Windows Xp vs Vista vs 7


Windows is without a doubt the most popular operating system out there today. With the release of Windows 7 just around the corner I thought why not compare all three operating systems to each other. I’ve taken all three operating systems and put them through their paces in a rather large series of tests comparing everything from video rendering to CPU and memory performance. I’ve got some rather interesting results for you, not quite what I expected, and I’m sure not what most people expected either. Continue on to learn how these operating systems stack up to one another…

I’ll start off with the specs of my system for you.

CPU: Intel Q9650 (3ghz)

RAM: 8gigs OCZ Fatal1ty PC2-6400

Motherboard: EVGA NF-680i

Video Card: Sparkle Nvidia GTX260 (896mb ram) –Main Monitor 22” 1680×1050 Res

Video Card2: EVGA 8600GTS (for PhysX)

Video Card2: ECS Nvidia GTS250 –Dual 20” 1680×1050 Res


The operating systems are:

Vista Ultimate 64bit

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

Windows XP 32bit


We’ll start the testing off with crystalmark

As we can see, XP scores better overall, but why?

here’s the individual testing results with all the scores:

crystalmark-vista crystalmark-w7 crystalmark-xp

In the OpenGL and CPU Intensive testing we see that Windows XP handles them much better than the other two operating systems. We know that early on there was a problem with OpenGL in Vista, and supposedly it was fixed, but obviously it appears there’s still some problems with both Vista and 7 in regards to OpenGl support.

The next test would be super pi

Surprisingly Windows 7 has the best time to complete the calculations, coming in a good 15 seconds faster than Xp and almost 20 faster than Vista.


The next test is a Video Conversion test, I’ve taken a .AVI video file and converted it to .WMV format. I used the same file I got from my WinX DVD Ripper Review a little while ago, the movie is The Hunger. For the test I used vid convert

-lower times are better

vid conversion

Windows XP has the best video conversion performance coming in six seconds faster than Windows 7 and 21 seconds faster than Vista. Really though six seconds isn’t much, and neither is the extra 21 seconds it took Vista. All of them performed the conversions fine, the movie looked perfect.

The next test I’ve got is 3dmark06.

We all know what this one is, so no explanation needed I think.

-higher scores are better.


Windows Xp has a nice lead over both of the other operating systems, not even close really. As we can see Vista would be the worst performance, with 7 coming in a close second.

So far three out of these four tests have gone to Windows Xp.

The next test I’ve got is cinebench

Again we see Windows XP leading in the OpenGl testing, no surprise there, but it then falls behind Windows7, but not by much, in the other two tests. Vista just isn’t too good all around…

To finish off I’ve got several tests from cache and memory

The results are a mixed bag with no real winner here in this test. Windows XP though appears to be the better performer but the results are very close for all of them.


Next up I’ve got CPU Arithmetic:

Processor Arithmetic

Benchmarks the ALU and FPU processor units. Shows how your processors handle arithmetic and floating point instructions in comparison to other typical processors.

Results Interpretation:

Dhrystone (MIPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.

Whetstone (MFLOPS) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.


CPU arithmetic

If anything we can see that Vista lags behind in two of tests, it would appear that XP performs a bit better really with more rounded performance results.

Many of us use our computers for multi-media so I think it’s very important to know how these operating system will perform, so the next test is CPU Multi-Media:

Processor Multi-Media

Benchmark the (W)MMX(2), SSE(2/3/4), AVX processor units. Shows how your processors handle multi-media instructions and data in comparison to other typical processors.

Such operations are used by more specialised software, e.g. image manipulation, video decoders/encoders, games.

Results Interpretatio :

Multi-Media Integer (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better integer performance.

Multi-Media Single/Double Float (Pixels/s) – higher results are better, i.e. better floating-point performance.


cpu multimedia

Clearly for any Multi-Media you want Windows 7, Windows XP lags very far behind in all of the tests, but Vista come in a very close second place.


For the next test I’ve got a GPU centric one called Graphics (GPGPU) Bandwidth.

Graphics (GPGPU) Bandwidth

Benchmark the bandwidth of the memory of the graphics processors (GPGPUs) and the bandwidth of the bus that connects them to your computer.

Results Interpretation
Internal Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster internal memory bandwidth.

Data Transfer Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster data transfer between the GPU and computer.

GPGPU Bandwidth

Very similar performance across all operating systems, so close that you’d never ‘feel’ the differences in the real world. So it’s safe to say that they’re all pretty much the same in terms of this test.


The next test would be memory bandwidth.

Memory Bandwidth

Benchmark the memory bandwidth of your computer.

Results Interpretation:

Integer Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth.

Float Memory Bandwidth (MB/s) – higher results are better, i.e. faster memory bandwidth

Memory bandwidth

And again we see that Windows Xp is the clear and balanced choice , but still the results are very close overall.


Next up we’ve got Memory Latency and you’d think with the same exact ram in there that this test might be close.

Memory Latency

Benchmark the latency (response time) of processors’ caches and memory

The latency of caches is measured in processor clocks (i.e. how many clocks it takes for the data to be ready) as it is dependent on the processor clock speed.

The latency of memory is measured in nanoseconds as it is typically independent on processor clock speed.

-lower scores are better

memory latency

We see that 7 and XP are almost equal, there’s really no difference between them, at least that you’d ever notice. Vista on the other hand doesn’t do too well here does it?


With dual and quad core processors being so popular, this test is also a fairly important one I think.

Multi-Core Efficiency

Benchmark the multi-core efficiency of the processors.

The ability of the cores to process data blocks and pass them to another core for processing (producer-consumer paradigm) of different sizes and different chain sizes is measured. The efficiency of the inter-connect between cores is thus benchmarked; however, the number of cores (and processors) also counts as more data buffers can be processed simultaneously (aka “in flight”).

-higher is better for bandwidth

-lower is better for latency

Multicore effic


Windows 7 takes it here, but not by much. Oddly we see Vista with a much lower latency than the other two operating systems. Then again we are talking nanoseconds, so really there’s not much of a difference is there?


So with these results, what do you get from all of this?

To me, it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system. Sure the others look nicer, but in terms of performance I think Xp is the one to go with on average. Yes Vista and 7 have DirectX 10, but how much of a difference does that really make? Vista and 7 have Aero, but again that just makes things look nice, they’re nice tweaks and little improvements to usability but in terms of performance it doesn’t do much except maybe hinder it.

Maybe I could turn Aero off and see what kind of results I get then? I’ve always wondered what kind of impact it has on the system.

  444 comments for “Windows Xp vs Vista vs 7

  1. Pkort
    September 15, 2009 at 5:52 pm

    Interesting… Good work.

  2. BrainDedd
    September 15, 2009 at 9:45 pm

    Driver versions?

  3. Kristofer
    September 15, 2009 at 10:31 pm

    BrainDedd: They are the latest, I keep my systems fully up to date and make sure they are updated before I run any tests.

  4. hello
    September 16, 2009 at 1:35 am

    Call me when you try it with SSD drive

  5. Kristofer
    September 16, 2009 at 2:08 am

    hello: sure what’s your number?

  6. blahblah
    September 16, 2009 at 3:41 am

    never mind how much faster xp is or is not than vista/7. xp is very stable and SMALL in the amount of hard drive space it uses, the amount of files it uses, and the amount of memory it uses. it’s the most awesome windows os ever. microsoft should opensource it, but they are too dumb.

    you can use programs like xplite/nlite to strip out the junk from xp and have a blazing fast and unbloated os. it’s disgusting how much space vista/7 take up. who cares if you have the space to spare, it’s wasteful, bloated, inefficient and lame.

    the only good thing about vista/7 is it can use directx10+ and use more than 3.5gb of ram. both of these are artificial limitations due to microsoft though. and yes, the 3.5gb ram limit in xp is NOT due to the 32-bit architecture. if microsoft wanted too, they could make xp use way way more than that. but driver manufacturers would have to possibly update their drivers too. 🙁

  7. venom
    September 16, 2009 at 4:21 am

    Surprisingly none of the operating system dominated, and also how Vista still gets a bad rap when its identical to Win 7 other than features.

    Over time Win 7 will win out, and I am using Vista with no problems since SP1. Keep in mind XP sucked until SP2 came out, remember that?

    Anyways, I also use Win 7 on another laptop and its very nice, clean, simple and responsive. Hope they keep it that way, but it is Vista 2.5

  8. James Gentile
    September 16, 2009 at 9:59 am

    For perhaps 1% or 2% more performance overall, you’re recommending XP as the best OS? If you had any clue as to the security changes between XP and Vista/7 I doubt you’d recommend XP.


    unpatched XPs have 33 infections per thousand.
    XP SP3 has 6 infections per thousand.
    unpatched Vista have 3.7 infections PER THOUSAND (half of fully patched XP)
    patched Vista have 2.5 infections per thousand.

    XP is wide open to 0-day exploits, Vista is hardened and basically immune. That’s worth 10% performance, let alone 1-2%.

  9. James Gentile
    September 16, 2009 at 11:07 am

    Also, your math is off. Though XP wins more benchmarks than 7, Windows 7 wins by a higher percentage overall,

    In the higher is better benchmarks, Win 7 is 107.1111% of XP
    In the lower is better benchmarks, Win 7 is 99.97838% of XP

    It’s early (for me) and my math is fuzzy so I wasn’t able to combine the percentages, but Windows 7 is faster overall, not to mention the vast improvements in security, aero, directx 11, good 64-bit support, and so on. So the articles conclusions are way off, XP is not the better OS, not at all.

  10. Tom Mason
    September 16, 2009 at 11:12 am

    Great job, comparing 2 x64 OSs against a x86 one. *golf clap*. Note also that the big difference between XP and 7 in the crystalmark is GDI, which isn’t that surprising when you consider that GDI operations in windows 7 are further translated into DirectX before display.

    Lets not also forget that you’ve got a bunch of synthetic benchmarks here which may not bear any relation to real world performance, as would be suggested by the fact that other sites that HAVE done real world gaming tests show windows 7 coming out ahead more often than behind.

  11. Rage
    September 16, 2009 at 11:13 am

    @blahblah, from what I can see from the results, Windows 7 is as fast as XP. Most of the tests are synthetics, which are not useful at all since real world performance is usually quite different. Windows 7 is also much more secure than XP.

    Your comment about the RAM limit is inaccurate though; it is due to the physical addressing limitations of a 32-bit OS that you are limited to 4GB of RAM.

  12. Kristofer
    September 16, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    James: I know all about your points, the point of this was to get a discussion going, and it seems to have worked. I would never go back to XP myself, I’m using Vistax64, and have used it since it came out, I’ve not experienced any of the problems others have, I like the OS quite a bit. I had no problems with the installation, as opposed to XP where it was a nightmare to install for lack of drivers when it first came out, with Vista I had no such problem, everything worked right out of the box. Also I like the fact that you caught that little bit of information, while it looks like XP ‘won’ it really didn’t did it? The basic point of this article was for the discussion, as I mentioned, and to show people that it’s about time to truly retire Windows XP and just let it die.

    Tom: I didn’t have much of a choice with XP, the 64bit version lacks driver support still to this day, that particular OS has gone the way of the do-do as it were. The 64bit versions of Vista and Win7 are popular for the fact that they can support more ram which allows people to do more. The 64bit versions of those operating systems are more widely accepted than the 64bit of XP ever was. The point of using those OSes for the testing was from an enthusiast point of view, if you are one then you’ll be using the 64bit version and if you’re serious about using your computer for work, or even just general usage with better performance then you’ll choose the 64bit OS as opposed to the 32bit, there are more advantages with the 64bit than the 32bit.

  13. ZannX
    September 16, 2009 at 1:20 pm

    Having used Win7 on my new i7 860 rig for a week now, I’m ready to install it on ALL of my computers. (laptop, desktop, and work desktop in the office). Performance wise it’s really not any slower than XP as was pointed out earlier (aside from OpenGL). Games wise, other sites have done a comparison and in most cases, Win 7 > XP. I was also one of the people who found Vista an enjoyable experience. To this day, I don’t know why people complained so much about it. I personally believe it was one of those jump on the bandwagon deals. If you’re having any sort of issues, it must be the OS’s fault since Billy Bob and Jane Doe were so vehement about it.

    The biggest advantage of Win7 for me personally is the new taskbar and layout. Aero snap (I’ve got a ghetto vista version installed on my work computer) among other features are incredibly efficient for productivity when you get used to them (takes like an hour). Also, it reportedly increases the battery life on laptops (good for my laptop).

    Installing it was no problem at all. I’ve done it on 2 separate computers now with no issues. It took ~30-45 minutes. All drivers were detected on the first boot and the only thing I had to really install was my graphics card drivers.

    @Rage: I believe blahblah was talking about PAE. Physical Address Extension.

  14. Pkite
    September 16, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Benchmark windows xp 64 bit please.

  15. Darren
    September 16, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    So why not use 32bit Vista / 7?

    The thing is, its all academic, simple facts

    yes Windows XP is quicker in some tests then 7, But it is not quicker overall.
    As mentioned OpenGL will be slower, whats intresting is OpenGL tests is the differences between Vista and 7
    yes 7 looks pretty and no its not reason to buy it, but tell me, i bet you XP runs faster if you disable its new look GUI and run it in Windows 98 style.

    “To me, it looks as though Windows Xp is still the best choice for an operating system.”

    On average 7 is equal or faster than than XP, looks better doing it and is hugely more secure and stable, just how do you get your conclusion?

  16. Pkite
    September 16, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    This article is deeply flawed!!!

    This article is comparing windows XP 32 bit to Vista and windows 7 64 bit. A proper test would use all 32 bit OS or all 64 bit OS. I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from this article.

  17. Kristofer
    September 16, 2009 at 2:21 pm

    So, do you really think the results would be much different if I used the 32bit versions of Win7 and Vista?

  18. Pkite
    September 16, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    Kristofer, I can’t believe you made a comment like “do you really think”. Purpose of benchmarking is to have a definite answer. I’m sure you put a lot of effort into this article, but I don’t make conclusions on guessing what an untested factor would be.

  19. Kristofer
    September 16, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Ok, give me a bit… next week I’ll try and toss up a second part to this, with both Vista 32bit and Win7 32bit included and we’ll see just how much of a difference there is, if any. Personally I think the results will be pretty much the same…

  20. Pkite
    September 16, 2009 at 3:15 pm

    Sweet, I can’t wait to see it.

  21. Tom Mason
    September 16, 2009 at 3:46 pm

    32bit OSs ought to be faster than x64 at certain tasks, particularly on Intel (IIRC AMD implementation of x64 is better than Intel in that Intel loses more performance x86 > x64 than AMD does). This is true for 32 bit apps running in WoW64 (emulation overhead) and also for 64 bit native binaries verses 32bit native binaries. For example, compiling software (which uses pointers very heavily) suffers badly in x64 because suddenly all the memory accesses are twice as big, and memory usage goes up dramatically. This means an x64 app is more likely to hit the page file and incur huge speed hits due to page faults than a 32bit app.

  22. Tom Mason
    September 16, 2009 at 3:51 pm

    Oops. Hit publish too early.

    On the other hand, some 64 bit native apps will gain a lot of performance over their 32bit native counterparts. Those which are compiled to use the additional GP registers in x64 will gain, as will those which make heavy use of 64bit math or use a lot of RAM. It’s a real mixed bag of gains and losses that can only really be sorted out by benchmarking the particular app you’re interested in.
    In short, x86 vs x64 is an apples and oranges comparison from which you must draw your conclusions carefully.

  23. Marc Pouliot
    September 16, 2009 at 6:25 pm

    So there is virtually no performance difference between 3 generations of Windows..

    Wow. Microsoft at its best.

  24. Urp
    September 16, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    The rigs that these OSes were compared against do not remotely resemble mainstream business or personal rigs. Run the same tests on an average rig: ~2+GHz Core-2 Duo, integrated graphics with shared memory or low-end graphics card with ~256MB, 2-4GB <=800MHz RAM & SATA disk. These are the platforms that most businesses have on the desktop.

  25. John
    September 16, 2009 at 6:36 pm

    Really… you compared a x86 version of XP to two x64 OS’s. Results I see are fairly invalid of you saying that XP is the better. The reasons of why are scattered though out these comments. Not to mention the 64 bit OS’s really are not cracked up to what they should be. I test them everyday from where I work, and I will say…stick with 32 for now. Very little has the capability let alone the want to use hyper threading and 64 bit systems.

  26. Ivan
    September 16, 2009 at 7:06 pm

    agreed on the 32/64 difference. looking forward to next weeks results.

  27. Anonymous
    September 16, 2009 at 8:17 pm

    +1 for “this test is deeply flawed”. It’s not an “apples to apples” comparison.

    You report using 8 GB of RAM. Win XP/32 bit can only use about 3 or 4 Gb of that whereas the 64 bit Win vista and 7 can use ALL of it, effectively doubling the RAM they have.

  28. Tomasz
    September 16, 2009 at 11:06 pm

    I am z bit surprised that differences were so tiny. I was expecting xp to be much faster than vista and win7. your tests show that the choice of operating system does not have any bigger difference on the speed. thanks. i will go for win7 as it is the newest and has plenty nice features.

  29. hans meiser
    September 17, 2009 at 4:01 am

    Please, do benchmark XP 64-bit, which has been available.
    Or, use the 32-bit builds of Vista and Win7.

    What’s the justification for mixing the two? Maybe you just don’t like the outcome…

  30. James Gentile
    September 17, 2009 at 9:01 am

    Oh I was wrong about XP winning more benchmarks, actually it’s like this:

    Win 7 wins against XP in 11 benchmarks
    Win 7 ties xp in 3 benchmarks
    Win 7 loses against XP in 9 benchmarks

    Together with the higher overall percentage win for Win 7, and I think you should rewrite the conclusion to say Windows 7 won.

  31. Ian
    September 17, 2009 at 10:43 am

    I have got Win7 BETA running on my laptop. Runs better than anything i have ever used on my laptop.It came with Vistax32 but that was FAIL!!! Win7 runs nice 🙂

  32. Madrakas
    September 23, 2009 at 8:07 am

    You used WinXp 32 bit version. I believe you would achieve better results while using WinXp X64. It has better kernel and performs faster in many ways.
    Since windows 7 is a new system it is quite fast. But that is only for now. Remember how fast was first version of windows Xp? How slow is windows xp sp3 compare to first windows xp build? I believe the same will hapen to windows 7 after couple of years.
    I would go to windows 7 only if it could give MUCH higher performance than windows xp can give. Now I say big fat NO. And I’m OEM builder and none of machines i made uses 7 nor Vista.

  33. Anonymous
    September 25, 2009 at 1:52 am

    I’d rerun the tests with w7 32bit. I just upgraded from XP SP3 and it seems faster for me
    (after tweeking and removing all the stupid graphics fadeouts etc)

  34. JohnD
    September 30, 2009 at 8:12 pm

    Do you need DirectX10 to run games such as crysis?

  35. MartinH
    October 1, 2009 at 7:25 am

    Should have done a Crysis benchmark, anyway as far as I can tell XP is still the king for gaming. Guaranteed 5-10 less fps in Vista/Win7 vs 32bit XP using DX9.

  36. MikeM
    October 1, 2009 at 12:40 pm

    What about doing what the last line of your post says, namely, turning off the eye candy features in each OS and testing the core speeds? I agree with the 32/64-bit issue for TRUER

  37. MikeM
    October 1, 2009 at 12:49 pm


    for TRUE benchmarking, but in reality I haven’t seen much difference in the two versions of any system.

    I think, though, that if you disable all of the “extras” in XP/Vista/7, you’ll see 7 come out worlds ahead. 7 has a ton more visual features enabled by default. I like them, but if you don’t, turn them off and get pure speed. I’m currently on a laptop that started off as an XP machine, moved to Vista and is now running 7 RC (soon to be 7 Ultimate RTM). By far, when you factor in driver support, speed, installation ease, RE-installation ease, program support, etc… Windows 7 is the best OS I’ve ever had on this machine. And it’s all been with basically the same components (2 hard drive upgrades).

    Synthetic benchmarks may prove one thing; my personal experiences prove another.

    On the installation point: my experience is, XP installation 1+ hours, plus driver download (mostly on another machine due to lack of ethernet support), Vista installation about an hour, 7 installation about 20 minutes with most (if not all) drivers already installed. That’s progress to me :).

  38. Kristofer
    October 1, 2009 at 2:06 pm

    I’m working on all of it… I write for several sites, and there are only so many days per week with so many hours in a day….. I’ve got to get some free time to re-install 32 bit versions of the operating systems then re-do some tests, which includes some gaming as well, please bear with me…

  39. Thomas C
    October 2, 2009 at 2:24 pm

    TinyXP Rev09 – the best at the mo

  40. Ir
    October 3, 2009 at 8:46 am

    Thanks for the comparison. I’m still using XP and am very happy with it. Tried Vista, but had so many problems (on a new and pretty good hardware), and although I miss the Vista interface (XP on a big monitor is a constant struggle…), I find XP the most reliable OS so far. I would like to switch to 7, but in case it’s still not up to XP in terms of performance, stability etc. I would be a great loss of time for me to go back to XP. So, I find your comparison very helpful.

    As a some sort of test, I installed 7 on VirtualPC. I have an XP installation there too, which I use for experiments and which is bloated with software I would never install otherwise. And it still performs far, far better than the fresh (without a single app installed) windows 7 installation. Pity. It seems I won’t be changing my XP in the near future.

  41. milly
    October 4, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Good work, very nice comparison!! No point switching to windows 7 yet. I run Maya on XP 64, no problems at all.. If I could, I would still be using Windows NT 4, it used only 12mb of ram! On my NT 4 machine I had 64mb of ram and I was running Softimage 3D 3.7 | Extreme (It was used for Jurassic Park, Starship Troopers, Jumanji..) Clean and fast OS.. Not like the bloated crapware MS releases these days. Don’t care much about how pretty the start button looks like in Windows 7, I don’t have sex with my operating system, I just click start and run the desired app. New technology in windows 7, like touch screen? Do you seriously want those smudges on your screen from those greasy fingers?? Yes, XP has security issues, so does every other microsoft product since the beginning of their monopoly. If you care about security use Linux.

  42. October 5, 2009 at 4:06 am

    lol this is wrong i have run all 3 of these and xp is not the best, i currently have Windows 7 and is my computer science class we have torn this OS apart and it’s by far better than these bench marks you have set. Also it helps when you run the same Bit OS against each other, this test is faulty.

  43. Javier
    October 8, 2009 at 8:03 am

    I also want to add to the discussion that is quite important to notice about the fact that the benchmarking software must be compiled and optimized to 64bit (if benchmarking is done over 64bit OS).
    When OS is made for 64bit all software should be made for 64 bit in order to achieve a good and real idea of performance.

  44. kevdt67
    October 8, 2009 at 3:52 pm

    good luck playing the newer games on that XP rig. DX10 will make XP obsolete

  45. jarethb
    October 12, 2009 at 2:01 am

    Not that it makes a large difference in the standpoint of how fast will my operating system allow me to run a game or even a benchmark. But when arguing the efficiency of an OS overall, should you not also take into account the fact that without a doubt, while benching at essentially the same as an older OS, the newer has a huge amount more going on in the background. Not to mention background processes running to ensure the operation of hardware and software not even supported by the older.

  46. David
    October 12, 2009 at 7:47 am

    In response to the people saying that unpatched xp machines have 6 infections per thousand, are you taking into account that XP still holds about 66% of the market share for ALL operating systems? So you would expect a higher infection ratio for XP than Vista. There’s a reason why XP is still the most widely used OS today (8 years after it was released). Vista is just flat out unreliable and the system requirements are a joke: 15GB of space is required to install Windows vista, 16GB is required to install Windows 7, while XP only requires 1.5 GB of space. (That’s 10 times more than Windows XP). I’ve had my XP machine for years and haven’t even used 16GB of space yet. I think that 16 GB is way too much for the operating system. I’ve used Vista and I was very disappointed in how much slower it was than XP. You need at least 2 GB of RAM to get a semi-decent performance out of Vista while XP only really needs 512MB of RAM to get a better performance than Vista using 2GB of RAM. Overall Windows XP gets by with much less than Vista and Windows 7 and has less of an impact on the system performance. On a different note, XP is by far the most stable OS today and people aren’t seeing a good enough reason to upgrade from XP to Windows 7…I know I’m not…Although I do admit, reluctantly, that XP is transitioning into a legacy operating system and in the end will get phased out, but until I see a better OS than Windows 7 and Vista I’m going to stick with XP.

  47. vs3
    October 14, 2009 at 1:59 am

    Kristofer, thanks for the test results. I had been wondering, and you mostly answered it for me. But, I still wonder…

    Your tests put three OSs to work on hardware that gives them all more than enough to work with. None of the OSs really had to break a sweat, and all of them came out pretty close. I suspect that on more modest machines, Vista and 7 would choke long before XP. It seems to me that Vista/7 need all that extra memory just to catch up to XP, memory that XP probably doesn’t even need to use to do the same work. I think XP could probably do the same amount of work as the others, with a lot less hardware.

    I guess to put this in terms of “bang for your buck”, if I had $20,000 to equip an office for as many workers as I could afford, be they secretaries or video game testers, with which OS would I be able to get the most workers working?

