoft’s redesign of the Taskbar combines the pure AND SAVE!
window organizing power of the classic Taskbar with the application-launching, multi-purpose convenience of Mac
OS X’s Dock. In addition to showing the applications that you currently have open, the new Windows 7 Taskbar also
hosts shortcuts to your most commonly used applications. Click a shortcut when the app is running, and it brings
the most recently used window to the foreground. Click the same shortcut when the app is closed, and it will launch
the app.
But that’s not all. Drag a file onto a shortcut in the Taskbar, and Windows will open the file using that app. Hover
your mouse over a running application’s icon, and it expands to show live thumbnail previews of all of that app’s
windows, floating just above the Taskbar. Mouse over a thumbnail, and Windows will bring that particular window to
the foreground. You can even close individual windows from the thumbnail previews.
For anyone who regularly finds himself with more than 10 windows open, the new Taskbar is a dream come true.
Jump Lists
Another core enhancement to the OS comes in the form of Jump Lists. In short, Jump Lists put frequently used files
in a convenient menu that’s a simple click away from the shortcut icon on the Taskbar or on the Start Menu. Apps
that support Jump Lists will display the list when you right click on the shortcut, or when you left-click and drag the
mouse up away from the Taskbar. Additionally, some apps will automatically populate their Jump List with files you
recently opened.
New Shortcuts
Along with the redesigned UI elements comes a whole new world of user-interface shortcuts. There are really too
many to get into here, but the best of the new shortcuts allow you to maximize a window by dragging it to the top of
the screen, minimize it by dragging it to the bottom, maximize to half your screen by dragging it to either edge, or
(our favorite) minimizing all other windows by shaking the one you want to focus on. Furthermore, enhancements to
alt+tab let you immediately find lost windows, and you can use the Windows key and numbers 1 through 0 to
launch the first ten shortcuts on your Taskbar. And when those apps are already open, you can cycle through
multiple windows by pressing the app’s keyboard shortcut again.
Explorer Enhancements
Windows Explorer also receives some much-needed love. The changes since Vista are relatively minor, but they
serve to make the left-column of Explorer the quickest way to navigate to any folder on your hard drive, network, or
even in the cloud. Furthermore, you can arrange the different categories in any way you want, quickly add special
folders to the Favorites section, and even hide sections you don’t use.
The other main place to access the file browser is the shortcut bar on the right column of the Start Menu. In
Windows 7, there are more folders that you can choose to display there, including Downloads and Recorded TV.
However, you still can’t place any folder you choose in one of those precious slots.
We Hope You Like the Ribbon
The controversial Ribbon, which replaced traditional menus and shortcut bars in Office 2007, is prominently
featured in Windows 7. In the applets that ship with the OS, you’ll see the Ribbon featured prominently.
1 2 3 4 5 next › last »
COMMENTS:359
TAGS: WINDOWS, MICROSOFT, SOFTWARE, OPERATING SYSTEMS, FEATURES, REVIEWS, WINDOWS 7, WINDOWS 7 WEEK
REACTIONS 2 Share 187
http://w w w .maximumpc.com/article/review s/w indow s_7_review Auto članka je Will Smith. Nadam se ne glumac, jer
onda je stvarno podcijenjen :D — aresstarcic 16 days ago
Not exactly new , but the best Win7 review I've read.
http://w w w .maximumpc.com/article/review s/w indow s_7_review — sw ertel 26 days ago
powered by
COMMENTS Login or register to post comments
it look great stuff

Submitted by seekers on Sun, 02/07/2010 - 6:07am
Hi.. graet stuff.. i'm just thinking when i can using windows 7.. it look great.. Regards..Hidup Berani Untuk
Gagal, Hidup Berani Untuk Gagal
Login or register to post comments
XP vs. VISTA vs. Windows 7

Submitted by Cy berHeat on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 9:20pm
Windows 7, 64 bit Ultimate ROCKS! As for you die hard dogs stuck on XP.... Keep it, just don't whine about it
when others are ready for 64 bit computing. However, if you are ready for a new lively experience with real
security, stability, and the added advantage of running 64 bit applications with 64 bit hardware and have more
than 3.5 usable gigs of RAM for your OS, then Win7 64 bit is the right stuff. When comparing XP to to Win 7 or
Vista you really need to compare the 64 bit OS. It is time to dump the 32 bit OS and move to the more robust 64
bit OS and take advantage of the 64 bit CPUs. If you are using the 64 bit flavor of Vista SP2 or Win7 then run it
with 6-8 gigs of RAM. You will see the OS strutt its stuff. 4 gigs of RAM on the 64 bit OS just doesn't take
advantage of the 64 Bit memory advantage. Which was overlooked by MaxPC. I realize they are trying to
compare objectively.... but Vista64 and Win7-64 are no way an a 32 bit dog it's a 64 bit beast. So don't cripple
the OS with 4 gigs of RAM. I am running 12 gigs of RAM and am loving it.
Additionally, you can try Win7 for free and if you dont like it.... then stay with your antique/obsolete 32 bit dog if
that makes you happy. Eventually you will come around.
Make your own ringtones with powerful iPhone Ringtone Maker

Submitted by xn329329 on Sun, 01/24/2010 - 10:48pm
Why pay every time you want a ringtone when you already have songs in
your music library? Making iPhone Ringtone has never been so easier
with iPhone Ringtone Maker.This iPhone Ringtone Maker will help you to make your own ringtones. Key
Functions:
Convert music or audio files of any format to iPhone ringtone- Almost
all audio formats are supported including MP3, WMA, AAC, WAV, OGG, M4A,
RA etc. You can easily make your own ringtone for iPhone.
Convert videos to iPhone ringtone-It helps extract music from videos to
M4R ringtone. The video formats supported include AVI, MPEG, WMV, MP4,
FLV, MKV, H.264/MPEG-4, MOV, RM, M4V, VOB, ASF, 3GP, QT, MPV, etc.
And there is a Mac version for you also. iPhone Ringtone Maker for Mac.
iPhone Ringtone Maker heples you make ringtone from your favorite video
and audio collection and even music form library. This iPhone Ringtone
Converter helps you set exact start time and end time of the segment
you want and transfer it to iPhone ringtone without iTunes.
Designed for iPhone users, M4R Converter
is currently the best Music to M4R Converter. Various formats
supported, you can convert files to M4R from AVI, MPEG, WMV, DivX, MP4,
WMA, WAV, M4A, MP3,etc. M4R Converter is easy to use for both veterans
and beginners. It allows you to choose any part you want , convert to
M4R and transfer the converted M4R ringtone to iPhone directly without
iTune.
JUST SHOWS HOW INCOMPETENT CYBERHEAT IS

