win7 worse internet connection than winxp?

[bkind]

is it true?

[patio]

i don't know...

[hedgehog88]

I think its your configurations.

[soybean]

is it true?

No.

[patio]

 

[Allan]

Great movie  --  Marathon Man --- "Is it safe?"

[Azzaboi]

You lose 5-10fps moving from WinXP to Win7 or Vista. WinXP is still the best performance for gaming out of the lot, but that's using DirectX9 (nothing higher). So if your playing an online game like Left 4 Dead your'll notice a drop in performance and wonder what the *censored* happened to the connection. As for the internet speed, WinXP is easier to tweak advance packet settings to optimise to your net cap, Win7 doesn't require this as much, it's more automatic. They will be about the same unless your tweaked. WinXP correctly tweaked net will outperform  Win7 net performance, this depends are you attempting to stream, download, upload, or play online games.

[Allan]

You lose 5-10fps moving from WinXP to Win7 or Vista. WinXP is still the best performance for gaming out of the lot, but that's using DirectX9 (nothing higher). So if your playing an online game like Left 4 Dead your'll notice a drop in performance and wonder what the *censored* happened to the connection. As for the internet speed, WinXP is easier to tweak advance packet settings to optimise to your net cap, Win7 doesn't require this as much, it's more automatic. They will be about the same unless your tweaked. WinXP correctly tweaked net will outperform  Win7 net performance.

Where do you come up with this crap?

[JJ 3000]

You lose 5-10fps moving from WinXP to Win7 or Vista.

Why?

They will be about the same unless your tweaked

lol

[Azzaboi]

Frame rate drop is well known and I even benchmarked it myself on the same computer. On a high end performance machine you might not notice, but it's always a 5-10fps drop average on all games (the graphs don't lie). Note we are also talking about DirectX9 vs DirectX10 here not just the OS. WinXP can offically only support DirectX9.0c (or fake DirectX10), Vista and Win7 use DirectX10+.

The internet connection I'm sure is about the same on default settings but I had tweaked the WinXP so it was sending/receiving a better packet size the max my ISP could handle, therefore it streams video and online games better. Also benchmarked.

Windows 7 networking however has greatly improved performance over XP and Vista.

I was highly disappointed moving from WinXP to Win7 on the same computer playing L4D and other online FPS games.
Multitasking and graphic applications are better. It's a lot more pretty, etc, but I rip out most of that additional junk for pure performance and working with a reaction speed where a second can make a huge difference (I get annoyed if i click something and it doesn't instantly happen). Still not as bad as Vista (I've noticed Win7 is pretty much a patched version of Vista). I've used all three. Use Win7 mostly now but still have WinXP when i need it, gaming purposes mostly.

[Allan]

Either provide documentation for your claims or stop posting your nonsense.

[BC_Programmer]

Nonsense

More nonsense

With a side of nonsense

DELICIOUS!

[patio]

Unreal...
But he documents all this so called benchmarking...

Pure nonsense.

[Azzaboi]

You guys are a laugh 

Oh noes let's ignore WinXP can run faster than a newer bogged down OS because it's newer it must be better in all ways huh?
Let's ignore the graphical pretty resource hogs differences between them?
Let's ignore that Vista uses almost double the memory use, something which Win7 claims to of fixed?
DirectX 9c can't possibly run faster than the higher graphics quality of DirectX 10 huh?
Let's ignore the footprint / system resources they all use to run?
If Jesus stood before a non-believe they would still deny Him, therefore what's the point of showing?





Pure nonsense? Well if you say so... the varies games/applications, graphic cards, system tweaks, directX, etc, would all make a differences to the benchmark. I use the GTX 275 896MB graphics card myself and noticed a drop average of 5-10 fps in most of the games I play and used ingame graphs, 3D Mark Benchmark, and some other software to test different areas. Same computer at least.

There's a lot more areas, memory, cache, processing, etc... but anyways I thought this topic was internet connection. Apart from the network improving with Win7, I don't know if it's internet connection is better or worst on default settings... just worst than my WinXP (but that's been tweaked). The most I noticed was that the game 'Left 4 Dead' became a bit more laggy online (same server and ping - not graphics lag but connection) and had to be reconfigured from the original settings (from WinXP). The graphics drop 10fps happened too but unnoticable unless you had the net_graph up to tell you.

[BC_Programmer]

Oh noes let's ignore WinXP can run faster than a newer bogged down OS because it's newer it must be better in all ways huh?

Nobody said that.

Let's ignore the graphical pretty resource hogs differences between them?

The DWM is disabled when a full-screen game is running, so it's redundant.

Let's ignore that Vista uses almost double the memory use, something which Win7 claims to of fixed?

Let's also ignore that Vista has a easily accessible consumer oriented 64-bit version that can access more then 3.5~GB of RAM. Yes, Windows XP x64 can access more as well but then you're not looking at XP, you're looking at Server 2003.

DirectX 9c can't possibly run faster than the higher graphics quality of DirectX 10 huh?

DX7 Runs faster then DX6 on a card that supports DX7 in hardware. DX8 runs faster then DX7 on a card that supports DX8 in hardware, DX9 runs faster then DX8 on a card that supports DX9 on hardware, so, yes, on a card that supports DX10 via hardware DX10 will be faster. Or, to be more precise, it will give you better performance/visuals ratio. if you have the settings the same, DX10 is faster. Of course, it's important to realize that DX9 and DX10 represent complete shifts in the interface; the same code cannot be easily adapted to run DX10 when it was original created for DX9; many games simply jury-rig DX10 support by munging their DX9 code, so it's slower then a proper pipeline written from scratch with DX10 (or 11) in mind. the DX10 version still has better effects; but the slowness is as a result of merely adapting the DX9 code.

Let's ignore the footprint / system resources they all use to run?

Redundant. Windows 2000 uses fewer resources then XP; why not evangelize that? Win98SE uses fewer still- what about it? Many newer games are Vista/Win7 only, as well. And it's pointless to buy a gaming computer with like 8GB of RAM and a quad-core and a high-end video card, and use something like Windows XP that was designed for Pentium 3 machines with 32MB of graphics memory and maybe 512MB of RAM. Sure, the fact  that it requires less is why it is faster, but at the same time it isn't taking full advantage of the hardware.

If Jesus stood before a non-believe they would still deny Him, therefore what's the point of showing?

So now you are comparing yourself to Jesus? And Deny him what? spare change? *censored* he's a carpenter, he should be able to carpent somewhere for some change.

IMAGES

First: no quoted source. you just threw down some charts. Any yahoo can built charts with Excel. Most "benchmarking" sites are really, really unreliable to the point of being ludicrous.

Pure nonsense? Well if you say so...

I didn't. It was nonsense ore, but with this last post you've managed to smelt it into Pig nonsense. It won't be long until you purify it, I imagine.

the varies games/applications, graphic cards, system tweaks, directX, etc, would all make a differences to the benchmark.

*puts hands on cheeks* OMFG REALLY? (sarcasm, it should be pretty obvious).


And then you go on to say "wasn't this about the internet connection" Yes. very good, it was. Too bad <you> dragged it off topic with your little mini rant about mysterious FPS drops that only you seem to notice.