XP or Windows 7?

[Reddwarf]

It's not easy to answer, because everyone has other priorities. Additionally to mikeh49 post, there were 2 questions i would ask, before deciding anything.

How old is the hardware? Is it modern, featurerich, energyefficient and more then one cpu core? One point for Windows 7. If the hardware is older, like AMD socket 939, 754 or even Socket A area, then i would stay at Windows XP. In this case you didn't have any advantage compared to Windows 7.

The second question: Is your PC connected to the internet? If you answer yes, then you should take care of having the latest os available. Just for security reasons. Official support for Windows XP will die soon enough. If your pc is offline used, then it's fairly uninteresting if you're using XP or 7.

I strongly disagree, I'm running W7 Ultimate x86 on an old Athlon XP 1.6 GHz pc as a client, and it performs far better with W7 than it ever did with windows XP SP3. Since I put in a DXVA compatible videocard (ASUS AH34xx) I can even view HD H.264 recordings on an else outdated computer. So my recommendation is go for Windows 7 anyway.

[ShiningDragon]

I have to disagree your statement. A lot of kernel function of windows 7 are multithreaded; even the network stack. It is not possible that Windows 7 should perform better on this old Socket A CPU then Windows XP. Another problem is, that Windows 7 consumes more memory for the same tasks then Windows XP, so multitasking is not as good like in Windows XP.
Another problem is the official driver support for old hardware. Especially if you're having an nForce 2 or using PowerNow on the Athlon XP -> http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Foru...7c597243ba
Every hardware generation has it own "operating system" under which it is operating best. Trust me, i play around with pc's since 286 era and DOS 5.0. I played enough with different hardware and os'ses around. ^^

[Reddwarf]

I have to disagree your statement. A lot of kernel function of windows 7 are multithreaded; even the network stack. It is not possible that Windows 7 should perform better on this old Socket A CPU then Windows XP. Another problem is, that Windows 7 consumes more memory for the same tasks then Windows XP, so multitasking is not as good like in Windows XP.
Another problem is the official driver support for old hardware. Especially if you're having an nForce 2 or using PowerNow on the Athlon XP -> http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Foru...7c597243ba
Every hardware generation has it own "operating system" under which it is operating best. Trust me, i play around with pc's since 286 era and DOS 5.0. I played enough with different hardware and os'ses around. ^^

And I'v been working with computers since long before the pc was invented! Trust me, when I say that it is performing a lot better, IT IS! If you have the experience you claim you should know that theory does not always comply with the real world.

[ShiningDragon]

And I'v been working with computers since long before the pc was invented!

It looks like, that you have forgotten how well old hardware like the athlon xp performed well on win xp.

I've found a video of an amd athlon xp 2000+ under windows 7:
[video=youtube;4AFcfq2EHnc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AFcfq2EHnc[/video]

Windows 7 is running, yeah. But look at the very slow gui. Only stuttering? Take a look on the clock on the upper right corner and you'll see how slowly it is (not only the gui, the used ati 9600 has not the shaders for aero) under windows 7. Nothing for me. I would stay with and old cpu like the Athlon XP with Win XP.

[Reddwarf]

It looks like, that you have forgotten how well old hardware like the athlon xp performed well on win xp.

I've found a video of an amd athlon xp 2000+ under windows 7:
[video=youtube;4AFcfq2EHnc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AFcfq2EHnc[/video]

Windows 7 is running, yeah. But look at the very slow gui. Only stuttering? Take a look on the clock on the upper right corner and you'll see how slowly it is (not only the gui, the used ati 9600 has not the shaders for aero) under windows 7. Nothing for me. I would stay with and old cpu like the Athlon XP with Win XP.

You'r welcome to my home to see for yourself. I ran the same tests on XP just before I installed W7U. It is a common misunderstanding that old HW works best with old software, remember that there is a reason why the XP approach was given up.

[whurlston]

Another problem is, that Windows 7 consumes more memory for the same tasks then Windows XP, so multitasking is not as good like in Windows XP.

Windows 7 handles RAM differently (and much more efficiently) than XP. More RAM is allocated for use to speed up processes but that extra is released when it is needed elsewhere. Windows 7 is a huge improvement over XP in terms of multitasking.

Windows 7 does work better than XP on some old hardware but like all things, there is a limit on how far back you can go. Windows 3.1 still runs much more efficiently on a 386/486 than Windows XP

[martint123]

I'd agree - with a memory limited system Windows 7 runs better than XP.
It surprised me as I'm always reluctant to change.

Windows 3.1 still runs much more efficiently on a 386/486 than Windows XP

Just watch win3.1 run in a VM on a fast, modern CPU - blindingly fast and how it should have been.

[mvallevand]

Just watch win3.1 run in a VM on a fast, modern CPU - blindingly fast and how it should have been.

Or for some nostalgia try http://michaelv.org/

Martin

[martint123]

Or for some nostalgia try http://michaelv.org/

I installed it from floppy images a couple of weeks ago. I never saw a Windows installation move so fast!

[ShiningDragon]

You'r welcome to my home to see for yourself. I ran the same tests on XP just before I installed W7U. It is a common misunderstanding that old HW works best with old software, remember that there is a reason why the XP approach was given up.

You see the video, or not? You see the loading time of applications etc? It makes absolutely no sense to run something modern like windows 7 on old hardware. The whole advantage through new techniques and multithreaded kernel drivers are eaten up.
Of course, you could build a retro pc and add an usb storage to take advantage of readyboost, super prefetch etc., but in this case the advantage were limited to these exceptions.

Windows 7 handles RAM differently (and much more efficiently) than XP.

This is not easy to proof, because Windows Vista and 7 reserves the whole amount of available ram for caching purposes. Of course this ram is usable by applications at any time, but even my 16 gig machines with Windows 7 show everywhere "0 Byte free" in the taskmanager. To compare the efficiency you have to control every application with tools like process explorer. As an example put npvr on a windows xp and a 7 machine. Configure it identical. Let 'em both run same tasks and view on both systems, how many ram they were using. Is there a noticeable difference between xp and 7?

I installed it from floppy images a couple of weeks ago. I never saw a Windows installation move so fast!

Installation != working system. Installing Windows 7 from an usb stick is much more faster, then installing it from dvd too.

I'm going to rebuild my PC in the new year. It's got so much stuff on it and i think i have a suspect hard drive. It will then be used almost exclusively for npvr. I currently have a license for XP but i'm just wondering if there is any benefit in me upgrading to Windows 7 at the same time? I'm thinking that it probably isn't worth it but thought it was worth asking because this will be the perfect opportunity.

Last but not least, we should go back to the start question. He HAS already a windows xp license. We don't know, what hardware he has. To recommend buying a windows 7 license at all cost ist simply stupid.