Submitted by stanley 752 on Sat, 01/23/2010 - 8:18am
I HAVE THREE COMPUTERS
ONE WITH WIN 7 PRO 64BIT: QUAD CORE 64 BIT CPU , 8GB DDR3, 2-VELIO RAPTORS IN RADI-0,
1792MB GTX 295, GIGABYTE MB, CORSAIR 850PS.
TWO WITH XP PRO 32 BIT: BOTH HAVE THE SAME AS THE ONE WITH WIN 7 PRO 64BIT.
I LIKE HOW YOU SAY HARD DOGS WHINE, WHEN YOU ARE INCOMPETENT. YOU SAID HOW MUCH ALL
YOUR STUFF HAS BUT THE FUNNY THING IS YOUR VIDEO CARD WITH ALL THAT IS CAPPED, MY
MACHINES WITH XP WILL GET BETTER FPS THEN YOU COULD EVER GET ON WIN 7 ULTIMATE. WITH
LESS RAM. NOW THATS FUNNY. MY ANTIQUE 32 BIT XP OS ON TWO OF MY PCS I HAVE BET AND WON
AND CHALLENGED ANYONE AND WHEN I GOT OVER 30% MORE FPS THIER MOUTH DROPED. AND
TWO OF MY PCS WITH XP COSTED LESS. TRIED COMPARSION AND CHALLENGES ON OVER 50
GAMES.
YOU TALK ABOUT WHINEING BUT ONLY PEOPLE I SAW WHINEING WHERE THE ONES WIN VISTA AND
WIN 7, THEN AFTER BEATING THEM REPEATLY, I GOT SILENCE. ONLY REASON ONE OF MY PCS HAS
WIN 7 PRO IS MY WIFE WANTED THE FLARE, THE SPARKLE. PLUS IF YOU WERE SO SMART DID YOU
KNOW 12GIGS OF MEMORY ON WIN 7 ULTIMATE 64 BIT DOES NOT UTILIZE ALL 12 GIGS SHERLOCK.
YOU CAN'T USE ALL 12. PLUS WIN 7 64 BIT OS'S DONT UTILIZE ALL THEIR MEMORY. HERE ARE LINKS
YOU MIGHT FIND INTERESTING THAT PROVE WHAT I AM SAYING.
MEMORY PROBLEMS WIN 7 64 BIT LINKS BELOW
http://weblogs.asp.net/owscott/archive/2006/11/07/Is-64_2D00_bit-computing-always-better_3F00_.aspx
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7performance/thread/ce4fca31-6380-45ca-8cc8-
ccbd537539ec
OTHER LINKS BELOW OF MUTIPLE WINDOWS 7 PROBLEMS
http://www.sevenforums.com/installation-setup/17376-acpi-problem-one-more-time.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/crashes-debugging/57782-bsod-windows-7-ultimate-x64.html
LINKS TO PROBLEMS BELOW WITH GAMING ON WIN 7 32 BIT AND 64 BIT
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/3282-battlefield-2142-doesn-t-work.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/57694-battlefield-2-always-getting-kicked.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/57165-game-need-speed-shift.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/57583-windows-7-not-too-good-gamng.html
http://www.sevenforums.com/gaming/5700-oblivion-crash-startup.html
win7 you loose

Submitted by shaneof dev on on Wed, 01/20/2010 - 11:37pm
Win xp file handling some way faster than 7, new icons in folders are hard to sort visually. Looks like a mac!
Games run 11.5 % slower far cry 2 had to turn resolution down to get back playability. In XP I could find files way
faster as I could see the different icons better.
Going back as the system aint ready for serious users yet, I am not the easy to please 'ooo that looks nice'
brigade, I use my comp for extensive filing and cataloguing handling and manipulating vide for storage and
retreivel... nope it just likes to do what IT wants.
I will try again when they fix the damn thing
I'd like to point out that

Submitted by Caboose on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 11:15am
I'd like to point out that that file management can still be performed and set to look just like it did back in
WinXP/2000. As for your games. I believe that Far Cry 2 is a DX10 capable game. And Win7 supports
DX10, DX10 can also be taxing on your GPU if it's a mid to low range card, and if you're running DX10
enabled settings at high on your mid-range GPU, then yes, you will notice a performance decrease!
-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-
ONE MORE THING ABOUT DX9 AND DX10

ONE COMMENT WAS DX10 IS BETTER ON VISTA, THATS A LAUGH. VISTA TAKES SYSTEM MEMORY
TO BUFFER VIDEO SO YOUR VIDEO CARD IS SLOWED BECAUSE IT IS BUFFERED THROUGH
SYSTEM MEMORY. WHERE AS DX9 ON XP IS NOT BUFFERED AND IS NOT LAGGED BY VIDEO
BUFFERING. EVER NOTICE ON VISTA AND WIN 7 WHEN PLAYING A GAME EXIT TO WINDOWS AND
YOUR FREE MEMORYS GONE, WHERE AS XP ITS NOT. EVER HEARD OF BOTTLE NECKS IN
SYSTEMS ANY TRUE GAMER WILL TELL YOU USEING MEMORY FROM THE VIDEO CARD IS
BETTER THEN HAVEING IT CONNECTED WITH SYSTEM MEMORY. ONLY VISTA AND WIN 7
CONNECT IT WITH SYSTEM MEMORY. IT BOTHERS ME WHEN SOME PEOPLE DONT KNOW WHAT
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT REGARDING DX10 VISTA AND DX11 WIN 7 PRO. AND NOW WITH WIN
7 PRO THEY CAP YOUR GPU(MEANING LIMIT IT) I RUN A GTX 295 ON ONE PC AND 5870 ON MY
OTHER. WITH BOTH QUAD CORES AND 4GB MEMORY AND BOTH HAVE 2-VELIO RAPTORS IN
RAID-0. SO NO MINE IS NOT SLOW.
SO BEFORE YOU POST COMMENTS GET THE FACTS RIGHT. BECAUSE BY NOT DOING SO YOUR
JUST INCOMPETENT. BUT HELL MICROSOFT LIKES THAT YOU KEEP THEM RICH.
just like to get the facts straight

amount of games out that are DX10 only 40 total
amount of games out that are DX11 only 1, which is dirt 2.
amount of games out that are DX9 hundreds.
to come out in 2010 is only 14 DX10 games and 2 DX11 games.
plus all DX10 and DX11 games will still support DX9.
have you ever seen the benefit in percent from DX9 to DX10 only 12%
DX 11 is 25% better over DX9
but thier is a catch almost all video cards on the market are DX10 at most and the DX11 cards have
not matured ati has DX11 cards but they are crap ati's drivers for thier video cards are junk anyone that
owns a 5 series card will agree with that. i own ati 5870 video card and nvidia gtx 295 also and
graphics on the gtx 295 has better graphics and is alot faster on win 7 pro and xp. plus ati DX11 video
cards over 80% have had overheating issues , plus most games run like crap on them. regarding
dx10 thier is not much difference verus dx9. now dx 11 is different, but nothing supports it yet. but
everyone wants the newest and they are feeling the pain for getting it.
one big thing no one sees WIN 7 VIDEO IS CAPPED AND USES VIDEO CARD GPU TO BOOST
SYSTEM, WHICH IN TURN . WHERE AS A GTX 295 OR ATI 5870 GET 25-30% LESS FPS THEN ON
XP. AND IF YOUR SO SMART ON THE NEWEST AND SUPPOSEDLY THE BEST SEARCH THE WEB
AND MICROSOFT FOR CAPPED GPU AND EVEN TRY YOURSELF, YOU WILL SEE.
Ok, you may have