    Honestly, I’m thinking about upgrading (replacing) my Windows 98 machine, which is still running just fine with 64 MB of memory. I could buy a new XP box for under $400 that would be killer fast. If I bought a $400 Vista/7 machine, would the performance be back to what I’m getting with Win98??? (LOL, remember 233 MHz MMX?)

  48. Matt
    October 14, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    XP Pro 32! Why change?

  49. internetrush
    October 16, 2009 at 11:18 pm

    Oh god, if you didnt turn off Aero and optimize both Vista and 7 for performance you have really compared Apples to Oranges here.

    This article is a complete botch because you are showing off new technology and running 10’s if not dozens of processes that NEVER RUN in XP.

    Turn off the crapware that is attached to Vista and 7 and redo this.

    Horrible execution but a point for effort.

  50. Mark
    October 20, 2009 at 2:24 am

    so many opinons from so many people more wise than myself! I am running a i7 860, 4g ram, 1T hard drive. I am mainly using it for 3D cad, using ProE, 3D max etc and adobe suite. And the occasional game when im sick of working…..
    My question is what OS should i put on? iv read through all these comments and the article, but cant come up with a decision……cheers

  51. Axerob
    October 23, 2009 at 5:27 am

    Did you also happen to notice BOTH Vista and 7 are 64 bit while Xp is only 32? Try using the professional 64 bit edition of XP, or switch V/7 to 32 bit and try again.

  52. Steve
    October 23, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    pls compare windows 7 xp and vista when they are all the same arkitecture. not different. they see the difference!!

  53. LaneyB
    October 23, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Something told me that XP would win out over MSFT 7. XP works.

  54. LOL
    October 23, 2009 at 3:31 pm

    “CPU: Intel Q9650 (3ghz)
    RAM: 8gigs OCZ Fatal1ty PC2-6400”

    “Maybe I could turn Aero off and see what kind of results I get then? I’ve always wondered what kind of impact it has on the system.”

    Lol, newr read such a pointless test. You’r megadonk.

  55. James Gentile
    October 24, 2009 at 5:56 am

    David…Yes, XP has about 3x the market share of Vista, so infections will be somewhat higher, but a lot of malware that runs on XP also runs on Vista, it’s not like Mac vs. Windows, also compare Vista unpatched vs. patched infection rates, unpatched Vista is not several times the patched Vista in infection rates, it’s almost the same, because Vista has a lot of anti-exploit code and tech. built in, that XP lacks, anyways…

    As far as sys. requirements and stability, I found Vista waaay more stable than XP, I ran Vista for 2 years 24/7 with no blue-screens/random reboots, the only problem I ever saw was dying hardware. Sys reqs. Well it’s called Moore’s law, XP uses more resources than Windows 98, and MS-DOS. It’s natural for software to require more resources over time, but really Vista requires LESS hardware than XP, if you factor in costs at the time of release. At XP’s release, 512MBs of slow DDR ram ran about $200, at Vista’s release you could get 2GBs for $200, and Vista runs better on 2GBs than XP runs on 512MBs. So in absolute terms, XP is less resource hungry, but cost relative Vista requires less. Same for hard drive space and CPU power.

  56. anjiru rodriguez
    October 25, 2009 at 11:42 am


  57. Ken Wilson
    October 26, 2009 at 10:09 am

    Uhh,, that Pi to 32 million places test

    on Windows Xp x64, with Q6600 Quad core, 9600GT nvidia, 8gb of ram

    it took 14.4 secs

    That did suprise me as most of these tests are memory and processor and video card determinate
    to what hardware you have installed.

    My system on the whole should be slower, due to CPU and Graphics card differences

  58. Andrew
    October 26, 2009 at 4:59 pm

    I welcome the XP(32bit) vs Vista/7(64bit) comparison because my computers have 64bit processors but are currently running XP32.

    I reckon this is the case for a great many people since most of the processors sold for the past couple of years have been 64bit*, whereas nobody uses the 64 bit incarnation of XP because all the drivers are crap and nobody releases 64bit software for it.

    (* seems to me anyways, I’ve not researched this at all)

  59. Jimmy Jay
    October 26, 2009 at 5:18 pm

    Just picking up on the comment from James Gentille, I don’t find it natural at all that software consumes more resources over time; why should each new version be slower than the previous? It’s important to mention that there are huge numbers of office workers who for years have used their PCs just for basic tasks like word processing and sending emails. Upgrading all these machines just to ‘keep pace’ with the latest (slowest) new software is not only sad, it’s also a very real environmental problem. We should be moving towards more efficient systems that use less energy and last longer. Credit must go to Microsoft; for once the latest version of Windows is not the slowest ever.

  60. Allwywnd
    October 26, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    now i dont agree with the Vista and 7 defenders, ive used XP for more than 4 years and im delighted with it, i used Vista for 1 month and a half on my laptop, then found a way to get XP working, so now im writing this from my laptop runnig XP
    for month and a half i didnt see anything in Vista that was better than XP, only bad things – even when i turn off themes service and use classic, Vista is not faster in any way, no matter how i optimize it, its still the same, and the time it takes to boot.. ohhhh!!! and again – when i connect to the net – it shows progress, then leaves me the window to close it by myself, in XP i could tweak it so it just connects and displays a note if it is connected or not. i was _NOT_ satisfied with Vista and i wont waste my time with 7, XP is the number one in ANY way and i will use it until its COMPLETELY out of support, then i will leave windows (for i use pirated copies) and switch to Linux, so i wont be a lawbreaker anymore, and have the bes a person can get from a single OS

    thats my word to you, Vista and 7 defenders, i wish you nice time with the OS you desired, but i cant agree with you it is the best choice for windows out there

    good luck and take care!!!
    (and remember – XP will warmly welcome you back if you need Him (x )

  61. Registered
    October 27, 2009 at 3:40 am

    this entire test is flawed, and is a joke, and raises the question of the competence of the person who actually did the benchmarks,

    under no circumstances can you mix 32bit and 64bit operating systems together,
    that’s cheating, all operating systems should be 32 bit, or 64 bit,

    I’m actually discussed that would even allow this test to be published to the public,

    in fact i think more people should express there feeling on this outrageous test being permitted as being FARE!!!!!, come on people you should insist this test gets disqualified on the basis that one of the operating systems in in another type of language (32BIT),

    two 64bit operating systems, and one 32 bit, Kristofer Brozio you are a cheat or just plain negligent.

  62. October 27, 2009 at 6:48 am

    Windows Xp is better OS than Windows Vista and Windows 7

  63. oDD
    October 28, 2009 at 8:33 pm

    This is a very useful benchmark. Most people who are considering the (upgrade?) change from windows XP to 7 are using a 32bit OS with a very high chance of having a 64bit capable CPU, changing to a 64bit version of windows 7 may seem the logical choice, however knowing the performance hit involved in such a change is informative. I for one won’t be making the change from XP to 7. As XP starts to date over the next couple of years I’ll push further into a good Linux distro as I feel will many others. So for all the the comments banding around statements of ‘competence’ in the quality of work in taking these benchmarks I say, lay of the caffeine and chill the f**k out.

  64. mathias
    November 3, 2009 at 6:53 pm


    Next will be Linux/GNU. No more of this bullshit.

  65. James Gentile
    November 5, 2009 at 7:17 am

    Jimmy Jay – OK, go play with your MS-DOS on a used 486 (you can find them real cheap); the rest of us will move on. For all the people complaining about bloat, if you stayed with old versions of the software on old hardware, then computer companies would cater to you and your type more. But since nobody does that despite all the talk, companies cater to reality instead.

  66. morfeus
    November 7, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    Abdul: When you say 32bit is in a different LANGUAGE to 64bit, this is isn’t entirely true. The ‘bits’ refer to the ARCHITECTURE of the processor/ hardware and hence the compiled code – the language can be the same or different – it is the final code that is different.

    I think this is a useful article, because as mathias put it, in terms of XP installs, most are 32bit and many ppl will be upgrading to 64bit (due to the 3GB/ 4GB memory limit, if nothing else).

    I agree that a like for like comparison (all 32bit and all 63bit) would be interesting (but probably not as useful, since fewer ppl use 64bit XP and perhaps 32bit Win 7).

  67. morfeus
    November 7, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    Sorry Abdul, it was the post above yours (registered) that I was referring to.

  68. morfeus
    November 7, 2009 at 12:36 pm

    And oDD, not mathias! :-!

  69. November 7, 2009 at 1:13 pm

    Nicely presented review, unfortunately the tests aren’t appropriate for comparing operating systems. They are essentially CPU- and memory-intensive tests and would be used to compare say Intel and AMD CPUs, or different motherboards with the same CPU to check out BIOS and support chip performance differences. I would have expected all tests to come out pretty much the same. The slight differences are probably due to XP being 32-bit and the others 64-bit. Assuming the same software was run in each test, then it would have had to be all 32-bit software else if wouldn’t have run on XP. In any case, the differences aren’t enough to justify the choice of one operating system over another.

    My thoughts are this: anyone running Vista now should definitely upgrade to Win 7. It looks similar but is much, much nicer and faster. And all your applications and hardware should work if they work in Vista. If you’re running XP now, the decision isn’t as simple. If you’re happy with XP, keep using it. If you want something sexcier, Win 7 will fill the bill, but make sure your hardware, software and peripherals are supported.

    Incidentally, Ubuntu 9.10 was released at the end of October, and it looks great. It’s free and works well on older hardware.

  70. JohnnyVoid
    November 7, 2009 at 3:44 pm

    Cmon Guys ! Win 7 are like some months old, Vista couple of years and on the other hand XP are for 8 years, had lots of improvements and fixes to become what they are now.
    I wish someone could find some tests of XP against 2000 back in 2002…
    Back then everybody said XP suck big time and they needed 8 years to became TOP OS !
    Let’s wait couple of years and see after the Service Packs and fixes for the Win 7 arrive…

  71. November 9, 2009 at 10:41 pm

    I don’t think this is a valid way of testing OS performance, as it doesn’t reflect real-world usage.

    It is true that graphics performance will not be as optimal as in XP because video drivers can now run most of their code in user-mode as apposed to kernel mode, the advantage though is much higher reliability, and if a video driver has a bug it won’t crash your system unlike in XP. In addition the slight performance loss is so minimal it is almost un-noticeable (expect in benchmarks)

    In addition if you looked at real-world tests – intalling the OS, startup/shutdown, installing an application, opening large Word document, copying large files you will find windows 7 outperforms XP.

  72. Whitneymuse
    November 10, 2009 at 10:55 pm

    Looked here because I’ve wondered if I should change my OS to the new WIN 7, too. Wow, since its release can’t say I’ve found any seriously compelling reason to make the investment, yet.

    It’s definitely one of those keeping my mind open quests.

  73. Anthony Coons
    November 11, 2009 at 8:15 pm

    I have or should say I HAD a Vista 64bit running 6GB of ram, with 500GB HDD, and 512MB video card, on a laptop. I paid $1249 for it, I recently bought a Netbook, upgraded the Ram to 2GB on a 32bit XP system. Now I did what I call a “My World Test” I put the Vista with 6GB of ram and the Netbook running 2GB of ram side by side, pressed on at the same time. The little Netbook with 2GB of ram beat the heck out of the vista machine with 1/3 the memory and less than 1/4 the processor! Thats some crazy stuff. Shutdown also faster on netbook with XP! So I sold the Crappy Vista PC, and will forever love, cherish, and use my XP Machine, until it flat out dies. Microsoft needs to work on updating OS’s not making new ones, they suck at it. Just my opinion. GO XP, Long forever live XP! Did I mention Vista Sucks, and that there is no way Im spending my MONEY on 7, until it proves itself better, faster, and more efficient than my 2GB Netbook with XP. I said my 2 cents worth. Later guys.

  74. Schwizer
    November 12, 2009 at 4:34 am

    Correct me if i’m wrong, but isn’t xp 32 bit limited to 4gb of ram? even if there are 8gb installed, it would only be able to make use of half of it.

  75. James Lehman
    November 12, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    LOL I’ve said this all along. I’ve got XP Sp3 but, patched with Win7 /Vista type programs that simulate Aero, Expose and visual styles. It is still faster even with extra programs loading up eye candy. I’ve done video editing under x64 with 64 bit programs and codec and it is still dog slow or at least not any faster.

    There is not one thing that is offered in 7 or Vista that makes a compelling sell. Less driver support isn’t a selling point. UAC isn’t and besides I have a small program that is setup to nag just like this. I have 7 and Xp both under dual boot and the hardware compatibility thing makes it a nuisance to boot into. As previously mentioned this is not a 486 but, a brand new pc.

    My workplace will not go with 7 due to hardware incompatibility. It is more likely that when xp retires we will be going with linux to run software/hardware under wine because it has better compatibility than Vista/7. We bought 68 new pc’s and were refunded for 7 and installed XP.

  76. LiquidStorm
    November 15, 2009 at 1:09 am

    Don’t get me wrong here, I LOVE XP and perfer it over Vista!

    I agree with your statement about turning off Windows Aero, as well as the sidebar. If anything they are only used to make things look better, and not very ‘useful’.

    I agree 64-bit vs 32-bit isn’t a fair comparison. And while we’re on the subject of versions, are these fresh installs of the FULL RETAIL VERISON or upgrades or betas? Don’t ever, EVER upgrade windows versions. Always get the FULL RETAIL version and do a fresh install. 95% or more of the problems people come to me with Vista have upgraded from XP then complained that nothing worked even after installing new drivers. This upgrade issue has been around since the 95/98 upgrade, but a fresh install of the full version fixed the problem. A few more problems have come from what I call ‘manufacture interference’ where they modify the Windows installation to include thier drivers/wallpaper/programs ect. You find this a lot with Dell, Compaq, and HP, which is another reason to get the retail version.

    Lets be honest here. A lot of these tests are so close there’s really no difference, which makes sense when what you are testing is more HARDWARE based than software/OS based. And the differences between them are so close they can be easily explained by a high draw of power that can slow the hardware just a little bit (ie washing machine, dryer, vaccum cleaner, fridge) and throw off the test. When you’re talking about milliseconds and billions of calculations per second are you really going to notice much of a difference between 2 and 4 ms or an extra 1000 calculations per second? Unless you are an extreeme gamer or doing some serious video editing and rendering, more than likely you’re not going to notice a difference. So what really does matter here is code writing and interface and how smoothly they all get along or the feel of the operating system as you use it…lets get THOSE numbers.

    Vista has a lot of sloppy code and a lot of eye candy that’s not very useful and is a drain on resources and can make things a little slow and sluggish on your average computer and a nightmare on a laptop. XP has cleaner code resulting in a faster ‘boot time’ and an overall quicker response and feel to it. It may not look as sleek as Vista, but it gets the job done time and time again. Vista is nice and sleek and can run as smooth and fast as XP on higher end custom desktops. I’m not talking about the boxed specials from Dell, Compaq, and HP. If you disable most of the eye candy, it should run close to XP on most of your average systems.

    From day 1 in beta testing I can remember Microsoft saying that Vista was not meant to be used on laptops because it is a resource hog and Aero and other new features would not work. Why that changed a couple months after it’s final release, I have no idea. Vista on laptops has been nothing but trouble from the very start.

    The only reason I have Vista on my desktops is because the networking is a lot easier to troubleshoot and configure. I’ll be honest, they’re both high end custom builds and it’s nice to show that off. But I also hate not having a BACK or UP button when browsing my computer Microsoft needs to bring that thing back. The account protection is annoying, as is windows defender. I have more of what I hate about Vista than what I like about it, but at least I could turn most of it off. But I can also understand with the hardware advancement people wanting something sleeker and full of eye candy. I just think Vista had bad timing in the market.

    Overall, I love the speed and dependability of XP and was sad when I heard Microsoft abandoned it. I was able to save 6 full retail copies of XP Pro with SP3 before they were pulled from the shelves to be destroyed…and I am proud to say that 3 of those found good homes, one I opened and used, and 2 are still in the shrink wrap on my shelf….next to my Commodore 64 manuals…

  77. Faisal
    November 15, 2009 at 3:29 am


    Well, this test is not what I expected. LOL. Well let me clear, I have used XP for couple of years. Vista for two years and 7 for about a year. I never found any big problem in any one of them. 7 used to give blue_screen problem but I suppose that was because it was in beta version. I think if you have a powerful system and you are using XP, Vista or 7 is almost same. Not a remarkable change in speed. As far as the ease for the users is concerned, I think Vista and 7 are not so difficult to use, its just simply a question of little bit of time and interest, but if someone hates something, it is forever….! If some one have put in their mind that Vista and 7 are bullshits……! then for them it is, but for me, I never had any major problem using them, so never mind………..!

    Best of luck,

  78. November 17, 2009 at 9:24 am

    It only confirmed the account of my thoughts on Windows Seven

  79. November 17, 2009 at 9:27 am

    It only confirmed the account of my thoughts on Windows Seven!

  80. TheFarmer
    November 17, 2009 at 4:10 pm

    I’ve been looking at reviews comparing the different versions since the RC version of 7 has come out. They are very dependent on the system that is used and the tests run on them. I’ve seen both XP and 7 on top, with Vista usually coming in last. However, tests that are more dependent on the OS “generally” show a slight to moderate advantage to 7 (boot times, java scripts, etc.), especially on newer machines. With older machines (those built in the XP hey day) show that XP continues to hold it’s own.
    The tests here are interesting but are more dependent on hardware than the OS that is chosen. Thus we see very close scores on many tests. So while it showcases the system that is being used it’s not a very good tool to differentiate the OS’s.
    In the end I’m going to be moving forward with DX11 games, more multimedia and online content, with quad and hex core procs. So 7 is where the action will be. By the time it has a decade of support behind it as XP does it will hopefully be just as highly polished and vaunted.

  81. Hmm
    November 17, 2009 at 8:05 pm

    I don’t understand why they did not use XP64. XP32 only utilizes 3.5GB’s of ram. So half the ram went down the drain, and XP still won!

    XP SP3 FTW!

  82. Master |{!ller
    November 22, 2009 at 6:59 pm

    I have used XP since release and have recently moved on to Windows 7 Ultimate, that being said as far as performance on all my games i havnt really noticed alot of difference, what i have noticed is the visual quality of windows 7 is alot better than XP, some of you say no difference between DX9 and DX 11, you are obviously stupid or blind, the level of detail is clearly alot better with 7 and all the desktop visuals are top notch. Im not on a cutting edge machine or anything but windows 7 also seems to handle multiple tasks and demanding task better as well. Opinions are like assholes, everbody has one, but some of these here have skidmarks.

  83. MAX
    November 23, 2009 at 12:00 am

    I still liked the vista better than the other two.

    November 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm


  85. behrooz
    November 26, 2009 at 3:12 pm

    Just XP

  86. Ozai
    December 4, 2009 at 4:56 pm

    wonderful experiment dude! keep up the good work.
    I wonder what the test results would be though, had you used the XP 64bit

  87. Sophie
    December 5, 2009 at 2:05 am

    Thanks very much for the performed tests! I’ve been considering whether to upgrade to Windows 7 for a few days. And now I seem to find my answer to this question. Thank you, good job!

  88. mm
    December 5, 2009 at 4:49 pm

    Sophie, wich will you choose?? I’m in the same position and I love my XP but I’m ready for something new… windows7 or not windows7…that is the question???!!!

  89. Mike
    December 8, 2009 at 1:16 am

    Analysis of most guys was about accurate, i just want to point out few things:
    1-everyone who is asking about XP64, it is better to forget about it, it’s the worse OS ever because they barelly worked on it, no driver support, even many software/solutions companies refuse to make compatible versions of their product that support XP64, install win 7.
    2- if you have XP32 bit don’t install Win7 because in real performance it’s about the same or in very few cases, worse. Install win7 when it’s time to format your PC (because you can’t upgrade from XP, there few tricks to do that but they cause many problems) or you need the perks like gadgets and better visuals.
    3-If you have vista32, switch to win7 32. for many many reasons.
    4-if you have vista64(especially after SP1), you will not feel the difference.

    it is the 1st time the 1st windows release is very good, remember how XP was useless before SP2, and vista before SP1

    and another advantage for win7 is that there is no issue with drivers till now.

    So choosing win7 is not a bad option 😉

  90. ando
    December 9, 2009 at 10:38 am

    Just for the fun of it:

    Could you include Windows 98 in the next benchmark? 🙂

  91. Cena
    December 15, 2009 at 9:32 pm

    I’d say just stick with Vista. soon prices will go 7 so u can upgrade than.. I dont see any thing better in Windows 7 apart from the word ‘NEW’

  92. Wilfred Owen
    December 17, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    I run Win XP 32 with WindowBlinds and it is the fastest combo with eye candy you can get. I am not saying Vista or Win 7 are bad, but they really don’t offer me anything I can’t get for free or on the cheap with XP. OS’s should cost as little as a tenner or free. The Windows cash cow is at an end, but they just keep milking it! Those udders are now bone dry and they still keep pulling on them! The world awaits a brand new, written from scratch, OS for the future platforms we will be witnessing soon – like 256-bit computing with GPU/CPU interoperability for calculations, transparent internet connectivity (if you’ve got it, it can use it without you having to tell it anything at all!), seamless multimedia support (I can stick a DVD in the DVD/BluRay drive and it will play it without complaining about lack of codecs, or me having to download and install K-Lite Codec Pack, before I can see anything), and a basic, but capable of genuine work production, suite of applications that enable you to create DVDs, pictures, music, programs, and my own OS’s! Windows falls short in nearly every department, and they never seem to learn on each incarnation of their glorified “Windows” rubbish. This is why XP’s 3rd party software market is still so vibrant and active.

  93. December 19, 2009 at 9:36 am

    i like windows xp and windows vista in windows vista they got gadgets on windows vista not on windows 7

  94. xp3000
    December 22, 2009 at 6:50 am

    the only reason i refuse win 7 is because it is vista. Not that i have had any problems with vista at all. the average joe complains about vista and is just led to believe its bad. Propaganda about 7 made joe think ohhh it must be good. Of course windows seven has more driver support than vista on launch, becuase they use the same! vista was out long enough to build driver support so when its twin came out there were no problems. Vista was released with out much. Similiar with 98/2000/xp. windows 2k/me was complained about to no end when xp came out which is off the same nt kernal there was support that existed for it already. And yet people clung to win 98. I thought if MS just stuck it out with vista eventually people would switch over in time for the “latest” next OS to come out. For now xp handes tasks just fine. In my new custom high end machine xp boots completely in 13 secs from loading screen to the last quick launch item, something i wont ever get from vista or 7. Plus i believe vista and 7 are an interim os for the new OS MS is still working on to be released on 2011/12 i think. So for now i will put lip stick on the pig and keep using Xp. And about these test results… I want each of you whiners to find someone who actually uses 64 bit xp or 32 bit vista/7 . Those people are far few thanks to dell and HP. that said vista and 7 are pretty slick.

  95. Scotty
    December 23, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    remember windows XP ran 32 bit and vista and windows 7 ran 64 bit , so thts why it had better times , windows 7 is the best then its XP then its Windows 1998 ! LOL Vista was blown up by Bill Gates with anger!

  96. Lebanese
    December 24, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    Well ,… everyone do not forget that he used vista & 7 64 BIT operating systems that makes a huge difference between 32 & 64 for windows vista & 7 …. even though with that xp turned out to be in over all better …
    – not to add that there are many applications that dont run on 64 bit … besides many applications dont run on windows 7 either …

    – there would be a huge difference if he made the test on 32 bit vista & 7 …. ive tried all 3 operating systems … xp is the best for professional users…

  97. kevin ramey
    December 26, 2009 at 4:05 am

    well to be honest i run all them and sofar windows 7 has lots of hardware trouble it donr work as stable as all you say infacct lot my dvd drives dont reconize untill do update driver then not good also lot of my movie files dont read as video files oly as a music file so see winow 7 sucks but aftre a sp2 yea maybe its good but now stick to windows xp pleaseeeeeeeeeee

  98. RPNova
    December 27, 2009 at 2:10 pm

    I’ve tried all XP/Vista in 32 and 7 in 64. All on different machines though so can’t really give much insight performance wise. However, I prefer XP.

    Vista I’ve always had problems with, constantly crashing and the 7 “Are you sure?” messages just to delete a file was annoying.

    7 seemed far more stable, I could actually open up My Computer without “Windows” restarting. The new layout however just seems counter intuitive. The old taskbar was fine, don’t fix what isn’t broke so to speak. It told you how many of what application was open, new one doesn’t, need to mouseover then count. The “Empty recycle bin” in the recycle bin is now at the top with no icon that is hard to spot at first, having it on the side was fine. No issues with crashing though.

    XP is far simpler to use, a lot less junk and flashy stuff, just a good solid OS that allows you to build your computer however you want really. That’s how I see it. Vista/7 seem to be trying to be OS’s with everything built it, not what I like. So XP is still my favourite.

  99. sasquatch
    December 29, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    @ James Gentile : u could lay all the statisticians in the world end-to-end and never reach a conclusion! 😀

    anyway it was a great read… and as a big time windows xp sp2 fan i wudnt be switching over to windows 7 unless it is proved to be much much faster than xp…and DUH! protection…why the hell wud one want to depend on the OS for tht?!? 😀

    hail ESET NOD32 B-)

    god bless…

    sasquatch 🙂

  100. Alienblues
    December 30, 2009 at 3:56 am

    Well, u all can see WinXP already 8 years with us. Microsoft fix it many times. So, same as WinVista or Win7, they will fix it. Maybe WinVista/Win7 will be better after few year. But i still using WinXP cause its most stablely this time 🙂

  101. Marloid
    December 30, 2009 at 1:52 pm

    Use XP at work. Used Vista, now use 7 on personal laptop/PC …..XP wins for me!

