XP still slaps Vista, Windows 7 silly

Status
Not open for further replies.

hatter

Galvanizer
A very interesting article here and why it won't easy for server market/corporates to move to Windows 7/Vista

XP will continue to lay claim to the title of the leanest 64-bit NT kernel-based Windows platform (sorry, Windows 2000, you're 32-bit only), which is evidenced by its superior execution efficiency. If you take the raw transaction times for the database and workflow tasks, then factor them against the average processor utilization for these same workloads, you see that Windows XP consumes roughly 7.2 and 40.7 billion CPU cycles, respectively, to complete a single pass of the database and messaging workflow transaction loops on our quad-core test bed. By contrast, Windows Vista takes 10.4 and 51.6 billion cycles for each workload, while Windows 7 consumes 10.9 and 48.4 billion cycles. Translation: On quad-core, the newer operating systems are at least 40 percent less efficient than XP in the database tasks and roughly 20 percent less efficient in the workflow tasks.

In the end, it all comes down to the complexity of the execution path. With its simpler legacy kernel devoid of DRM hooks and other performance-sapping baggage, Windows XP provides a cleaner code path for the workloads to navigate as they execute. This, in turn, translates into better overall performance with lower consumption of CPU cycles. The flip side is that these performance advantages are likely limited to the current generation of quad-core systems, and perhaps tomorrow's eight-core CPUs, and may quickly evaporate as new system designers seek to incorporate increasing degrees of parallelism into their products....
Clearly, the optimizations made to the Vista kernel -- both in its original incarnation and in its updated Windows 7 variant -- are having an impact even at the quad-core level. However, better scalability still isn't enough to offset Windows XP's huge performance edge on today's hardware. In fact, it won't be until after Windows 7 has been replaced by the next Windows that the fruit of Microsoft's multicore optimization labors will be fully realized. Then, as we boot our 32- or 64-core netbooks, we can all smile as Microsoft's foresight and perseverance finally start to pay off.

The generation gap: Windows on multicore | InfoWorld | Test Center | January 22, 2009 | By Randall C. Kennedy

Windows on multicore test results |Lab Notes | InfoWorld
 
Microsoft from one hole to another.
Whatever XP is fast but with direct X 11 in windows 7 which gamer is going to keep Xp around.
 
freshseasons1 said:
Microsoft from one hole to another.
Whatever XP is fast but with direct X 11 in windows 7 which gamer is going to keep Xp around.
What with the crappy PC ports, shoddy optimisation and the way games for windows is being handled i don't see how far gamers will remain interested in upgrading the OS with PC as a gaming platform.
 
sato1986 said:
DX10 vs DX9c ws stupid microspoic difference

Not that microscopic afaik, atleast not between DX9c vs DX10.1. Hardware Tessellation is a MAJOR functionality that is present in 10.1. It allows the GPU to render more polygons without much increased overhead.

Although its another thing that none of the developers are supporting it (apart from GSC Gameworld for STALKER), and the reason for that is :
There isn't enough acceptance of Vista in the market to warrant bigger investments. They would rather wait for DX11 + Windows 7 to include these + more features.

And windows 7 will be good for developers as it would streamline many processes.
Check out the AnandTech article:

DirectX 11 features
 
I too love WinXP, but is there is any way to support 8GB RAM.

Because i dont prefer Win XP-64bit. becoz it's really made on Win Server 2003 64 bit core, i do not feel is it does perform well .

When u do multi tasking you will feel the real effect with Win Server 2003 and WinXP 64 bits.

So that only me and others prefers Vista 64-Bit and Windows 7, even though it takes more resources, it's hassle free for AMD64 CPU owners like us.

We are getting true performance of 64-bit, and true support for more than 4 GB RAM, that'z what we are looking for.

I would suggest, if microsoft does some thing to increase the support for Moe that 4 GB RAM( i mean true support). Not just showing up 8 GB in Windows Properties . We need true support. OS should be able to handle more that 4GB..

As day by day power and resource insensitive softwares coming and going.

I'm a developer when i install Share point and SQL Server 2008 reporting services on my Windows XP, i will die with slow startup etc.

So Microsoft do something on Win XP, i still loves Windows XP, not Windows XP 64 Bit...
 
sato1986 said:
^^ Lets hope DX11 is considerbaly good looking...... DX10 vs DX9c ws stupid microspoic difference

Very true.

Aphro_EVO said:
Not that microscopic afaik, atleast not between DX9c vs DX10.1. Hardware Tessellation is a MAJOR functionality that is present in 10.1. It allows the GPU to render more polygons without much increased overhead.

Although its another thing that none of the developers are supporting it (apart from GSC Gameworld for STALKER), and the reason for that is :

There isn't enough acceptance of Vista in the market to warrant bigger investments. They would rather wait for DX11 + Windows 7 to include these + more features.

And windows 7 will be good for developers as it would streamline many processes.

Check out the AnandTech article:

DirectX 11 features

All said and done, the difference between DX10 and DX9 was too f***in minute...tats the reason most gamers didn't switch. And who's talking about DX 10.1, coz although the DX 10.1 GPUs were released, no DX 10.1 games were released lol...

