Good idea to install Win7 on an old computer

[Udedenkz]

what do you want to come to my house and see it for yourself, the system does not use that much ram

i don't see "3 times the ram"

You really think that everyone here is an first class idiot? You specifically cut out the bottom of your taskmanager because it shows exactly how much RAM and Processes are running in the background.

>:(

[jonhapimp]

Uh, no, I want the results of whatever you're using to compare the performance of the two, not a screenshot of the processes running as your user (which aren't even all the processes running on the system).

it's called real world performance since you don't have any experience in that. i've had both installed on the same system both with fresh installs and windows 7 runs better. it's kind of hard to proof you wrong when i don't have xp anymore, what i can show you all my processes. again just because your system sucks doesn't mean mine does.

or this can help

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

which it seems like windows 7 beats xp

or

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

or

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-7424-vie...windows-xp.html

or

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/03/w...a-vs-windows-xp

or

http://www.ithinkdiff.com/windows-7-build-...older-7-builds/

[Udedenkz]

*snip*

One of those articles is not from zdnet. None of those machines are running on low-end hardware.

You linked three times to the same source it seems ergo four link to the same person.

[jonhapimp]

You really think that everyone here is an first class idiot? You specifically cut out the bottom of your taskmanager because it shows exactly how much RAM and Processes are running in the background.

>:(

no i forgot to show all process so it wasn't "cut off"

and just because you love xp so much(guessing from your sig) doesn't mean theres something better and faster

One of those articles is not from zdnet. None of those machines are running on low-end hardware.

You linked three times to the same source it seems ergo four link to the same person.

well if you wont believe me or those sources you can go google it yourself, i got to go to work

[hdood]

it's called real world performance since you don't have any experience in that. i've had both installed on the same system both with fresh installs and windows 7 runs better. it's kind of hard to proof you wrong when i don't have xp anymore, what i can show you all my processes. again just because your system sucks doesn't mean mine does.

If you want to show how much memory it is using, you paste an image of the performance tab, not random processes. I don't know why you feel like doing this though, because I already know how much memory 7 uses. I was asking you to provide benchmark results of some sort to back up your claim that 7 "runs better" than XP on the same old hardware. Actually, to be honest, I stopped caring several posts ago because I know it just isn't true.

or this can help

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3187

which it seems like windows 7 beats xp

or

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2

or

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-7424-vie...windows-xp.html

or

https://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/03/w...a-vs-windows-xp

or

http://www.ithinkdiff.com/windows-7-build-...older-7-builds/

I'm not gonna bother clicking any of the links, but I suspect that they all deal with benchmarking XP and 7 on modern hardware.

[Imran Hussain]

I'm not gonna bother clicking any of the links, but I suspect that they all deal with benchmarking XP and 7 on modern hardware.

Your suspicion is unjustified. You seem to be in denial of accepting the fact that Windows 7 runs very well on old hardware. Checking the links would have proved to you that fact.

[Udedenkz]

*snip*

And I have to guess how much RAM you have? I want to see your Commit Charge. Don't bother if it is more than ~250 on boot.

@Imran Hussain, check these out,

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/window...nce/default.asp

http://www.ithinkdiff.com/windows-xp-vs-wi...7-using-512-mb/

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=747402

Edited June 13, 2009 by Udedenkz

[hdood]

Your suspicion is unjustified. You seem to be in denial of accepting the fact that Windows 7 runs very well on old hardware. Checking the links would have proved to you that fact.

Okay, I just wasted time for you:

Link 1:

Quad core Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850, 2GB, 10k RPM disk

Link 2:

Quad core Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850, 4GB

Dual core E2200, GF 8400, 1GB

Link 3:

Dual core E8500, GF 9800GT, 2GB, RAID

Link 4 and 5:

Same as 2

Now, how do any of these setups prove what you claim?

I love Windows 7 as much as anyone here, but it's not some sort of magic super OS, and it does require fairly powerful hardware -- which is perfectly reasonable, this isn't 2001. When you have hardware as old as the original poster, you should stick to an os from that era. It will provide a much more usable system.

[Imran Hussain]

Okay, I just wasted time for you:

Link 1:

Quad core Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850, 2GB, 10k RPM disk

Link 2:

Quad core Phenom 9700, Radeon 3850, 4GB

Dual core E2200, GF 8400, 1GB

Link 3:

Dual core E8500, GF 9800GT, 2GB, RAID

Link 4 and 5:

Same as 2

Now, how do any of these setups prove what you claim?

I love Windows 7 as much as anyone here, but it's not some sort of magic super OS, and it does require fairly powerful hardware -- which is perfectly reasonable, this isn't 2001. When you have hardware as old as the original poster, you should stick to an os from that era. It will provide a much more usable system.