Submitted by Caboose on Sat, 01/23/2010 - 11:58am
Ok, you may have (attempted) to hold a few valid points, but with your poor spelling and
grammar, and the fact that 75% of your post are in all caps makes me (and I'm sure everyone
else) ignore what you've typed. It's very difficult to read (and take someone seriously) when they
use all capital letters. It's like being yelled at. People will see you as a douche and ignore you.
Out of curiosity, why are you running 8GB in a PC with a 32bit OS? The OS can't address the other
4.75 (approx) gigs of RAM, unless you do the workaround/hack/whatever, and even then it's not
properly addressing it.
Your = posessive, you're = you are. Use them properly and you'll make much more sense.
Ok, i'm going to attempt to read your comments.
What are HARD DOGS? Are they statues of dogs?
You said that the only reason you have a PC with Windows 7 is because your wife wanted the
FLARE. Were those signal flares, road flares, emergency flares? I think the word you wanted to
use was FLAIR! For a programmer, your spelling is horrid.
I've got a Quad-Core system w/8GB of RAM, 2 3870's in Crossfire and a 1TB RAID1, and haven't
noticed any slowdowns in Windows 7. My G15 Keyboard with SirReal's Panel running doesn't
show that my free RAM has dissapeared after I exit a game. I get all my RAM back once I exit a
game, or finish my video editing.
That first link you posted was from NOVEMBER 2006. Which would have been Windows XP 64bit,
unless the blogger had a VL edition of Windows Vista, or a... wait for it... BETA version. And as we
all know, that was a failure. Driver support was very limited compared to now, and yes, there were
issues. So your first link is moot as it is for a decade old OS. 64bit computing has come leaps
and bounds for the end user market since then. Plus, when Vista came out, the amount of drivers
released for it were very vew and far between as it was a brand new OS. Windows XP drivers
didn't work. You know what, when Windows XP was released, it had a lot of driver issues. Users
were forced to either wait, use beta versions of drivers, or make Windows 2000 drivers work.
Lack of drivers, is the fault of the driver manufacturer. NOT the fault of Microsoft.
That second link, appears to be specific to a motherboard/video card combination, along with an
RTM edition of Windows 7. Your 2nd link also fails to make your point.
Let's keep going shall we?
3rd link is with the ACPI power settings on a Dell PC after a BIOS update. How's that the fault of
Windows 7? In addition with the user usin Build 7100 of Windows 7 which is the RC build, Build
7600 is the RTM build. So he was STILL using a beta OS. And that's 3 failures in a row.
The 4th link, was dealing with a driver. User updated to the latest driver from the
MANUFACTURER's website and the problem was resolved. Again, how is that a problem with
Windows 7 64bit? That could EASILY have happened with Windows Vista, or Windows XP. And
there's failure #4
5th link is dealing with a 4 year old game. Battlefield 2142 has it's fair share of issues in XP as
well as Vista. Now couple that with attempting to get widescreen to work properly, and you've got
a recipie for disaster! Plus the user is also running the RC build of the OS. I run Battlefield 2142
in Win7 Ultimate 64bit retail build, and haven't had any problems. Heck, some of my games built
for Windows 95 and Windows 98 in Win7 Ultimate 64bit JUST fine.
You do realize that when you're running a beta, even an RC build of an OS, you are bound to have
a lot of issues as they're still being worked out and the bugs being squished. But I degress. Let's
continue on your walk of failure!
Ok, do you actually read the links you post or do you just do a generic search for "Windows
7+can't game" and take all the results as problems WITH the OS? The 6th link is an issue with
PunkBuster and Battlefield 2. The user most likely was running the version of PB that comes on
the BF2 disc. Updating PB fixed the issue. Sooo care to explain how that's a problem with the OS
and not a problem with Punkbuster and servers rejecting old versions of the app?
In the 7th link, the thread hasn't been updated and there's no additional information. For all we
know, it's either a pirated version of the game, the guy's using a NoCD crack, or hasn't even
updated the game. You've heard of game updates before right? You know, the ones that at times
can add compatibility or fix issies that the game has when running on certain OS'? Wow, you're
batting 0 right now!
8th link. Ok, you're not trying at all are you?
And we'll finish this tour of your failure at Link number 9. Oblivion crashing in Windows 7. Where
to begin with this one? First off, that thread is ALMOST a year old. At that time, Windows 7 was, I
believe, still in the early beta stages. Plus with the fact that the poster didn't provide any additional
information, OR post anything after the inital post, makes this your last and final failure for this
little adventure.
If you are a programmer, as you so say you are, you'd realize that research is pretty important.
Unless you have all of the information you require, you are unable to build the application
properly. The same goes with troubleshooting. All of the links you posted either pointed to issues
with the app in question, or the fact that the user is using a beta version of the OS. And as a
programmer, you should know that Alpha, Beta and RC builds of an app are never the same as
the final build. They have bugs, issues, etc that need to be resolved.
I did a search for Windows 7 capped gpu, and you know what I found? I found a link pointing to
this article of your incoherient rantings, and... nothing else that even comes close to what you're
blathering on about. There was a link about nVidia drivers capping the refresh rate to 87Hz, but
that's it. I don't know what you're talking about, a capped GPU.
You mentioned that almost all the GPU's on the market are DX10. My last count was ALL GPU's
on the market today are DX10 cards. All. Even the onboard ones (unless you consider Intel's
pathetic attempt at graphics). As of late, ATi is ahead in the GPU market in terms of price,
performance, and power. Plus their drivers are much nicer than nVidia's drivers. Mind you, both
are using a unified driver so you're not hunting through a million and one drivres for your card. If
you want to talk about too much heat, let's talk about nVidia. They seem to be getting a rep for
building very small, and expensive space heaters. Normal temps for video card using the stock
air cooling is in the 70-80C range. There are some that experience lower, and some higher.
Which can be attributed to how good the airflow is in your case, how packed it is, air or water
cooling, etc. The only point I'll give to you, is that DX11 isn't widly used right now, and that is
because... it just came out! Be patient. You'll see more and more DX11 games. Why is it when
something is JUST released, people bitch and complain and whine that there are no games that
will use it... when it just came out, or a month later, etc. How long does it take to develop a game?
And if a game is on it's way to release, and a new DX version comes out, a developer isn't going
to hault production to make it a DX11 game. It'll be released as a patch later. Just like what
happened with Company of Heroes!
As it's been said by myself, and many others before me, across many other threads to the many
conspiracy theorists, and the people that just don't have a clue, site your sources! Properly.
Randomly googling stuff and posting the links without actually READING what the post is about,
isn't siting your sources.
So to you, I provide you with this:
www.ratemyeverything.net/ImageDatabase/PostImages/7739/Large/Star_Wars_FAIL.jpg
Amen Brudder
Submitted by theqman on Thu, 01/28/2010 - 5:47pm
Stanley, your posts are difficult to read.
Punctuation and space between paragraphs would be a help.
==============================
Never send a man to do a grenade's job"
==============================
*snap* well said caboose

Submitted by dracx619 on Sun, 01/24/2010 - 10:23am
*snap* well said caboose
*Bows* Thank you. And I

Submitted by Caboose on Sun, 01/24/2010 - 1:49pm
*Bows* Thank you.
And I apologise to everyone for the long post, however, I was unable to properly debunk
what he was saying with a short post.
*snap, snap* you go

Submitted by nekollx on Mon, 01/25/2010 - 10:05am
*snap, snap* you go girlfriend!
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--

Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
And XP can only run at

Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 01/21/2010 - 11:23am
And XP can only run at DX9. So it's not a simple comparison.
the XP box that "looks better" is stuck at dx9 so it is less taxing on the dx10 gpu, no matter the setting.
on vista/7 your running in dx10 by default so it's pushing the card to it's limits.
------------------------------
Exactly! -= I don't
Exactly!
WINDOWS 7 32bit vs 64 bit and win7 compared to xp pro.

