I think a good operating system should play and run older programs and games.
If that was the case, Linux would be a bad operating system. Additionally, there comes a time when new functionality essentially requires that older programs be broken. The "Bloat" that everybody complains about in windows, assuming for the moment it even exists- could easily be attributed to the huge amount of code required to keep as much compatibility as possible. The only reason 16-bit games will not run on a x64 operating system is because it's impossible to provide the same WoW environment provided with win32 and still be 100% compatible (at least, that's how I understand it). Older 32-bit games for windows 95, 98 and XP, if they don't work on Vista or Windows 7, they are simply programmed properly. Even those improperly programmed games, if they are popular enough, result in MS creating shims in their own code- for example, this is usually the result of a game relying on some undocumented internal behaviour of a function, and when that function's undocumented internal behaviour changes the game goes kaput; so MS is essentially forced into creating an AppCompat shim that detects said game and makes the function work in the old manner. There are literally thousands - if not tens of thousands- of games and programs in the AppCompat database.
My FPS definitly goes down 10-15fps and my ping too.
So you get a faster ping with windows 7? what are you saying here?
Lastly, I'd like to point out how stupid I think the concept of "hardcore gaming" is. In my mind, I'm a hardcore gamer because I will still occasionally go through Super Mario World and get 100% completion. The word hardcore means "intensely loyal" so I fail to see how moving from one game to another simply because it's newer constitutes hardcore, since it hardly meets that definition. On the other hand, sticking to older games, playing their various ports, and perhaps even dabbling in the creation and playing of hacks and mods of said games, perfectly fits said definition. A
closer term might be "extreme" gamer, but I still think the whole idea is stupid, since obviously they aren't necessarily after good gameplay but rather they are chasing frames per second and fancy effects, which isn't extreme gaming as much as it is extreme vanity.
On the other hand, one could be called a "hardcore" because they are "loyal" to XP, but that's simply loyalty. Except on older machines, XP offers nothing above Vista or 7. Can you get a few extra Frames per second? probably. But that's beside the point, since a good number of games you can get a higher FPS in XP with you can get an even higher FPS in windows 98SE; but who wants to use Windows 98SE as an everyday operating system? Not many.
Let me reiterate; basically, you are probably right that the same, new machine running windows XP will run a game faster then that same machine running windows Vista or 7; but come on. Do you really want to run Windows XP 32-bit on a quad-core machine with 8GB of RAM? More then half the RAM sits unused... hmm, actually, it might make some sense to set up some sort of dual boot; but it seems rather silly, for the pursuit of a few FPS (especially since said quad-core will probably have no problems getting >60fps in almost all modern games anyway)
For networking, I really, really doubt that Windows XP is faster then windows 7/Vista. The entire API was essentially redefined (I mean, between the drivers and the OS) and generally runs a lot faster. If you get a lower speed in games with Vista/7; it might be because the windows firewall now monitors outbound as well as inbound connections. That would be the first place I would check.
Also, against the "tweaks" that you refer to; many "tweak" guides are essentially useless; take this one, for example:
http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1315790The first suggestion is this:
Improve your programs/games loading time by disabling your paging file
and there goes any credibility!
I've seen similar tweak guides for XP, and they are pretty much the same story; "disable your paging file" and "defragment your hard drive" the first slows down everything, because now windows has to address memory using 64K chunks rather then in smaller increments of 4K. (it has something to do with the fact that the VMM is disabled).
Defragmentation is just a general maintenance thing, not a "tweak" so I'm not sure why so many sites list it as a tweak. Also, it doesn't slow down anything in games unless said game is loading from a texture cache file that happens to be heavily fragmented, in which case somebody could easily just run contig on the game folder and get the same results as defrag but in far less time.
I don't know any game which Win7 couldn't run.
I've encountered quite a few. Need for Speed:high stakes, for example. Most older win98 games won't run out of the box; I hardly blame win7, of course. And, with the exception of Porsche:unleashed, I've found a suitable method for playing them with no problems (and even in some cases with enhancements). (PU works but it's menus are all pixellated for some reason, in-game is ok, but the menu text is difficult to read).
Most newer games, designed for XP, run with no problem, for the most part. (some might need "Run as administrator")
