Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Mr. T

XP SP3 v Win 7

Recommended Posts

Hi, my mother inlaw's pc is in desperate need of a reformat, and I'm not sure If I should install XP or Win7.

The specs are:
~3ghz celeron
768mb RAM

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post

7's not bad, I honestly have no preference between it and XP - just if you go with 7, you'll have to get used to some things and options being moved for the sake of moving them.

Share this post


Link to post

My computer is better than the one mentioned in the first post, and Windows XP SP3 performs far better than Windows 7 did.

I'd only install Windows 7 on newer hardware.

Share this post


Link to post

If you add XP - you'll have older programs that can work properly, for your sake it's probably use for games.
If you add 7- The newer games will have better chance of running with higher Quality Settings (IE Crisis) at highest, some programs of past will not work but the speed and RAM use is integrated properly.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. T said:

Which is faster? I have heard win7 is faster than XP SP3

Really depends on your application and hardware. At home I still run XP because Windows 7 was totally killing my audio software's performance.

For the OP's computer, I'd definitely recommend XP.

Share this post


Link to post

If you're running any kind of multi-core processor, I'd go with Windows 7 in a heartbeat. Sure, there's an x64 version of XP, but from what I've seen there's a major lack of support for it and in general has a lot more problems than the 32-bit version of XP. For newer hardware you'll almost definitely get more performance from using Windows 7 than you would using XP.

...but of course, if your hardware wasn't designed to support Windows 7, I'd stick with XP.

Share this post


Link to post
kristus said:

With any computer? XP. Definitely.


Fix'd too ;-)

And this.

Also:

AveryMaurice should have said:

I much prefer my XP machine, I can have no compatibility issues by definition and the productivity and use of resources is a lot better for everyone.


Mega-fix'd :-p

Also, XP works fine even with multi-cores...unless you need to address more than 4GB of physical RAM there's no need to switch from 32-bit XP to 32-bit Vista or 7. If anyone is doing the leap to 64-bit I'd say go with 7 (unless you're running a 64-bit server or somesuch, then you may be fine with Windows Server 2003 x64).

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

Mega-fix'd :-p

No. I know XP may be better for certain people (most people) but for what I use my PC for (gaming, game development, etc) I much prefer Win7.

Share this post


Link to post

Meh. The only real reason to use anything but XP is either leaping to 64-bit (nothing to say there) or keeping up with newer software/hardware which is forcibly made available/supported only under Vista/7.

Otherwise, there's nothing 7 can do that XP can't do as well (or better) on lesser hardware (yes, this includes the DX10/DX11 fiasco and the "NEW and ENHANCED!!!" sound system that sucks ass).

Point in case, HP deliberately denying proper driver support for XP for any laptop made in the last two years (even if drivers DO exist and the laptops work just fine, if not better under XP).

Share this post


Link to post
AveryMaurice said:

I know XP may be better for certain people (most people)

Disagreed, I'd say 7 is much better for those "most people." Its overall better usability just makes it so much, well, more usable and thus better for everyone who doesn't have particular XP-centric needs (or who don't hate change from the bottoms of their hearts).

Whenever I'm back to my XP machine after a few week streaks of using 7 I get frustrated at how "flawed" XP's explorer is: Auto-sorting bugs, unfinished file browsing with arrow keys (if you're on the last file of a row and press to move to the next file, in XP nothing happens while 7 properly moves you to the next row), etc. Might sound like small things to some, but it really makes me wish that I had 7 on both of my computers...if only I wasn't too lazy to format and reinstall everything here... And the explorer is just one thing among many that 7 has done much better.

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, Vista and 7 brought many UI improvements. I've grown quite fond of the new address bar system (the "breadcrumb" thing with all these drop-down menus).

For the application compatibility thing, I have not had much problems. DB1 doesn't work correctly; but there's DB2. XWE screws things up, but it always did. My other hobbies had better coded programs so they were all Vista ready without knowing it. And this is quite an amusing read on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post

We all know very well that this debate can go on forever, and neither will "die hard Windows-7 hating XP users" embrace 7, nor will any 7 users "repent".

Still, nobody can change my perception that 7 is, dulcis in fundo, just a bug-fixed Vista. Same driver, audio, graphics and security model and quirks, and same (higher) minimum system requirements.

It has became that popular only because of factory preinstalls and because of this reputation of being better than Vista, which is a bit like arguing that MacOS X is better than Windows ME.

Otherwise, how many of those using it AS OF NOW would install it from scratch over a perfectly working XP?

Share this post


Link to post
Maes said:

We all know very well that this debate can go on forever, and neither will "die hard Windows-7 hating XP users" embrace 7, nor will any 7 users "repent".