Submitted by stanley 752 on Sun, 01/17/2010 - 11:02am
I personally have had all microsoft operating systems over the years. i work as a computer programmer.
and me and my two teenage boys love to game. I do say win xp pro was the best os ever for microsoft. i have
three computers at home two with win 7 pro 32 bit and one with xp pro 32 bit. all three have amd phenom II x4
955 black edition quad cor cpus and all three have 4gb performance memory in each one and each one of the
three have two wd 300gb velico raptor hard drives in raid-0 and each has gtx 295 video cards. I have tried 64 bit
version of windows 7 pro and ultimate and home edition and the 32 bit versions of them also just to find out
that on the 64 bit versions of windows 7 the extra memory 8gb total, only 4gb of memory on 64bit versions is
used for 32 bit apps nothing more then 4gb, only time 8gb can be used in a 64 bit version of windows 7 is on
64 bit apps. so if you use mainly 32 bit apps getting a 64 bit version of windows 7 is useless. if you dont believe
me try for your self, you will see i am right. plus the 64bit versions have many bugs they apperntly have not fixed
like they have in the 32 bit versions. first ie8 in 64 bit version is buggy, where as in 32 bit its not. second win 7
32 bit boots faster then 64 bit. try it you see. i timed it. antivirus software it works good on 32 bit, buggy on 64 bit.
i have tried norton, bitdefender, trend micro, nod 32, etc and so on. i work with visual studio 2008 a lot and
found out the hard way, that on windows 7 you need to have sp1 for it to work well and sp3 for sql server 2005
for it to work well on win 7, where as on xp i did not need that. plus some things i had to do a work around for
visual studio 08 on win 7 where as on xp i dont. now if you think i am full of it. just simply try visual studio 08 on
win 7 and you will see. when it comes to gameing as the one review said your gpu is capped on win 7, he was
right i tried gameing and video encodeing and yes he was 100% right. example on every game me and my one
son have played my pc win 7 pro 32 bit and his xp pro 32 bit he gets a average 25 to 35% more fps. we
compared onthe following games crysis, fallout 3, company of heros, gta 4, call of duty 4 and call of duty
5(modern warfare2) , grid , sim3 and sim3 world adventures, and other games. on company of heros for
example hes waiting on player(me) when lan(pc to pc). when it comes to doing work i do it on my sons which
has xp pro. at work everyone has talked about win7 but only me and one other made the plung to it, and the
other guy that did go to win 7 went back to xp pro. which i am thinking about. not one pc at work uses win 7 all of
them use xp pro. i asked if they will make the change. i was told they will go to win 7 when they no longer have
the choice. and regarding all of the games yes i have every avaible patch for them, and both computers as i
said early in this review have same hardware. my wife likes win 7 but thats only because its flashy and new. but
what women dont like flashy and new. win 7 is a lot better then vista, which vista proberly will go down as the
worst operating system ever. but win 7 code is based off vista and the gpu is capped. if they would of maybe
based win 7 off of win xp's code. the world would of got a operating system that would be the best. win 7 as i
said is a improvement over vista, but when it comes to gameing and programming and gpu intensive apps xp
is king. i think microsoft made a mistake when they made xp to good. then came out with vista and now win 7.
because honestly what does not work on xp? where as with vista and win 7, well the list is long on that. plus
also if win 7 or vista are so much better then xp. then answer this why is workpalces and my sons school and
my wifes work and my wifes sisters childrens school all use XP PRO none of them use vista or win 7. answer
that. plus why is it every game i try on win 7 gets a lot lower framerate then on xp. to be honest if you made xp
pro look same as win 7, then why change. stardock has windows blinds program if you ever want to make xp
look like win 7. ever thought of that. it just seems to me microsoft keeps getting greedy and consumer has to
be the one to suffer. because if you have to upgrade pc parts to get win 7 like xp then why? its your money they
get for same result. now you can say i am full of it. but honestly think should you keep spending money
upgradeing your computer every so often for the same result.
Windows 7
Submitted by DigitalMenace on Sun, 01/17/2010 - 6:03am
As soon as I was able to get my hands on a copy of Windows 7 beta, RC and now retail, I have never been
more pleased with a MS OS. I've used countless interations of Linux, have several Macs running OS X 10.6,
and all my PC's are now Windows 7.
Windows 7 is better for me for a few reasons:
1.) It just works. I've yet to have it crash or act unexpectedly
2.) It looks good. Yea, I can make every other os look like it too...
3.) It performs! This is the most important. I have a few older first generation dual core computers with AMD
chips that run like crap with Vista and just ok with XP. I get a better OS for roughly the same performance
I've read many of the posts here and ExiledOne's probably hits the hardest with simple misunderstanding of
how the OS works. You see, I've run many CUDA applications and GPU based programs too. I see, at
minimum, a 5-10% increase in performace in Windows 7 as compared to Vista and XP. I also do a ton of
transcoding and other CPU and even GPU intensive tasks and have yet to have Windows 7 let me down in
performance or stability.
Sure the OS is larger than previous OS's. There's more to it than simply more files taking up space. Microsoft
has taken a lot of the legacy code out and provided a ton of compatability support for older programs. I've got
Windows 95 applications (games) that crashed left and right in XP, wouldn't run in Vista, but runs beautifully in
Windows7.
The XP fan club can stay with XP. It doesn't bother me in the least. I find those that bash people use Macs are
probably the most ignorant out there and have probably never even used OS X. I use them all. I like them all
because I have a need for them. I game in both Windows 7 and OS X and find the games I have for both
platforms perform just as well on the Mac as the PC and the Mac is an older machine. I use the Linux box for
servers, programming and more. Everything has a purpose except fanboys and bashers
have you really looked into compatiability of win 7

