Computer Hope
Microsoft => Microsoft Windows => Windows Vista and 7 => Topic started by: bkind on October 12, 2010, 10:19:46 PM
-
is it true?
-
i don't know...
-
I think its your configurations.
-
is it true?
No.
-
;)
-
Great movie -- Marathon Man --- "Is it safe?"
-
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.
-
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?
-
You lose 5-10fps moving from WinXP to Win7 or Vista.
Why?
They will be about the same unless your tweaked
lol
-
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.
-
Either provide documentation for your claims or stop posting your nonsense.
-
Nonsense
More nonsense
With a side of nonsense
DELICIOUS!
-
Unreal...
But he documents all this so called benchmarking...
Pure nonsense.
-
You guys are a laugh ;D
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?
(http://i51.tinypic.com/2lo5ijc.gif)
(http://i51.tinypic.com/28lch9k.gif)
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.
-
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.
-
Rolls eye ::)
I only mentioned it because if your playing an online game a drop in fps might look like your laggy and you could be blaming the internet connection rather than the graphics. You mods where the ones barking up a tree and made me go explain off-topic.
My Graphic Card also supports DirectX 10 fine, says so on the box, still runs faster on WinXP than it does on Win7.
If I'm so off topic I'll hate to see what you think this is from Allan?
Great movie -- Marathon Man --- "Is it safe?"
-
I got same game on xp partition and one on Windows 7 partition. My FPS definitly goes down 10-15fps and my ping too. I was able to tweak it to have the same ping but i still have low FPS. When you talk about a FPS of 30-40 to be able to play good and you go down to 10-15 FPS. It really makes a difference.
The initial reason i got dual-boot is because i want to play that game and if i play on Windows7, i will lag like *censored*. Therefore, i only use Xp to play that game.!
PS. First post only because i didnt know that computerhope.com existed. ;)
-
I don't think win 7 is that terrible, as far as I see it. But are you guys playing games that were developed before win 7 ever existed?
-
I don't think win 7 is that terrible, as far as I see it. But are you guys playing games that were developed before win 7 ever existed?
I think a good operating system should play and run older programs and games.
Does anyone know any old games that xp could run but windows 7 cant?
-
Well i was only talking about a few frame loss, but yeah there's a difference which might affect some older computers or depending on graphic card, etc. a fps drop makes a huge deal if your running at low fps original, if your gaming computer runs 128fps+ no big deal.
Overall Windows 7 isn't too bad with gaming and has great backwards support for older WinXP/Vista games and applications. It will pretty much run all of them happily. I've noticed online gaming being the biggest difference with lag. If using WinXP you have to hack it to fake DirectX10 and patch Vista Only games, but it can still manage, better performance - just not as pretty when it comes to the latest graphic cards and games.
I don't know any game which Win7 couldn't run. Also drivers it can't support it simply refuses rather then the system becomes unstable.
For video, media, networking, pretties - Win7 wins!
For hardcore gaming - WinXP is still a favourite for most.
-
Again yer talkin outta your rear receptacle.
-
I guess 70% of the entire world must do that then (because they would agree). The other's live in a make believe dream land brainwashed by Vista. I suggest you duel boot Win7, WinXP, and/or Vista, become a gamer and try it out for yourself. I don't play favourites, just say it how it is.
-
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=1315790
The 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")
-
So you get a faster ping with windows 7? what are you saying here?
Higher FPS, better it is. Lower ping, better it is! With Windows 7 i get lower FPS and higher ping. After i installed a program ( i forget the name ), I have normal ping and still high FPS. But it is still unplayable so i only play t hat game on XP. When you play First Person Shooter games, that '50ms' is important.
Of course i could upgrade my computer/video card and all that crap but i'm not an hardcore gamer anymore so there is no point of buying a new system or upgrade it.
-
You could be onto something kdxman, using command line ping on the two (Win7 vs WinXP) I noticed they are the same pinging the server, but ingame FPS the ping is slightly higher on Win7? I think it just comes down to packet sizes (depending on ISP) and the Windows Firewall (like BC_Programmer said checks incoming as well as outgoing traffic now so it would be a slight differences).
WinXP was a whole lot easier to tweak. For the net you could optimize TCP/IP parameters, such as MTU, RWIN, QoS and ToS/Diffserv prioritization (if you know your ISP specs even better to match up and get smoother streaming without as much packet lost). It's the basics needs without the annoying extras which is why tweakers/gamers still love and use it.
As for Windows 2000, yes BC_Programmer it is actually better performance and more stable than the others including WinXP. Some people have even tweaked that into gaming machines, the only issue is setting up the graphics (support / drivers) as it was never designed with games in mind. It's great if you want to host games and play them at the same time, keeping the computer on severnal days at a time. It's still quicker to rip WinXP down to the core, removing non-critical processes and tweak it's performance.
-
WinXP was a whole lot easier to tweak. For the net you could optimize TCP/IP parameters, such as MTU, RWIN, QoS and ToS/Diffserv prioritization (if you know your ISP specs even better to match up and get smoother streaming without as much packet lost). It's the basics needs without the annoying extras which is why tweakers/gamers still love and use it.
And why pray tell would you not be able to do the same in Win7 ? ?
-
Microsoft might not have met some people's expectations in what the OS should and should not be like. But surely they would never make a crippled operating system.
-
@patio - I never said Win7 or even Vista couldn't be tweaked into a gamer's machine or change net settings. Just that WinXP is easier to do so.
@ 2x3i5x - The difference is Vista wastes almost twice the amount of memory by duplicating system memory into the graphic card and loads up processes at startup (even ones you don't need) - who cares about saving system resources for the game/app. Win7 fixes these issues (read the improvement log) but still has some of the Vista infection (still treating the user as a noob). After WinXP, Microsoft decided they know what the average user wants, treats them like they are all noobs and hides the advance settings from them and simply makes it look pretty (loading on a lot of junk).
This is smart for their sales, most people would not know or care to learn how to manage their system (it looks good that's all they care). Also it's forced on others if buying a new packaged deal computer. Can anyone say Monoploy?
They crippled the OS on Vista (honestly it was rushed out to make huge sales and they took a lot to chew, it's a lot different than XP, even Microsoft itself confesses it was a mistake but treated it as a stepping stone to the next stage) and so attempted to fix it with Win7 (taking customer feedback about what they like and hated in Vista).
-
There..i found the program again...: http://www.martin-majowski.de/wlanoptimizer/
-
The bottom line is that the only evidence presented here seems to be anecdotal or circumstantial.
Post links from a true benchmark site, like Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, Xbitlabs, etc., and then I'll be more willing to examine your stance. Make sure the test environments are fair (i.e.: latest service packs, same hardware, etc.).
Otherwise, arguments from ignorance aren't going to fly.