I'm hating neither version of the OS. They work.

Last Windows I hated was 95. That was a pain to use. A lot of bugs, very few features worthy of the effort... 98 was a bit better, but still very flawed. XP was, despite a rather stupid name, the first Windows they made that was reasonably stable.

Maes said:

Still, nobody can change my perception that 7 is, dulcis in fundo, just a bug-fixed Vista.

It is. Vista was so unpopular that they rushed the next iteration as soon as possible, and even called it "7" to make the separation, as if it wasn't still Windows 6 (Vista). But technically despite the name it's still Windows 6, heh.

Maes said:

It has became that popular only because of factory preinstalls and because of this reputation of being better than Vista, which is a bit like arguing that MacOS X is better than Windows ME.

Vista, after the service pack, is actually not that bad. Windows ME, on the other hand, was an unmitigated disaster.

Share this post


Link to post

I used to have WinXP (on an 8-year old computer with 8-year old hardware), until I got a major hardware upgrade recently, and got Windows 7. It took a while to get used to (where's the 'Up Folder' (goes one folder backwards) in the explorer?) but most of the WinXP programs work fine or better, and those that haven't have worked in Windows XP Mode so far.

Share this post


Link to post
stewboy said:

I(where's the 'Up Folder' (goes one folder backwards) in the explorer?)

Replaced by breadcrumbs.

Share this post


Link to post

With that much RAM I'd go with XP. Then you don't have to work around 7 trying to be clever by caching every program under the sun to make them load faster. 7 is awesome, but it flies when it finds a couple gigs of RAM. Personally, I think your in-laws need a new computer. They're cheap now. Microsoft Security Essentials also seems to be a pretty usable AV, especially for something that's free.

7 is genuinely better. 99% of the time all the drivers you need just start falling into place. XP did this with 1990s hardware, but 7 does it with fairly current hardware. I was shocked. UAC gets in the way of a few things, but it works better than Vista and should have been there in the 90s.

I don't know if the audio situation is still quite as bad as on Vista. Vista had about the slowest audio rendering known to man. I'm too scared to try the complex array of MIDI software I had on XP. the MIDI situation on anything newer than XP blows.

And XP was far from the first stable Windows. 2000 was damn fine for its day. I used it for five years. NT before that was pretty stable compared with the consumer versions of Windows. Most of the difference was in using 386 protected mode, which has existed since the 80s, but consumers didn't get to see in an OS until 2001. Go figure.

Anyway, good luck. You could always try both. I'm happy to use XP on machines that will get nothing or be worse off with 7, but I'm not going back. The UI improvements, extra stability and extra drivers make life more convenient now.

Share this post


Link to post
Aliotroph? said:

I don't know if the audio situation is still quite as bad as on Vista. Vista had about the slowest audio rendering known to man. I'm too scared to try the complex array of MIDI software I had on XP. the MIDI situation on anything newer than XP blows.

It's just as bad. I had a lot of dropout and latency issues, even using ASIO drivers. Reinstalled XP and same software, dropped the CPU usage down by about 15%-25%.

I also had issues mixing 32-bit and 64-bit VSTs, but I think that was unrelated to whether it was 7 or XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. T said:

Hi, my mother inlaw's pc is in desperate need of a reformat, and I'm not sure If I should install XP or Win7.

The specs are:
~3ghz celeron
768mb RAM

Cheers


Hmm.

1. With which one is she more comfortable/knowledgeable or willing/able to learn?
2. How available are you or someone with knowledge of either OS?
3. Why did the computer get in such a state? Lack of maintenance/security etc?

The hardware is probably good enough (though I'd think about adding ram) so I think the question rests on her user level. Where is she in terms of usability, security and maintenance and where does she want to be?

Easy answer is if she is use to XP then throw XP back on it. If she wants to learn then Win7 would be alright since it is the future of Windows and perhaps a tad more Linux/Mac like in case that were ever in her future.

Share this post


Link to post

With that low of RAM, I'd definitely say XP. Win7 Home Premium (likely the lowest version available to you) requires a gig of RAM anyway at minimum, and "minimum" requirements should always be taken with a grain of salt anyway.

Share this post


Link to post

The other comp in our house (a new netbook) that my father inlaw uses has 7, so I doubt she would have trouble adjusting to it.

I am familiar with both, using 7 on my work computer and having used XP for years like everyone else.

Her install of XP is literally years old, and has suffered a severe case of Windows bloat.

I had heard that Win7 is faster than XP SP3 even on older systems, but wasn't sure, so thought I would ask you guys.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm happy with XP but at some point upgrading is going to be unavoidable - is it possible to install Win 7 without the bloat?