i have win 7 pro 32 bit on two pcs which both i am proberly going to reinstall with xp pro.
when you uninstall power archiever 2010 you can no longer burn iso images to dvd with windows 7, thats
one bug, also many antivirus are buggy. plus in gameing you apperntly are full of it. compare two identical
pc's one with xp pro and one with win 7 pro. and compare the framerate. you will see the difference. just
give it a try. and overall performance thats funny. google search online you will see xp pro is faster in data
moving and etc then win 7 pro. also compare two identical pc's. you will see. now i am not saying win 7 is
junk, vista holds that title. all i am saying is for someone to say win 7 is far better then xp then they are just
ignorant. plus i have got windows 95 applications (games) to work great in xp. ever thought of xp
compatibilty mode? in win xp. plus as i said in my review if win 7 is so great then why not one school, and
work place i know are switching and also everyone i know went back to xp. plus the increase of 5-10% in
performance in windows 7 in cuda and gpu applications, i find funny. my results the opposite. plus the
review on the gpu being capped it was right.
Windows 7, Best Ever come on, how much did you get ?
Submitted by Exiled One on Wed, 01/13/2010 - 4:39am
The Only reason Windows7 feels

snappier and more responsive is because of direct compute. Microsoft
has now borg'ed my GPU to make the O/S feel faster. Windows XP 285+
million keys per second ( 2x 8800 GT's stock ) Windows 7 209 million
keys per second ( 2x 8800 GT's stock or over clocked ) ( distributed
net client ). I run XP and 7 side by side and do a ton of video
editing I can tell you first hand how all 3 perform. You are going to
tell me how fast 7 is. (ROFL). Yes is does feel better than Vista, (
trust me I have beta tested all MS O/S's from windows 95 with the
exception of XP ) but here is the million dollar question: How
do you get a code base that is 3 times the size to feel like it is
half the size. HMMMM .... that's like putting a 429 boss in a 69
Mustang then pitting it against an Escalade with the same engine
which one hits the lights first in the 1/4 ? I can tell you it's not
the Escalade. I've been working in this field a long time and yes
Vista/7 has some nice features but at the same time ( as a admin )
they are a major hangover with a migraine to boot. I have been around
long before there was a windows 3.11 wfw, I have seen MS kill the
best browser at the time, and now I see the credibility of a trusted
Magazine go to the highest bidder. I have seen much in this
industry. But now to support the same speed with direct compute I
have to get a second gtx 260 just to be able to trans-code the kid's
video's in the same amount of time in 7. None of the big reviewers
tested 7 in trans-coding video or any cuda app for that matter (CS4
don't count as it really does,'t need a lot it's already tight )Yes
the task scheduler is windows/vista/7 is tight now even single
threaded apps run real good but in 7 there is a expense for cuda apps
that I as a real user and I do all the video and photo touch up for
the family don't like, that is MS has capped my GPU for use to
accelerate it's meager attempt to say 7 is faster but really they
just tried to move the problem out of view . The only 3 things I like
about 7 is as follows 1: task scheduler 2: SSD support 3: My
wife think's it's flyto have the latest and greatest. I lose
atleast 25-30% in GPU apps that ain't cool. MS found there turbo to
get past the reviewers because you only test with the best high end
gear, they fooled you and with it, all your trusted readers. Do real
time tests with the hardware I have to deal with everyday, In fact it
was how I got my boss to get off my my back about upgrading was to
load his meager machine with Windows 7 ( his asked to have it removed
a week after I told him I couldn't do it without format now he
suffers )For GPU apps XP is king for the end user depends if you game you will lose 15 to 20 % frame rate and
that may not matter for a lot of games but it depends on what you are playing and what you have already, myself
I have to upgrade and spend another 360 to 380 dollars to get the same performance I had before, on top of
what I had to pay for the O/S ( mine was free but had to buy the wife one also ) Oh buy the way what resolution
did you run on that crysis test I'd really like to know because it's fishy.
you were right about gpu being capped
yes you were right about the gpu being capped. and you were right xp is king in gpu applications. plus xp
out performs win 7 in data moving and gameing. maybe with a service pack win 7 can catch up with xp.
hmm
Submitted by dracx619 on Thu, 01/14/2010 - 4:07am
interestingly enough, im also a video editor, photo retoucher, video transcoder...etc...etc. but have the
opposite experience. my transcodes do take less time than with xp (identical machine and apps of
course, except i was capped at 3gb of ram then even though i had 4gb) it wasn't a huge difference but
anywhere from like 30 sec to a couple of minutes depending on the size of the movie. my photos exported
from lightroom a bit faster, couple more frames per sec. not to also mention that ive been running the rtm
release since launch and i havn't had the system slow down like xp did in a relatively same timeframe. so
im happy. i guess its just different for a lot of people...
Just a note about your

Just a note about your RAM. If you're using 32bit Win7, it may say 4GB of RAM, but in brackets will be
3.xx as the actual amount of RAM avail. Unless you're running 64bit windows than this post don't
apply!
thanks, i was implying that

Submitted by dracx619 on Thu, 01/14/2010 - 10:47am
thanks, i was implying that my old xp install was 32 bit and my win 7 is 64 bit and is why i can
now see all of my ram. its kinda of a known windows video editor thing that you dont edit or work
on xp pro 64 bit cause of some pretty crazy limitations and incompatabilities. so one of my
advantages of editing with windows 7 is beaing able to use 64 bit and more ram because editing
ist gimped like xp 64-bit. thats why i didint bother to elaborate since im sure the previous poster
is aware of it
Whaa Whaa (Here's some tissue paper)

Submitted by DallasBladeY SL on Thu, 01/07/2010 - 9:00pm
I hear and read a lot of complaints about Windows 7 primarily dealing with it's usability. Unfortunately, the
comments aren't about whether or not it is in fact user friendly (which it is if you have half the brain of a monkey)
but about people not wanting to learn an all new operating system (which when considering its user interface it
is identical to Vista and merely grown from XP). So the popular solution I've read is to use Linux or something
from Apple... meaning if you grew up using Windows since it's 3.1 stage you'll have to re-learn an entirely new
way to do things in the Apple world, or teach yourself how to manage your own OS in Linux... someone explain
to me how that makes any sense or solves problems. Ok, so you don't want to teach anyone how to use a new
OS? Fine, let them stay in the dark ages and wonder why everyone else gets their work done much faster, with
better presentation, while enjoying more entertainment.
Not to mention we haven't even discussed the availability of all the new hardware that these new operating
systems are built to support. I'm not talking about a $20 HP printer. I'm talking about the advancements in cpu,
gpu, ram, and motherboard technology. Technology that XP and earlier OS's have no concept of let alone the
ability to efficiently and effectively utilize. The hardware is faster now, the programs are bigger and take more
horsepower to run, so if you plan on using either combination you will need the proper OS to handle it. Case in
point, XP 32-bit won't register more than 3.0 Gigs of ram. I bought a brand new Dell XPS quad core pc with all
the goodies, big graphics card, lots of memory, etc. Low and behold I only had Vista 32-bit installed and
couldn't register half the memory I paid for, nor was I utilizing a quarter of the potential my processor had to
offer.
The world of computers is simple, buy the tools you need to get the job done. In order to do so you need to
identify the tasks in that job appropriately, research what tool completes that task most efficiently and most cost
effectively, then buy it. Microsoft is doing everything they should be doing as far as making new OS's to help us
get our jobs done easier. My point being, if you don't like Win 7, great... there's no need for you to post your
uneducated subjective negative opinions about it on a site meant to educate potential users about its
functionality. If you don't want it, don't buy it, I don't understand why this is so hard for people in general to
swallow. I personally adore XP but it no longer suits my needs and I've been waiting for a better version of
Vista to hit the floors. It's here, I'm happy, my needs are meant, done.
UAC? BAH.
Submitted by Kendogsbarn on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 6:42am
This whole exresize is pointless to me, because except to Microsoft's profit, there is no real benefit to me for
"upgrading" from XP to 7. It is disguised as a Vista redux in my book.
The "modified" UAC seems to be the key element that Microsoft is hurling at consumers now.
We are told we must give up some real O.S. "ownership" priveleges for glitz and whistles. Pfff.
I feel more compelled than ever to try free O.S.'s.
7 is heads and shounders

Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 12/22/2009 - 10:41am
7 is heads and shounders above xp, oh and XP is at it's End of Life. Excuse me if i don't feel compeled to
support a inferior, dead, product.
------------------------------
Why can't we be friends?