    Above comments from RPNova are spot on!

    Could Microsoft not just build an OS with the functionality of 7, but with the look and feel of XP?

    I’ve read comments from various forums, discussed with friends/colleagues & had first hand experience of all 3 OS’s …..surely I can’t be the only one to make this observation???

  102. Ian
    December 31, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    Boy, if this doesn’t illustrate the law of diminishing returns what does ? As far as I can tell the issue is style over substance, there is no real advantage in switching from XP to Vista or 7.

    I couldn’t count the number of times I heard someone claim that people using XP refused to switch to a new O/S simply because they didn’t want to learn something new. While there is no doubt that there is truth in this claim it is also equally true that some will simply switch because its “new”.

    One thing that’s certain, you can’t teach wisdom !

  103. Bulubuk
    January 1, 2010 at 8:31 am

    I’m a noob. But this what’s on my mind… Vista/7 requires at least 1gig processor,1gb RAM and 16 GB hard disk space. It’s like a big car requires a big engine. While XP requires only atleast 300mhz processor, 128mb RAM ang 1.5gb hard disk space. More like a small car and a small engine. How about put this thing this way? Put the big engine in a small car? Isn’t this basicaly race cars do have?
    One more thing! Are there any applications that doesnt works with XP anymore?

  104. JR
    January 6, 2010 at 4:48 am

    Vista/7 do take more resources than XP. On that note, computers have advanced considerably since XP was released. 3-4GB of memory is becoming standard, 2+ GhZ processors are becoming standard, and if you are really sweating over 16-20 GB of hard drive space, a 320GB hard drive is under 60$. Since 300-500 GB is becoming pretty standard, I don’t think Vista/7 is really asking much from computers. If your computer is struggling with Vista/7, you may want to consider upgrading before your computer starts having problems running newer software. Yes, XP takes less resources, but does it matter if you have more than enough?

    XP was released almost 10 years ago. Vista/7 is only a few years old. Why would a company build an OS to run on legacy computers? Hey! We’re going to stay in buisness by making outdated software that doesn’t compete! But your legacy PC will still run it ok! We wanted to incorporate support for new, more powerful software, but since your legacy PC won’t run it anyway we didn’t bother! Hope you enjoy a new OS that does the same as your old one!

    By the logic that we should never expect new software to require more power, we should all still be enthralled by ski-free on windows 3. Ski-free runs great on just about anything. Calculators can play ski-free. I think my g-shock watch has enough computer power to play ski-free. Technology moves forward. Get on the train.

  105. JR
    January 6, 2010 at 5:00 am

    almost forgot – blahblahblah you are wrong.
    “and yes, the 3.5gb ram limit in xp is NOT due to the 32-bit architecture. if microsoft wanted too, they could make xp use way way more than that.”

    32 bit architecture is the reason only 4 GB of ram work. That is why Microsoft released a 64bit version of XP. Learn about what you’re talking about before making up facts.
    2 to the 32 power (the number of memory address 32 bit architecture recognizes) is 4,294,967,295 (4 GB).
    2 to the 64 power (memory address for 64 bit) is 18446744073709551616 (about 16 EXAbytes).
    It’s not Microsofts fault. It’s math’s fault.
    When 32 system architecture was concieved some 20-30 years ago it was believed that 4 GB of ram would be more than anyone could ever use. When I took computer class in middle school our teacher informed us that there would never be a terabyte sized hard drive. 20 years ago 32mb of ram was a lot for a home PC. 10 years ago it was 2gb. What will it be in ten years?

  106. Dramzii
    January 6, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Hi guys. Nice reading… This is like the neverending story hehe I changed to 7 hoping it would handle modeling software better. I first tried Cinema in pure XP 64 Bit. And it did. sort of.. so i felt confident in going to W7 64 Bit but altough it was faster in some ways, I just dont feel the power… it also is full of small bugs.

    I recently increased my RAM and keep missing XP but unsure if going back to XP would be productive. i saw the 3dmark06 and cinebench tests and XP semmed better. Maybe i just got used to W7 speed and want more.

    i knooo my Lap isnt the best model but its all i got…

    Software i need power the most is

    AUTOCAD 2010

    my Lap model is ummm

    del Inspiron 1501
    Dual Core 1.8 GHZ
    And 4GB of RAM

    What do you guys think? Should i hope for W7 updates? may be it’ll improve?????

  107. ^Ruan^
    January 9, 2010 at 6:45 am

    I still prefer XP..

    “Vista and Win7 are less vulnerable” So? I haven’t *ever* been infected without knowing about it and removing it either manually or with my antivirus.
    If you use the right applications, XP can indeed look better than Vista or 7. Tweak XP and Style XP.

    It really made me laugh when it said “make your browsing experience faster, easier and safer than ever before with IE8.” Come on! It’s *slower, harder, and less safe*! Get Firefox!

    Anyway, I can’t upgrade due to the fact that I only have 10 GB of space left. So what? I’m a gamer.
    I haven’t experienced a BSoD. Never will. They are related to hardware or a sloppy OS.

    Gmail + Thunderbird = Safe emails.

    Windows XP can run DX10! Not that I need it right now.

    Give me reason! I can fight Vista and Win7 forever! And I mean forever!

    @Bulubuk: Nothing *needs* Vista and Win7 to run. Yet. Then I can start looking for Win 7 productivity mode.

    – my specs:
    Windows XP SP2 Professional 32bit
    nVidia 6150SE integrated
    2GB of ram (no reason to upgrade here yet)
    AMD Sempron 140 2.7 Ghz [wanting an upgrade soon]

    Fact: Most things created by Microsoft (Windows Media Player, IE, OE) are less safe and don’t work as well as 3rd party apps (Realplayer, FF, Thunderbird)
    I’m not criticising Microsoft, I understand that they have to focus on lots of things at once. And they own the market share.

  108. Scott
    January 10, 2010 at 7:53 pm

    I’ve been on 7 Ultimate for a couple weeks now and have had numerous problems that I would have never had with XP. I don’t think 7 is a bad OS but I really do not like how its so integrated in itself. I do like a lot of the visual aspects of it, it has a clean look and ads a lot more graphical advances but overall I’m not getting it. Never had vista but hated when I had to work on it, it was just horrid. 7 is nice but I just can’t see staying with it, xp may be more vulnerable but most people have a 2nd or 3rd party security software with either OS and it’s always recommended that you do,. As far as speed, 7 is more hoggish and sorry but it’s just not as fast as XP. I mean with a fast system and most applications your talking about milliseconds of a difference. But using them 2 weeks on and 2 weeks off, it’s pretty easy to say XP is faster for the speed demon in you and is more user customizable. BTW the new Windows Media Player is terrible either way. I’ve also had more than a few programs that wont work right in 7 but once I switched back to XP and my company based drivers as opposed to Microsoft problems. Its probably a good system for those who aren’t computer literate or for some who well…just like it. Microsoft has been going in the wrong direction in my opinion for awhile now, whether it’s there windows mobile OS, regular OS, hotmail, Office 07, XBOX 360. Really going down the drain in my opinion. If Microsoft wants to make money just make a better XP but stay open and not so integral, I’d buy it. I agree with the last post, firefox is so much better than IE even though some websites demand you use IE.

  109. January 16, 2010 at 10:44 am

    Very impressive review. Thank you for the effort.

    I’m about to replace Vista with XP on my girlfriend’s poor performing laptop.

    Like so many people, she was the victim of what is known as mis-selling. I call it “sales fraud”. When a salesman, either through fraud or poor training deceives a customer into buying a low quality product.

    A plague of PC World’s and Future Shops started selling low end hardware that wasn’t fit to run the CPU and RAM intensive OS that is Vista.

    She’s got an Acer Aspire 5100 with 2GB RAM and an ‘AMD Turion 64 x2 TL-52’ 1.6Ghz processor.

    In my view, if you aint got 3Gb of RAM you aint ready to run Vista. 1.6Ghz processor is so on the cusp of entry level it also raises questions.

    When the UK pension industry missold personal pensions in the 1980’s, the Government intervened and the industry was forced to pay out billions of pounds in compensation to the victims. The victims were people who has gone into a shop and asked a salesman for honest advice on what to buy. They were sold the wrong product and were soon dissatisfied.

    Sound familiar? Except that this latest large scale, international conspiracy to mis-sell PC equipment has not aroused any notice from goverment or watchdogs. Why?

  110. Jerry
    January 17, 2010 at 10:54 am

    Well…. I can’t believe I read thru this whole page!! As for me, I have used a 387, Win 3.1, Win 95, Win 98, and am still using Win XPP since it came out. Each upgrade was significant enough to warrant the extra $$. But now with Vista & 7…I don’t agree that it’s worth trashing XP just to get some eye candy, and a faster open/close!! My XP has NEVER crashed since day one! It has done everything I wanted it do do. So I guess it’s like owning a used car…..if it takes you where you want to go, costs you just for gas or routine maintenance, looks fine, runs fine….why change?? There are those who soothe their ego by always wanting the “newest and shiniest” things on the shelf, that’s OK….it’s your buck/s. Well, I paid around 100 bucks for Win XP, have had it since day 1, Win 7 now costs twice that much, with very little improvement! What would I gain to pay that much for very little improvement, I would have to get a new PC with a faster processor, more RAM..etc….etc.. so….after one does the math, is it worth hundreds of dollars more just for what little I will gain in a new OS?
    NOoooooooooooooo…. thank you very much!! Eash day, year I keep using XPP, I am saving $$$, & getting the best use out of it. I “clean” it regularly, run scans, with “free” cleaning programs like AVG, Superantispyware, Spybot & Malwarebytes. So far, so good.
    I will keep my loving little Win XPP until it breathes it’s last. It has been my faithful friend……….who knows….we may just die together. Thank You XPP for all the happy years………….

  111. Eric
    January 19, 2010 at 3:00 am

    I own a Sony VGN-P530H/Q. It is a tiny 1.4 lb notebook with an 8 in screen, 1.33 GHZ Atom processor, 32 GIG SSD hard drive, 2 GB RAM. It’s not a super computer by any means! It is for those of us on the go who need serious portability. It came with a nasty, bloated Vista Basic. I wiped the hard drive and put a fresh copy of Win XP Home. Oh so beautiful! Vista makes me want to vomit. I’ve also got a Sony VGN-P688E/G that has Vista Home Premium with free Win 7 upgrade on the way. We’ll see how that goes. I can tell you that I really prefer using XP over Vista on these little wimpy netbooks! Without a doubt!

  112. Jurshay30
    January 21, 2010 at 3:10 am

    XP is still the best! Very helpful info. Thanks

  113. Vinny
    January 21, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    I think windows ME is still the best i haven’t had problems with it since i installed it in 2000

  114. January 22, 2010 at 11:13 am

    I think Win Xp it’s da best of them all but now i can hear some people saying we want Vista instead of Win 7 or we want Xp instead of Vista it is just everyone is just confussed about this Os. I think Microsoft must just introduce Windows Xp 2nd Edition.

  115. KeithT
    January 23, 2010 at 9:46 am

    I’m on the cusp of upgrading my computer and was thinking of putting on Windows 7 Ultimate 32gig version to replace XP Pro. Most of my software and hardware is 32gig and I see 64 gig as a bit of a gimmick at the moment unless you are a hardened gamer and need ram beyond 4 gig, so, anyway, my 32gig stuff would be compatible with the new OS, except for my WD3200JB EHDD (so WD have informed me). That alone is a deal breaker for me, as I would have to transfer 1000s of images to a compatible drive, and that adds extra cost and time to the deal. If I’m to start paying out more than I need to I would sooner take the plunge and move to an Apple iMac and put up with the nuisance just once. I’m pleased your review falls on the side of XP though, and may stick with it after all. But won’t Microsoft stop supporting it soon? That’s another Bill Gates problem to consider.

  116. January 24, 2010 at 1:08 pm

    in my openion for quad proccesor win xp is better than vista and 7

  117. marcusdavidus
    January 25, 2010 at 2:08 am

    To every Win 7 fanboys .. roootfl. win 7 is not even close to be secure. it get same holes like vista . its drmed piece of junk with god know how much holes. U say that there is no much holes in windows 7 .. u should say there is no muc holes in win 7 that microsoft was make to admit due of evill haxiors publish it in net.. Windows 7 compared to any linux or mac osx just sux like big time in any performance/security tests u can imaginate.
    windows is simply deprecated os so nice that i need install in my rack server a floppy drive cuz some idiot want windows server and that retardet *** dont have raid drivers and uu can only use floppy and no real server got any fu** floppy from 1998 year or so Win 7 is simply vista in new clothes and after liposuction . its sux badly

  118. Avatar
    January 25, 2010 at 10:20 pm

    I think you’ve all missed the point, I have 7 ultimate 32bit, switched off all the fancy bits, (I nead a seat belt), I did the same in xp pro & vista ultimate,
    2ghz c2d 4gb ddr2 320 hdd, 7 is at least 20 to 30 % faster on my my laptop, we moan that windows doesn’t have all the gadgets like linux & mac, yet when they give us them we twist that if if if if? get a life, windows 7 is going to be a hard act to follow( even for ms) thats why it’s the fastest selling OS ever, thank you microsoft for listening

  119. Dave
    January 27, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Good article. As an Information Technology and Accounting professional, I would be very interested in see an independent cost-benefit analysis of upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7. Based upon Kristofer Brozio’s article, it appears that the cost associated with upgrading to Windows 7 my not be worth the minimal benefits.

  120. Win Tester
    January 28, 2010 at 11:56 am


    I was looking for something to help me decide what to use for my game system. win7 or XP, but since I want to enjoy DX10, I guess I’m stuck with win7. Do anyone know how to strip it down of all the crap in there (except security).

    Also I’ve been testing win 7 for the past 3 months on a laptop (Dual Core 2.6GHz, 4Gb RAM), working everyday, running applications, heavy on java and stuff. then when I went back to XP, you can feel how much faster it is to work on. Just damn the security holes… Guess running zone alarm to stop them is a must.

    But as you all know, you cannot stop progress, and in a few years, XP will be history, as soon as MS stops supporting it. And win7 is the future… So choice is clear… Win 7 Ultimate is the way to go on new powerful machines. while win XP is for the old hopefully soon recycled stuff.

  121. January 28, 2010 at 5:47 pm

    I can say that almost 80 percents of windows user still prefer using windows XP because of users experience, lots of support online and offline, compatibility and customizations. Windows 7 is still very much new. Maybe it’ll replace XP in a year or two after this Windows 7 been released. But in my personal opinion, windows 7 wins my heart and worth to look for.

  122. Billy Hatcher of Omaha Nebraska 90210
    January 31, 2010 at 11:14 am

    Well, whichever OS you like is the best. I mean, performance means nothing if you don’t like the OS. I like XP and it performs, but I also like 7 for what it offers. Yeah, I think a 64 bit XP would kick, but most people who use XP don’t use 64 bit. They’re on the fence between XP 32 and going 64 bit, which is just trivial in my mind. So what if something is faster. If you like faster you’ll get faster stuff…if you don’t care, you’ll stay where you are. Whatever.

  123. Scottie_UK
    February 1, 2010 at 10:51 pm

    Bill, if thats your opinion fair enough what are you doing here. This is a test site and I’m definately interested in which one does things faster.

    However, what I like to see is some kind of performance test to measure the speed at which I can atually perform my tasks within the UI.

    I’m afraid with all of Microsofts latest offering, Vista, Win 7, and office 2007, I’m finding I have to do double the mouse clicks, and mouse moves to perform the tasks. I find it less productive than Win XP with office 2003. For me thats the winning combination for office productivity as far as MS goes.

  124. JJ
    February 5, 2010 at 3:06 pm

    How short a memory everyone has. People so love windows xp NOW that they for get it had all the same issues when it first came out. not only that but why does everyone talk about speed? I HATE xp compared to vista and 7. Yes I said vista. Vista and 7 are so much more robust than xp could ever be. Running VISTA on a FIVE year old laptop with only 1.5 G ram and a 1.8 cpu, it may not have been super speedy but any time lost was gaining not having to restart for stupid things such as an app crash. Windows 7 continues this. Windows media player crashed? So what, kill and open it back up. Half the time in XP to get your supposed performance back, you have to restart.
    As for less produuctivity, you need to learn the program better then. Simple as that. So any loss of productivity is in your mind.

  125. Bobby Jones
    February 8, 2010 at 12:52 am

    ive tested out each operating system (except vista 64bit) and i still go with xp 64bit. xp and 7 are pretty close but the compatibility issues with 7 make things difficult. im sure in a year or two 7 will be the best choice but until then ill be putting xp 64bit on the gaming computers i build. If you don’t like the look of xp as it is go find themes online. problem solved. I felt with vista that microsoft was leaning towards user friendliness more than anything else just like apple does. Thats nice and all but it feels quite restrictive when you want to do some nitty gritty computer work. Go with Vista/macs if you don’t really know what your doing with computers but otherwise stick with xp and 7 for better results and response times.

  126. wayne
    February 8, 2010 at 9:39 am

    There is a hitch that you guys could be forgetting about when running 32bit OS, considering speed and capabilities, and that is the 4G RAM address bus roof.
    If, like myself, you have a graphics card and other hardware lovelies; this address is decreased significantly. Out of my dual channel 4G Corsair twin set, im getting just over 3.2G of physical memory, which kind of irritates me.
    Im stuck in as much of a pickle because i have alot of device drivers that are unsupported by 64bit and my love for Zonealarm will also come to a bitter end, should i attempt the 64bit leap once again. But i want that full 4G dual channel and 64bit interface is magic…. mayb we hang in there and, as JJ says, let 7 work through it’s bugs and bytes…

  127. Southern Hoosier
    February 8, 2010 at 11:03 pm

    So you are saying that a 32 bit system performs as well if not better than both 64 bits system? Try running the 32 bit system test again with again with only 2 gigs of memory. Excessive memory that XP32 can’t access slows it down. I have XP64 on my older system. When I built a new system I went with Win7. Win7 seem sluggish compared to XP64 and Win7 is running on a faster system. World of Warcraft runs chopper under Win7.

  128. Southern Hoosier
    February 8, 2010 at 11:12 pm

    Billy Hatcher of Omaha Nebraska 90210 says:
    January 31, 2010 at 11:14 am
    “Well, whichever OS you like is the best. I mean, performance means nothing if you don’t like the OS. ”

    Billy, why do have a computer, to run the OS or the programs? Once the programs are installed and you click run, then it doesn’t matter what you think of the OS, just as long as the program does what you want it to do.
    The biggest problem I have with Win7 is, I can no longer do a right click to do a search. The search window in the upper right hand corner sucks.

  129. Daam
    February 10, 2010 at 7:42 am


    I don’t think performance is the best criteria to describe which OS is better.
    The application si the most important thing that need to be put at the 1st place.
    Alot of software manufacturer doesn’t create software for windows 7 itself – Very limited i can say..i’m not talking about game but software itself. Example, 3D CAD software,.. XP IS doubt

  130. Kk
    February 12, 2010 at 2:20 am

    In simple way i cant signify whichever from 3 is best

  131. laxmivenurao
    February 12, 2010 at 2:32 pm

    comparison on this web page is very much useful in understanding the technicality and decide an OS that suits my regular requirements.

  132. Omar
    February 12, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    personally, ill stick with XP service pack3
    i didnt even bother to use the vista, cause it was like a beta OS

    as for seven im considering trying it, but why would we want to wait for a year or two for the OS to get debugged and fully compatible with what we already got. this is time wasting.

    im happy to see that my old XP beat every other OS

  133. Anonymous
    February 13, 2010 at 10:25 am

    I can’t sacrifice eye candy for a bit of performance. Vista is nice, and 7 is nicer (my sister got a laptop with 7 and I got Vista)

  134. Darragh
    February 13, 2010 at 12:11 pm

    the one thing i hate about xp is it kinda goes a good bit slower in a shorter amount of timetime than vista or 7 i more or less mean the ram goes old and just goes slow in a quicker amount of time. And Xp Doesn’t Have MEDIA CENTER If Any one knows how to get media center on xp just send me a email to Because i need it for my xbox 360

  135. Jonh Peters
    February 14, 2010 at 8:50 am

    Again and again and again, Ive tried them all in all flavors. Nothing beats XP, period, adn if what you need is 64 bit, nothing beats XP 64 bit either period. I could care less about galss windows borders and gigs of bloated code that does nothing but slows down everything. Windows 7 is no more than Vista with a Plus pack. Its unbearable, it looks corny, unbearably slow as hell, I cant do anything basic properly (try navigatinf thorugh the explorer or finding files just for staters). You want I candy done with good taste? Get a Mac with OSX, thats for sure. You want performance and the best and most mature product ever to come out of Microsoft;s hands, then, thats XP. Everything else is useless talk though, indeed whatever works best for you:)

  136. Zoli
    February 15, 2010 at 9:43 pm

    my opinion:
    I have a laptop ASUS Pentium dual-core 1.8 2G ram and i have Win7 on it i like it much better than xp32bit it works faster reliable, personalisable, looks good nice efects, i’ve got Vista drivers for my laptop wich are compatible with Win7. On my PC i have XP32 it is slow allways has problems with crashing aplications allways freezing, o and win 7 is a friendly OS 🙂 i like it, i love it, i allways will !!!! 😀

  137. February 15, 2010 at 10:04 pm

    I’m a little unclear about this test. Is this testing identical RAM and processor specs, with only an operating system change? In reality most computer users don’t just buy a new $200.00 OS, most often they’re also in the market for a new computer.. Most would have a 3-6 year old computer using XP with 256mb-1GB of SDR RAM on average and without dual processors. With new computers starting under $400.00 with dual processors and 4gb DDR RAM and with 4 times the front side bus, I would think the real world performance basis would be much higher for anyone looking to buy a new computer with this new operating system..

  138. Ajesh Nair
    February 16, 2010 at 7:52 am

    Comparing all the OS I feel XP and vista stands equal.I have a laptop which is new and the os was vista.Now I am going to change the same to XP because Vista is very slow

  139. TB
    February 16, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    I have had an opportunity lately to do some free upgrades to my old P4 socket 478 PC. (thanks in part to a relative’s hand-me-down) I was able to go from a 2.8ghz P4 to a much more responsive 3.4ghz P4. As well as a major video card upgrade with the Saphire Radeon 3850 512mb. Now my question/debate is.. which is my better OS choice? I have raptor drives and 3 gig of RAM already… so the system is kinda already maxed out there for a single core’s speed… Should I go from XP Pro sp3 (32bit) to Windows 7(64bit)? …or would this be a jump I should only take if I had a multi-core system with more & newer RAM? I started experimenting with the 7RC before these upgrades, and I love the interface.. but would I get better use of them going back to XP? I’m hoping for insight since my 7RC will be ending soon, and I need to decide on the full version or to go back to XP. Please share your thoughts.

  140. Cosmin
    February 17, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Windows 7 is much better than XP if you provide it with system resources it needs.
    In other words:
    For old pc with limited amount of ram 128~512mb… go with XP.
    For 1gb+ go with windows 7 and if you don`t like aero… you can always disable it and use the ugly xp windows scheme.
    Even if in these tests XP is 1 point ahead… doesn`t mean that it is better, because the new features in windows 7 (which also is more secure and optimized). With default settings it will get you the best from your system without sacrifice the eye candy (but you can fine-tuning to maximize performance).
    As for 32bit/64bit… well, viruses can`t affect 64bit systems so easy, but you don`t have 64bit flash yet (lazy adobe)… so stick with 32bit version if you don`t have 4gb+ ram

  141. Shltface
    February 18, 2010 at 8:31 am

    Dude awesome. Xp seems a viable choice in this day and age. Sweeeeeet.

    I’m rather suprised that you avoided the obvious! Boot-Up times!!!!

  142. Raghav
    February 21, 2010 at 6:22 am

    So its Final if you all people are Like xp is faster but windows 7 look and cooler then why Dont you guys install Both i Installed Both of Them xD ha now u dont need to look which is better i mean Windows 7 is nearly near XP common just install both then youll have NO DOUBTS!.Enjoy 😀

  143. Antonio
    February 22, 2010 at 3:03 pm

    Hi, i have to buy a netbook…i have to prefer xp or 7starter? which of the two operating system is better for a netbook? thank you, waiting for an answer. 🙂

  144. February 22, 2010 at 10:21 pm

    I’d like to put in my vote for doing a test with Aero turned off. Maybe it might even be best to set up a theme which is the same for all three, to make sure you’ve really got it the same?

  145. muzz
    February 25, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    “Cosmin says:
    February 17, 2010 at 9:02 am

    Windows 7 is much better than XP if you provide it with system resources it needs.
    In other words:
    For old pc with limited amount of ram 128~512mb… go with XP.
    For 1gb+ go with windows 7 and if you don`t like aero… you can always disable it and use the ugly xp windows scheme.
    Even if in these tests XP is 1 point ahead… doesn`t mean that it is better, because the new features in windows 7 (which also is more secure and optimized). With default settings it will get you the best from your system without sacrifice the eye candy (but you can fine-tuning to maximize performance).
    As for 32bit/64bit… well, viruses can`t affect 64bit systems so easy, but you don`t have 64bit flash yet (lazy adobe)… so stick with 32bit version if you don`t have 4gb”

    Is that so?
    Take ANOTHER look at the test machine and say that again…….
    That machine had more than enough resources and XP held up just fine to the unnecessary(Unless your Billy Beans and need the $) bloatware known asWin 7

    Also more secure and OPTIMIZED?
    Some folks know how to protect their machines, no hand holding necessary TYVM.
    Optimized what? XP can’t be fine tuned?

