XP or Win7 users

[Curio]

Still use XP on my main machine at home - does everything I want and is very quick. I have Win7 on my Netbook and I like it just fine - but not enough to make me rush to install it as my main OS.

I'll probably see about getting Win7 64bit for my work PC soon - mainly because I need more RAM as I've started using Adobe CS more, and WinXP 64 isn't very well supported. Actually, I don't think Adobe even supports their products on XP64.

 

[Fire Wizard]

I would not say it uses a lot more resources,you have to remember Win7 uses ram a lot more efficiently then XP,plus XP was released way back in 2001 so hardware back then is hmm crap lol...,it really is showing its age etc....

While Windows Vista and Windows 7 are undoubtedly superior in the way they manage physical memory compared to Windows XP, this doesn't quite account for the increased physical memory usage. However, it's important to realise that this doesn't mean there is a need for concern.

The 'Memory' graph in task manager represents the amount of memory assigned to processes plus how much is on the modified page list. Pages of memory on the modified page list would need to be written to disk before they can be repurposed and therefore do not contribute to 'available' memory.

What you appear to be referring to is memory on the standby page list, which represents cached data. Pages of memory on the standby page list can be given to another process without performing a disk I/O, i.e. available memory. In task manager, there is no way to see how much memory is on the standby page list alone and you are going to have to either use the resource monitor or a program like RAMMap or Process Explorer to see the breakdown.

 

[linktoinsanity]

Couldn't have said it better myself .


Windows 3.0 = 1990
Windows 95 = 1995 (5 years)
Windows 98 = 1998 (3 years)
Windows ME = 2000 (2 years)
Windows XP = 2001 (1 year)
Windows Vista = 2007 (6 years )
Windows 7 = 2009 (2 years)

Microsoft released a new operating system every 2-3 years. XP was a freak of nature as Microsoft were dragging their hells until OS X and Linux grew in popularity. A 2 year life cycle for an operating system is fairly normal. Don't forget OS X gets updated nearly every year .

You missed out:

Windows 3.1 = 1992?
Windows 98SE = 1999 (1 year)



I know XP is old and personally I'm on Windows 7 x64, but why do people feel a massive need to label it as old and ****?

With Vista, MS released a new OS that although it contained some good ideas, it was pretty slow and clunky on slower hardware. Windows 7 fixed this and made a few other tweaks as well. Basicly, 7 is what Vista should have been from the off.

Hence the reason I don't like Vista, too clunky, especially for the system I had at the time of it's release.

 

[jolardy]

I think that if u decide to change into 7, choose carefully, dont download, as viruses are prone to occur on systems that are illegal and also, if u want a 64BIT OS, you must make sure that your motherboard and processor is a x64 processor type, if not, the computer will not run the OS, and itll be bad times

Oh, i also forget, if you want updates, change from XP to win7 soon, as they are starting to outrule Winxp updates in 2014 if im not mistaken

 

[SiriusB]

Win 7 is much nicer to use. Uses a lot more resources than XP though, and is slower on the same hardware. Search is much better, I find the task bar very useful, and it handles drivers very well. By all acconts it's more secure as well.

An OS released in 2010 uses more resources than its 10 year old brother? Never! I do not understand why people never seem to equate newer OS with the fact hardware specs are vastly better on average than when XP was in its heyday. I mean jebus! A top spec machine 5 years ago doesn't even come close to what stuff can do now for the same price.

As Fire Wizard says, Vista and 7 manage resources extraordinarily well.

I would not go for pc as mac on snow leopard far better and reliable

Oh do shut up. I am an OS X user too and I can tell you that your statement is a crock of ****. OS X can quite spectacularly fail and in many cases it is worse than Windows because it always seems to be the dumbest things that makes it fall over. It just works? Yeah, right.

At this point in time I find Windows 7 to be more reliable and better overall than Snow Leopard.

I wont say anymore, don't want to derail an XP vs 7 into a Windows vs OS X. Sorry chaps!

Carry on!

 

[Mattus]

And OS X isn't a lot of good if you already have a Windows PC and don't fancy changing it for a Mac

Very little reason to use XP these days, unless you have less than 1GB RAM or a single-core processor. XP might run a bit faster on the same hardware, but IMO the productivity improvements in 7 (start menu, Aero peek/snap, better security, more drivers preinstalled, indexed search, better Explorer, etc., etc.) make it quicker to actually do things in 7.