NOTE: Talking totally frm a gaming perspective.

Off topic but Linux rocks :P open source :D
 
windhawk91 said:
Very true.
All said and done, the difference between DX10 and DX9 was too f***in minute...tats the reason most gamers didn't switch. And who's talking about DX 10.1, coz although the DX 10.1 GPUs were released, no DX 10.1 games were released lol...

NOTE: Talking totally frm a gaming perspective.

Off topic but Linux rocks :P open source :D

>>

About linux.. it IS offtopic. I would rather stay with Windows where I can enjoy anything from Age of Empires to Crysis .
 
junkiedogg said:
>>
About linux.. it IS offtopic. I would rather stay with Windows where I can enjoy anything from Age of Empires to Crysis .

Ok,1 game....I doubt it is worth it for switching OS just for 1 game? (or is it?)
Well, why stay only with Windows, when u have both on the same PC? :D
 
HellBoyX2 said:
I too love WinXP, but is there is any way to support 8GB RAM.

Because i dont prefer Win XP-64bit. becoz it's really made on Win Server 2003 64 bit core, i do not feel is it does perform well .

When u do multi tasking you will feel the real effect with Win Server 2003 and WinXP 64 bits.

So that only me and others prefers Vista 64-Bit and Windows 7, even though it takes more resources, it's hassle free for AMD64 CPU owners like us.

We are getting true performance of 64-bit, and true support for more than 4 GB RAM, that'z what we are looking for.

I would suggest, if microsoft does some thing to increase the support for Moe that 4 GB RAM( i mean true support). Not just showing up 8 GB in Windows Properties . We need true support. OS should be able to handle more that 4GB..

As day by day power and resource insensitive softwares coming and going.

I'm a developer when i install Share point and SQL Server 2008 reporting services on my Windows XP, i will die with slow startup etc.

So Microsoft do something on Win XP, i still loves Windows XP, not Windows XP 64 Bit...

I agree w/this for 64 bit quad core and above 4 GB RAM ... there is no way you can compare the performance of XP 32.. and XP 64 sucks and does not have the availability of many drivers.
 
As long as 7 runs on lower resources than Vista, I'm gonna push all my government/ smb clients to shift. Sick of all the pen drive infections on all the XP machines that I have to clean all the time :@ ! Vista makes it easier for me as it is resistant to most of the USB virii going arnd but the h/w requirements are a strict no.
 
Windows Se7en has its own program compatibility issues. I wouldn't deploy it en masse before the glitches are ironed out. And in case of enterprise deployments that doesn't happen before SP1 comes out, most of the times.
 
^^Yeah, but in the government sector, most just use the office suites. The technical departments who really need compatibility are okay with XP too as they have system admins who take care of the security etc.

It's the general depts who can't be trusted with XP. All their file swapping and certain deafness to all our safe practices make life hell for me and my staff. As long as 7 is lighter than and secure as Vista, I'm all for pushing it.
 
^^ I understand your concern, (and i am aware of the kinds of responses taht i'll get ) but from a pureley business standpoint, isn't an open source OS going to be a better bet than Win7.....particularly with govt. office users who'd do nicely with open office....thereby saving taxpayer's money ...particularly since the current accounts deficit and the balance of payments are causes of concern.
 
government must spend money to buy betaware operating system.and open source is supposedly dead you know?Linux is the enemy wherever I mention my windows7/8/9/0 you know. but you should not use it.because "geeks" and punks uses windows vista/7 you know

By ,Chintoo (only plays games on his 8GB DDR-X machine with alien graphics card ,claims geek you know!his daddy pays for graphics card only 34000 rupya during economic recession to play his america's dingdong operation)
--
SERIOUSLY!Get your company migrate to windows thus helping the wincult grow.but don't make the government office/establishments spend People's money on such proprietary operating systems.
yeah ,I know brand affiliation and the disease of NOT having tolerance to consider there are people who can live without paying redmond joker more money is taking the toll.
respect Open Source.
oh!and many games are now natively available on GNU/Linux too.
take a break!Universal truth - better things(like FOSS) are subsided by the lobbies of evil.sad but true.
 
^^Not far from the truth (the 1st sentence). Thin clients, Linux, better training...there are lots of ways to cut down costs and raise productivity. But it's the Govt employee who's comfortable with the flag and word. And they put up their noses at any suggestion of a training or orientation session. I mean, who knows better than them how to run the government?

As far as asking them to pay up for 7 or spending tons in man power for just backing up their data, re-installing XP day after day, I think it's a easy choice for me.

And I"m seriously not exaggerating the re-install parts. Imagine a whole network of babus on their net connected un-supervised machines with a craze for sharing the latest 3gp videos (not avis or mkvs) and you being on call for ANY problem they have?

The senior level officers have always looked at my proposals for thin clients and Linux, but they've always been resisted by the decision makers. We all know why, don't we? That's another story for another thread...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.