    Talk about a money grab, this is M$ trying to turn the PC into a console so the people that don’t know how to use a computer will feel less intimidated……”we’ll do EVERYTHING for you, just sit back and shutup…..errrrrrr I mean we’ll take care of everything”


  146. James Yang
    February 26, 2010 at 1:54 am

    I have always been royal to Windows 98 until XP came along, and I fell in love with XP. When Vista came out with its fancy 64bit system, I enjoyed the eye candy for about 1 day until I realized it’s crap. Terrible compatibility while no improvements were made on stability and performance. I used Windows XP for the longest time until Windows 7 RC became available, and I think I am finally ready to move on from Windows XP. Windows 7 hit the sweet spot between XP and Vista, and provided an overall improvement. I just purchased a copy of Windows 7 Professional and I know I won’t regret my choice. It’s worth paying money for, especially I was eligible for discount ($95.00 CAD) through my college even though I graduated last year =]

    It goes Windows 7 > Windows XP => Ubuntu > Windows 98 => Windows Vista > Windows 95 > MS-DOS in my book.

    If I were to describe Windows 7 in one word, here it is:



  147. Max
    February 26, 2010 at 12:08 pm

    RE: netbook…i have to prefer xp or 7starter?
    Antonio. If you are going to buy a net-book, XP would definitely be the better choice in terms of how “quick” it will “feel” to use overall. This is because netbook CPUs (ATOM) don’t perform anywhere near as well as modern “desktop” and “notebook” CPUs. Use windows 7 only if you desperately want or need the extra features offered.

  148. jairo
    February 27, 2010 at 1:26 am

    I think the best out there is Windows XP. Windows XP doesn’t use as much as ram as the others one, it’s faster and you can change it looks to match your taste.

    Windows 7 is good but It has a lot of unnecesary things as well, they just keep the things that are important and not other thingd that are useless to most people and causes heavy use of ram and loss in speed.

  149. G Young
    February 27, 2010 at 11:16 am

    I use my computer for Video editing and sound production, I’m about to buy a new laptop , needs to be a laptop because it’s more portable for gigging.
    Here comes the dilema…….Which OS do i use?
    I know vista is a steaming heap of s**t , and wouldn’t touch it with a really long stick, as far as i am concerned i might as well still be using a C64.
    although XP seems ‘quicker’ for the best part, it looks like it struggled with the multimedia side of things. I’m not about to say i fully understand what all the tests actually show, to be honest i just looked at the coloured boxes for which was best.
    I don’t need it for the latest games, because i have a 360 for that.

    purely for music production and video editing which one should i use?

    But then the voices start (buy a mac…… a mac……..i know you have to sell your children and soul to afford one……..but that’s ok……….buy a mac…………..)
    “I DON’T WANT A MAC!!!” i shout in the darkness……..lonely cold and hungry……..?
    (i’m not a mac hater,in fact i quite like them, i just can’t afford one)
    XP vs 7…………. will someone make my head stop hurting please!!!!


  150. Aaron
    February 27, 2010 at 11:46 am

    Wow some of these posts make it sound like XO just came out. Really how old is XO now? Exactly, it’s about time something replace it. W7 has been out how long? I’m sure most of what had been said could be said for xp when it came out.

    Or you guys are running dated hardware, what do u expect?

  151. Roger
    February 28, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    I use XP Pro 32 bit (95%), dual boot with Vista (5%)
    Tried Win 7 beta but gave it up for the same reason that I finally returned XP after using Vista for about 16 months, they don’t support drag lock expect in certain programs. Kensington trackball software and the hp all-in-one printer software only work in XP. Doing 3d modeling you need the drag feature so I’ll with dual boot. I’m sure many users have the same problems.

  152. Bobajob
    March 1, 2010 at 2:05 pm

    I still prefer Windows 2000 to all of them, love to see a comparison of that in there.

    I was forced to buy Xp-Pro with a laptop, but I have that in dual boot with Linux and the latter gets most use on that machine.

    I won’t be touching Vista or 7.

    • vinod rana
      December 22, 2010 at 6:55 am

      ur thinking is wrong…

  153. Glenn
    March 1, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    corrections to a few posts above (It’s late and I’m bored), so you get to listen to my rambling…

    XP did come out with Media Centre in Windows XP Professional Media Centre Edition. It was usually only found in HTPC oem packages.

    HP All-in-one printer software works very well for me in wind0ws 7.

    XP – Fantastic OS. the “old faithful” in fact. Very good performance wise, and more importantly an evolved OS. As someone pointed out, it wasn’t always as good as it is, especially if you were a network administrator. However… hardware and the way we look at it is changing. (e.g. intel innervating new ways for cpu to hardware communication) If MS would evolve xp still, I’d still use it. Fact is you gotta keep with the times. Dos 6.22 was once my favourite OS, and was stubborn going to 98 after the “windoze 95” experience.

    Vista – Very much the Windows ME of the modern era. Without it however, we wouldn’t have windows 7. I can’t speak any words of kindness for Vista, and mother always said if you can’t say anything nice… don’t say anything at all.

    Win7 – Love it, without a doubt the best OS i’ve used, (read microsoft OS). Underneath all the visual splender we were almost introduced to in vista, It’d have to be the very first OS i’ve used where I am yet to have a single stability issue. Anticipation still runs high to see just what point this new OS evolves to. can’t wait to have a go with AMD/ATI’s new eyefinity. And in terms of performance… fps isn’t the be-all and end-all. And directx 11 sure does deliver. IF XP had DX11 would i use it over 7? probably… maybe.. but i’d be forced to dual boot it 😛

  154. FORSBERG.21
    March 1, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    The main goal for both Microsoft and hardware manufacturers is to force you to buy a new components. It always was like that. Win 7 has a Vista look with a lot of visual features, which will dramatically ruin an overall performance, even on a solid fast machines. A tons of useless services will make your RAM mods boiling and your hard drive spinning its fastest 24/7. If you love waiting a minutes, while something loads up – Windows 7 is for you, unless you’ve spent another 1K for a system upgrade, which never was an issue on Xp Sp3. Windows Xp works as good as a god on P4 3.2Ghz single core CPU with 2GB of RAM. Crysis, FarCry 2, COD4 -Mw2, Mass Effect 2, Red Faction – Guerilla… no probs! DirectX10-11 are just a a sort of another advertising compaign – nothing more. DirectX9 does all you need. Try to play it on Vista/7 – no chance with such a hardware. Don’t forget to expect a driver troubles and incompatibilities on your Vista/7 aswell. I can afford that time has come to step to a new level of OS, but its performance only can be compensated, buying top-end hardware and overally not outperforms XP, anyway. I really feel myself incomfortable and stupid with 7. It’s like a car with automatic transmission and all-round Sci-fi assistance deciding everything for you. As to Win 7 – when you turn it all off, you’ll get nearly the same Xp Sp3 for the price of your new hardware. If you are a gamer ask you a question: Why Half Life 2 is the best ever game? Its graphics and cinetics are amazing, even now! Check for reqs. Minimal ! That’s why it can be called a masterpiece. Win 7 is just anothet Microsoft trick to pull out your money.People want to be modern, regardless to real facts – the only explanation to Bill Gates’s richness… For sure – Windows 7 is the future, but i believe its time is still far underway…. If you still thinking of upgrade – think double twice! At least keep your XP until you sure Win 7 took your heart tough enough…. Not sure. 🙂

  155. ross
    March 2, 2010 at 8:33 pm

    I hate micrsoft so much why the hell do they have to make their operating system slower, in my mind they should be giving them massive speed increases and work out how to use less ram and how to use less processes not just focus on the visual effects and all of the other fancy stuff they have put on 7. Go back to xp, improve xp because the only thing i dont like about xp is the fact that it doesnt have a working 64-bit version, only one that is incredibly buggy so i cant use all of my 4gb of ram and the fact that it doesnt have dx10/11. Other than these xp is perfect and still wins my heart. Another idea for microsoft would be for them to create an operating system made entirely for gaming so it concentrates on speed and a basic operating system much like xp except for it will have the things i mentioned.

  156. kunal
    March 3, 2010 at 4:30 am

    i have tried both vista and windows 7 and none of them can ever come close to the windows xp experience. it uses less resource and is a lot more efficient as compared to windows 7/vista.

  157. Sam
    March 3, 2010 at 1:50 pm

    XP always my 1st choice over anyother versions of Windows OS. It’s fast, lightweight & easy to use.

  158. March 3, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    I have recently installed Windows 7 (32 bit) after removing Windows XP (32 bit) I have only had ONE problem….faulty nvidia drivers! after I upgraded…I was fine! Let me tell you, a fresh install of XP SP3 on my Dell dimesnion E310 (Hyper theading 3.2 Ghz P4 prescott, SATA HD, 512MB of RAM, Nvidia GeForce 6200 GPU) took up to 1:30 to start, after tweaking the processes…1:00! Windows 7 (untweaked) takes about 30-35 seconds to start! My apps load faster, and my video conversions FLY!!! Linux mint won my heart…but Windows just stole it again!!! All of you, stop complaining, windows XP may be popular…one of the most popular, but 7 has tweaks that allow the newest hardware to be used to the fullest, DX 11 has a new technology that allows your GPU to be used as a CPU, and looks WAY better, with a more advanced particle effect engine! Windows 7 also convinced my very old friend’s grandma that the computer is as easy to use as the TV! XP was, and is still, in a way the best….but windows 7 is a good improvement that is too advanced to deny! among the improvements were; tweaks to the TCP/IP stack, Multi-touch screen support, small UI tweaks, and error handling, and hardware utilization improvements. My computer use to get the Blue Screen Of Death error very often, because of faulty hardware, but now…it never happens…at least for the past 2 months!

  159. Man
    March 3, 2010 at 11:36 pm

    So what about better multicore support in win7 over XP? Is it worth upgrading to win7 if i get a core i7 cpu?

    • Jayw654
      August 16, 2011 at 9:34 pm

      Win7 requires a tricore processor and 3 gigs of ram to properly runs. Yes I know the box says less but when did the specs on the box ever be accurate when it comes to a windows OS? An i7 CPU will provide an awesome experience but make sure you have a decent graphics card, at least an Nvidia 8800 is suffice.

  160. March 5, 2010 at 6:29 am

    I find this debate gone silly. Mine is bigger than yours – type. People talk with little or no understanding of the subject. I have old P4 2.66 single core laptop (eigth years old) with XP Home and I have Dual core T9500 laptop I bought last year, with Vista. I configured the XP to the max and it is fast, secure, stable and reliable computer today with nothing to envy to Vista. It takes a little bit of knowledge and experience to secure and clean up XP and make it work as it should, not as the creators intended.

    The same goes for Vista. I have never had a day of problem with it. I stripped it down, cleaned up the startup and services and ditched aero (and still have the graphics running, guess how…?). It is a fast, stable and secured OS that blazes.

    Both sides are focused on their emotional preference. I prefer Linux (it costs nothing), but none of my professional programs can run on it so I run commercial OS. To have it work properly, instead of being a loser/follower, I simply customised both version, got rid of the ballast and now have two superfast laptops.

    None of that has anything to do with the OS’ themselves. If you know what to do, they are all good. One day I’ll have to go to 64 bit machines because the technology will go forward. Big deal. I’ll again strip the OS (Wind-in-ass 9-10…?), remove the crap those silly “geeks” think they put in to full the sheep (and they do. you are one of them if you have ANY problems with ANY of their OS’) and expect that we all fall for it, and will have a fast and reliable program.

    For those who do not know how to do that, either wait for free ReactOS (XP replacement), or use to search for XP tweaks which will help you to get it up and running as fast as W 7. I boot up XP in 28 secs and shut it down in 12.

    It CAN be done. And my XP even looks like Win 7 nowadays, because the visual features/themes are available, along with many other features from Win 7.

  161. Rostov
    March 6, 2010 at 6:56 am

    Wow. 90% of you here are just…. absolute morons.

    XP is faster eh?

    Hmm… and… how many times do you have to reboot it in a day? In a week? And… when you’ve had it running for a while — does it get faster or slower?

    I’ve had this pre-release version of 7 running almost 24/7 for .. lets see, about 6 weeks now without a reboot and it’s still as smooth as it was on a fresh reboot.

    Most of the numbers here are SO close together, to call windows 7 slow is preposterous.

    Also, NTFS. Yeeeah… good ole … FAT32 there eh? Have…. have fun with that.

    Windows 7 is also about the most customizable windows version yet; you can turn off and strip down and out so much from it…

    Eh, what’s the point. Too many of you will still just decry Windows XP as ‘superior’ based on small incremental games in benchmark tests. I pity your stupidity.

    • Mydieheart
      April 19, 2011 at 7:28 pm

      u stupid….. u kno wht??? u dont kno wht r u talkin bout…..ur 7 is cool….. thn others who luvs their own os , they r fool??? take dis in ur mouth….

  162. Pidar
    March 6, 2010 at 9:56 pm

    From (almost) all the comments I have read here, no one seems to mention one very important thing: Win 7 is not compatible with A LOT of older software. I tested all three, and just like Vista, a lot of software would not install or would crash on 7. It’s especially important to in an office with all the proprietary/legacy software out there. In these tough times, if I’m a business owner or manager, would I really, in addition to spending money on new OS and the hardware (when XP on old PC runs just fine), pay some geek to rewrite the old soft (that also runs just fine on XP, after years of tweaking/debugging)? By the way, the `XP mode` requires newer, more expensive chips that support hardware virtualization, and when it does work, it’s slow as hell. So… XP

  163. Pengy
    March 10, 2010 at 6:08 am

    I completely agree with everyone here, Linux does rule, especially Ubuntu. Love that desktop cube thingy

  164. Pat.
    March 10, 2010 at 8:03 am

    I absolutely Hate the look of Vista and 7.

  165. umer
    March 11, 2010 at 5:19 pm

    Windows 7 is best . Linux sucks i am certified linux professional but still i guess linux is not for normal users it’s good at server side that’s for sure but as far as Desktop linux is hell. i used ubuntu slackware fedoara redhat suse ubuntu on daily basis . but i guess windows 7 is best looks performance etc . go for windows 7 Ms Rules

  166. Satish Garje
    March 12, 2010 at 11:23 am

    my vote is for windows xp

  167. March 12, 2010 at 5:50 pm

    How can you compare 32 bit OS with 64bit OS ?
    Win XP will surely work better on Intel, because it fakes 64bit support !
    If you used 32 bit Vista nad Win 7, the results would be significantly different.
    Real 64bit support is since i7.

  168. Lee Lucas
    March 14, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    No doubt about it in my mind XP still rules without a doubt. That’s simply because its been out a lot longer than what the other 2 have. Given though, Vista as been out for over 2 years now, its had time to improve. but unfortunately this OS uses far to much memory to stand any chance of getting near XP’s performance. Windows 7 is yes, an upgrade from windows Vista without a doubt. Windows 7 is an improvement upon Vista by the fact that it uses less memory, and the fact that Vista with anything less than 2 gigs of memory is a complete waste of time.

    Windows 7 is new to the market it will take a good few years, to get anywhere near XP’s performance and stability. All we can do is wait and see, but its certainly got more chance than Vista will ever have, that’s for sure. I myself will never jump into a new OS til its been out a good few years, and works well, and is stable. I was the same with XP. When XP first hit the market it was crap, it took a good 5 years and the release of its service pack 2, to make it anywhere near the stability of Windows 98 SE.

    Vista and 7 have the same look and feel about them, they look nice in comparison to XP. But looks are nothing compared to a system that works and is stable. Microsoft are nothing more than a company that are out to make money. That’s why they flood the market with all these new OS’s. It will not be long before they release another for us all to compare with, it’s nothing more than greed, and can also be a costly rip off.

    Given time Windows 7 I see of having a very good chance of becoming a good OS. But until then I will stick with what works best for me, and that is Windows XP. One thing to consider when purchasing any new OS, is that do I want something that works, or do I want a Christmas Tree with flashing lights on and looks nice.

  169. Muhammad bilal
    March 16, 2010 at 7:05 am

    I think Windows XP is better than Windows 7 in Overall Performance…Because statistics shows that Windows XP is faster in CPU ,Graphics in games and in memory of system ..
    Today most of people suggest u windows xp rather than windows 7…because in performance graph it can easily be observe that Windows XP is better… But in graphics,themes and some other utilities Windows 7 is good…In xp u have lack of 3d icons and themes which can be seen in windows 7…so in last in my opinion windows xp is good for gaming and performance but in user graphics windows 7 leads…

  170. Karina
    March 17, 2010 at 7:41 am

    Hi. i am a software tester. i need to know what are the differences between windows XP, windows vista and windows 7 in terms of memory management, I/O management.H/w requirements, process management with resect to different software applications that are developed to run on them.

  171. Harrier
    March 21, 2010 at 4:37 pm

    The real analysis as I see it is this: The RAM requirement for Windows 7 is greater than XP and the same as Vista. Windows 7 clearly runs better than Vista and has additional features. If you have Vista, you should definitely get Windows 7. If you are buying a new PC, for the average user, go ahead and get Windows 8.

    If you have XP and less than 3GB RAM, the trade off is much greater. You will need to factor in adding more RAM and possibly throwing away 1-2GB. In addition to the cost of purchasing Windows 7, you will need to factor in approximately another $105. So, if the improved searching capability in Windows 7 is worth the additional cost of the OS and additional hardware to you, then the upgrade is good for you. Oh also is Direct X 11 means something to you, than it’s time.

    I’m a power user who is NOT a great fan of the Ribbon. I also think there is better gaming on XP. Right now, it’s clear to me software has not come close to catching up to the hardware and is far behind. Unless you are a gamer or into film editing, the benefits of 64Bit software will not be realized to 90% of the users. Most people with multiple core technology really don’ use that additional processing capability.

    In my view, unless you have DDR3 RAM or better with a 64bit dual core pushing 2.5 GHZ or better, if you have XP, you probably don’t need to upgrade.

    For me, it’s a business decision. I have a 2.2 GHZ Duo Core with 2 GB DDR2 RAM and will stick with XP. I have not pressing need for Direct X 11

  172. Bayer
    March 23, 2010 at 4:12 pm

    Hi all
    Does anybody know about Windows 8?
    For me Windows 8 cause it is far better than xp, vista or 7.
    My vote is windows 8! 🙂

  173. Bryan
    March 27, 2010 at 5:49 pm

    From my experience I would be afraid to buy Windows 8 due to the fact that it seems like every other version of Windows that MS sends out is crap!
    I was duped into buying Window millenium as an upgrade to Windows 98.. Fail!
    I then had a computer crash while using Windows XP and bought bought Window Vista … Miserable Fail! (I found that most of my older software wouldn’t work with Vista)
    So from past experience it seems like Window 8 will be a piece of crap since it’s the next version of Windows in line to come out.

    Thanks for the test result, because I think I’ll upgrade to Windows 7, because I want to use the XP Mode to run some older applications, and it appears to perform better than Vista.

  174. Todd
    March 30, 2010 at 2:23 am

    I just installed Windows 7 on my kid’s gaming machine. It’s a three-year-old Acer Aspire T180 that I built up with a 450 watt PSU, 2 gigs of RAM and a Radeon x1950pro video card. Though it came new with Vista, I originally install XP Home 32 with the AMD duel-core drivers since that made the best gaming OS at the time.

    But now I decided to give Windows 7 Ultimate a try. And it seems to work pretty well and just about as fast as XP. I believe some of the gain probably comes from the 64 bit OS. Then only real down side is the Radeon Catalyst driver. To run the X1950pro in 64 bits, I have to us Radeons “Legacy” driver which takes away a lot of functionality. It also appears to drive the X1950pro much harder and causes it to heat up during game play. To solve this I had to install ATI Tray Tools to underclock the X1950pro to a safe and cool 459 mHz. This solved the issue and SIMS 3 and Call of Duty 4 seem to run well now at high resolution. I believe a new HD 4000 or 5000 series Radeon card would most likely not have these issues.

    PS: I also recently installed Windows 7 Ultimate 32 bit on an old Pentium IV 2.0 single core system with 3 gigs of SD RAM. Wow! It actually runs really fast compared to XP. But this computer is mainly for using Office 2000 and surfing the web. And it doesn’t take too much to do that.

    Overall, Windows 7 seems pretty good. It works well on old and newer machines alike. And it doesn’t seem to kill old computers like Vista does. It’s a winner in my book.

  175. Ejay
    March 30, 2010 at 3:27 am

    which is better for gaming?..

    windows 7 or windows vista?..

  176. Pingback: Anonymous
  177. ashish
    March 31, 2010 at 9:37 am

    vista ,xp ,win 7 difrence

  178. syn
    April 1, 2010 at 7:47 pm

    MY HEAD HURTS!!!! ugh. ok, so this is my dilemma…

    I am about to purchase a new high end machine (i7, sli graphix, ddr3, etc). I am so confused as to which operating system will preform better… I do alot of music production and also gaming. Currently I only own a 32bit version of xp, and i realize that a 64bit os is most definitely a required purchase (for the 6gb of ram ill be getting) but, do i go xp 64? or win7?

    Part of my issue is that I really want to play alot of XP games that came out in the past few years which i could never play on my old slower machine, but from reading all this i now realize that ‘XP MODE’ in win7 is crap and most likely to ruin a games frame rates (if it will even run them at all). This is the most irritating and frustrating thing ever. Why would they do this? Also the fact that dx10-11 are not supported by xp (and seemingly not going to be) further complicates the issue!!

    So basically, i can choose win7 and not be able to run anything older (or if so, much slower) but on the flip-side be able to run future applications/games. Yet, if i choose the faster, nicer xp64… i won’t get all the preformance from newer games and eventually may not be able to run them at all without the dx10-11 support.

    I need some convincing reason to buy windows7, if there is one. I wish there was a win7/xp hybrid 64bit os that supported dx10-11 and didnt have all the garbage of vista/win7. I hate vista. I hate the interface and the appearance and the slow speed and im certain win7, while an improvement is not going to be much different/better.

    so what do i buy?? will win7 utilize the quad cores of my new cpu better than xp64 or something? will it improve the speed and functionality of my audio production softwares? so far, everything ive seen says xp is faster.. and the interface and appearance is much more desirable to me… but i want to get the most out of a new high end machine. blah. opinions? i am so stuck on what to do and its driving me mad. lol

  179. Anonymous
    April 3, 2010 at 5:03 am

    since you technically own windows XP you could install it on your new gaming rig along with windows 7, or you could get VMWARE which allows you to use any operating system while the computer is on, For instance i use XP, i could use backtrack

    Also until windows 7 has actually proven i wont change, i almost thought that i would be forced to upgrade from xp when vista came out because so many games seemed were going tobecome vista only, thnakfully theres alot of people that decode things, you know theres a compatability patch that allows winxp to use directx10 though its not perfect

    vista can be made to acceptable speeds, but it takes ALOT of tweaking to get it to be a step below xp, i for one will not get 7 until it has been on the market for years, then i might use it, also i for one hated win 98, too many crash errors but i could use 95 fine,
    i also at one point had to use ME, it took alot of tweaking and occasional reinstalls until i finally obtained XP

    just because win7 is “new” doesnt mean its the times, i mean when vista came out it had an overnight release in japan and korea, no one appeared not one piece of product was sold
    windows 7 is just a pretty wrapper over the same old buggy vista bones, even though it may have new meat, the bones are still there, with only xp 2000 ect being the marrow

  180. MTA
    April 5, 2010 at 9:56 am

    I have been using Compaq Presario T792 machine since July 2009. Its hardware was designed with Vista. I installed Vista Ultimate edition. But found Vista unfriendly. Very Slow indeed. Now i have a very bright chance to get rid of Vista and to go for Windows 7.

  181. Test123
    April 6, 2010 at 2:42 pm

    I was going to stick with windows xp, but after doing some more research I think it’s worth a shot if your computer is at least older then 2005 moreless. Windows Vista was very slow with lots of processes. But windows 7 has cleaned most or all of it up. Something I think a lot of people don’t know is that the system resources are suppose to be utilized a lot more efficient. Search superfetch. The memory is used for saving/cache programs that are most used and always available to whatever task is needed first. This explains why the memory resources are so higher than xp. They used superfetch in vista but windows 7 should utilize it more efficiently. XP doesn’t use superfetch. So instead of going to the harddrive more often, memory is used for the programs you use most often in order and the info is attained much faster. Also search windows 7 tweaks and if you want to use xp features in windows 7, usually there is a way via tweaks. It’s been a decade, might as well try the new stuff.

  182. Risa
    April 6, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Okay. Everyone seems to think that XP is the way to go, but let me tell you that it is unbearable. I am only 15. My dad went to technical school. I know more about computers than him. No joke. I have tried everything. Before our last (Gth and final) XP hard drive crashed for good last week, I did all possible. Boosted the security, and all that. Guess what? We were still getting the blue screen every 5 minutes. Maybe its just SP2, even though I did download the SP3 patch, but every reboot was the same. A file with the ending ‘ntlskrnl.exe’ has had reocurring errors and has become the reason why our computer won’t even turn on anymore. I am now suspicious of our XP-OS disk. The constant rebooting and bumping up security has changed me. I am actually wanting to switch to a…..a…..a mac. :(This simply will not do! I love PCs but Windows XP (home edition SP2 w/ SP3 patch) is really pissing me off! I will give windows one more chance. Windows 7 is its last hope for me. if it doesn’t completley kick-ass, I am done with it and will save up my pennies for the next million years and spring for a mac. Let’s hope 7 is as amazing as it looks onscreen.

