What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
New Food Sprinkle Convinces the Brain to Stop Over-Eating view!
howlifeworks.com - How sophisticated scents are helping people control their appetite and lose weight
182 Comments
- jrm125, on 11/11/2009, -9/+161My Windows 7 startup time is way faster than my XP or Vista installs.
XP tends to actually pop up faster...but when you get to actual usability after all the crap has loaded, etc...7 kills it. - HigherLogic, on 11/11/2009, -29/+175Who cares, Windows 7 is far superior to XP in every way.
- bloodinmystool, on 11/11/2009, -3/+867 has done something interesting in terms of startup processes. In XP, you had to wait for everything to load up, even unnecessary things like printer services, blutooth drivers, etc. In 7, these processes are started and stopped as they're needed. This makes for a much faster boot time and better overall performance.
Good show on the part of the Microsoft dev team. - Kazbaeden, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6820 seconds? It should be instant. My laptop is back on before I lift the lid fully.
- Insightful, on 11/11/2009, -4/+65Summary: More features with same or better performance as XP makes Windows 7 a better OS than Vista and XP.
- joeseither, on 11/11/2009, -6/+61In a nutshell, Windows 2009 is a little better than Windows 2001.
- EddiePotato, on 11/11/2009, -1/+47That's an infinitely aggravating habit of XP: present the desktop, then spend another 2 minutes chugging away at more startup tasks, slowing everything to a crawl. It's like showing up to class, then brushing your teeth and talking on your phone for the first few minutes of the lecture.
Glad to hear 7 is better about such things. - boozedrinker, on 11/11/2009, -1/+27'Har' isn't a word....not even when attached to 'drive'.
- VikzAtl, on 11/11/2009, -2/+27With XP, I used to hit the ON button, go for a coffee break, take a stroll, and come back just in time when everything loaded...
Now with Win7, I don't have that luxury - my boss expects me to be at my desk working right away. - snapcase, on 11/11/2009, -0/+22"At an event, the presenter put his laptop to sleep and brought it back in like 20 seconds."
If only we could have done that with poor Fluffy. - BOTW, on 11/11/2009, -0/+22
Is "hardrive" a word? Four words might have worked better there.
Your point is well taken though. Built in SSD support is a huge improvement. - Brooks007, on 11/11/2009, -1/+20I have vista and my desktop will wake up the instant I touch the mouse. No waiting...and yes I said vista.
I only restart like once a month and it is pretty quick also.
The sleep never worked right when i had XP. - epgui, on 11/12/2009, -1/+18In related news, Windows 3.1 VS XP Performance shoot-out.
I'm surprised to see that 3.1 boots faster! - taibo, on 11/11/2009, -3/+17More like Windows 2009 runs a little better than Windows 2001, even on a 2001 computer.
- tastybbq, on 11/11/2009, -5/+18The only program that isn't faster for me is iTunes (never has been fast, probably never will).
- seltaeb4, on 11/11/2009, -9/+21If you think a 20-second wake from sleep is something to be impressed about, please don't *ever* use a Mac.
Your head may explode. - heymeester, on 11/11/2009, -0/+11Completely off topic, but the hover popups on this site are a nightmare - it's almost impossible to get to the next page without something flying in your face.
To get rid of them, use the adblock plus filter of *intellitxt.com* and harmony is restored :) - Rikushix, on 11/11/2009, -1/+11Frankly I think it's more admirable for a 2009 OS to run on a 2001 computer than a 2001 OS to run on a 2009 computer.
- HigherLogic, on 11/12/2009, -1/+11http://www.microsoft.com/Security_Essentials/
- pintomp3, on 11/11/2009, -1/+11Faster in some ways, not superior.
- Kazbaeden, on 11/11/2009, -3/+13I don't see minute start-up times on my laptop, which is only 1.2 GHz with a slow as hell harddrive.
Regardless, the overall picture is that Windows 7 performs very nearly the same or better than Windows XP, which much more functionality, security, and better ease of use. - dtfinch, on 11/11/2009, -1/+11He said he used 32-bit versions.
- rheaume, on 11/11/2009, -0/+10New install, fresh, not loaded with crap, give W7 a year of questionable app installs
- mpn401, on 11/11/2009, -10/+19I installed Windows 7 Professional x64 on my three-year old PC (which was state of the art in 2006), up from XP MCE 32-bit. The performance increase is unmistakable, but I also installed 4GB of memory, a 1TB hard drive, and an nVidia 9800GT over those three years. I currently dual-boot but may just get rid of XP after a year when I find out I no longer need it whatsoever. This setup will more than get me through until they come out with Windows 8.
And I also can't help but notice Vista claims no top-marks in the speed comparisons. I'm glad I skipped it. - javaroast, on 11/11/2009, -1/+10I think we all can agree that iTunes is half fast on Windows.
- BDJC, on 11/12/2009, -2/+10Just because your company isn't progressive, doesn't mean the rest of us have to stay in the stone age.