Submitted by X2brute on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 9:07am
In my opinion xp was great! I never had any issues with it! Vista looked nice but was slower, but I still used it
cause it came free on my Past 3 laptops, and 7 is good too! I like many of its features better than vista, but not
all, and as far as those of you who have old pcs and can't upgrade that's fine! OSs are like any component,
some people like amd, some like intel, some want a i7, others have an atom, I hate when people call netbooks
too weak to be used as a main computer, cause I did for 2 years till mine got fried accidentally, and I'm still
using it for parts! My new laptop has a 2.1 ghz athelon X2 and 4gs of ram on win 7 but I still miss my first one
with a 1.3 ghz celeron and 1g of ram on vista! It worked, use what works, use what you like, but don't complain
about what others like
(and to tell you the truth my old desktop with windows 3.1 and *gasp!* color graphics! Was an awesome
computer as long as you don't want to do anything more intense than play sim city)
If a bear tries to dump in the woods but a tree falls on him with no one around, is the pope's hat still funny?
In my opinion xp was great!


Legacy problems with &&

Submitted by Roost on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:31am
Nice review of Win 7. What is clear to me is that Win 7 is essentially a consumer oriented OS. I want to get
work done and in my field, most offices arely on legacy apps that may not even load in 7.
Rather than gripe, I suggest that Microsoft would be very smart to buildand sustain a long term version of XP
primarily for businesses. They could call it Windows Legacy Edition, charge $300 bucks retail, assign a small
crew to keep tweaking it and have a healthy income stream. All the MIS people I've talked with are not thrilled
about having to run SP inside Windows 7.
One admin I know runs a 14,000 workstation network and is looking at millions of dollars in training costs,
breakdowns, trouble shooting costs, plus having to replace inexpensive PCs with higher power versions,
dump several million bucks worth of peripherals and printers. She is not a happy camper.
A legacy version of XP might create a problem for Redmond, but it would avoid billions of dollars of problems
for users. But then, from my perspective, Microsoft always seems to care much more about forcing sales of
new software than it does about users.
The thing is the Exact same

Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:53am
The thing is the Exact same thing can be say abou win 98. Redmond has to say at some point "ok we're
not supporting this any more" or we would all still be bou windows 2. They choose 2014 as the absolute
End of life for xp, that nearly 14 years...and hell 7 can run on a Netbook...Your telling me these "legacy
computers" are less powerful then a Netbook?
------------------------------
Exactly! All of these

Submitted by Caboose on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 1:08pm
Exactly! All of these people that say that Win7 can't run on older machines, to them I say, prove it! I've
got Windows 7 running very smoothly and nicely on an Asus EeePC 1002HA netbook, and it runs
better than in my VM which has 2 dedicated cores, 3GB of RAM, and an entire 80GB 7200rpm desktop
HDD to use.
Legacy hardware (printers, scanners) should work fine on Windows 7, and if they're legacy or have
been long since discontinued (I'm looking at you parallel printers and scanners) then it's time to
replace them anyway with devices that are smaller, faster, and perform better!
Running apps within a Virtual XP mode that comes with Win7 is not a big deal or difficult to do as the
apps may be running within a specalized VM, but to the end user they will almost appear to be running
nativly on the primary OS. And I can guarentee you that 99.9% of users won't know the difference!
There comes a time when a product needs to be phased out. XP has served it's debt to society. It's
time to let it rest and not be bothered by anyone, OR bother anyone anymore.
see
Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 1:41pm
see also
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/microsoft_enthusiast_runs_windows_7_pentium_ii_system
And really if your system is lower then a Pentium 2 you really should upgrade, the warentee alone
on a $300 Dell would offset the maintaince cost on a P1 or lower system
------------------------------
Legacy problems with &&

