Worst of a bad bunch

[Azzaboi]

"Only Microsoft OS has that super quality User Friendly Interfaces with click Start to Shutdown..."

Why do people constantly quote this like it means something? Nobody seems to have a problem with the phrase "I think I'll start to shut down the machine now", or "I think I'll start to close all my programs" and yet having a menu heirarchy ordered after it is somehow a user interface faux paus? It's an operation, and like any operation, you have to start it.

Because it annoys the *censored* out of Microsoft Geeks! 
Plus my grandma always makes me shutdown the laptop because she doesn't understand everything I say click 'Start' then 'Shutdown' even if I show her, confuses her! She just closes the lid and it goes into standby...
Windows 7 got rid of the word, 'Start', after finally listening to the users.

I haven't used Server 2003, but heard that's very stable and great for modding into a hardcore gaming OS.

Not sure about "modding" it for a gaming OS, could you elaborate?  Server 2003 is based off of a newer kernel than XP Home/Pro, the same kernel that XP X64 is based on.  I've found that Server 2003 tends to run faster on the same hardware than XP Home/Pro, and it seems to feel snappier too.  There are advantages and disadvantages of it versus XP though.

Server 2003 was actually design to be stable (so it could be up and running 24/7) without the additional crap Microsoft loves to add in to 'pretty' and 'slowdown' your machine. It however only has DX9 and not much graphic support so needs a bit of work. Of course there are people out that went one step more and ripped the Microsoft OS down to just 246kb memory for hardcore gaming and performance.

All Microsoft OS need to be tweaked to get quality performance.

Again, not disputing this, I'm just interested to know exactly what you mean by this.

Microsoft is bulked down in services, which are basically slow-downs and security holes, specially if you never use them. Disabling services you don't need, tweaking drivers, registry, and ripping half the junk away. It still looks the same, runs 10x faster, and has increased security and stablility. Depends how far you are willing to go, blackviper website is a good place to at least start from. My gaming computer takes around 10 secs to startup, 5 secs to shutdown, instant click start, 60FPS+ max resolution gaming. If I had a fresh install 'untweaked' OS would run a lot slower, don't put up with it!

[kpac]

My gaming computer takes around 10 secs to startup, 5 secs to shutdown, instant click start, 60FPS+ max resolution gaming. If I had a fresh install 'untweaked' OS would run a lot slower, don't put up with it!

My desktop takes only 17 seconds to turn on, about 10 seconds to turn off and has all the other things you mentioned. Oh, and it's completely untweaked and also has gone through about 7 months usage. If you are so anti-MS, why are you using an MS OS?

[Cityscape]

Being far less familiar with computers (and windows 95 in general) I ended up simply reformatting and going back (yet again) to windows 3.1.

I'd use 3.1 over 95 any day.

This was of course after going through about a bajillion different screens just to get Linux installed "where do you want to swap file"? how big do you want the swap partition? Should we use the Reiser-FS or the ext3 file system? What kind of questions are these for a OS that is supposed to be for "beginners"? I can understand the fact that say, Slackware or Debian has them, but Ubuntu is touted as the "easy to use" Linux distro so I find it weird that it would ask questions that it's main target user would have no clue how to answer.

That must have either been a really old version or the advanced alternate CD. Ubuntu has never asked me those kind of questions.

The only open source project that's made a lot of headway in recent years is Firefox. If somehow Ubuntu could make the same headway then it would probably have about 30% of the total market share.

Firefox had slow growth though. Linux is also growing slowly and is up near 4% market share.

Linux's greatest success is blame-shifting.

As much as I like Linux I do have to admit that a lot of blame shifting occurs.

Windows 3.1 is not "basically DOS". It's windows 3.1. It runs on top of DOS, but so does windows 95, 98, 98SE, and ME.

There is a huge difference between 3.1 and DOS. 3.1 is not DOS in any form it just utilizes DOS.

Server 2003 was actually design to be stable (so it could be up and running 24/7) without the additional crap Microsoft loves to add in to 'pretty' and 'slowdown' your machine. It however only has DX9 and not much graphic support so needs a bit of work.

So? XP only has DX9 graphics, and I've never found a game I can't use (although there are a few).

[Cityscape]

If you are so anti-MS, why are you using an MS OS?

Good point, if you hate MS you should be using Linux not Windows.

[Calum]

Server 2003 was actually design to be stable (so it could be up and running 24/7) without the additional crap Microsoft loves to add in to 'pretty' and 'slowdown' your machine. It however only has DX9 and not much graphic support so needs a bit of work. Of course there are people out that went one step more and ripped the Microsoft OS down to just 246kb memory for hardcore gaming and performance.

Firstly, it only supports DX9 because it was released before DX10 or later versions ... still unsure what you mean by not much graphic support though, I never had issues with gaming on Server 03.
It has no less "crap" than XP, in fact it has more as server functions are obviously also present.  Some services are disabled by default, such as Windows Audio, but that's not going to make a real world difference.

Microsoft is bulked down in services, which are basically slow-downs and security holes, specially if you never use them. Disabling services you don't need, tweaking drivers, registry, and ripping half the junk away. It still looks the same, runs 10x faster, and has increased security and stablility. Depends how far you are willing to go, blackviper website is a good place to at least start from. My gaming computer takes around 10 secs to startup, 5 secs to shutdown, instant click start, 60FPS+ max resolution gaming. If I had a fresh install 'untweaked' OS would run a lot slower, don't put up with it!

