Way slower than XP


M

Metspitzer

Win7 takes foever to find network drives.

It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
too.

They are only changing it. They are not improving it.
 
Ad

Advertisements

L

LD55ZRA

This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.

Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!

hth
 
R

ray

Win7 takes foever to find network drives.

It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
too.

They are only changing it. They are not improving it.
Sounds like the health care reform bill.
 
A

Andrew

LD55ZRA said:
This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.

Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its
predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the
weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage
of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and
software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!!
I'd like to see some proof of this.
I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up
your belief.
Any whitepaper or research will do.
How about posting some benchmarks.
 
L

Leythos

I'd like to see some proof of this.
I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up
your belief.
Any whitepaper or research will do.
How about posting some benchmarks.
Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.

How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with
different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and
then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true.
 
J

Joel

Leythos said:
Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.

7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Andrew

Leythos said:
Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.

How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with
different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and
then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true.
I have different experience and benchmark data to back up my experience.
 
L

Leythos

7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific
things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum
1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too.
I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without
hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo,
Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems.

In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no
hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is
faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches.

I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than
Vista in almost every case.
 
L

Leythos

I have different experience and benchmark data to back up my experience.
Read my reply to Joel, I have dozens of actual test machines to back up
my statement.
 
S

Stewart

Leythos said:
Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.
Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
286 ran fine.....
 
A

Andrew

Leythos said:
I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without
hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo,
Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems.

In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no
hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is
faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches.

I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than
Vista in almost every case.
Here are some benchmarks posted around the web.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/13/windows-7-benchmarks-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between
XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.)
There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with
Win7. Same hardware, etc.
My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03
R2 and Server08.

Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is
no noticeable decline in performance across the board.
What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the
latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc.
It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances.
 
Ad

Advertisements

L

Leythos

Here are some benchmarks posted around the web.
http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,0
http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/
http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/13/windows-7-benchmarks-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/

There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between
XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.)
There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with
Win7. Same hardware, etc.
My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03
R2 and Server08.

Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is
no noticeable decline in performance across the board.
What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the
latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc.
It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances.
Instead of reading "Benchmarks" that are often flawed, try using it in a
Production Environment where you can see REAL examples of the
difference.
 
A

Andrew

Leythos said:
Instead of reading "Benchmarks" that are often flawed, try using it in a
Production Environment where you can see REAL examples of the
difference.
I just can't quote you our numbers because of NDA, but I do use this stuff
in a production environment every day. Therefore I posted benchmarks.
 
T

Thip

Metspitzer said:
Win7 takes foever to find network drives.

It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
too.

They are only changing it. They are not improving it.
Mine's been faster from Day One.
 
S

Stephen Wolstenholme

Win7 takes foever to find network drives.

It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written
too.

They are only changing it. They are not improving it.
I had problems with Windows 7 and XP systems sharing the same network
but since upgrading everything to Windows 7 the problems are gone. It
seemed that Windows 7 was slower than XP but now it's faster.

Steve
 
J

JEDIDIAH

[deletia]
Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.
Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
286 ran fine.....
A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.

[deletia]
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

JEDIDIAH

This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
Win95
which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.
[deletia]

Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.

Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
286 ran fine.....
A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.

[deletia]
How do you know?
Well...?
So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.
 
Ad

Advertisements

J

JEDIDIAH

On 3/29/2010 12:57 PM, JEDIDIAH wrote:



This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than
Win95
which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7.

[deletia]

Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each
one,
running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as
each new one comes out.

Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old
286 ran fine.....

A lot of the cited examples for "the new being slower" involved rather
large architectural changes and functional improvements and sometimes lots
of new features. From XP to Vista to Win7 there really isn't so much of that.

[deletia]

How do you know?
Well...?
So I managed to miss a transition there as significant as DOS or DOS
shell to NT? Do tell. An no, extra eye candy doesn't count. Neither does
a poorly thought out variation on sudo or breaking everyone's old drivers.
Thanks for proving that you are nothing but clueless linturd troll.
I wasn't trolling but you clearly are.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top