Submitted by Roost on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 11:31am
Nice review of Win 7. What is clear to me is that Win 7 is essentially a consumer oriented OS. I want to get
work done and in my field, most offices arely on legacy apps that may not even load in 7.
Rather than gripe, I suggest that Microsoft would be very smart to buildand sustain a long term version of XP
primarily for businesses. They could call it Windows Legacy Edition, charge $300 bucks retail, assign a small
crew to keep tweaking it and have a healthy income stream. All the MIS people I've talked with are not thrilled
about having to run SP inside Windows 7.
One admin I know runs a 14,000 workstation network and is looking at millions of dollars in training costs,
breakdowns, trouble shooting costs, plus having to replace inexpensive PCs with higher power versions,
dump several million bucks worth of peripherals and printers. She is not a happy camper.
A legacy version of XP might create a problem for Redmond, but it would avoid billions of dollars of problems
for users. But then, from my perspective, Microsoft always seems to care much more about forcing sales of
new software than it does about users.
Excellent!
Submitted by Sujit Kumar on Thu, 12/10/2009 - 3:34am
It runs really well, Great!!
www.dataoutsourcingindia.com
Hype or Not
Submitted by pismire on Wed, 12/09/2009 - 12:57pm
Look. I've read way too many of these comments. Let me summarize:
1. The article itself isn't going to be convincing enough to the average PC user. As one reader suggested,
maybe a compare against Linux and Mac would be better than simply comparing load times of previous
windows versions (which weren't very impressive).
2. The average PC user will upgrade because they've been doing so for years, and the average pc user is your
mom and dad. They surf the web, send emails, transfer photos from their digital cameras, and maybe upload
them to their facebook accounts. They shop on ebay and amazon, and maybe manage some bank accounts,
etc.
Seems so me, the average user requires in all honesty, roughly a Pnetium III 900mhz with 64-128mb of ram to
accomplish that.
Guess what?
Like most minimalist linux distributions, Windows XP will actually work on said P3 w/64mb and it wiill run just
fine. (I know, I have a p3 laptop and an old duron 700 in the garage acting as a firewall and webcam server and
they hum along nicely with xp).
So my question is, will the other 15 laptops and pc's i have with older hardware, like say GOD FORBID a
1.6ghz Atom processor and only (dear me) 1GB ram still run well under windows 7?
What about my 128mb duron 700mhz w/4gb hard drive?
Oh yeah, I can't even INSTALL win 7 in 4b of drive space, can i?
The point I am trying to make here is some of us do not NEED even what XP offers us. I don't feel as a
consumer, the netbook or notebook I bought 2 years ago should be rendered uselss because I only have
512mb of ram and a 30 gb hard drive, when under XP, it is still a viable workstation.
Regarding Win7 "improvements"...
Memory and disk management improvements are one thing.
Writing an "app" into the code of the "os" to manage folders for people who can not manage folders on their
own hardly quantifies the statement that it's all new from the ground up.
Give me visual studio and 20 minutes and I'll write you a a windows service to do the same thing.
It's nice. But it doesn't translate to better for many people who will NEVER use features like that. Those
features will get in the way for some.
And, as the person tasked in my family with figuring out "where did all my pictures go?" "how come when I click
PRINT" there's always a header at the top of my documents suddenly? "I didn't do anything. I just opened MY
PICTURES and now I can't find them" "My internet is broken", I've seen enough to know that my mom and dad
are going to have a hard time with their new Acer Aspire 1 w/Windows 7 because of all of these keyboard
shortcuts, gesture controls, etc.
I can see it now. "I moved my mouse and all my windows just disappeared. How do I get them back".... I don't
have time to re-train family members and explain what was and what now is.
The tru measure of a good OS is my mom. If she can figure it out on her own, it's intuitive. If she has to call me
then it's too difficult.
PS- Why on earth would any system need 4gb of ram? It's an os. OS's are so bloated now it's laughable.
The aforementioned Acer my father has consumes 611mb of the 1gb of ram. Why?
Before you start with the trial ware and acer crap, that's all gone. He only has NOD32 and Malwayrebytes
running at the moment. the rest are standard running windows 7 processes. 611mb. Why? 57% of his
memory?
My acer with (same model) with XP and the same two malware/antvirus programs sits at about 18-25% ram
in use. 0 cpu.
Same model.
Same apps.
Only diff: Windows 7.
So to justify a bloated os everyone has to go buy faster processors and more ram in order to do the same web
surfing, same digital picture transferring, same facebook updating, same bank account mgmt, and use the
same tired office applications... That is not the sign of progress or innovation.
I will end up switching to windows 7 when I have to. For now, XP is just too reliable. And for those of you who
get BSOD's... I think that may have happened to me 1 time in since 2001.... And the rememedy was install fresh
XP. You know whenyou buy a pc from the store, you're getting a frankenstein installation of windows... get the
disk, put XP on it, and BSOD's go away...
Regarding drivers. Jesus it's not that bad. XP has never been that bad with drivers. Most of the time you connect
to the internet and can locate a driver in minutes. Christ people need to quit complaining about drivers so
much. Like I said I have about 15 pc's, laptops handhelds, etc. with zillions of gadgets and I'm CONSTANTLY
fixing family and friends's pc's. They drop off the tower / laptop and I do the rest. I never ask if they have their
original disks because honestly, who needs them?
So I'll stick with XP and Ubuntu for now, as they seem to be the best overall choices in their respected
environments for everyday regular user desktop work.
XP is strong but old. I want SO badly to like windows 7 but right now, after playing with it and playing with the rc,
it's not impressive to me. I can see how it could appeal to a mac user or teenager, however, where substance
is not as important as flash. And for gamers... which I am not. I respect those who choose it for specific
reasons. I respect those who stay with XP for the same specific reasons.
sorry for the ramble.
And I know the comments are going to come about my use of old pc's with low ram, etc. My response in
advance is, respect. My needs are met. I am no lesser a pc user, in fact, I'm probably better off as I've managed
without needing to spend... Who's the stupid one?
Please justify: massive leap forward in usability, security, and

Submitted by curly brian on Tue, 12/08/2009 - 8:28am
I just don't see the justification for the summary: massive leap forward in usability, security, and support for new
hardware and technology.
Usability: Now I can store anything, anywhere, with any name and I can still find it? Bet half of it never gets
backed up and a quarter of it will be lost in the move to a new PC in 5 years. So long cherished photos! Great
usability! If it enforced storage organization consistency instead of just compensating for sloppiness, through
use of AI, a new OS would be an improvement. Pretty picture don't improve usability.
Security: What security problems are there now in XP/Vista? Haven't seen a virus in years, no spywhere either.
Where do people get these from? Use free software that automatically updates for scanning. The inevitable
subscription renewal payment problems causing all infections?
Support for New Hardware: Will be in an issue in 5 years, but not because of any advantage of Windows 7.
The prettiness of a new OS, like buying the same car in a different color every year, wears off quite quickly.
Saving 10 clicks a day is not a reason to change. Great comprehensive article, just don't agree with summary.
Still unimpressed.
to add to nekolix'
Submitted by dracx619 on Wed, 12/09/2009 - 4:20am
to add to nekolix' comment
while in a sense yes, 7 is catering to the lazy (i myself organize my stuff pretty dam good) it does have a
simple built in back up option that backs up everything one chooses from their libraries and stores them in
one place be it an external drive or some spot on a hard drive. aside from that, there are built in transfer
files and settings options that make it easy and im sure microsoft is aware of the potential problems and
will figure out a way in windows 8 to make the transitions seamless and painless, if they dont well too bad
for all those lazies out there, i, and many others from our community will be just fine.
to me, 64 bit 7 is a lifesaver since i work with media. myproductivity has increaed significantly becasue of
the ui features and overal responsiveness of my system. but if 2gb of ram and simple computing is all you
need, then really, i guess xp is fine and all youll need
re
Submitted by nekollx on Tue, 12/08/2009 - 9:54am
I've worked in all 3 so i'll feild some of your thoughts.
Security (well stability really): I've lost count how how many BSoD/Crasshes i've had with XP.
Vista: 1 Crash in 3 years, with it being used every single day virtually 24 hours a day between 2 people.
Seven: I have yet to need to find a driver, seven does it all, and has all of Vista's stability.
Support: You are aware XP x64 is a POS, and has trouble with terabyte drives and SSDs right?
------------------------------
Smaggolin is an IDIOT! ... TRY READING!

Submitted by iplay esp on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 1:14pm
Did you read past the first page moron?
The benchmarks begin on page four, under the heading "Performance"
I am sure you'll now apologize to the fine writers of maximum pc, namely Will Smith (too easy for jokes) for your
error, and completely unnecessary and unfounded insult(s)/name calling... idiot.
Thanks for a great article Will!
Smaggolin is an idiot? Huh?

