Windows 7 vulnerable to 8 out of 10 viruses !!!

[jprad]

Quote from godsome:

Well I'm not here to "jive" with their opinion.. but I'll give you mine.. it's faster than XP.. a lot faster

Granted, a several year old install of XP is going to slow down depending how much crud is installed and if it's been compromised by malware. From that perspective, a clean install of Win7 is going to subjectively seem faster.

But, when similarly clean installs are tested side by side as is the case in those articles, XP is faster.

And BTW, XP was slower than it's predecessor, Win2K in similar head-to-head comparisons back in the day.

And so on and so on. There's a lot of truth to the "trust me" Apple commercial that's out now...

 

[fundjunkie]

Quote from jprad:


There are plenty of other comparisons out there, with a similar conclusion, Win7 is faster than Vista, but slower than XP.

Does that surprise you? I would expect nothing less of an OS that is smaller, oldr and therefore with more mature driver support.

I can't remember an OS release that was faster than it's predecessor on the same hardware. They're generally designed to capitalize on current/next gen hardware & applications which of course where an older platform like XP may start to struggle.

I'm an XP user and am maing the move for the reasons stated above and because:

1. Windows 7 mitigates the unacceptable performance, amongst other things, of Vista.
2. SSD support with TRIM. In the future I plan to RAID these things then system responsiveness will really snap.
3. Given that I believe performance should be more than adequate I won't be out of position as 64 bit app support ramps up.
4. I believe that the deterioration in performance over time, so common with XP (takes 10 minutes to boot my PC), will be greatly reduced with Windows 7. Time will tell on that one..

Thx
D

 

[jprad]

Quote from fundjunkie:

Does that surprise you? I would expect nothing less of an OS that is smaller, oldr and therefore with more mature driver support.

Sounds logical, but that's not the reality of the situation.

In the Win9x days the same drivers were used in 95, 98 and Me. Improvements in 98 were largely due to code refactoring, which happens to be the same thing we're seeing with Win7 compared to Vista.

WinMe on the otherhand, was a total losing release.

NT4 was another case of code refactoring over NT3.51, plus the addition of the Win9x GUI.

Then we get to the Win2K and XP releases, which used the same exact drivers as NT4 and each one was slower than the previous release.

The prime cause in each was the addition of additional software being added to the system, not to take advantage of the hardware. Sure, some of it was added functionality, but in the latest releases, and we've seen this with the WinXP service packs too, is to add DRM and other security "features."

Not all of those features were to protect the user, much of them are there to protect the likes of the RIAA and MPAA.

No better example of this is the insane HD driver/hardware integrity checking that occurs on a sub-second basis to ensure the DRM path hasn't been compromised.

Your footing the bill for that "protection" either by losing performance by using equivalent hardware or by spending money to buy faster hardware to offset that performance penalty.

 

[algahelga]

Windows 7 is a lot faster than Windws Xp on my system, compare them on solid state raid drives and you'll see they are chalk and cheese!

 

[jprad]

Quote from algahelga:

Windows 7 is a lot faster than Windws Xp on my system, compare them on solid state raid drives and you'll see they are chalk and cheese!

I'm sure that certain SSD products are going to have notable performance improvements, but that's not going to be the case for every device that's out there.

The disparity between SSD vendors when it comes to the driver code, the hardware interface as well as the type of memory used within the device and several other factors can lead to wide differences in performance across the Windows OS spectrum for a given SSD.

Moreover, an SSD will do nothing to improve the performance of the graphics subsystem, the network stack, application execution, the number of background applications loaded or the layers of security and DRM that has been added to the OS compared to XP.

 

[Lethn]

I've stuck with Windows XP both through the release of vista and with Windows 7.

Currently lol'ing at all the people who bought into that crap Microsoft is pulling out now. Windows died when they kicked out poor old Bill Gates from his own office, fairly sure that Windows XP was the last product HE made so I'm going to be sure to stick with it.

 

[algahelga]

Quote from jprad:

I'm sure that certain SSD products are going to have notable performance improvements, but that's not going to be the case for every device that's out there.

The disparity between SSD vendors when it comes to the driver code, the hardware interface as well as the type of memory used within the device and several other factors can lead to wide differences in performance across the Windows OS spectrum for a given SSD.

Moreover, an SSD will do nothing to improve the performance of the graphics subsystem, the network stack, application execution, the number of background applications loaded or the layers of security and DRM that has been added to the OS compared to XP.

None of that matters to me, it's like paper trading, it never translates to the real world.. and all the reviews/tests on the net won't change the fact that on my system Windows 7 scorches XP.

 

[Hombre]

Quote from algahelga:

Windows 7 is a lot faster than Windws Xp on my system, compare them on solid state raid drives and you'll see they are chalk and cheese!

Have you done some tweaking/deleting of some unwanted applications ?

 

[jprad]

Quote from algahelga:

None of that matters to me, it's like paper trading, it never translates to the real world.. and all the reviews/tests on the net won't change the fact that on my system Windows 7 scorches XP.

Broken analogies aside, the sad reality is that there are very few workloads that your particular setup will benefit from and of those that do, running on a desktop is suboptimal.

But, hey, it's a free world and if you want to keep your head buried in the sand, go for it.

 

[algahelga]

Quote from jprad:

Broken analogies aside, the sad reality is that there are very few workloads that your particular setup will benefit from and of those that do, running on a desktop is suboptimal.

But, hey, it's a free world and if you want to keep your head buried in the sand, go for it.

Flapping gums aside the sad reality is that I don't give a fat rats clacker what some fan boy has read about a hypothetical test on a different specced system.. You keep talking and Windows 7 keeps smoking XP on my system