At my company, all of our software is compatible win 7, with the exception of our ancient accounting system. Fortunately our soon-to-be-upgraded accounting software runs under terminal services on server 2003. That being said, several workstations have been upgraded, and management is talking about company wide deployment. Mind you, we're no huge enterprise, but we've got ~80 laptops and workstations. - DanielPhermous, on 11/12/2009, -0/+8Wait... What?
"I don't see how startup times are relevant anymore... I don't care about startup time at all."
And...
"I can't wait for instant-boot."
:P - Elranzer, on 11/11/2009, -3/+11Basically... XP is faster when system resources are a factor (but then, 2000 would be even faster than XP, and I'm sure NT4 Workstation would be even faster).
For complicated tasks, Windows 7 outperforms XP. Win7 can better factor in multi-threading and 64-bit memory crunching.
For every task, Windows 7 outperforms Vista. - huntermaclean, on 11/11/2009, -1/+9(raises his eyebrow)
even better! - askantik, on 11/11/2009, -3/+11You mean a 9 year old OS outperformed a brand-spanking new one on a 1.7GHz CPU and 1 GB of RAM? Who would have thought... Why anyone (even "businesses" or "professionals) would upgrade to a brand new OS and keep using just 1 GB of RAM (unless you're on a netbook, in which case both my comment and this article are irrelevant because speed isn't the top priority), then it seems kind of dumb.
- schroeder, on 11/12/2009, -2/+10"Try reading the article"
Try using it. - Cyaegha, on 11/11/2009, -0/+8Yeah it was great when you are delivering a shiny new computer to a customer, or you have just serviced their machine. Boot it up then wait 2 minutes for the AV and crap to load. It was especially bad when you supplied the AV that caused the increased delay.
- catalysis, on 11/11/2009, -8/+15Comparing clean installs is pointless considering the severe performance regression of XP compared to 7 and Vista.
- inditech, on 11/12/2009, -0/+7I knew, just *knew*, that someone would say this! *sigh*
---
OSX is good for the most part
Windows is good for the most part
Linux is good for the most part
Everyone has their favourites, but no one wants to be force fed an opinion! - mlw4428, on 11/11/2009, -4/+11I'd imagine at least some of the areas in which XP beat 7 was due to the fact that it's being ran on an older, underpowered laptop. Yes, I know he did this because of the business upgrade reason, but it should've been checked with against one of today's low-end notebooks.
I mean I just got a 2.somethingGHz, 2GB of RAM low end notebook from Walmart. That's almost doubled in terms of specs then the laptop he's running now.... - eljitto, on 11/11/2009, -1/+8Well, 7 is optimized for multiple cores and XP was around the time of P4's and 1,000 $ p4 extremes
- golgotha, on 11/11/2009, -2/+8on a 1GB machine? what's the point?
- beakerbite, on 11/12/2009, -1/+7Yes you can terminate the spooler and other processes, but then to use any of those you have to manually go and turn them on. Much more of a pain in the ass in my opinion.
- eljitto, on 11/11/2009, -3/+9apple*
digg me down.
Heil Grammer
(no offense, and if i did i'm sorry) - homercles337, on 11/11/2009, -0/+6Well, right in the beginning of the article the guy says that he is using old hardware and 32-bit versions of each "because upgrading from XP will be of interest to businesses as well individuals..."
- Zomgondo, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6Comment of the day.
- Ahnteis, on 11/12/2009, -0/+5It depends on what you mean by sleep (zippo is talking about hibernate which windows also supports), and which version your hardware supports.
- thatruth101, on 11/11/2009, -1/+6This is so true. XP is something you HAVE to format and reinstall every once in a while. Even the updates slowed XP down very noticeably after installing them, and the updates would steal GB's from you. I used programs like registry cleaners, manual registry tweaks, shutting off all unnecessary services, keeping programs from starting on boot, and constant defragmenting to ensure good performance, but it's STILL nothing like a fresh install of XP. It seems like once you start installing a few programs on XP it would slow down gradually.
xp WAS an awesome OS, it had it's problems but it WAS the best over all. It's memory management was lacking, which made a few people move to linux. w7 however, owns xp and linux in memory/process management. - pathouston22, on 11/11/2009, -2/+7Good job grammar nazi. Have a cookie.
- HeavyWave, on 11/12/2009, -1/+6I have exactly the opposite experience with Windows 7. The time between login in and actually using anything is the longest.
- Oddish, on 11/11/2009, -0/+5Four words: not ready for primetime.
- DiggMeUpPlz, on 11/12/2009, -2/+7My newer computer is faster than my old computer.
- thepurplepixel, on 11/11/2009, -5/+10You can't say "definitely" anything; I tried XP and 7 on my OC'd Core i7, and Windows 7 blows XP out of the water.
- krisrm, on 11/11/2009, -3/+8Agreed; the fact that it runs well on hardware designed for XP is impressive enough; expecting superior performance on old hardware is foolish.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 190 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is