  183. April 6, 2010 at 5:02 pm

    I am currently running Xp x64 (since April 2006), and besides some tweaking for drivers for the first six months, I’ve had no problems. Always rock-solid. Always fast. For the person who said XP makes your RAM degrade faster, try defragging your HD and clearing your registry every once in a while. CCleaner and Auslogics Defrag do the trick and are FREE.

    That said, I happen to do four very distinct things with my Quad Core PC that will make upgrading to 7 Pro x64 worth it: Folding@Home, multitrack audio recording, gaming with a GTX295 and dedicated PhysX 9800GTX+, video encoding, future-proofing.

    Folding@Home: Many have reported ~10% gain in ppd. This makes sense due to the increased CPU computational capabilities allowed by Win7.

    Audio recording: Same.

    Gaming: DX10. Granted, the improvement over DX9 is minimal, however it IS there. Also, Win7 is future-proofed for DX11 and possibly beyond. Also, games are beginning to be coded for use with more than 2 cores. Again, given the CPU computational increase with Win7, bottle-necking of GPU resources by the CPU should be eased.

    Video encoding: Even though tests with XP show faster encoding rates over Win7, it makes sense with the CPU computational increase that it would be possible to do other tasks while encoding with a decreased chance of a PC crash.

    Future-proofing: the best real-time example of this is SSD compatibility. Performance/compatibility is sketchy at best for all but the most savvy user. As SSD capacity increases (and $$$’s drop), it will become the OS install mainstay. You can bet that there will be no upgrades to XP for SSD, but that it will be a priority for Win7.

    Finally, also keep in mind, XP performance really did increase as service-packs emerged. I’d imagine that by the time Win7 hits SP2, we’ll be getting some better benchmarks. Also, for those needing XP compatibility for older programs, 7Pro and Ultimate have an XP mode built in.


  184. April 8, 2010 at 10:19 pm

    I’ll tell you what, with the new I5 and I7 chips, gaming is going to see a new leap of performance with Windows 7. Don’t forget the current DDR speeds alone with the higher memory available now. With more RAM, everything becomes much more powerful with the dual processor scheme. You’ll see more Gaming Computers with 16GB of RAM as prices continue to drop! 16GB of RAM for goes a long way with intensive gaming.

  185. April 12, 2010 at 3:40 am

    you sure got a headache reading all this from the top. but in all your reasons are for your own benefits. why bother saying wich OS stands out the best. youre just raising the popularity of ones OS that microsoft made. i’ve used these OS starting from win98 and they all got their share dont be confused on such test. for people dont have high specs sure does xp will do for them. if high then use the latest, so that you can get all for what you paying for vista or win7. if you still dont know what to buy or used. ask the expert. Simple as that.

  186. m.
    April 15, 2010 at 7:26 am

    I recently got a win 7 64 bit pro pc which I sent back in no time. rebought XP pro 32 bit with I 5 /750 chip. why???? because I like it! in my opinion Vista and Win 7 are convoluted, overcomplicated and more show than substace. most users dont need them. Mac has the right idea! look into a crowded Apple store to see why. MSFT OSs need a redo by practical techs to do more with less complexity. its only a matter of time when a better PC/OS will be developed to unseat MSFT/OSs. KISS is still a good idea.

  187. Jason Rondell
    April 16, 2010 at 5:06 am

    I am planning to buy a laptop soon….
    I desperatly need help choosing one…
    What brand and model should i buy?
    what operating system should i buy?

    April 17, 2010 at 7:02 pm

    Whilst I appreciate all these comments coming from the “experts” in our midst, can I plead for those of us who were brought up to speak the King’s/Queen’s English, and beg to see an improvement in those who post, to provide grammatically correct and decently spelt narratives. Thank you.

  189. Tim
    April 19, 2010 at 11:00 pm

    Microsoft is a BEAST!!!!

    They have created XP once and they will not make more mistakes like creating a great OS like XP.

    Vista or 7 both are just waste of time. People we are in 2010. Why don’t the microsoft people make a system like xp but with DRX11? It’s easy to answer. They want our money. These criminals.

    I wont buy any of their OS, I will download them for free.

  190. April 23, 2010 at 5:48 pm

    i swear by far that XP is the shittest computer ever

  191. Assholes
    April 24, 2010 at 9:24 pm

    You people remember when XP first released? It’s performance is worse than Windows 98 or 2000. And for god sakes, Windows 7 is less than one years old, XP is like a million years old, I’m sure 7 will have a way better performance after 10 years or so.

    7 has way more user friendly feature, the performance difference is not noticeable, like 1 or 2 fps difference in game, who is going to care? Assholes?

    For you XP user, just try to view 2 webpage, or 1 pdf and a webpage side to side, you will know how much XP sucks. But I guess all you XP user never view documents anyway, all you faggots only cares about 3dmark06, superPI all these bullcrap.

    XP interface is just not attractive enough for the general public, people buy macs because of their computer design and interface, nowadays Windows laptop design is way more attractive than the laptops ~2000, and with Windows 7, many new computer user / buyers will choose them over macs, don’t you assholes want Microsoft to win over Apple?

  192. James
    April 24, 2010 at 9:28 pm

    Who is going to care the little performance lost when your computer specs already ‘overkill’ most of the program anyway? It’s 2010, who still uses Pentium 1, or even 3? “Faggots that doesn’t have any money to upgrade and rant about the windows 7 requirements” that’s who.

  193. hello
    April 26, 2010 at 5:28 pm

    actually we have got a new windows 7 computer which is better than our old xp computer by miles

  194. April 27, 2010 at 5:20 am

    I have Used XP, Vista and 7 on the same computer, windows 7 was more responsive and didnt BSOD like memory hogging Vista. Ive always been a SP3 XP lover, i still use it for gaming. BUT, windows 7 allows me to configure .dll files and customize it way more than XP or Vista ever let me. Im running 64 bit 7 with 8 GB of ram and running the new CS5 and let me tell you, its so smooth and boots in less than 5 seconds. I remember when Vista came out i had XP and went right back to it after my terrible experience with that OS, i wouldnt wish that system on my worst enemy. then when the beta 7 came out a year or two ago i had to see what the hype was about and let me tell you, as soon as i loaded that bad boy, i wanted to say good bye to XP right then and there but i was in BETA testing. When 7 came out, i was liek one of the dudes that waited for Windows Millennium to arrive, i was at the store before it opened, waiting. Windows 7 is by far the best OS for the basic user. XP is second and Vista is a DISTANT 3rd. Vista is a terrible OS and thats why we have 7, microsoft saw that and they knew they dropped the ball with Vista. I will never use XP on my personal machine ever again because i now have Windows 7.

  195. Robert S.
    April 29, 2010 at 2:29 am

    XP was tested as a 32 bit system. Vista and Windows 7 were tested as 64 Bit systems. I would like to see them compared when all 3 are tested as 32 bit systems. Doesn’t 64 bit get a little better performance boost compared to 32 bit? If so you are comparing apples and oranges.

  196. Mason
    April 30, 2010 at 4:00 pm

    Windows xp is amazing for gaming and speed (mabey) the reason i would chose xp over windows 7 is because xp uses litterally no extra video or like mention previously aero themes or any other stuff like that as to where xp runs just WINDOWS XP pretty much but with that said windows 7 looks amazing and i am using it as i type this and it doesnt seem to peform to bad at all the only thing i dont like is it has the worst smooth scrolling ever i am running 3gb of ram at a dual 2.4 cpu so i know it is not my computer either but windows 7 is terrible for gaming if u ask me windows XP is the clear better here

  197. Moron
    May 2, 2010 at 6:43 am

    You can turn off AERO

    May 2, 2010 at 8:09 am

    hopes u all r craze with xp
    i have seen vista ultimate runs dial up connection faster & longer than 32 bit xp
    moreover look up+sidebar +defender are very important things giving xtra security
    there are no hang ups
    i am now trying for win7 & shall publish the result
    note:microsoft is trying to upgrade for better os
    we sud also change our mind sets and not forcefully stay with xp for our feedbacks sud be perfect and carry no partiallity with os
    if we r slow nothing can be done with os whatever

  199. veruska
    May 2, 2010 at 8:58 pm

    why is vista 2 bad in media player??? it sucks i hate it!

  200. Jerry
    May 6, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    Sorry guys but I love my imac :))) I remember my first mac back in 2000, O picked up a 700 processor emac, windows processors were much higher then. Well my 700 processor may not sound like much but it was just as fast as a 1G processor. I never had any issues working in photoshop but I’ll tell you what when I worked in photoshop on a windows it drove me nuts & was so much slower even though the processor was so much higher. Over the years Apple went back on there word & decoded speed wasn’t so bad so they built there first 1G processor & eventually a duel processor. Apple has gone from OS9 operating system to OSX10 & today we are OSX10.6. Those who buy macs have a connection with there computer, a relationship & bunches of love. We don’t get upset with our computer, we don’t start blaming “oh I should I bought this instead”. Those who own a windows always complain, they are never satisfied & always want something better & at the end of day they have negative feelings about Bill gates. Get a mac & all your problems are solved & need I say there will be no virus attacks. I have never owned any virus software for any mac I have had & never had I had a virus. I trust my mac, I love my mac, my mac takes care of me & I take care of my mac. Yes! there is a relationship between macs & there owners. There’s a saying in the mac world, get a mac & you never go back to windows. OK what’s stopping you ? I know $$$$ yeah I have to agree macs are not cheap, you can get a fast windows for the fraction of the cost even build a gaming system but with macs you get one provider, one company both hardware & software. Who would you trust, a company branched off where all parts come from vendors or one company with no vendors, no computer makers (IBM, HP) Yep with macs it’s one company, the way it should be & this is why problems on mac is little to none & if any problems arise it’s because the mac user is new trying to get the nerve to give macs a world. There will be changes, different way of doing things & one last thing macs are so easy to get into the system & make changes where on a windows you have to be careful what you change.

    Thats all 🙂

  201. May 9, 2010 at 4:54 pm

    XP – got minor problem with my system when it was first installed using p31 mobo from MSI blue screen appear – running for about 4months and installed once.

    VISTA – at first used using 64bit i thought vista is so bad, got only minor problem encountered. same specs e8400 with 4gig of ram no problem with the hardware compatibility issues, to much stuff installed running 6months, reinstalled 3 times system overheat. i thought problem with the OS but i found out that my PSU is dying.

    Win7 – lots of headache encountered due to system incompatibility issues with the hardware i use, still the same specs. issues with my old modem soft92 56k with voice, blue-tooth headset, easily corrupted when you press hard reset or due to power failure. but the good thing about win7, win7 run fast.

    i want windows 7 taskbar behaves like windows vista does.

  202. May 10, 2010 at 5:36 pm

    I just installed windows 7… It was a jump directly from windows XP. So i had some learning to do in the past few hours… but anyway, that makes me a great candidate to talk about my experience. Especially since i have a 6 year old computer that any little improvement it gets feels like a huge progress.

    I’ll jump straight to the point, my games run at a slower frame rate with windows 7. I tried a few low end games and older games and the result makes me not even want to consider installing the sims 3 or assasins creed… Frets on Fire is now unplayable.

    Any programs i installed work better than windows XP, BUT at the first sign of trouble, it’s still a mess to make them work again. Same as in XP when programs froze.

    My external hard drive gave me a lot of trouble with windows 7. With XP it used to eject itself, now it just freezes, then it freezes any other application (such as firefox) i have running with it. A huge mess.

    With windows XP i was able to copy some programs and work them (with installing). That’s when i had lost the setup cd for a few of my camera programs etc… And they would work. With windows 7, no such thing.

    for some reason, my network card is no longer working well… i have to disable it and then enable it for it to work again. That problem was born after i put windows 7.

    Now i like the gadgets and the transparent themes and all that. A good point for windows 7 but i can live without it… and find alternatives on windows XP with it’s bigger community.

    Another plus are the drivers that come with windows 7. I had concerns that i can’t find my driver cd for my nvidea vga card… turns out i didn’t need it.

    Also, windows 7 automatically downloaded and installed a McAfee scanning thing… i dunno what it does…. except eventually prompting me into buying the McAfee anti-everything-bad package.

    I’m switching back to XP as soon as i have some 3 hours of free time and have backed up everything i need… (again).

  203. babak
    May 11, 2010 at 7:26 am

    I had bought a new computer so I decided to use XP as I used to use!!!
    then I undestood XP is not good for!! it was so stupidy to use xp, It was not ok
    I recommanded to use 7 if you computer is brand new one

  204. dexanul
    May 13, 2010 at 3:41 am

    Hi all,
    I spent around 2 hours searching reviews on WIN 7 vs XP and my conclusion is that the choice between them differs on what the user intends to use his computer for.

    Office, surfing, multimedia goes well with 7 (tested on notebook Asus x51rl, intel dual core 2.0GHZ, 2GB RAM 667 MHZ, integrated intel graphics) because of it’s robustnes and “easy-to-use” integrated apps. Driver compatibility with most of the available hardware is a plus for 7 and networking capabilities as well.

    Performance, tweaking, flexibility, gaming are best shown in XP in my opinion. Yes, it takes more time to set it up (depends on the machine) yes it still has it’s bugs, yes it looks shitty (compared to the other 2 aero based interface), but you can still pull out most of allmost all of the main applications on the market. (tested on AMD Athlon 64 based processor, 2gb ram 667 Mhz, 8600GT ddr3 128bit).

    Personally i’d still choose win xp. I’ve been working with it since the beginning (i cried when 98SE was obsolete) and even if it requires direct user implication in problem solving, at least i know and learn how to fix it! I’ll be keeping win XP for another year at least, and only think of using it with a new machine (64 bit based processor, dx10-11 compatibility as the main reasons).

    Gaming: XP
    Office: XP
    Multimedia: win 7
    Regular user: win 7
    Networking: XP (i know you won’t agree but … i like user implicated problem solving)
    Looks: win 7
    Performance: XP
    Security: XP (again, user implicated)
    Mobility: win 7
    Reliability: XP
    Total Moron: Vista

    I predict XP to be used in favor of win 7 for another year at least, based on the hardware requirements that are worth using win 7 for exploiting them at full potential.
    Software still needs to evolve just a little more for me to switch to win 7.

    Conclusion: Choose your shoes!

  205. tony p
    May 14, 2010 at 1:22 am

    in response to james:Wow I never realized that only “faggots”now use pentium 1-2-3 computers,and that only “faggots”don’t have enough money to upgrade to windoze 7,I’m no genius at any rate,I’m a pc tech that goes into peoples homes and small businesses to fix or resolve their computer issues,I can only comment on what I have seen and dealt with the most on a daily basis,just about everyone that calls me with a vista or 7 pc has problems with speed and driver issues even on hardware thats only a few years old,to me I think that the trail blazing days for microsoft are over,the begining of the end so to speak,I notice some people here rave about the “look of vista and 7″well one word……………………LINUX,many free distro’s that have been out for years now have the look that vista and 7 are just graduating to,Hmmmmm………just wondering,can I get aids from a computer since I have to service so many machines owned by faggots?Oh and we can’t forget the women who must be “dikes”.James I hate to be rude but your a jackass.

  206. shane
    May 14, 2010 at 5:39 am

    There is no versus to those that know how and what computers are used for, meaning, if you are running an existing machine with specific software that runs good in XP then there is no better OS out there.
    If you just surf and play with stuff go with what they offer in the store, win 7 is really nice to look at.
    I use my machine for video production and games and general, I have both OS’s installed and ALL my work is done within XP, not by choice but by software. Until I can upgrade this dual core with 2 gigs, I will stay with XP.
    I do find it annoying that MS changed the user system so that I can work better!!! I can get more done in less time with XP and with fewer mouse clicks.
    To those that just want a home PC for the kids and granny snaps then the future is win 7, go with it! in 2 years or less it could be another story though.

  207. deadmeow
    May 15, 2010 at 1:03 am

    I upgraded my computer from a 2.93 mhz 32bit celeron d, to a Phenom II X6 1090T. Pre-installed OEM Windows7, which I ordered on my custom built computer, no malware.

    After a few hours of fooling around with all the silly rainbow doodads, and giant taskbars with kindergarten/mac os rip-off icons, my head was spinning. Then to add to that, Win7 has a blurry text problem, with no fix(which you can google), and the jpegs on websites looked like gifs from 1995.

    On my old celeron I dual booted between XP (95%) and win2000 (5%). I didn’t even consider dual booting(on my phenom II x6, with Win7 pro, which I paid 135 dollars for. I re-installed XP 32 bit, and the machine runs great.

    I see no point to run a bloated, _slow_ 64 bit OS(on a 6 core cpu with gtx 260 gpu), especially when there are no useful 64 bit apps or games to use. Operating systems and programs should evolve to be slimmer and faster, but instead they becomes more bloated and obsolete.

  208. AJ
    May 16, 2010 at 3:28 pm

    Windows XP is greater than 7, for losers! It’s greater because it can run even on a 400 MHZ processor, 64 MB RAM, and even with 3 GB HDD capacity! But who still using that machine? That’s just for losers! New computers with good specs have now reasonable prices

  209. Sikandar Awan
    May 20, 2010 at 11:45 am

    If you have an old PC like a P4, with 512 RAM, then Windows XP is best choice.
    But if you have a new PC like a Dual Core, 2GB RAM, any Graphics Card, than you will find a lot of difference. Windows VISTA and Windows 7 will amaze you with speed, performance, reliability and quality. Better games, Audio, new Operating System looks.
    I have a computer business since 8 years.

  210. May 21, 2010 at 4:34 pm

    hey listen, windows 7 was mainly designed not for eye candy but for performance, this is all just due to the fact that windows xp has less software and is less efficient than windows 7, if windows 7 had aero turned off than it would have beaten xp by a long shot so don’t come along saying that XP is better because it is obviously not, people who say that are those who cannot stand change, i am OK with you USING XP but not going around insulting vista and 7, ok vista wasn’t all that great but it was the stepping stones to succes and i say good job microsoft.

  211. danny
    May 24, 2010 at 10:24 am

    i have using win xp since 2004 and no big problem found at all.its really dissapointed for microsoft to not continue working on win xp.and now they force me to use what its calling vista or win7,after all the benchmark result is showing that win xp more superior than the other two os in terms of performance.just like the article said “maybe the other two look much nicer” but i dont care very much about appearance.I just wanted run my PC without trouble. maybe people say that win7 is far better than xp compared on the 1st release.but,you know,i work and fished them in xp,I plyed my game such bad company2,cod,bioshock,gta,and many other game with xp and they work perfectly well.
    when my girlfriend have win7 installed in her PC,she cry to me to fix her PC due lot of freeze,I came but icant fix the end i got her PC back with xp and the prblem is solving,such a pathetic.

  212. jambo
    May 24, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    I say windows 7 owns all its just the idiots that have awful computers run xp windows 7 looks feels works and plays much much better than vista vista was better than xp by looks but not much better performance windows 7 is ment to be vista but microsoft rushed vista reasoning windows 7 so put that on ya chips vista and xp users

  213. varnit
    May 26, 2010 at 3:28 am

    accoding to me xp was the best window ever but from 6 months windows 7 have got equally good response in some of the work using xp is good but 7 is good in other works so i am having both xp and 7 in my comuter and vista isthe worst and the slowest windows from 2000 too 7

  214. Sanjay187
    May 27, 2010 at 3:32 pm

    I bought Windows XP Pro on the day it came out, and it was the best $200 I ever spent. I installed and reinstalled several times over the years on the three laptops I’ve had in that period. I disagree with those who say XP was crap until the service packs – false – it was great from the beginning, and Pro (as opposed to the dumbed down Home edition) was expecially powerful and easy to tweak and customize. It was VERY clear that XP was the best operating system MS ever put out when you first used it, because it had all of the user friendliness of Win 9x with the stability of NT/2000. XP was the culmination of 15 years of MS experimenting, and they finally got it right, which is why people didn’t want to switch to Vista, and aren’t running out to get Win7, because it doesn’t offer a SUBSTANTIAL increase in computing experience the way XP’s NT kernel was a giant leap forward from Win9x/ME kernel. All these years after XP came out and it’s still holds its own against newer OS’es – simply amazing – really proves how great on OS XP is – perhaps the best consumer grade OS of all time.

    However, I will say that Win7 has the potential to be great and blow the doors off of XP – especially when it comes to multimedia and web 2.0 – but the 3rd party applications MUST catch up to the newer hardware (quad core, 64 bit, etc) as well as Windows7. That’s the big problem in computing now, more than any operating system, is the failure of programs to better utilize the modern platform of multicore/64-bit hardware w/64bit OS.

    Also, for those who are saying MS should’ve just improved on XP – that’s exactly what they did. XP, Vista and Win7 are all built on the NT kernel.

    I think in a year or so when Win7 SP1 is released, and when more apps and webapps and content is better optimized for modern platforms – we will see the true power of Win7. I think by the time Win8 comes out everything will be caught up and it may be the giant leap forward we’re all hoping for.

    Bottom line is if you have XP – stick with it – as the older hardware will work much better. But if you’re getting a new computer, then definitely go with Win7 – don’t be foolish and downgrade to XP – that makes no sense. XP was great but it had its day. Time marches on.

  215. Pushpak
    May 30, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Nice detailed comparative. I will look forward to see the result with Aero turned off.

    I have a new Acer Laptop with Win 7 pre-loaded. Unfortunately, XP drivers for most of the hardware are not available.

    When I compare with my other laptop running on Win Xp with much lower RAM & Processor power, compared to the Win 7 Laptop, there is very minimal difference in day to day activities.

    So, if you have XP keep it, but if you ahve Win 7 don’t bother to downgrade also.

    Happy computing

  216. Puc
    May 30, 2010 at 12:14 pm

    Ok. I read through the most of the comments, and the one that makes the most sence is, in my opinion, the one that talks about the so called old software. I bought a new PC with on it Windows 7. Just the installing of my printer and scanner took about one hour, because I had to locate the correct drivers, I’n ABOSLUTLY no digibeet, so I don’t understand half of what all the OS and whatever it all neams. I’m just a user, use it for tekst and photo’s. never for gaming. Other program’s like Nero 6.(something) simply don’t work! This mean’s that if I want to continue with windows 7, I wil have to start buying a lot of new software. Why?? The program’s worked to my full satisfaction on XP! The arrogan’s of microsoft forcing me to buy new program’s, on top of the cost’s of the new pc. I can’t find the fun in that. For the eye candy bit, I for one am not sensitive for sparkley colours of an interface. I just want it to work! Furthermore, I hve te agree that it hard to chance for most people to something new, but I dont think that Windows 7 is user friendly. If anyone should start with a pc, with zero knowledge, it a hard struggle with the windows 7 compered to XP. (Sorry if the englisch is poor I’m for Holland)

  217. Harrier
    May 30, 2010 at 4:48 pm

    I tried buying a laptop with Vista and frankly nothing worked. Everything crashed and despite it being under warranty Microsoft said the software was perfect, but the problem was with the box makers. I then found the company had instilled so much fear with the box makers that they wouldn’t allow them to sell any other OS on anything with a strong t medium video card or decent processor.

    It was then I spotted a MacBook Pro with a Matte screen. I was told it would run all my windows software and it would run better than on PCs where it was pre-loaded.

    Because a new model was coming out, I was able to purchase the demo model that was out for a few hours for $1,000. I bought it without RAM and without a hard drive.

    I put in 4 GB and a beefed up SATA harddrive, then using bootcamp now have OSX and have XP. Everything works so great. I love open office more than Office 2007 except there is still no grammer check. That said, the Mac is not built for gaming and Windows 7 has an excellent media center.

    Still despite better searching capability of Windows 7 and stronger Media Center over XP and OSX, I don’t see the change in Windows 7 worth leaving XP for. The only additional functionality advertised for Vista was Direct X 10…That never ended up being good. Now with Direct X 11, for Windows 7, it looks the same ol’.

    I am a lifetime Microsoft user, even with an Apple and think Microsoft needs to offer more functionality and simplicity in their OS rather than copying others. I see absolutely no innovation coming from Microsoft. There is more anticompetitive behavior coming out of the company than creativity and innovation. Almost like they want to spread tiny incremental changes over 4 years when it all should have been done in the first 6 months.

    In trying out Windows 7, I personally don’t see any major issues migrating from XP and find it better… (using my friends computers and helping the trouble shoot). The major issue with Windows 7 is users are still spending considerable time having to learn and trouble shoot incompatibility issues rather than just using the software people purchase to just work. To me the OS should seem invisible when working with the software you purchase. Windows 7 really doesn’t advance in that area. If I buy the new OS, I would be endorsing this approach…And I do not. Don’t get me wrong, Apple has it share of problems, that like Microsoft, I know will never be solved despite their advertising for years.

  218. Meet
    May 31, 2010 at 2:25 am

    I Love XP.
    Because All Applications I Need Is Working IN XP Not is Vista Or Win. 7.