Honestly, you didn't read all the links clearly :)

Link 5 is my own blog. So let me make it clear to you that it's NOT the same as 2. One of the configs used in the test is an Intel Pentium Dual Core/ NVIDIA 8400 GS/ 1 GB RAM.

It can also run fine enough on a 600 Mhz UMPC with 512 MB RAM. This config is way slower than the one given in the OP's post.

@Udedenkz thanks I'll check out the links. The 2nd is to my own blog though. :)

[hdood]

Does it run better than XP would on the same machine? Yes/no.

Also, I'm not quite sure how the video proves anything. I can do everything it does (except run Aero, but neither can the OP) on my P3. Doesn't mean it runs better than XP for actual use other than just playing with.

[Udedenkz]

Does it run better than XP would on the same machine? Yes/no.

Also, I'm not quite sure how the video proves anything. I can do everything it does (except run Aero, but neither can the OP) on my P3. Doesn't mean it runs better than XP for actual use other than just playing with.

+1

One could run Windows XP lower than the minimum system requirements as well. Doesn't mean that one should run it on such a low system though.

On higher end machines, there would be little if any difference between XP and 7 performance (and well Modern Games + Modern Hardware + Modern OS = Good) (and well, 100 vs 120 FPS per say would be irrelevant), but on low end machines the difference in performance is more relevant. Therefore the switch to 7 BETA is illogical unless the user does not care about the speed of his/her system.

[Imran Hussain]

That's what this link proves, that it runs better than XP on the same machine!

But of course, a P3 is TOO old. I wouldn't even bother trying it on that. Or even Windows XP on it for that matter.

[hdood]

That's what this link proves, that it runs better than XP on the same machine!

But of course, a P3 is TOO old. I wouldn't even bother trying it on that. Or even Windows XP on it for that matter.

# An AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz system fitted with an ATI Radeon 3850 and 4GB of RAM

# An Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 2.2GHz fitted with an NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS and 1GB of RAM

These are not old or outdated systems by any definition used on this planet, nor do they only have 512MB RAM. Why is this so difficult to understand? I'm also skeptical of the way the test in question was conducted.

As for the P3, XP runs fine, although modern and heavy applications like Firefox are a little slow. That's not XP's fault though.

Edited June 13, 2009 by hdood

[jonhapimp]

Does it run better than XP would on the same machine? Yes/no.

Also, I'm not quite sure how the video proves anything. I can do everything it does (except run Aero, but neither can the OP) on my P3. Doesn't mean it runs better than XP for actual use other than just playing with.

I thought you was going to stop

[Imran Hussain]

# An AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz system fitted with an ATI Radeon 3850 and 4GB of RAM

# An Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 2.2GHz fitted with an NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS and 1GB of RAM

These are not old or outdated systems by any definition used on this planet. Why is this so difficult to understand?

As for the P3, XP runs fine, although modern and heavy applications like Firefox are a little slow. That's not XP's fault though.

Huh? You MIGHT want to look up the meaning of old or outdated. Google it up maybe.

ALSO, as I said, the Intel Pentium Dual Core is old. NOT the Phenom. Might want to check that again as well.

And a 600 Mhz UMPC with 512 MB RAM wasn't old enough for you?

Also Firefox isn't a 'heavy application' by any stretch of imagination.

You're just arguing for the sake of arguing. This is an unproductive discussion with you.

[hdood]

I thought you was going to stop

Where's that performance tab screenshot?

[hdood]

Huh? You MIGHT want to look up the meaning of old or outdated. Google it up maybe.

ALSO, as I said, the Intel Pentium Dual Core is old. NOT the Phenom. Might want to check that again as well.

Uh, the Core 2 Duo is about a year and a half old. It is not an old processor. It is a modern, fast multicore 64-bit processor (albeit with a small cache). The graphics card is a ~2 year old DX10 card, also pretty powerful. A Pentium 4/M or Athlon XP with a DX7/8 card can be considered old, but nothing used in these tests.

And a 600 Mhz UMPC with 512 MB RAM wasn't old enough for you?

Low-end maybe, but not necessarily old. The two do not mean the same. I already commented on the UMPC though, and how it is likely not very usable in the real world compared with XP.

Also Firefox isn't a 'heavy application' by any stretch of imagination.

Yes it is. A single webpage can easily contain over 150 images, have tons of markup, run javascript, have 3-4 Flash animations. This is very resource-heavy. You have to remember that I was talking in terms of a P3 with half a gig of RAM, not a modern Core 2 Duo machine.