Share this post


Link to post
Gez said:

For the application compatibility thing, I have not had much problems. DB1 doesn't work correctly

Funny how people keep having problems with DB1 in Vista and 7; for me the only issue ever was that it crashes after closing the program. It saves the map just fine without problems, and then on its last dying process' breath it crashes, as if that's supposed to be a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. T said:

Her install of XP is literally years old, and has suffered a severe case of Windows bloat.


You are aware that it's possible to "freshen" an installation of Windows XP without losing any user setting or installed applications, right?

First, make sure it's not actually infected with viruses/spyware. Delete them manually if you have to. Then, delete ancient temp files (ATF-clener is a good tool to do that) and in general useless space hogs, and perform a defragmentation with a good utility such as JkDefrag 3.36 (free, and works way better than the built-in one). Set it for alphabetical per-folder sorting (fastest load times).

Then, use a XP SP3 CD and perform a repair-reinstall (when it reaches the partition selection screen, press R so it will repair an existing installation instead of starting from scratch. THIS IS NOT THE SAME AS THE RECOVERY CONSOLE!!!).

Then, what appears like a normal installation procedure will start, but at the end, you will boot back into your old desktop. Only that old XP drivers and DLLs as well as apps will have been replaced by the most recent ones, and by the sounds of it you will probably skip 2 or even 3 service pack updates! Everything else (user accounts, installed programs, startup programs, third-party drivers, documents and settings etc.) will have been perfectly preserved.

Voila', now you can skip the dreaded 7/Vista for another 4 years, at least, and have a nice, big, fat laugh at those who jumped into the bandwagon too early ;-)

The procedure works on any XP installation OF THE SAME LANGUAGE AS THE INSTALL DISK YOU USE (except multi-language packs), and can even auto-upgrade Home to Pro versions, and even bring SP0 to SP3 level in one step. It was quite a time saver when I worked for the army at IT support, and I had to "refresh" a lot of shit-old, neglected and unique machines without losing ANY data. In case you wonder, it works even with Windows 2000 (no idea if you can do the same with Vista/7)

Share this post


Link to post

Having used XP, Vista and 7 extensively now, I still prefer XP. It just feels lighter, quicker and easier to use - and that's after over 1.5 years of me using Vista and then 7 as my primary OS and only using XP occasionally.

I don't think Vista was as bad as it was made out to be, however. What's more, 7 isn't as good as it is made out to be either. Personally, my impression is that 7 is as much a victory of PR as anything else. Everyone "knows" that Vista is shit. Every man and his dog will tell you that. So, all you have to do is come up with a new OS, get a few of the right people onboard to tell the world that 7 is good and it will sell by the bucket load simply because it isn't Vista.

However, having used both Vista and 7 on the same machine, and owning a number of machines so that I can easily compare XP, Vista and 7 side by side, 7 really is little more than a facelifted version of Vista. I don't find it any quicker than Vista and it still has most of the "features" from Vista that I didn't like and I'm sure that a "virgin" 7 user migrating from XP would have similar problems and impressions as the people who changed to Vista (especially on older hardware) a few years ago. Sure a few very minor things have been addressed for 7 and some new features have been added (most of which are either also annoying or simply irrelevant to me) but, on the whole, 7 feels like a service-packed Vista and not a whole new operating system.

Why do I use Vista/7? Compatibility with new hardware and because I need a 64 bit OS to make use of all the RAM on my main machine. For the record, I don't particularly mind Vista/7, it's just that I prefer XP.

Share this post


Link to post
Mr. T said:

I had heard that Win7 is faster than XP SP3 even on older systems, but wasn't sure, so thought I would ask you guys.


I had also heard that Windows 95 was supposed to be "faster and better" than DOS, but technically speaking, that just can't be, especially the "faster" part. Same thing between 7/Vista (YES people, they're the same OS) and XP.

Aliotroph? said:

I don't know if the audio situation is still quite as bad as on Vista.


Like Partition36 said, it is. It made hardware acceleration on Creative Labs cards useless because of the driver model (even the most expensive X-Fis now work in software mixing mode, just like el cheapo AC97 codecs) and it actually gave a valid reason for Mac fanboys to claim that "Macs are inherently better suited for artists and musicians". Way to go, M$.

Then again, no upper management marketdroid who cares about his career would ever say:

"OK fellas, XP is pretty much as good Windows will ever get, the pinnacle of our long-lasting line of OSes (Note: and ironically, maybe it is, even with a Gig worth of SPs thrown at it). There's no point trying to replace it because we will probably make things worse. So, we'd better close down our OS division, provide only support/enchancements for XP from now on, and focus on other software".


Which wouldn't be a bad idea, if you ask me...

Share this post


Link to post

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×