  219. Eric
    May 31, 2010 at 4:52 pm

    I have xp

  220. Zalogo32
    June 1, 2010 at 9:52 am

    Well i used alll 3 of them i have to say this..

    If you want compatibility with old programs > Xp
    If you want best use of your new hardware > Windows7 64bit
    If you like annoying messages and slowdowns > Vista
    IF you want the fastest possible os on your Pc.. > Ms dos

    Yeah the last one is for the performace freaks.. yeah .. ms DOS is the fastest.. Doesnt have Direct x of course lol..

  221. Nat
    June 2, 2010 at 3:32 am

    I would like to try 7, but I cannot upgrade from XP. Since we all passed on Vista and I have a load of programs installed what am I supposed to do. I don’t feel like installing them all over again knowing some of them won’t work. I guess I am stuck on XP until I need something that needs 7, which is only the SSD TRIM function right now. Not enough to force me into 7. Microsoft must have known they are on a loser not providing an upgrade path from XP to 7.

  222. June 2, 2010 at 8:50 am

    XP Pro is no doubt the supreme software.

  223. bob
    June 3, 2010 at 6:37 am

    For now its XP for me.
    XP nLited with themes, addons, post SP3 updates and tweaks, makes it my favorite OS for now.

  224. Opus
    June 12, 2010 at 1:19 am

    your test machine has more ram than 99% of the people!

  225. James
    June 12, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    I have win7 64 bit running on a dual core 4800 with 2 gigs ram. I’m disappointed from a performance standpoint since I game online mostly. I don’t plan on upgrading hardware either since I can’t keep up with this rat race anymore just gonna buy a 360.

    I’m switching back to Xp32. All my games in win7 are choppy and not at all fluent like XP was. No matter how much tweaking and testing of different drivers its useless. Win7 looks good, smart, and isn’t a bad OS though. Oh how I miss my smooth gameplay. I’ve been messin with this rig off and on for a bit now to make sure.

    It’s just no good on old hardware, and directx 10 isn’t that much of a dif. More specular lighting on water, textures? Sure if you don’t mind taking away from the performance and enjoyability of the game itself for eye candy you probably won’t be paying attention to while fragging.

  226. elo
    June 14, 2010 at 8:58 am

    hi guys.. i want to buy an inspiron 14 dell laptop but i still confuse to buy either dell with window 7 or dell with window xp.. but nowadays most of the laptops are install with window 7.. which one is better btween these two windows? sorry, my english is not good enough..

  227. 6invivo
    June 15, 2010 at 2:17 pm

    Hi, I haven’t used Vista nor 7.
    And I do not want to. I am not into excessive graphical features, I need performance and low resource need. Sleek system.
    Basically it is a huge marketing gig. Why shall I even know, that some operating system is running below, I am not interesting in operating system, but in apps.
    As long as I am not doing the administration, I recognize from the whole system only login screen, start menu, desktop and the systemtray. Nothing more.
    I am using XP with BlackViper tweaks and other tweaks, maintaining it regularly, cleaning the registry, defragmenting disk, having proper antivirus and firewall etc. I have the same installation on the desktop since 2007, no blue screen, no crashes. Although I am not very carefull what I am downloading and what software I chose to work or play with. Running Core2Duo with 2GB RAM and the performance is sufficient and reasonable for me all the time. But I have to say I have only integrated video card, so I am not playing any of the last video games, but if I want to, I would need other desktop. And when I decide to do more with music composing, either will need other desktop with more hardware power.
    But also then I will take XP. In 2-3 years I will consider 7, but not sooner.

  228. June 15, 2010 at 5:21 pm

    I am a web designer and use both XP3 (32bit) and Win7 Ultimate ( 64bit ) on the same system ( AMD phenom x4 Black Edition 3.o GHZ, ASUS M4A78T-E , 4 GB DDR3 @677 RAM )
    Over a period of time, I have noticed that Windows 7 crashes less and crashes better.
    ‘Crashes better’ means that you basically can terminate the program/process with the legendary CTRL+ALT+DEL successfully more number of times as you would be able to in XP3. In XP3 programs, many times crash and you are rendered helpless. Only choice then is to restart – arghhh, the wait ! The crash in XP3 renders the CTRL+ALT+DEL useless sometimes and the computer totally freezes.

    Also all windows OSs slow down over a period of time, with frequent add/remove of programs. Win7 for hasn’t slowed down as much as my XP3 for that matter. I use nearly identical programs under both OSs.

    The look and feel off course is better in Win7.

    Win7 boots slightly faster for me.

    Networking and Connectivity are much better with Win7

    Win7 is smarter with Search, Start Programs Menu and has some more exciting features which actually boost productivity

    Win7 has more compatibility issues than Winxp, but that no longer will be true in a year or two. Win7 for allows you to roll back the compatibilty of applications and simulate their execution is windows subversions.

    XP has its 3.2~ GB RAM limitations.

    XP has less frills . Most of the times it’s about getting a particular job done and XP does do that without any problems really. I am saying it doesn’t need the frills !

    If you’d really like to max out performance then you will end up with windows7 sooner or later.

    For those of you, who have no complains from XP, I’d suggest stick to it. Don’t go with Win7 until the industry forces you to.

    I am no hardware expert. I am just saying what I think.

  229. Thomas Anderson
    June 18, 2010 at 12:19 pm

    It is the eternal question isn’t it?

    Now, I know I am an old geezer and started on terrible room filling university mainframes in the 70s and an VIC20 at home. And I have to admit, over the years, using Windows (and other OS), yes, there has been an improvement. But what I miss here a bit: What are you doing actually? What do you use the thing for? Now, everybody that looks on the web for reviews and comparisons will find enough people posting stuff. That is how you got here right? Because it has been nagging in your mind that there is something new out there AND YOU NEED TO UPGRADE. And of course there is a machine behind it, which secures the pay check of many people, that feeds that idea too. But…
    Getting back to the old VIC20, Spectrum, BBC, Apple milk carton or whatever people used back in the days… Baseline was: does it do what you want/ need it to do? No, then an upgrade was in place. And let’s be honest, those first machines left a lot of desires and ideas of users unfulfilled. But in 2010..?
    My personal opinion nowadays is: actually, it kinda seems to do what I need. We all know that often we experience an upgrade as more buttons to click, or more dialogue boxes to pop up, or not being able to do or get to compared to before your upgrade. Honestly, that is what feeling Vista gave me, and why I stuck with XP.

    So, is your system operating fine now? Does and can it do what you want it to do? If it doesn’t, sure, hop on the train that somebody will provide for you (at a price). However, if it does, just use your time productively and regard the things as what they started out as originally: a tool that should work and let you do what your tell it to do. And let’s be realistic, 95% percent of the users out there just know how to open up their browser or word processor. You reading this classifies you as probably outside this bracket. But that should also make you realise that maybe that is why all the reviews (and product upgrades) seem to focus on “the cool new look” or “nice-to-have apps” (for you at a price of course).

    Maybe my nan, who lived 2 centuries ago, and never saw a computer in her lifetime, had the best IT advice ever: If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it.

  230. Shaun
    June 19, 2010 at 6:01 am

    @Scott Rogers

    This test is based on a New Computer, with hardware worth well over $400.00, and it shows that it is still better, performance wise, to have XP on it. The only problem with XP x64 – (Not 64 Bit, 64 Bit is for Intel Itanium Processors, which are server processors, and YES there IS a difference!) – is that there is no SP3 Support for XP x64.


    You Don’t need to restart Windows XP if Media Player crashes – (which it shouldn’t unless you are doing nasty things to your computer that you shouldn’t be doing) – Simply press Ctrl + Alt + Del or Right click the task bar, and open Task Manager. Task Manager offers 2 ways to end the non-responsive program, either under the ‘Applications’ Tab, or under the ‘Processes’ Tab, the latter of which is slightly quicker, as it instantly terminates the non-responsive programs process. Having to restart your computer for a frozen program is a load of rubbish.


    You may find that a Pentium 4 Processor doesn’t have x64 Architecture, meaning it wont support an x64 OS. I can’t remember from the top of my head, but I don’t think the P4’s had support.


    Get Windows XP. Starter Editions of Windows sacrifice a lot. You don’t get many features from them, its sort of like the new Netbook Flavours of Linux. If you want 7 badly, you can always purchase it later.


    Windows XP supports Core i7 CPU’s as well as Vista and 7. It really depends what you want to do with it. If it’s a Gaming PC, then I’d recommend 7, as it has support for DirectX 11, but if its just a Work or Video Editing PC, you can’t go wrong with XP, as it supports Vegas, Cyberlink etc, just as well as the other OS’s.


    I for one don’t shut down my laptop (Thinkpad T60) at all. I restart it occasionally (once a month or so) but apart from that its on Stand By or Hibernate. However, this test was not about Boot Time. Vista, when running for several months (My HP Pavilion dv6 1107AX) came with Vista, in fact, one of the last HP laptops that did – after running it for 4 months with Vista, Office 2007 and SMART Notebook (for my work’s Smart Boards), my Hard Disk went from 260Gb Free (Fresh install of Vista started out at 19Gb) down to 114Gb. In that time, the ‘WINDOWS’ Folder went from the 19Gb mentioned above, to around 80 odd Gb. Windows 7 had the same problem after several weeks, however, not as seriously, it only inflated by several hundred Mb, mostly Windows Updates. XP provides much Snappier performance than Vista and 7, which, with their mounds of eye candy progress at a much more ordinary rate, which is fine for most users, but I prefer the snappiness.


    Windows 8 hasn’t even been publicly confirmed yet, so nobody really knows anything about it, apart from the fact that it comes after 7.


    Windows 7 will run ANY games that were released for Windows XP. Confirm that your games were released for XP, and not earlier DOS based versions, especially not 16bit games, as they wont run.

    @Don Daniello

    Firstly, its not 64Bit unless you have an Intel Itanium Processor.
    Secondly, Intel never ‘Faked’ x64 Support, it either supports it or it doesn’t, if it was ‘Faked’ then I could just go and get my old 386 and ‘Fake’ it on that. Intel has supported x64 since the Pentium D (from the top of my head), likewise, AMD has supported x64 since the Athlon x64.

    Indeed turning off Aero free’s up resources, but it doesn’t change the fact that Vista and 7 both use DWM. Basically, if you have an OK computer, turning off Aero will make very little difference, plus, most games turn off Aero automatically.

    @Thomas Anderson
    An excellent comment, you are right of course, if it does what you need it to do, then you obviously don’t need an upgrade. Half the problem is, with Vista, it might as well have been a downgrade.

    The Reality of the situation is, that there is very little difference between the 3 OS’s when running on the same system – nanoseconds. It’s not the fault of anyone in the public, it is the fault of Microsoft for releasing (Vista) an operating system that should still have been in Beta. Microsoft admitted that there was pressure to release Vista as they had already missed two release dates.

    Windows 7 is a much quicker operating system than Vista, but it’s not without its bugs.

    Keep what you like, if you don’t like Windows 7, don’t get it. If you don’t like Vista, don’t get it and if you don’t like XP, your nuts! – (jokes), just don’t keep XP if you don’t like it.


  231. Silver
    June 21, 2010 at 7:08 pm

    u all know what? i’ve been used vista for a year…and vista my beats win7 and xp…
    my vista is the fastest os ever…why? because it’s have been modified for daily use…
    xp and win7 after being hacked, still cannot beat the vista…coz vista have been made for modified and xp, win7 can’t beat that!…

  232. william
    June 21, 2010 at 11:17 pm

    well my english isnt the best but i think that in compatibility with games and apps, win xp 32 wins.i tried with vista and i hate it.i tried with seven and it isnt bad but it has many graphics and issues so, in my opinion y prefer xp. 🙂 maybe im wrong but i dont know so much about OS´s .im bringing my personal runs better on xp and win 7 dont have many thechnical support offline and online.thanks

  233. Duminda
    June 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    According to these tests, XP is the better OS.


  234. RL
    June 26, 2010 at 5:24 pm

    I personally like Linux But I use xp for my old game software. If I were to choose between windows7 or windows xp, the more logical choice would be windows xp, because I have more software that runs on XP. In the future, windows 7 will have more software and windows will stop supporting windows XP. When that day comes you people might want to consider upgrading to windows 7 ,but until then, xp is the more logical choice. You can still get windows 7 if you just want to have the newest os in town.
    Personally I’m sticking to the three best os I that I have ever used Debian 5.0, Ubuntu 10.04, windows xp.

    Macs are great computer, But I quit using macs for the same reason I’m not using windows as much because all my software is obsolete on the mac. for now my main os is actually Linux.

  235. John
    June 28, 2010 at 5:41 am

    XP 64 is my choice for my machine, which has 8 GB of RAM. Second is XP 32 but then I’m using only 3½ GB of RAM. (I run it as a dual-boot anyway.) I detest Vista—I maintain one for a friend—because I do lots of file maintenance. I also loathe Vista’s inept Windows Explorer with its idiotic “Groups” settings which come back on you after you’ve attempted to disable them.

    My desktop is my own custom design, and my taskbar is too; much better than Windows 7. Easy to work with XP on things like this, whether modifying as a workhorse or just for cosmetics.

    Speed on XP 64 is good; it uses less RAM so that helps too. For Office, I way prefer 2003, even though I created an entirely customized ribbon for Office 2010. The 2010 ribbon wipes out Office 2007 completely, of course, so it’s between 2003 and 2010 only—just like Vista isn’t even in the running between XP and 7—but Office 2003 remains far more efficient.

    My guess is XP appeals more to individualistic folk who enjoy independently creating their own variations and who are not easily impressed by marketing icons.

  236. xp the legend
    July 2, 2010 at 3:37 am

    my ratings out of 10 .10 is the best.vista3 xp 8 win 7 7.5

  237. Weegee
    July 11, 2010 at 11:34 pm

    If it was XP x64 Bit than I could say this is a good blog. Windows XP couldn’t use even 4 GBs of Ram never mind the full 8GBs Do another test, exept this time with Windows x64 bit

  238. Sk8rbluscat
    July 13, 2010 at 12:05 pm

    @Weegee: I agree… XP (32-bit) only uses 3.25 GB of RAM. Windows 7 (64-bit) can support up to 128 GB of RAM.
    The only thing that matters is if it is x64 or x86.

  239. Meg
    July 14, 2010 at 2:45 am

    “Vista and 7 are so much more robust than xp could ever be.”

    Hee, this completely contradicts my own experience. Bought a desktop a couple years back with Vista preinstalled and hated how glitchy and slow it was so I “downgraded” to XP, which I’ve always found to be pretty stable. I “upgraded” to 7 last week and got my first bluescreen in years (since the switch from Vista to be exact). Got to this page searching for good reasons not to switch back to XP… and having trouble finding one.

  240. Semi.genius
    July 15, 2010 at 7:42 am

    I would like to see a benchmark between Windows 7 and XP but with XP using Process Lasso in order to see if Windows 7 scheduler enhancements could be comparable with the features of Process Lasso..and at the same other condititions.

    Could it be interesting?

    • angel
      April 1, 2011 at 1:02 pm

      i dont think xp is best i think it is worst technology ever
      the best is windows 7

  241. July 19, 2010 at 1:58 pm

    so what are you suggest to me??
    xp or 7??

    • Markbasgitaar
      November 8, 2010 at 3:22 pm

      XP 😉

  242. radhegaj
    July 21, 2010 at 5:08 am

    I am planning to purchase a new laptop for gaming and mechanical design softwares. So which OS would u suggest me?

    • Markbasgitaar
      November 8, 2010 at 3:36 pm

      It depends what kind of software you want to run.
      If you want a reliable and fast operating system you take Linux Ubuntu 10.04.
      You Windows programs running in Wine. Such as AutoCAD and Photoshop.
      If Linux Ubuntu does not fully work with Windows programs, I would recommend you to dual boot.
      With Linux Ubuntu 10.04 LTS and Windows XP.
      Windows Vista and Windows 7 are very discouraged if we work with design software.

  243. xp7
    July 21, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I have Win7 x64 and I think about downgrade to XP x64.
    PC req:
    6 GB ram;
    1 TB HDD;
    GeForce GT 320 1024 MB;
    AMD Athlon II X2 240 2.8 Ghz.
    Is this good idea about downgrading? Sorry about my bad english. 🙂

    • Markbasgitaar
      November 8, 2010 at 3:30 pm

      It depends on what you want. If you want an operating system that is faster and more compatibility. Then get your XP. If you have a nicer, slower operating system like. Then you take Windows 7. If you are very tired of the hassle of Microsoft Windows. Then take your Linux Ubuntu 4.10 LTS: D
      My opinion is that Linux operating system is the most good. For bleu screen of death, contineu error messages, etc.

    • Markbasgitaar
      November 8, 2010 at 3:31 pm

      It depends on what you want. If you want an operating system that is faster and more compatibility. Then get your XP. If you have a nicer, slower operating system like. Then you take Windows 7. If you are very tired of the hassle of Microsoft Windows. Then take your Linux Ubuntu 10.04 LTS: D
      My opinion is that Linux operating system is the most good. For bleu screen of death, contineu error messages, etc.

  244. johnny
    July 22, 2010 at 7:40 am

    wow i like the method of comparison frend

  245. mehdi
    July 24, 2010 at 9:57 pm

    Hi Guys

    I will never ever change my lovely OS windows XP pro. I have traid vista and 7 but both of them are crap. I love XP forever.

    XP lover………..

    • Barney
      November 8, 2010 at 2:23 am

      Microsoft needs to get their compatibility problems solved, i tried to open an older version of a program in win7 and it wouldnt work, im thinking about getting xp, that would also take away stupid UAC because it really makes me mad. But apple is not even in my vocabulary…blegh

      XP for infinity and beyond………..

  246. Dan
    July 26, 2010 at 10:47 am

    …Why is this being tested with a 32-bit XP installation? Surely 64-bit versions of each operating system would yield a fairer comparison.

    • Boozer
      January 29, 2011 at 8:31 pm

      I agree. I’m using Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit and Windows XP Pro 32bit and Windows 7 is clearly faster. This testing is flawed

  247. July 27, 2010 at 12:01 am

    Windows 7 is the best!Windows Vista is secend.Windows XP is slow and old,So it came in third place!

    • Markbasgitaar
      November 8, 2010 at 3:19 pm

      Slow and old? Waha xD You are VERY funny :p
      Yes XP is an old Operating System. BUT XP is Microsoft WIndows most fastest Operating System. Vista sucks totaly. Windows 7 is MUCH slower than WIndows XP.

      By the way. Every Operating System of Microsoft Windows sucks.
      Linux Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is much better than Every Windows Operating System.
      Linux Ubuntu 10.04 LTS is faster, much more stable, etc.
      It can run Windows Programs in Wine. Like: AutoCAD, Photoshop etc.

  248. Peter C
    July 27, 2010 at 9:52 am

    I have now tried both Vista & Win 7 & I find them no match for XP pro. Lets face it, for nearly 9 years now we’ve loved XP after the debacle that was Windows ME. It has evolved into a stable & reliable OS. If Micrtosoft really wants to do the right thing by its
    customers it should just change the “mechanics” behind the OS & leave the look & operation of the thing the same. In short – if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it !

  249. Ryan Super Special Genius
    July 28, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I’ve had all 3 of these OS. XP is still kicking ass. Works faster, and is simple enough for me. Well Vista just sucked. End of story. Windows 7 is definitely an improve but I still find it too slow. I don’t see why they even released Vista/7. XP was PERFECT, and still is.

  250. Mike P
    July 28, 2010 at 2:50 pm

    Every once in a while, a Company will produce a product that it cannot subsequently outdo. Windows XP is such a product. Because of its relatively low system overhead when compared to Vista and Windows 7, it’s a given that XP will, in most process categories, outperform Vista and Win 7. Given that more demanding operating systems require higher performing PCs, the PC manufacturers are definitely not complaining.

  251. James
    July 29, 2010 at 9:37 am

    Yeah. Windows XP is the best OS ever. You don’t need those nice graphic effect, It’ll just hinder your PC’s performance. So XP is the coolest.

  252. Den Z
    July 29, 2010 at 6:16 pm

    Windows 7 is better. Vista suck big time, XP is a good system but too outdated by now in terms of support and so. On new hardware – Windows 7 is a way to go, on old ones XP whould be more prefferable. Hands down.

  253. MAJEED
    August 1, 2010 at 8:32 am

    nice comparison mate!
    I tried the 3 OS and I can’t agree more. Its XP all the way.
    the only improvement in win vista and 7 is the graphical appearances.
    also, all the security constrains, the compatibility issues and drivers with vista and 7.
    in conclusion, I totally agree with the tests results.
    many thanks Mr. Brozio

  254. Dr. Kyle Stewart
    August 3, 2010 at 7:24 pm

    I am running XP Pro on all my PC’s and laptops at home. At the large healthcare corporation I work, all PC’s are humming along with XP Pro – they have no plans on moving to Windows 7. I have loved this, the best OS EVER from Microsoft. So, why the heck would I care to use Win 7? New hardware will run XP Pro all the more faster! I am seeing many friends rolling back to XP pro on their new hardware. It’s a no-brainer! XP Pro is as good as the Mac OS!

    • what
      January 11, 2011 at 2:55 pm

      because they are cheap. and mac os blows steve jobs nonexistant balls

    • Boozer
      January 29, 2011 at 8:27 pm

      Less and less latest hardware are compatible for XP now. Give or take 1 or 2 years from now, all the latest hardware would be Vista and Windows 7 and soon to be released Windows 8 ready.

  255. Ali
    August 4, 2010 at 11:29 am

    Windows 7 (ultimate) only .. is the best 4 ever cuz its nice and fast good fps for gaming i had xp pro before but when i upgraded to 7 ultimate fps was from 10-100 windows 7 is the best u have to try it 🙂

  256. Sam Johnson
    August 5, 2010 at 8:20 pm

    The debacle among competing OS fanboys never includes compelling reasons “why.” Fanboys like the “new” colors and prettiness of a “new” system. But that’s not a reason for someone who uses computers mainly to work on them. On any new system I always go back to the classic UI if possible. Plus there is way too much spyware included in new OS from MS. I will be running XP as long as possible (another 10 years?) and go to Linux after that.

    Greetings to Apple fanboys and to Vista fanboys 😉

  257. Luke Hollands
    August 8, 2010 at 9:11 pm

    There is only one disadvantage to windows 7 update. you have to back up all youfile which can cost more than a new computer.

  258. Palooka
    August 11, 2010 at 12:19 am

    Hopefully, in another 10 years, Linux will drop the geekiness of that operating system (cutesy-poo application names, inscrutable commands, and just plain weird development baggage) to allow ordinary people to easily make use of it. “User interface” — hello?

    Too bad … it coulda had class … it coulda been a contender … it coulda been something … instead of a hard-to-use novelty, which is what it is (with apologies to Marlon Brando).

    • what
      January 11, 2011 at 2:53 pm

      so true

      • tt
        January 21, 2011 at 7:46 am

        fucky persons r thos who dont use xp

        • Jayw654
          August 16, 2011 at 9:30 pm

          Windows 7 requires more to run it but it doesn’t mean its a bad OS as time goes on the need to change the OS to be able to do more is needed. However this also means that stronger hardware is needed to rune it. It will ALWAYS be this way. Whether a person stays with Windows, goes to Mac, Or goes to Linux. Windows XP is dead and there is no way around it eventually stuff will stop working as it is dated and software writers won’t be writing apps that will be support with XP, remember Windows 98? This is how it was killed the same will happen to XP.

  259. sean
    August 11, 2010 at 4:30 am

    I really cannot justify the expense of “upgrading” to a SLOWER OS for mere prettiness.
    WinXP Pro has all of the control “improvements that vista and 7 have, you just need to know the correct (supposedly non-existent) run commands to get to the Group Policy configuration, this is not common knowledge, and as I never posted here before I don’t want to get my post eliminated for telling you that don’t know about this (and probably shouldn’t if you already don’t) as it gives control over configurable items unknown to exist in winXP Pro. I agree with and applaud the thorough tests done by the author of the article. There is NO

  260. sean3516
    August 11, 2010 at 4:38 am

    No-way would I put out the cost of “upgrading” to a slower OS for no other reason than the prettiness of the color themes. WinXP Pro also is configurable using Group Policy editor to make up for any user control advantages vista or 7 might give. Been there the entire time, you just need the correct run command: gpedit.msc and you can control everything from the CD/dvd drive to control panel access and much more. Smart in the know IT professionals will tell you to stick with Win Xp Pro unless you just want to waste your money on the color/Gui interface memory hogging “improvements”. I am only TIA A+ so I am no way as smart as some of the people that frequent this, but for sure congrats to the author of this blog who got it RIGHT, unbiased and fairly.

  261. Alien
    August 14, 2010 at 7:44 pm

    You did not use Windows XP 64bit in your tests, swindler!

  262. August 14, 2010 at 9:54 pm

    Just so everyone is aware, I re-did this article using only 32 bit operating systems, you can find it here:

  263. August 16, 2010 at 2:10 pm

    XP – Xtra Power!

    • smith
      January 15, 2011 at 11:18 pm

      xp = eXPerience, nub.

  264. August 17, 2010 at 8:24 pm


    Don’t downgrade from Windows 7 windows XP only suports 3-4 gb ram max
    Dont downgrade if u have a high performance PC Windows Xp should be use only if u have a cheap ore old PC if u have 4 – 6 – 8 gb ram it isnt worth it windows 7 isnt that much slower

  265. Duane
    August 18, 2010 at 4:36 am

    You see,… Windows XP rules! 😎

    Windows 7 and Vista suck! 🙁

    Nothing will ever beat XP, not even 20 years from now. That’s why we all should stay with XP.