Submitted by pismire on Wed, 12/09/2009 - 3:33pm
In smaggolin's defense, they did say 80 benchmarks... On page 4 there's maybe 3 or 4 comparisons.
Hardly 80. And they are almost all load time comparisons. I'm sick of load time comparisons... I agree
with smaggolin that this article is hardly revealing, not true to its title, and appears to smack of pro-ms
talking points rather than an unbiased assesment of the os.
"XP vs Vista vs 7 in 80+ Benchmarks" ... try ZERO benchmarks

Submitted by smaggolin on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 12:52pm
80 Benchmarks, huh? I don't see ANY benchmarks here. This article is nothing but a comparison of the
features between the three operating systems, and it's got nothing to do with benchmarks as far as I can tell,
unless you've cleverly hidden the benchmark results somewhere. All I'm seeing is five pages of comparisons...
no benchmarks whatsoever.
Give us some actual benchmarks, or correct the title of the article. Idiot.
yeah dude, total fail

Submitted by dracx619 on Mon, 12/07/2009 - 3:26am
yeah dude, total fail
help me out
Submitted by script kiddy on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 7:00am
im pretty new to the compute world but im taking cit classes at school but this is my first semester so i dont no
much but i am learning but will someone please compare xp,7,an linux for me in a nutshell what are the
MAJOR differences between them because so far all im seeing is the look an feel of the of the desktop but dont
get me wrong i no theres more its just very puzzeling 2 me
Google is your
Submitted by Caboose on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 7:13am
Google is your friend!
http://www.google.com
help me out
Submitted by script kiddy on Tue, 12/01/2009 - 7:00am
im pretty new to the compute world but im taking cit classes at school but this is my first semester so i dont no
much but i am learning but will someone please compare xp,7,an linux for me in a nutshell what are the
MAJOR differences between them because so far all im seeing is the look an feel of the of the desktop but dont
get me wrong i no theres more its just very puzzeling 2 me
that is the difference, the look at startup

Other than hardware and software compatability, and initial installation there really is little difference
between XP/Vista/Windows 7/a decent Linux/Mac. Pick the cheapest and fasted hardware that supports
the OS needed for your hardware and software. All the rest is just hype aby writers that like to play with
what is new.
I'm sticking with XP

Submitted by Kitty Porn on Fri, 11/27/2009 - 1:36am
I'm sticking with XP, and here's why:
Nothing made prior to 2006 is capable of running on Vista/7 unless you spend half an hour on Google looking
for workarounds, and even then, only half of those that work on XP are capable of running at all on Vista/7.
Quake 4? Won't install unless you know the workaround. Any version of Diablo II prior to the 1.12 patch? Forget
about it. Final Fantasy Online? LOLZ PWN3D.
On the other hand, is there any terribly compelling reason to downgrade to Vista/7? Well, there's DX10... as if
I'm going to care how sharp the shadows are when bad guys are trying to kill me. There are the "security"
enhancements like UAC, which hinder much more than they help and are completelysuperfluous if you have
decent malware-killing software (Spybot S&D and Avast! are good). There are the integrated drivers and things,
which would be extremely useful if not for the fact that free DVD-burning software exists, hardware
manufacturers already provide CDs with all of the necessary drivers, etc. And there's the OOH SHINY
redesigned taskbar and Start menu, and other mostly cosmetic/convenience changes, as if I care about the 5
seconds that it takes me to find a program or document under the Classic Start menu. So basically, there are
no reasons that actually matter.
Being able to run programs, however, matters quite a lot.
So yeah, excuse me if I prefer to use an OS that actually WORKS. And I will continue to use XP long after
Microsoft has stopped supporting it, only abandoning it when my computer dies, I need to build a new one, and
hardware that comes with XP drivers is impossible to find (just as my current motherboard does not offer
Win98 or ME drivers).
Why should we upgrade, again??

Don't understand who spends so much time in the operating system that it really matters (assuming it
isn't crashing). Worst thing about newer operating systems is that they compensate for users being total
slobs, neatly creating lists that join together files scattered everywhere with no naming sense. Photos
scattered absolutely everywhere is a perfect example, just try changing software for picture management!
Are your files really backed up? Bet not if they are scattered! When the OS starts organizing your files
instead of patching your mistakes I might be interested. i.e. Why don't they realize I store my music in
Artist/Album/Song order and my pictures in folders by year? Keep me organized, not just the appearance
of it!!
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 next › last »
Home News Reviews How-Tos PDF Archive Ask the Doctor Mag Content Subscribe
Technology New s Computer Cooling Fans Computer Cases PC Game Controllers PC Games Computer Hardw are Headphones MP3 Players
Stream Video Computer Mouse Monitors Motherboards NAS Storage Netw orking Laptop Computers DVD Burner Digital Cameras
Portable Storage Computer Accessories Smartphone Antiv irus Softw are Sound Cards Speakers Computer Systems Thumb Driv es
Video Cameras Video Card Rev iew s Water Cooling Gadgets Keyboards
Contact Us Advertising Privacy Policy Terms & Conditions RSS Feeds TechBlips PCHardwareBlips Site Map Customer Service
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Windows 7 Review - XP Vs Vista Vs 7 in 80+ Benchmarks - Maximum PC

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Windows 7 Review - XP Vs Vista Vs 7 in 80+ Benchmarks - Maximum PC

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

07-Feb-2010 Windows 7 Review: XP vs Vista vs 7 in 8…

80+ Benchmarks A Closer Look at Windows 7's

Comments Print Email Hands-On with Windows 7

Windows 7 Feature Focus –

Windows 7 Feature Focus: Must Read Articles

SEE MORE NEWS

Most Popular Articles

User Interface Enhancements

starting with the Taskbar.

The New Taskbar This Month's Issue

We Hope You Like the Ribbon

REACTIONS 2 Share 187

COMMENTS Login or register to post comments

it look great stuff

Login or register to post comments

XP vs. VISTA vs. Windows 7

Login or register to post comments

Make your own ringtones with powerful iPhone Ringtone Maker

Login or register to post comments

JUST SHOWS HOW INCOMPETENT CYBERHEAT IS

I HAVE THREE COMPUTERS

MEMORY PROBLEMS WIN 7 64 BIT LINKS BELOW

OTHER LINKS BELOW OF MUTIPLE WINDOWS 7 PROBLEMS

LINKS TO PROBLEMS BELOW WITH GAMING ON WIN 7 32 BIT AND 64 BIT

Login or register to post comments

win7 you loose

I will try again when they fix the damn thing

Login or register to post comments

I'd like to point out that

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

Login or register to post comments

ONE MORE THING ABOUT DX9 AND DX10

Login or register to post comments

just like to get the facts straight

amount of games out that are DX10 only 40 total

amount of games out that are DX11 only 1, which is dirt 2.

amount of games out that are DX9 hundreds.

to come out in 2010 is only 14 DX10 games and 2 DX11 games.

DX 11 is 25% better over DX9

Login or register to post comments

Ok, you may have

Ok, i'm going to attempt to read your comments.

What are HARD DOGS? Are they statues of dogs?

Let's keep going shall we?

8th link. Ok, you're not trying at all are you?

So to you, I provide you with this:

Login or register to post comments

Stanley, your posts are difficult to read.

Punctuation and space between paragraphs would be a help.

Login or register to post comments

*snap* well said caboose

*snap* well said caboose

Login or register to post comments

*Bows* Thank you. And I

*Bows* Thank you.

-= I don't want to be dead, I want to be alive! Or... a cowboy! =-

Login or register to post comments

*snap, snap* you go

*snap, snap* you go girlfriend!

Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--

Login or register to post comments

And XP can only run at

And XP can only run at DX9. So it's not a simple comparison.

snap well said caboose

snap well said caboose

Bows Thank you. And I

Bows Thank you.

snap, snap you go

snap, snap you go girlfriend!