[Pulgafree]

@Original Topic

The system you have is meant to run Windows XP, since is on the same era of that OS. But, as you should know, Microsoft will cut all support from that OS, and maye i am wrong, but no more Service Packs or optimization. Only several security issues would be solved.

Windows 7 is a very very different OS than XP. It's based on new technology, originally implemented on Vista, and now improved on 7. The extremely well coded kernel, almost suits on every based PC since 2000 and beyond. (maybe even older ones).

Just give it a good try, and expect a good experience, compatibility and a full of new features, from security to user interface.

Just skip most of the coments here. Windows XP WILL do it's job really well, but 7 will do as much as good as XP, but with 2007-9 technology.

Excuse my english.

[Udedenkz]

I'm also skeptical of the way the test in question was conducted.

I don't trust those benchmarks at all. Honestly those numbers look made-up. Take a look at the Performance benchmark between XP / V / 7 that I posted, those do not look like someone pulled them out... *clears throat*

And a 600 Mhz UMPC with 512 MB RAM wasn't old enough for you?

I would take one of those anyday.

[Imran Hussain]

Uh, the Core 2 Duo is about a year and a half old. It is not an old processor. It is a modern, fast multicore 64-bit processor (albeit with a small cache). The graphics card is a ~2 year old DX10 card, also pretty powerful. A Pentium 4/M or Athlon XP with a DX7/8 card can be considered old, but nothing used in these tests.

Low-end maybe, but not necessarily old. The two do not mean the same. I already commented on the UMPC though, and how it is likely not very usable in the real world compared with XP.

Yes it is. A single webpage can easily contain over 150 images, have tons of markup, run javascript, have 3-4 Flash animations. This is very resource-heavy. You have to remember that I was talking in terms of a P3 with half a gig of RAM, not a modern Core 2 Duo machine.

You HAVE to realize that a Pentium Dual Core is NOT a Core 2 Duo!!

And UMPCs can be used with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Vista or 7. What usability issue?

And what you're saying is different than saying that Firefox is a heavy application. The websites can be heavy, it's not the application in itself that's heavy.

But as I already said. Windows 7 shouldn't be tried on a P3 anyhow. It would run great on a Pentium 4 and above machine though.

[Lee G. Veteran]

I didn't read the first post before voting, so I voted for Windows XP :p

But for that machine, definitely Windows 7!

[hdood]

You HAVE to realize that a Pentium Dual Core is NOT a Core 2 Duo!!

Whatever, it was a typo, I was confusing it with my list from earlier. A Pentium is just a cut-down C2D anyway, but the point was that it's certainly not an "old" processor.

And UMPCs can be used with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Vista or 7. What usability issue?

Is this a response to anything I said? I said XP will run better on it and use fewer resources (leaving more to be used for actual stuff).

And what you're saying is different than saying that Firefox is a heavy application. The websites can be heavy, it's not the application in itself that's heavy.

Uh, you run Firefox to use it, not to stare at a white window. In use, it is a heavy application.

[jonhapimp]

And I have to guess how much RAM you have? I want to see your Commit Charge. Don't bother if it is more than ~250 on boot.

@Imran Hussain, check these out,

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/window...nce/default.asp

http://www.ithinkdiff.com/windows-xp-vs-wi...7-using-512-mb/

http://forums.overclockers.com.au/showthread.php?t=747402

what please read the ****ing thread and you'll know my specs. And you can stop posting useless, pointless assumptions

[hdood]

what please read the ****ing thread and you'll know my specs. And you can stop posting useless, pointless assumptions

Why can't you just post a screenshot of the performance tab? Is it top sikret?

[Udedenkz]

@jonhapimp - alright, lets play that game. 425 / 512 MB? 425 - 250 (~ Firefox and Other Apps) = 175 MB Boot. W7x86 I would guess with multiple services disabled is the only way that would be possible. Still that is more than XP x86_64 Boot with most things running in the background and well x64 adds WoW which accounts for higher RAM usage in x64 compared to x86. Still that is fishy.

You HAVE to realize that a Pentium Dual Core is NOT a Core 2 Duo!!

And UMPCs can be used with Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, Vista or 7. What usability issue?

And what you're saying is different than saying that Firefox is a heavy application. The websites can be heavy, it's not the application in itself that's heavy.

But as I already said. Windows 7 shouldn't be tried on a P3 anyhow. It would run great on a Pentium 4 and above machine though.

I think he does.

Software performance.

Yes, CS4 is not a heavy application either, until you open something. WMPC is not a heavy application either until you open an AVI. See the flaw in your argument?

See, you are also drawing a line, you acknowledge that a P3 is not good enough for 7.

Edited June 13, 2009 by Udedenkz