  266. bulu shetty
    August 18, 2010 at 4:44 am

    it’s so good to see the dekstop

    August 18, 2010 at 8:39 am

    I am using windows xp from last three years. i found that it is better than w-vista and
    w-7. when we install w-xp it took lesser space than both.
    so i love w-xp forever……………………

    • Anon Saver
      November 23, 2010 at 9:06 pm

      What the fuck is that , everybody just talks about speed , performance and stability and u fucker tell us that windows xp uses less space …….. so its the best windows >> Silly Indians <<

      • what
        January 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm

        true that

  268. robbie
    August 18, 2010 at 7:30 pm

    there is no such thing as xp 64bit, so to make the test fairer you should have used:

    xp 32bitvista 32bit7 32bit

    that would have been better.

    • zubair
      January 18, 2011 at 12:04 pm

      there is xp64 bit my friend .. i am using it

  269. James Nell
    August 18, 2010 at 10:06 pm

    I have tried win 7 , win vista and win xp , And win xp wins hands down , Although win 7 looks pretier at first install , I can and have made win xp look better and do everything win 7 does , Only faster and more stable , Windowblinds and yahoo widgets can make win xp look better that win 7 and win vista , And with a few tweaks win xp runs faster in games and multimedia than either win 7 and win vista. I dual boot between win xp and win 7 as I do like win 7 , But it still has problems with older games and apps . Win 7 is more under the control of Microsoft than win xp. Win xp can be customised in ways that win 7 can not . So its a personal choice , Depends what you want to do with your pc or laptop. ???????•*¨*•:*????¨*•:???JGN????

    • Xeratais
      December 17, 2010 at 11:11 pm

      Actually I would not use yahoo gadgets… you can get the real Windows side bar for xp.. if you do some searching.. and besides Windows X software actually screws you’re os up… if you want the fancy ness do it you’re self.. other shut up and go with the flow… or stick with plain Xp…. reminds me of the windows 98 and Millennium days.. Both 9x os’s one sucked the other ruled… >.> Vista and 7 are the same beast under the hood.. one just has some *patches and slight changes to it* so stfu.. I run xp and vista on a crappy Dell *pukes* 4600i do the math… 2 gigs of ram with a visiontek ati radeon x1300 and 2 gigs of ram.. guess what 5.0 rating so just learn to set the crap up right and shut up.

      Sound like a bunch of kids arguing over my junk is bigger than you’re s……

      • Marcus97301
        April 23, 2011 at 5:59 pm

        Wow. You seem a little tense.

  270. Ayush SP
    August 19, 2010 at 5:26 am

    Those Xp lovers are crap!!!!

    We should change with the moving world and available latest techniques.So Windows 7 is the best & win Xp is the worst!! 🙂

  271. MAHMOOD
    August 20, 2010 at 12:42 am

    If you have Windows XP and 1 GB RAM speed is not good even if it is 2 GB because the XP needs more than 3 GB to be quick but Windows Vista does not like XP because you have a program from Intel is: Intel matrix that program You find in Windows Vista and 7 cuz that program make ur pc fast even ur memory of ram 1GB…..

    • Markbasgitaar
      November 8, 2010 at 3:12 pm

      3GB For XP? You are totaly crazy xD XP Needs 256MB ram. And if you run heavy programs, you will need 1 GB. I’ve tried WIndows XP and Windows 7. My PC isn’t realy fast. : 512MB ram, 1,8Ghz, 64MB video card. Windows XP runs GOOD. Windows 7 runs very SLOW. Linux Ubuntu 10.04 runs PERFECT. Linux Ubuntu is a great Operating System. Even much better as any Windows Operating System. It’s much more stable, faster, and better. It can run Windows programs. Like AutoCAD, and Photoshop etc.

  272. nick
    August 20, 2010 at 4:10 pm

    windows 7 is shit, i had to get it to play starcraft 2 cos windows xp wouldn’t install
    windows 7 uses 1 gb of ram. how can a os use so much memory?? arch linux w/ dwm and netcfg uses 10 mb and xp uses 64 mb?? cos im used to xp and linux i just get frustrated at the constant spinny thing in win 7

    xp and linux forever

  273. Xp
    August 22, 2010 at 5:01 am

    I hope microsoft release a new XP version which has outlook of vista and windows 7.

  274. Robert
    August 22, 2010 at 5:16 am

    All of you stop it….they are all the same…windows 7 and windows vista came from windows xp or from the origin of windows and added more features which the previous windows don’t have…or should i say its all about MONEY for Microsoft…so there is no need to argue which windows OS is better…

  275. FireBall
    August 22, 2010 at 5:39 pm

    The test results speak for themselves. i agree with Xp’s comment, MS shouls release a new version of Win XP, simple/fast and stable. if you want all the cosmetic extras just install a theme pack. 🙂

  276. August 22, 2010 at 10:46 pm


    • qwerty
      December 25, 2010 at 8:58 pm


    • what
      January 11, 2011 at 2:30 pm


  277. joe
    August 23, 2010 at 3:15 am

    come on win7 is not the best,if you have a slow pc win xp is the best but you need a 2 gb pc for win7 and win vista and let me tell this,WIN VISTA IS THE worst OPERATING SYSTEM EVER.

    • Dongretejas4
      January 21, 2011 at 7:44 am

      u r right!!!!!!!!!!

    • B.T
      February 4, 2011 at 4:31 am

      Doesn’t anyone remember Windows Millennium? Now THAT was the worst operating system ever. Even Millennium introduced new standards that are still in use today – like system restore and the event viewer.

      Vista, for all the grief it has received, had some interesting improvements – like gathering together a great deal of management info together in one place.

      I’m not saying it is great – or even good – but it does have some good things too.

      • Potis21
        February 27, 2011 at 10:40 am

        Whoa, whoa. WinME was a leap ahead of win98 in every aspect win98se was to win98 plain.

        I can recall having to run “scanregw” 5 times in a row to ensure that I had the registry backed up with the new settings each and every time I did a major change in the OS.

        WinME killed the requirement, and all that doomed it, was that it was unfortunate enough to be the last incarnation of the terrible FAT32.

        Was concurrent with win2000, which showed it’s intentions at logon time by having a blurred “bliss.jpg” as a logo background.

        MS got the heart of win2000 and the skin of winME to make what still is the most solid and bold OS for a PC.

    • Matt
      February 12, 2011 at 10:58 am

      actually, as a very experienced computer tech, windows 7 only requires 1GB ram to run smoothly, win vista requires 2Gb to run smoothly, win 7 has better memory management than win vista because the memory management in 7 is based on xp,

      overall i would choose xp due to the fact its more user friendly, and i can still play some older games and use older softwares that win 7 wont allow without having to piss about changing compatibily mode and running as admin and shit.

  278. Gus
    August 23, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    I tried them all since 2000. I stick with XP all the way. Now I need a new lap top and I am desperate to keep my XP look.
    They had the best with XP, they have to get back to it!

  279. Kasper
    August 24, 2010 at 7:00 pm

    Willard, you obviously have no idea about what you are talking about. Plase have some knowledge instead of this baloney. XP is much faster than Vista in many ways and little faster than Win 7 in some ways. There are also a bunch of tweaks you can do to make XP even faster.

  280. Mike
    August 24, 2010 at 8:39 pm

    Microsoft did their best effort with XP. All else takes more ram, hard drive space-in short, a new pc/laptop. I would heartilyn recommend maintaining Windows XP until you can see your way clear to a linux o/s. (PCLINUXOS comes to mind).

    That’s what makes good sense to me…

  281. TNA
    August 25, 2010 at 11:49 am

    Windows 7, 64 bit Ultimate ROCKS! As for you die hard dogs stuck on XP…. Keep it, just don’t whine about it when others are ready for 64 bit computing. However, if you are ready for a new lively experience with real security, stability, and the added advantage of running 64 bit applications with 64 bit hardware and have more than 3.5 usable gigs of RAM for your OS, then Win7 64 bit is the right stuff. When comparing XP to to Win 7 or Vista you really need to compare the 64 bit OS. It is time to dump the 32 bit OS and move to the more robust 64 bit OS and take advantage of the 64 bit CPUs. If you are using the 64 bit flavor of Vista SP2 or Win7 then run it with 6-8 gigs of RAM. You will see the OS strutt its stuff. 4 gigs of RAM on the 64 bit OS just doesn’t take advantage of the 64 Bit memory advantage. Which was overlooked by MaxPC. I realize they are trying to compare objectively…. but Vista64 and Win7-64 are no way an a 32 bit dog it’s a 64 bit beast. So don’t cripple the OS with 4 gigs of RAM. I am running 12 gigs of RAM and am loving it.

    Additionally, you can try Win7 for free and if you dont like it…. then stay with your antique/obsolete 32 bit dog if that makes you happy. Eventually you will come around.

    • bulldozer
      July 7, 2013 at 5:45 pm

      they make windows xp 64 bit

  282. Muqsit
    August 26, 2010 at 11:02 am


  283. Contras
    August 28, 2010 at 5:33 pm

    Vista and 7 are the worse Windows versions ever. Main problems are the formal changes and the enhanced security. I am an experienced PC user and programmer, started with good old MS-DOS and migrated without problems from Windows 98 to XP. I fell in love with XP from the very beginning.
    Some day a friend asked me to help with a laptop having Vista installed. Well, I never feeled so helpless in front of a computer. Vista was very agressive. In order to edit acad.lsp file, a had to copy it to another directory, edit it and overwrite the older one. It was impossible to edit the file in its inital location.
    And much more problems, for instance an agressive alert box, each time I tried to launch an executable. Damn it, on my computer I do whatever I want to do, without express permision of Microsoft.
    Anyway, in my opinion Micrsoft wants to make money. OK, but without torturing costumers. They should keep in mind that people do not want to learn something new all the time, mostly because they usually don’t have time and they already have gained some reflexes that are difficult to change.
    This is why I shall stay away from Vista and 7 as long as possible. Perhaps Microsoft will come with another operating system, like XP, which earned the best of Windows 98 and Windows XP. Until than I stick to XP and strongly advise everybody to do the same. Keep out of trouble !

    • Bas
      November 30, 2010 at 10:22 am

      Well i like windows 7 but i had way to many problems with vista
      vista just doesn’t work for power users i had to reinstall it about every 2 months because of lock ups and registery problems wich i was not fammiliar with but i don’t have any problems with win 7 though

    • CefiroGuy3
      February 2, 2011 at 5:58 am

      totally agree.
      still running my XP Pro from since 2005 on a centrino duo processor
      it still handles like a dream! i’m about to get the 64 bit edition so it can roll with some of the programs that require it.

      • aerodude
        February 14, 2011 at 1:54 pm


        Just wondering, where do you guys get your copies of XP? Is it the “typical way” (you know what I mean) or is there some way to “downgrade” from a legit copy of 7?

        I absolutely love XP, but don’t know what the best way of getting it on a new lappy is.

        Any help would be great.


        • Some Guy
          October 5, 2011 at 7:02 pm

          Yes, you right. It’s a «typical way».

    • Rmranjeet4
      February 9, 2011 at 5:00 pm

      You are really a fool!!! Windows 7 is not as successful as XP. It’s not that stable, hangs often for short durations(tested on several machines). Processes consume more and more time. As it’s looks are it is just opposite in performance. It is not that user-friendly as is XP. It’s a bit slower howsoever fast processor you use. Windows XP is king of all. It offers a wide range of compatibilty to run various types of programs while you cannot run older programs Windows 7. Looks and graphics of Windows 7 are good but not best. Overall Windows 7 doesn’t provides a natural environment to the users.

    • Luke
      February 16, 2011 at 8:26 am

      I know what you mean, I have used XP for 9 yrs now, and didn’t want to let it go, but it is now way to old. My laptop is pretty crap, but it handles Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit pretty well. Specs: 1.6GHZ Intel Centrino DUO Processor (Intel Pentium M), 1.25 GB Ram, 64MB ATI MOBILITY Radeon 9200, 55.9 GB, was running XP Pro 32-bit, now running 7 smoothly. No problems.

    • Henkhenkhenk45
      February 18, 2011 at 3:02 pm

      Fully agree. i own an AMD Phenom II X6 1090T, oc’ed to 4070MHz, with an GTX460 oc”d to 780/1700/4320, and still i run XP… getting above 2200 3dmarks in 3dmark 06…

    • Francesco
      July 9, 2011 at 12:46 pm

      Hi Contras.

      I’m sorry to contradict you but as long as Windows 7 came out I installed on both my computers and I should say, it really works! Not only is nice to see but also functional and brings out the best from the various connected devices, plus at first I’ve tried the 32 bit version and since few months I’m trying out the 64 bit version that takes full advantage of the 4 Gb of RAM I have installed. Well XP also is a good one and when it came out I immediately did put it on my pc but now… now it’s a really old op. sys. and it doesn’t give the advantages expected from newer components. Sometimes you can’t even find the appropriate drivers cause many brands took them out from their websites. What to say: in conclusion everything works out fine, games, applications, programs, movie conversions, data transferring. Maybe I’m the only one who think in that way but I’m happy with it so, I’m not gonna change my op. sys. neither my opinion.

      Best wishes Contras. 🙂

    • GeleRod
      April 13, 2012 at 1:08 pm

      I bought
      8GB RAM laptop & tried to stay with Win XP x64 – 64 bit version, because I
      need virtualization and small overhead of the host OS, but M$ and intel
      (wintel) made it impossible, so I went with ubuntu (AMD64) as main OS and Win7
      x64 as secondary.

      Why M$
      didn`t issue Win XP 64 sp4 with full sata, ivy & sandy bridge support ?

      The answer
      is simple – $$$. They stopped getting revenue from the governments/military and
      big corporations as from the home users, because they already had bought XP. And
      supporting it only eats money. So M$ had only 1 choise – to let XP break (with
      help of the incompatible new hardware from intel) (HW could be made to start in
      compatible mode, then switched to hi-perf. by a driver if any) so they did it.

      Now the
      gov/military/etc need to buy win7/win8 for their new hardware.  (OR switch to linux which is heretical thought
      for the most of them).

    • John
      July 2, 2014 at 8:21 am

      You Right and here is why Windows XP Is great and fast because its fast and light has less features

      Windows Vista is a black pig shitting and pooing on your computer media center u cannot give a damn **** by for example going from 0:00 to 10:00 in a movie and because the taskbar preview is one screen one and behind is 1234 lines WTF and its slow in booting up and shut down slow slow in every single thign

      Windows 7 is good on most old and new computer and especially in gaming its graphics performance is flawless but the ram still like vista and ur hard disk gets fat like Rick Ross if u use for month and networking is slow / copying n pasting is slow they pushed the ribbon interface in paint wordpad and etc calculator has now scientififc and static calculation (i dont care there are several programs to download it like it) wrtie on google why windows 7 sucks and why vista is better u will know what im really talking about and they are doing this for 5 % of the imporvement of the software but to waste more money on newer windows


  284. August 29, 2010 at 3:38 pm

    having tried all 3 os my conclusion is that if you’re just a gamer then win7 is the way to go ,…..but if you use your pc for anything else, then stick with XP

    • Asasdsd
      October 14, 2010 at 12:57 am

      bs, vista/win7 got a crap sound, i could never get used with that crap sound, try to play on xp and then move back to win7 and play the same game, it fucking sucks, microsoft killed the sound api.

  285. elijah
    August 30, 2010 at 12:49 am

    at least everyone can agree that vista sucked lol

  286. PMLS
    September 2, 2010 at 10:26 am

    I just like Vista and 7 because of their appearances. But otherwise, XP will still be the BEST for me! Microsoft made XP simple but with great function and quality.

  287. September 3, 2010 at 4:47 pm

    i have win7 in my laptop. my laptop is dell i3 intel core. i want change my win7 . which win is best for my lap. can i take xp and win7 . plsssss……. answer

  288. sudeep
    September 4, 2010 at 3:17 am

    what about the security ? I guess Windows 7 is wayyy better in terms of security , as compared to xp…… Vista is already dead !! 😀

  289. comp freak
    September 7, 2010 at 7:31 am

    windows 7 is the best ….
    i love win 7 because it sopports more games than xp
    win7 lover…….

    • steven
      November 28, 2010 at 2:21 pm

      your right, win 7 ROCKS

  290. September 7, 2010 at 8:27 am

    I have been into programming right from the old DOS days .
    I would say If its going to be comparison between Vista 7 vs Windows XP,
    XP rules.
    As a user. The performance is just faster and easy. No fancy permissions, UAC’s etc.
    Even the most common hardware , mouse wheel doesnt perform well under Vista Ultimate. The windows just freeze into a light white color, Programs take longer to execute, and installing something new …………. AAaarrrgh Finally the system just gets bloated so much after the install. For XP users who want the fancy GUI stuff, google for Vista inspirat windows XP.
    As a Programmer I feel programming for Vista a pain in the bu++ . All those API’s throwing exceptions , permission issues etc. Its like learning to reprogram everything , moving them to virtualized area, registry access file permissions etc. Today most of the offuces still use XP. Windows VISTA has just wooooed the end user by their attractive GUI’s who otherwise dont care what they use. The only reason they say is security , yeah securlty at the cost of total siege. Its like confining yourself into one room, just for fear of stuffs that would happen anyway sooner or later. As i tell my clients, stay with XP, do not waste money just for false securlty. What are Antivirus forewalls etc for ?

    Parting shot: If you are using computers just for browsing, and some basic document work AND ….. and ………can afford to new hardware, go for windows 7 / vista … or something more….. that i am keeping for the end.
    Otherwise stay with XP, use the latest antivirus + Patches.

    Out of the Topic 🙂
    If you are so confined with data security etc, go for linux, or (costly option) get a MAC 🙂

  291. Paul
    September 8, 2010 at 3:24 pm

    I will always miss windows ME. It had more megabits and also could brew a nice cup of coffee. Also if you run ur computer in safe mode with ME people will send u 22cents.

  292. ahmed
    September 9, 2010 at 1:38 am

    currently i’m using vista,,
    for those UAC issue, just go to Help and Support menu, search about user account control, go to secpol.msc, then configure it. That’s it 😀

    but when i’m using Borland Delphi 7, it feels kinda tricky to make it run properly 🙁
    though it’s relatively easy to trick it, but that thing still surprising me

    for win 7, i had found one downside in command prompt (cmd)
    in win 7, cmd can’t run in full screen/graphic mode, so you must install and use DosBox 🙁
    this is critical if you’re a Turbo Assembly programmer, because the graphic mode application must developed along with DosBox. The result: the application runs normal in DosBox but runs very very fast in normal cmd.
    When i created game in assembly using graphic mode, if i run that game in cmd, i can’t play it properly. It’s too fast. Just 1-2 second and then game over 🙁

    IMHO 🙂

  293. MITCH
    September 9, 2010 at 5:04 pm

    Ummm.. there most certainly is a XP 64bit that does not have the memory cap.

    • Bigboywithalittletoy
      November 9, 2010 at 2:01 am

      And have you tried it? I love XP, but the 64-bit version was total garbage. It wouldn’t even run half the programs I tried…MS must have put a lot of effort on that one…

  294. Jiibuz
    September 10, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    I think the point that most are missing here is that the test is flawed. Comparing the 32bit architecture and the 64bit is like comparing Apples to Oranges. I for one am not a Microsoft fanboy, and I do love Windows XP but use Windows 7 on my machines. I fully understand the implications of the upgrades. It is not some devious plan to rip you away from your beloved operating system. It is more of a way to make the general population move with technology.

    The 32bit architecture will be phased out very soon. There are rumors (some with very reputable backing) of a Windows 8 release in 2012 and 9 somewhere around 2015. Once the next system is released support for XP will likely be dropped and Hardware manufactures will be designing for the newer systems, thus dropping support and drivers for the older operating systems. XP is still around because businesses did not adopt vista, but rather revolted against it and refused to use it. However businesses such as my own are in fact adopting windows 7 openly. Also the 8 and 9 operating systems will not be coming out in a 32bit format but rather 64bit and 128bit for 8 and 128bit for 9. The architectures are designed to give a higher pass through of information per cycle, not just give you the ability to use more memory. So for those of you hoping to hold on to your Windows XP machines, well keep your old hardware, because you will need it.

    Apologies if these facts have already been stated, but I felt it necessary to comment.

    • Joypatnaik
      December 6, 2010 at 9:33 am

      Very correct and I loved Vista better than XP because the moment you turn on the system you can see how fast it boots and Vista in general feels much faster than XP. Knowing that Vista is a much more advanced and secure operating system I do not recommend XP to anyone.

    • January 23, 2011 at 4:34 pm

      Spot on man. Lucky I read your comment, or I would have ended up repeating what you said. (Y)

  295. Habib-Al Poopypoops The 3rd
    September 11, 2010 at 7:21 pm

    I agree with my friends Mahmood, Ajid and Ahmed. Windows 7 is next generation, which makes perfect sense, just buy it and shut up. We need do keep our computers up to date and keep our old traditions strong, like stoning women, hunting the jew and not questioning things that don’t make any sense.

    • sammy
      October 16, 2010 at 10:53 pm

      hahahaha!! That is the most hilarious comment i ever heard!! Especially when you said “stoning women” “and hunting the jew”. How subtle! haha

    • November 2, 2010 at 1:40 pm

      Huh, the effects of Fox News and drooling over Sarah Palin!

  296. P Jean-Philippe
    September 12, 2010 at 3:14 pm

    Dell made a mystake last week when replacing my laptop HD, they loaded Vista Business instead of XP Pro… I do not recognise my PC anymore and it has become very slow; according to some earlier posts these are two qualities I should appreciate from a Microsoft upgrade. It’s newer generation so it’s better, right ? How stupid ! What about if the next generation is flawed vs the previous ones ? Is it still better because it is newer ? I am not so sure when I know that the marketing guys are pushing for the sales irrespective of quality… For my part I have decided that I have had enough of trying to get PCs and Microsoft software to work over the long run. I am dumping it all for something that really works and does not require so much constant fiddling: A Macintosh. To me the PC vs Mac price debate is utter nonsense when considering the concerns and time it takes to maintain a Windows system functioning correctly throughout its lifecycle usually requiring several re-installs, viruses and trojans clean-ups, restores, etc…

  297. brillxx
    September 13, 2010 at 3:33 pm

    i just upgraded from windows vista home premium 64bit to windows 7 ultimate 64 bit and and the temperture of my CPU fell down from 38-40 degrees to 30-34 degrees and my ram fell down from 20-22 degrees to 16-18 degrees. And thats pretty good so i don,t regret that im upgraded:)

  298. Gary
    September 19, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    If Windows 7 is “next generation” then why does it have last generation speed and need more resources?

    • XP man
      January 16, 2011 at 3:44 am

      Exactly Xp rocks and vista and windows 7 are just shit . thousands of security and no stability .

      • matt
        February 12, 2011 at 11:00 am

        yes xp does rock and vista and 7 do have too much security but you can disable more of the seciruty on win 7 than you can on win vista

  299. Dr. James D.K.
    September 29, 2010 at 5:37 pm

    Obviously WINDOWS XP is more versatile.

  300. XP & Ubuntu User
    October 15, 2010 at 1:16 pm

    What the hell are you people talking about ofcourse there’s an 64-bit Windows XP – and ofcourse Windows New-Edition will be more PC hogging than Windows Old-Edition because of the fact that Micro$oft is pushing users to more expensive hardware, it’s simple!

  301. hollywood94
    November 5, 2010 at 2:04 am

    i belive that if windows xp had the acessories that windows7 have there might not even be a windows7 on the market. the only thing different about windows7 that i noticed is that opition where you can place two web pages side byside and windows7 and using windows7 you get a certin ammount of messages to back up your system on windows xp you get that message one time only don’t get me wrong i like the new windows system but windows xp is really much faster even thou it’s a older system now but its the best older system i would use i had to fix my computer without spending hundreds of dollars.

  302. CeGe
    November 10, 2010 at 2:14 am

    Most of you are making good points. Your just not seeing the real picture here. Do you remember when you could install things with a floppy drive? Now it’s CDs and digitial because everything gets bigger in size when it comes to programming and computer’s software as the actual harware goes we know that is a different story. So of course an OS is going to take more RAM and CPU to run… that’s why you cowboy up and get a better PC… you can’t stick with 1gb of ram for ever. It’s not going to work because programs are going to need more resources as they progress. It’s simple as that. Now this really didn’t make sense comparing 2 64 bit OS’s to a 32 bit OS. Obviously the guy is stuck on XP. Windows 7 is great, never had a problem with it and oh wait… I’m on a normal up to date PC like half of the world. 3 GB of ram and it runs fine. GET UPDATED PEOPLE don’t blame the OS blame your cheap self.

    • Jotac0
      February 25, 2011 at 7:36 pm

      try put win xp on your supper pc and tel me the resoults

    • Potis21
      February 27, 2011 at 10:32 am

      Sorry CeGe, that I have to spoil ur delerium, but not everyone can afford upgrading on the pace PC manufacturers want us to in order to stay on top of business.
      On the other hand,
      If you really feel that your sparky new hardware really kicks butts when running XP but lags like titanic trying to avoid the iceberg when it runs vista or 7, what would your opinions be?

