Why is XP always faster than newer version of Windows? Because it was designed for hardware back nine years ago. This story is really getting old. Run XP on top of the line machines from 2001 and see if it's really faster than Windows 7.
The problem is that XP still runs programs that are made today, all on a framework that was designed for machines with 1/8 the ram average PC's have today, and 1/20th the processing power.
So those applications have a whole lot of hardware to access, since XP does nothing with it, unlike Vista and 7.
It is absolutely no suprise that XP is still the leader at this stage.
What is a suprise is that 7 is still in beta and comes pretty damn close.
So your reasoning is that you should run software on the machines it was developed to run onto, otherwise we'll get scary speed increases, and that's bad, real bad, sir. Not allowed. Yeah. Right.
I agree, I think that slower performance from a newer OS can be justified by better features and presentation.
Perhaps it's like doing a framerate test on a modern computer comparing between Quake 2 and Crysis, then saying that UT runs faster. Sure, but I'll take the added feature of better graphics at the expense of 'speed'. So long as it's still playable/useable. (And Vista imo is more than useable).
Shouldn't people be grateful that the latest and greatest Windows OSs are actually harnessing the massive computing power of modern computers? Instead of letting it go to waste?
I always lol when ppl say they'd prefer running an 8-year-old OS on their brand new Core i7 rigs.
You have a screwed up logic. Seriously, I run applications. I couldn't care less if I run Mac OSx, Linux, Windows XP, Vista whatever.
I don't care what the system is called and I don't care about glossy interfaces. All I care about is how good I can work with it. If it looks nice - good but I really don't care.
At work my IT guy says 'but run Vista, it is so much nicer' - I hate it: it is slower and it eats batery life. So it is worse. That's it.
What are you guys doing? Looking at an OS or you actually use your computers for anything?
Ah, so now all those features we're supposed to be gaining are reduced to DirectX 11, which is not even out - so with a performance increase yet to be ascertained - and that applies to hardcore gamers only, which are - what, 1% of the users?
There are a lot more than 5 DirectX 10 games out there, also it's not the only reason - the better security, stability and future optimisation are good reasons too.
That said, i won't be upgrading from Vista until I buy a new PC in a couple of year's time.
"I'm a college student looking for a new laptop, but almost all of my media I receive digitally. I'm looking for a laptop, not a netbook, without an optical drive, and budget sensitive. The optical drive will just be a waste of space, when I can have thinner laptop. What's out there?"
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why is XP always faster than newer version of Windows? Because it was designed for hardware back nine years ago. This story is really getting old. Run XP on top of the line machines from 2001 and see if it's really faster than Windows 7.
A logical statement...
I salute you!
I have to agree with your astute observation. I'm sure if I could run Win 3.1 on modern hardware, it will also be speedier than Windows 7
The problem is that XP still runs programs that are made today, all on a framework that was designed for machines with 1/8 the ram average PC's have today, and 1/20th the processing power.
So those applications have a whole lot of hardware to access, since XP does nothing with it, unlike Vista and 7.
It is absolutely no suprise that XP is still the leader at this stage.
What is a suprise is that 7 is still in beta and comes pretty damn close.
So your reasoning is that you should run software on the machines it was developed to run onto, otherwise we'll get scary speed increases, and that's bad, real bad, sir. Not allowed.
Yeah. Right.
Today's 32bit OS's, like VISTA, commonly run with 16GB of RAM? Wait. What?
I agree, I think that slower performance from a newer OS can be justified by better features and presentation.
Perhaps it's like doing a framerate test on a modern computer comparing between Quake 2 and Crysis, then saying that UT runs faster. Sure, but I'll take the added feature of better graphics at the expense of 'speed'. So long as it's still playable/useable. (And Vista imo is more than useable).
Shouldn't people be grateful that the latest and greatest Windows OSs are actually harnessing the massive computing power of modern computers? Instead of letting it go to waste?
I always lol when ppl say they'd prefer running an 8-year-old OS on their brand new Core i7 rigs.
Wow people, you have some twisted minds.
Harnessing the massive computing power of modern computers = Slower OS
Letting it go to waste = Faster OS
It's not really wasted, is it?
Shocking revelation: it is used to make the OS faster.
You have a screwed up logic. Seriously, I run applications. I couldn't care less if I run Mac OSx, Linux, Windows XP, Vista whatever.
I don't care what the system is called and I don't care about glossy interfaces. All I care about is how good I can work with it. If it looks nice - good but I really don't care.
At work my IT guy says 'but run Vista, it is so much nicer' - I hate it: it is slower and it eats batery life. So it is worse. That's it.
What are you guys doing? Looking at an OS or you actually use your computers for anything?
BTW I guess DOS is even faster than XP, then let's return to DOS. And I am sure Win98SE is also faster than XP, are we going to return to Win98?
So? The bottom line is, if Windows 7 ain't snappier than XP, I'll stay with XP.
@Mac
How many present time applications can you run on DOS? How many on Windows 98?
I can run 100% on Windows XP, only faster.
What's your reason for upgrading, "it's the latest one so I must have it"?
@gyiliop
You mean aside from DirectX 11?
Yeah, because of all those DirectX 10 and 11 games out there... What, are there 5 now?
@Mark Anderson
Ah, so now all those features we're supposed to be gaining are reduced to DirectX 11, which is not even out - so with a performance increase yet to be ascertained - and that applies to hardcore gamers only, which are - what, 1% of the users?
There are a lot more than 5 DirectX 10 games out there, also it's not the only reason - the better security, stability and future optimisation are good reasons too.
That said, i won't be upgrading from Vista until I buy a new PC in a couple of year's time.