      I have faced the above scenario several times.

      When it comes to getting XP the legal way, just buy Win7 business, install XP with “ANY” available key, then call M$ and ask for a key to downgrade. Providing your legimate Win7 key will do the trick 4U.

    • rick
      March 1, 2011 at 6:25 am

      some good arguments, but today efficiency means more with less resources, just like in every modern industry, and i am not sure windows 7 deserves an updated PC for what it offers to the average customer

  303. Goodnewzman
    November 12, 2010 at 4:35 pm

    Figure into these figures that XP will only use 3.5Gb of the RAM, while the VISTA and 7 will use all 8 GB.
    This test is flawed.
    … though something could be said about these numbers…

  304. November 13, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    great review, thanks.

  305. November 13, 2010 at 4:27 pm

    great review, thanks.

  306. Dante
    November 26, 2010 at 4:33 pm

    for non-dual/quad core … less than 2gb ram and 512/256 mb graphic card is still best xp :))
    u luv xp :))

  307. December 2, 2010 at 5:25 am

    I think xp is better since i have been using it for a long time i dont really want to try something new.

  308. December 4, 2010 at 9:40 am

    Though windows 7 is better , most of the programs i work with have not upgraded to work with windows 7.

  309. steve
    December 7, 2010 at 3:40 am

    Ughhh people just TRY Windows 7, I’ve installed it on near 15 PCs now, new and old, and all my clients have been blown away.
    If your all into this trading every bit of graphics for even an unnoticeable bit of performance then all you have to do is turn off all the Windows Aero features. I promise you it will run as well(if not better than) as XP and the UI will STILL look better.
    Windows 7 has more STABILITY(a big one for users), compatibility, and plenty of great features that save tons of time.

    Most of the people I’ve helped came from XP, a few from Vista, and were dealing with tons of viruses, crapware & bloatware, BSODs, and all the works. Now that I’ve done a clean install of 7, they haven’t had one problem yet. The consensus from all of them is that the more they use it, the more they love it.
    TRY IT.

  310. james aggle
    December 10, 2010 at 2:15 pm

    windos xp shoild be fior beter

    • Xeratais
      December 17, 2010 at 11:16 pm

      they are all the same…. just bulky and slower…. I run three os’s.. Xp Vista and Linux *Ubuntu* So it don’t make a sh*t to me… Pc is a PC… mac is a PC! so it is all the same……. don’t like windows and can’t afford a apple overrated pice of hardware.. then make a hackintosh….. don’t like regular pc hardware and want a mac but hate osx… get boot camp end of story… there is plenty of operating systems out there… we all know windows has it’s faults… but it don’t matter… open you’re eyes and look at you’re options.

      Bunch of toddlers

  311. Jeffrey Kensington-Smythe-Lake
    December 10, 2010 at 2:27 pm

    Hi, I’m new to all this melarky. I have a windows 95 but I can’t figure out how to get on ‘Newbook’ or ‘Facetube’. Could someone please give me directions?

    • what
      January 11, 2011 at 2:27 pm

      fail troll is fail

    • :)
      February 11, 2011 at 11:26 pm

      WTH. :))))))

    • Rafdaman
      February 21, 2011 at 11:35 pm


  312. darkely1024
    December 17, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Windows XP still rocks

  313. Dheeraj
    December 18, 2010 at 11:23 am

    if u dont wannA then try royale xp
    i m 100% confident that u ill like it

  314. Mrusli40
    December 21, 2010 at 4:43 pm

    i think windows 7 is very snappy but have a little problems than others. I think windows 7 is the best than 2 of the version.

  315. Anonymous
    December 25, 2010 at 4:06 am

    no they are not and vista is just as a piece of shit as your comment. Hahahaha

  316. Honeryx
    December 28, 2010 at 6:10 pm

    There’s also the additional stability factor. XP simple has far fewer errors and problems. If you’re an overclocker, XP will let you squeeze more out of your system. I don’t understand why this is the case as it should be the same hardware, but this has been proven repeatedly and is pretty well known.

    Nothing right now really uses more than 3 gigs of ram. If you insist on running 10 different programs at once and somehow don’t have a CPU bottleneck, I guess the ram could be taken advantage of. But depending on what you’re using the system for, you’ll never see a use otherwise. Games are generally the real reason anybody needs a decent rig, and very few use more than 2 cores and almost none use more than 3 gigs of RAM.

    When the above changes, that is when people should move to 64 bit Win 7. However by the time that changes, we might have a newer, better OS anyway, which is my belief. I believe it will be about 5 years.

    If you only use your computer for games, or even less just surfing the web, you just don’t need it.

  317. Arnidhar2011
    December 30, 2010 at 10:51 am

    I’ve already used so many OS like windows xp sp2, sp3, mac, vista home and vista ultimate edition. Now I’m using Windows 7 Ultimate. It looks so beautiful and it works efficiently than another OS specially in Internet Browseing. It is also safer and secure OS than others. I can’t understand why some people don’t like 7. Come on guys I’ve also used xp and I’m totally agree with them who tell xp is the best. But 7 is the next generation Operating System so It may creat some painful experience for 95, 98 users. So at first update yourself and use win 7 and also ms office 2010 and nero 10. These are so comfortable with 7.

  318. Bk Bas
    January 4, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    if 7 is so great why do most major corporations stick with xp? I work for one of the worlds largest banks in IT and we have no immediate or even long term plan to migrate from XP. Not until it becomes unsupported I suspect

  319. Hitcross
    January 4, 2011 at 1:29 pm

    you guys are posting your non-professional comments. although the author is more exact in his opinion. he has just compared these operating systems in terms of performance. there is no word about stability and functionalities. windows 7 is much much much more polished in terms of stability, security , graphics, and functionality.

  320. bharat
    January 7, 2011 at 8:21 am

    windows 7 is good but the proble is coming when you add domain, the thing is when you loging user end that time no issue, but when you login from admin end that time you face proble because it want computer name

    • what
      January 11, 2011 at 2:46 pm

      dude what the fuck do you mean? lol

  321. bharat
    January 7, 2011 at 8:22 am

    any one has solution

  322. John
    January 21, 2011 at 3:55 pm

    Is this information still valid? I mean have there been any change for like 7?

  323. Kevsterx
    January 27, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    maybe will wait for windows 8 or 9. i have high spec. pc but i rather use xp for performance than visual.

  324. TheGamer
    January 30, 2011 at 8:54 am

    Is really worth upgrading from XP to Windows Vista? Tell me guys.

    Here’s my Spec:

    OS: Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP2 32 bit
    Processor: AMD 64 Athlon LE-1640
    GPU: nVidia GeForce 9500 GT; 1024 RAM
    RAM: Two Kingston 2GB Chips are installed (3GB recognized, 4 gb total)

    Planning to upgrade to: Microsoft Windows Vista Home Premium SP2 32 bit

  325. toche
    February 13, 2011 at 10:41 pm

    dude you can’t compare a 32 platform with a 64 bit platform lol
    of course 32 bit is going to be a bit faster lol everybody knows that u should use windows xp 64 bit as well 😉

  326. February 21, 2011 at 8:07 pm

    no offence but your tests are bias. You are using a 64-bit seven and vista, but only a 32-bit xp, which cannot even read the full 8 gigs of RAM (max. 4 on 32 bit) so you may need to re-do the test with xp-64, lol!

  327. Indianvisa
    March 19, 2011 at 8:39 pm

    Both xp and windows 7 are good i never used vista though
    windows 7 is very user friendly i mean every thing is availble where you want it
    coming to the interface if its about gadgets or those aero themes we are talking about here (in windows 7) we can do these in xp too just some noobs dont no how thats it (rainmeter,universal theme patcher)

    those talks on modern generation and new technology are just crap

    what people are forgetting is the purpose of their use if the software serves the purpose who cares if its old gen or new gen (did any one replace cd display or photoscape 7zip ) no they did not because they serve the purpose

    dont prolong this shit ok

    all these guys say is new gen, xp is the best ,vista sucks, move on, why corporate guys use xp not 7 nothing more than that

    for some true specs look at

    i had my own experiences with xp and 7 (both serve the same purpose though) its just that there is more talk going on around about 7 than xp now a days thats it nothing more

    my conclusion “xp was the best , windows 7 is next”

    we are also forgetting that all the 3 softwares were developed by the same company they are the users themselves they know the loop holes and failures in each software they release , thats why they release new versions every time and make money every time if microsoft didnt release vista who would have bought it the company gained more through its customers loss than their gain, did they shift from microsoft due to that reason no there are still using it

    future is yet to come the android generation is out , tablet pcs have come, what not who knows what the future beholds some day linux,google or some one will kick microsofts butt for sure that day my friends is when the new generation begins, thats the day when corporate removes xp or what ever shit from their pcs, and thats the day

    i must say i am myself never used other softwares(os,wordprocessing etc) other than microsofts its this supremacy of it that i hate

    why should we use only its products, around more than 80% or more users in my country use xp,vista,7 or ms office they know nothing more than that (dont blame the country for it) its the lack of supremacy of other providers

    they say we would run a pirated version of xp,vista,7 than using ubuntu,linux some never heard of linux itself

    how many years do you think billgates would live 30 more probably 50 what would happen later its better to shift now than to repent later

    i never used linux myself but i would from now on

    my opnion “its better to marry a virgin than to stick with a whore”

  328. TomTheGreek
    March 27, 2011 at 6:35 pm

    Totally agree. Windows XP is the best OS. I newly purchased a computer with Windows 7 and it starts up much slower than my older XP ( WIN 7 has 3 Ghz and 4GB RAM and XP has 1.8 GHz with 1 GB RAM).

  329. Billy
    March 28, 2011 at 3:45 pm

    I enjoy jerking off on Windows 7, and use Vista to wipe my hands and desk. XP Pro x64 all the way you ignorant dum fucks! If you can’t tell the difference, then you ARE the difference.

  330. Melvyn!.
    March 29, 2011 at 4:17 pm

    Well i think that windows 7 is the best among the three.. we all know its the lastest among the 3 so surely its the best as of now.. and talking about the performance XP vs vista and W7.. i think XP will surely run fast among the three.. because of its very small system requirments and the other security.. and add on features which vista and 7 have… overall your much safer to use the 2 because of there new features… and about the learning process.. vista and 7 are more accessible and flexible… specially windows 7.. trust me im a windows 7 user..hehe… FYI ”Keep out of trouble ! ”… what do you mean about that…Windows XP is more vulnerable… because of its poor security features.. and that’s it… thank you!. =)

  331. Jayw654
    March 30, 2011 at 11:13 am

    So glad Windows XP is dying, customer support drops in 2012 and ends for businesses in 2014. I’m wholeheartedly looking forward to this day. Windows 7 allows for so much more and if the people would take a closer look Windows 7 is faster in many respects and benchmarks don’t say everything. What about performance improvements when running directx 10 and 11 games? The security as some say lacks and this simple is a flat out LIE! Windows 7 is FAR more secure, although its no Linux. Windows Xp is designed for OLDER computers which is why it runs better on OLDER computers but Windows 7 does scale well on some older machines. I remember when people absolutely HATED Windows XP and now they don’t want to part with it since all the service pack are out and have grown comfortable with it. This is the biggest issue is people have grown too comfortable with XP and don’t want to learn anything new. The feature of Windows 7 are simply fantastic. Windows 7 didn’t have massive bugs from date of release and only gotten better since Service Pack 1 and Explorer 9 which is only available in Vista and 7 doesn’t suck like previous versions of Explorer. I use to be a Firefox die-hard lover but IE9 has changed my mind as it has but cookie and privacy protection which prevents sites from tracking you the user which Firefox and Chrome do NOT offer. IE also uses graphics acceleration to speed page loads and to render pages, which again Firefox and Chrome do not offer. These are awesome features that 7 offers. The other main reason which users don’t want to upgrade which I believe plagues a lot of users is they are simply too cheap and change means more money. Get use to this as Windows finally has a life cycle pattern of every 5 years for a new OS and I believe this is a good thing.

  332. Forsaken_Hacker
    April 1, 2011 at 9:02 am

    Well unlike all of you out there, XP maybe a good choice but I recommanded to use windows vista or windows 7, you may not think that but windows xp is easy to kill, I once made a virus and the next time i rebooted it, it wouldn’t allowed me to start windows because the virus i made was a boot file which was commanded by command prompt to delete it. Windows 7 and vista is different, it has more protection then any other windows out there, also it has a recovery tool with it so for example: if a virus was killing your computer, you could use a cd or use the recovery tool which also has !FORMAT! with it…

    Windows Xp maybe useful in some ways but the point is before you really hate windows 7 or vista, you must try it, infact its dying and going to be destroy in 2012 or 2013….

  333. Dheluxe
    April 2, 2011 at 6:49 pm

    Haha I still loved to use XP. Vista and Win7 is for good look only 😀

    • Jayw654
      April 3, 2011 at 11:54 am

      no there’s tons more to it than looks. Like enhanced security which even exceeds Vista. Support for Directx 11 for highend bleeding edge games. Beter stability even over Windows XP. There are more but this one s trumps all No expiration dates hich XP rightfully has, no matter how much you love your old and dated OS it is more or less DEAD. There’s no way around as in 2012 all customer support stops and for businesses its 2014. Heck I not sure but I don’t believe they are writing any major patches for Windows XP anymore. BTW that does NOT mean that Windows is so perfect that they don’t need to, it is because they simply stopped development as Windows XP is no longer important to Microsoft anymore.

  334. 123456
    April 9, 2011 at 5:50 am

    BAD TEST !!!!!!!!!

  335. Xxwarrior
    April 9, 2011 at 5:52 am

    32 bit vs 64 bit = BAAAD TEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • July 9, 2012 at 12:34 pm

      Nobody pays attention do they. This was re-done with 32bit only:  http:/

  336. Vl81802
    April 10, 2011 at 5:40 am

    Windows 7 is the more refined incarnation ~ the problem w/ the later versions R the hardware requirements ~ windows xp being the stripped down version ~ naturally would performs bettr ~
    Performance is usually determined by better hardware & personally ~ conk outs were normally do 2 poor hardware ~ not the OS ~
    I personally didn’t care for the limited/clunky xp file/window access ~ unless ~ M$ did a serious service pack update ~
    it’s suxs in comparison ~ which is important to Us windows & file access junkies

    Personally ~ performance wise ~ I didn’t notice any difference ~ however ~ windows 7 did seem snappier than vista ~then again ~ SSD (windows 7) vs mechanical (vista) ~

  337. Jayw654
    April 19, 2011 at 9:03 pm

    its not slower it just uses more computer power, and there’s nothing wrong with that in the slightest. Buy a faster computer and get a better experience. This is the way things go. If anyone thinks that Microsoft isn’t going to require more and more resources in the future you are dead wrong, they do this for several reasons, the first one is that hardware manufacturers have continue making moeny to stay in business. so if 4 OS’s down the road can still be ran with the same old machine these manufacturers will be out of business. Second is Microsoft wants to innovate and try new ideas to make a better OS and the more hardware power available the more abilities it give Microsoft to try new ideas.

  338. Kokloqe
    April 28, 2011 at 10:37 pm

    Windows 7 = Windows XP (performance) + Windows Vista (Appearence)

  339. Marin Baja
    May 8, 2011 at 7:07 am 7 is soo slow.i try everything programs like a tune up,windows doctor and uniblue….windows xp is the bestttttt !!!!!!(windows xp sp 2 profesional)!!!!!!

  340. Rpackmanus
    June 23, 2011 at 2:03 am

    totally agree with XP, XP agrees with me. i went back to ME a few times many years ago but the disk instablility drove me crazy. these tests just show XP runs circles around vista and 7 and i’m suprised the hated vista outperforms 7! guess they just added crap to make it stable, not refined it. i’m running XPPRO 32bit on a 64bit machine and it’s 2X as fast as the same Ghz 32bit core. i WILL NOT get new hardware, or software for NO REASON! i’ll be running XP 20 years from now. i have also uninstalled and disabled all the update features. everytime i re-did my system and had it running great, updates mucked things up and boot times got flushed down the toilet. microsoft DOES THIS TO US ON PURPOSE!!!!!!!! with avira, adaware, popupstopper you dont need that crap!

  341. Daniel Thorsson
    June 23, 2011 at 5:06 pm

    LOL! You gotta be kidding, right? There are people in the world who, in 2011, still think Windows XP is superior to Windows 7. I mean, Windows 7 may be “resource hungrier” than Windows XP, but c’mon. You don’t have to be a professional to clearly see that Windows 7 is WAY faster, more reliable, safer and nicer looking that XP. I’m surprised by some “experienced user and programmer” comments such as “Windows 7 is the worst version ever”. LMAO! Where did you take your programming classes? In the 90s? Guys, this is simple: Windows XP support is KAPUT. It’s an outdated Windows version. Go for Windows 7 without fear. Of course, I’m assuming this is indeed the 21st century and you could buy a computer which is capable of running windows 7 for $ 1,000. You could upgrade yours for much less than that.

  342. August 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm

    Get a fast PC then install Win7. That will do it… If you have low specs you should try windows 95. lol.

    • August 11, 2011 at 1:14 pm

      Windows 7 is far more productive than XP. You can say that openGL runs fast on XP but you can work faster on Win7 because it is more productivity oriented. I can say that you can take 5 seconds to get to your fave program on you start menu on xp but on 7 it will take you only 2 seconds by pressing winkey, typing the first letters of the program and then hitting enter. Scenarios like that really makes win7 the winner.

  343. orhan98
    August 16, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    the best operating system is windows xp

  344. Cowboy_18
    September 6, 2011 at 2:46 pm

    I run windows 7 but use windows xp mode alot, I like the windows 7 operating system and how user friendly it is but there is something about xp that i like. never going to just use xp though because windows 7 rocks

  345. Cowboy_18
    September 6, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    But why not upgrade to windows 7 and just run windows xp mode 24/7 that way you are still up to date o.s. wise

  346. Some Guy
    October 5, 2011 at 7:10 pm

    You compare wrong things. You should look at user interface and stuff. XP has best of them, W7 has the worst, I even had to install classic shell program to remove useless features and return old start menu. But it’s still not the same — context menu in W7 is horrible, billion useless options, while I need only few of them. Close program button on desktop bar, they moved it up, os you have to move mouse longer, etc…

  347. Hydac6
    February 5, 2012 at 10:31 pm

    DUDE you can  not compare  32 bit things  with  64 bit  things  IT IS  NOT THE SAME ,  you have  to  test   32 bit  xp to 32 bit  vista  and  32  bit  7  ,   then  test  against all 64 bit  versions , xp has  a  64  bit  version derived from server 2k3  made  in ’04 which has the  latest service pack 2  ( not to be confused with xp 32   service  pack 2 )     —  testing  64 bit  and  32 in the  same bucket leads  TO IMPRECISE RESULTS  !

    • February 28, 2012 at 10:53 pm

      DUDE! Did you see the follow up?  

    • May 11, 2012 at 4:56 pm

      Do you not pay attention? I did a 32bit only article, I’ve repeated this fact many times now but everyone keeps complaining and not paying attention: 

  348. Just some engineer
    May 9, 2012 at 2:56 am

    If you are going to compare XP to the other two OSes at least get the XP 64-bit Professional Edition with SP2 installed (the last SP made for XP 64-bit).  Then make sure the other two have the same maxed out updates.  Then run the test again.  You also have to make sure you are using the same drivers versions for audio and video too,  just to make it fair.

    Currently, this test is comparing Apples to Oranges.

    Let’s see this XP Home (starters) 32-bit vs.  Vista Starters (Home)  32-bit vs Windows 7 32-bit (Home / Starters) and then let’s see how everything fares.  Then compare the 32 bit vs. 64 bit of the same operating systems in all the tests.  After that show what is the fastest of the bunch and where.

    By the way, for those of you doing virtualization in hardware, it’s not technically worth it unless you have 8 cores or more, 16 GB of RAM or more and have a descent 64-bit operating system, in the case of Windows.  I would suggest Windows Server 2003 64-bit edition, the Win 2k3 is the big brother of the XP 64-bit Pro edition.  As the Windows Server 2003 32-bit edition is the big brother of the XP 32-bit edition.  It’s quite a bit better in virtualization than Server 2008, unless you need to do cloud computing EC2 stuff, then the Server 2008 and soon to be Windows 8 Server (Server 2012) would be your best choice.

    If you are virtualizing software in a host operating system and are doing device driver creation, the best thing to do is get a system with 16 GB of RAM or more and have a virtualization system and software than can handle more memory to help speed up the Virtual Machine emulation.  Virtualization in it’s very nature is never in real time no matter how many cores you give the VM and how fast the cores are.

    As I said before, Windows XP 64-bit only went to SP2, on the other hand XP 32-bit series has gone to SP3 as of current. The only NT series that went to that great length and can still a good number of general programs is Windows 2000 Professional, they went to SP4.

    To address the worst Microsoft system ever?  On the Microsoft Windows side, I would have to say, Millenium Edition aka Windows ME, that’s got to be the worst, then Windows Vista.  On the other side
    of Microsoft’s work, I would have to say OS/2 before IBM bought it from them and worked their magic so to speak, that was one horrendous OS when MS had created it (but that’s just my take on things).

  349. HELP!!!
    May 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm

    what is the best choice for NO lag .. and good fps for games ??? and i want to ask does windows xp can take direct 11 ?

  350. Eric-Jan H te A
    June 20, 2012 at 12:31 pm

    Nice test; but NOT.

    One only can conclude that given a certain hardware one or the other is best. But we do not have the same hardware, or do we? And what about all other variables in the play

    – For instance I suspect that for XP the drivers are somewhat outdated because not maintained or available any more for this hardware
    – XP has to run with one leg off, because of only using 3 GB max
    – Is disk layout optimum/the same in all three cases
    – And caching, swap space
    – And level of tuning (hours spent on). I think Vista an Seven have a lot of built in hours spent on. Hours gained by the experiences in XP. But maybe with some effort XP can get in front even more
    –  etc

    Taken all into account one could conclude: “Well this makes XP all the better my favorite choice”. But than again what  are you not getting in terms of:
    – security
    – stability
    – resource utilization
    – ergonomics
    – pleasure to use
    Not to mention the fact that you should run Adobe reader v9 instead of v10 because XP is not capable of running it. Or should I say Adobe reader v10 is not capable to run on XP. You should be astound how difficult is to get a tire for a 1910 Ford. 

    In other words these kind of tests most commonly have a religious believe as an outcome. Hardly worth the time spend on such a test. Only one thing counts: “Am I happy with the compilation of hard and software I have got”

    I remember from my time as a Cobol programmer (about 1986) that my company ordered a test in efficiency of certain Cobol instructions. The outcome was to circumvent the use of for instance the “Inspect” statement (Happy)  and write it down in a series of loops (NOT Happy). My immediately reaction was: “And what about the easy of use, and the readability”. Not aware of the fact that the Cobol-compiler of the year after also would deal with the shortcomings of this illustrious “Inspect” stament.  I think I can remember IBM changed the compiled result to an inline function instead of a far call. So, a total worthless investigation. However, a good side effect of the investigation was the start of a fully automated process for Cobol programs to test whether they complied to all other company rules.  Resulting in a boost of quality and uniformness. In terms of Johan Cruyff: “Elk nadeel heb zijn voordeel” (All negative things has his positive side). “has his…” deliberately because Johan makes these kind of errors.

    With Kind Regards,
    Eric-Jan Hoogendijk,
    The Netherlands.

  351. Random
    July 6, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    Yes you’re comparing a 32 bit OS with 64 bit OS…. bit biased.

    • July 9, 2012 at 12:33 pm

      Nobody pays attention do they. This was re-done with 32bit only: 

  352. Mackan84
    July 19, 2012 at 9:34 pm

    You can also compare what the OS demands in system req!
    WinXP demands so much less then and takes much less space (xp-1.5 to 2 gb, vista/7-16-20gb) and remember how Vista forced everyone to buy more Ram-memory to BE ABLE to use Vista, when it came out!

    thanks for this test and review. really helped me in a moment of thoughts about which OS to go with!

  353. November 22, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    windows 7 and windows 8 still is shit bump

  354. jammer255
    February 1, 2013 at 7:56 pm

    i Had a AMD athalon 64 Windows had ran perfictly sence 2001..( 12 years )..easy to operate, clean, maintain, no problems..The Tower itself, Burned out after all those years..on a borrowed Lap-Top now running W/7..”Pretty, Different”..But, I do miss my a trade, just picked up a 2 year old Compact with Vista Bissn….we’ll see how this goes !!

  355. John
    July 2, 2014 at 8:22 am

    Windows XP Is great and fast because its fast and light has less features

    Windows Vista is a black pig shitting and pooing on your computer media center u cannot give a damn **** by for example going from 0:00 to 10:00 in a movie and because the taskbar preview is one screen one and behind is 1234 lines WTF and its slow in booting up and shut down slow slow in every single thign

    Windows 7 is good on most old and new computer and especially in gaming its graphics performance is flawless but the ram still like vista and ur hard disk gets fat like Rick Ross if u use for month and networking is slow / copying n pasting is slow they pushed the ribbon interface in paint wordpad and etc calculator has now scientififc and static calculation (i dont care there are several programs to download it like it) wrtie on google why windows 7 sucks and why vista is better u will know what im really talking about and they are doing this for 5 % of the imporvement of the software but to waste more money on newer windows


Comments are closed.