Again with the services ... I used to be a major subscriber to that school of thinking, that every single service caused slowdowns - the reality is, it's not noticeable.  Most of the registry "tweaks" which actually do something have a major downside to them.  Blackviper can be a good place to get information from, I've used it extensively.
Without full specifications and a real comparison, your last statement, while nothing to complain about, is meaningless ... if I set up a PC with, say, DOS, I'm sure it would start up, shut down etc much faster ... if I had a fully tweaked version of XP on a slow HDD, it would be very slow ... a full, fresh install of Vista with no tweaks on a blazing fast SSD would be pretty quick ... you see?
I just don't see the need for hardcore tweaking like that any more, but if it makes you feel better by all means carry on.

[patio]

I couldn't agree more Calum...

[Azzaboi]

I benched my computers before and after doing any tweaks.

Yes, most tweaks are un-noticable these days because people just buy faster hardware. If you have an i7 Core 3.22GHz with 8GB of DDR5 RAM and a 295GTX Nvidia graphic card of course you wouldn't tell a difference from a OS service being on or off, the difference is still one less security hole to deal with.

If your not a hardcore gamer, clean, or security concerned, no problems to ignore the issues which build up over time. Other people I know just format their computers when it becomes a slowdown, well that's the slower way but still works to a point, but even a fresh install I call slow. I'm not 100% anti-microsoft, just saying it can be so much better if tweaked.

Just like a sports car, you can maintance and continously tweak it's performance or just leave it out in the rain...

ps. I like Linux and have used it, but for gaming Microsoft has the monopoly.

[kpac]

If your not a hardcore gamer, clean, or security concerned,

If you're security concerned (or paranoid), download the right protection tools or learn how to counter-act it instead of blabbering away about how MS is a load of [insert word here].

[soybean]

I can't vote in the poll because it is absurd to me.  For one thing, I can't easily recall all the details of using Win 3.1 or Win 95; that was a long time ago.  Also, it doesn't make sense to me to compare products (in the computer world) from a span of ... what ... 20 years or so and ask which was the worst?  Would you take a poll about cars owned over a span of decades and ask which was the worst?  What sense would it make to compare cars from the 60's or earlier which had no air conditioning, no power windows, no power mirrors, no power door locks, not even power steering, not even power brakes, etc., to cars from the 90's and later and ask which was worst? 

When I had Win 3.1, I thought it was better than just using DOS.  When Win 95 came out, I liked it better than Win 3.1.  When Win 98 (I had the SE version) came out, I liked it better than Win 95.  And so forth, going up through the various versions of Windows, with the exception of Win Me (which I never owned but know enough about it to know I'm glad I did not own it).  Currently, I have Win XP Pro SP3, Win Vista Home Premium SP2, and Win 7 Ultimate.  While I like Win 7 more than Vista, I'm not inclined, at least not now, to buy a Win 7 upgrade for my Vista laptop system.  And, I'll never upgrade my Win XP system; it's running older hardware and, since Microsoft is continuing extended support up through sometime in 2014, I expect I'll be keeping that computer for some years yet.

I believe I can say, as a general statement, that I experienced greater stability with the later versions of Windows, mainly from XP and later (never owned Win 2K so might include that one here, too) compared to the Win "9x" series.   Regarding features of the various versions, making a transition to a newer version with a positive attitude usually requires some willingness to allow some time to get familiar with it.  Many of us probably dislike some of the changes from older versions to newer versions.  BC_Programmer mentioned the Control Panel in Vista and 7 as being less user-friendly than in XP; I agree with that; I like using the Classic view of Control Panel in XP. 

[Calum]

I benched my computers before and after doing any tweaks.[/quite]
Any results?  I'm genuinely interested to see the difference as I never actually did this.

[Azzaboi]

If your not a hardcore gamer, clean, or security concerned,

If you're security concerned (or paranoid), download the right protection tools or learn how to counter-act it instead of blabbering away about how MS is a load of [insert word here].

I never said MS is a load of ... stop reading my mind! lol and yes I do counter-act and have protection tools in place.

I benched my computers before and after doing any tweaks.

Any results?  I'm genuinely interested to see the difference as I never actually did this.

What bench marks are you after?
I'm sure I'll get bit for sharing my personal report (but I've never cared what the sharkies think).

I've done a collection of them over WinXP Pro 32bit, Win Vista Premium 64bit,  and Win7 Ulimate 64bit mostly. All on the same machine, same hardware.

The overall results actually ended up with WinXP Pro winning gaming performance wise and it was the most tweakable too increasing performance 35% over the original install. Of course you can't really compare 32bit to a 64bit OS though so I got a 64bit version too (I had access to all as my dad won a year MSDN subscription). WinXP Pro 32bit SP3 is still my favourite for a gaming machine.

WinXP won by an average of 10-12fps. WinXP also won the least memory used.

Win7 Ulimate is my favourite graphic wise and for applications. Slower than the WinXP tweaked, it's not as customisable, but still 12% increase from original install.

Win Vista was the worst performer out of the three in my review. But also not tweaked as much as either of the other two.



Crysis (1680x1050, AAx4, High, DirectX10, modded)...

WinXP: Gives max 128.96fps, avg 109.06fps, min 44.84fps

Crysis running on WinXP DirectX10 (faked, DirectX9 pipe though) at max resolution  is much faster on Very High (with mods) but on other settings, similar than the other OS or 10-12fps increase.

WinVista: Gives max 120.07fps, avg 92fps, min 45.02fps

DX10 is not what drops frame rate, but yet Vista doesn't play Crysis as well and is the most RAM hog.

Win7: Gives max 126.12fps, avg 99.25fps, min 46.84fps.

Note that Vista and Win7 min is a bit higher which is good.


World In Conflict (Maxed @ 1680x1050)

WinXP (64bit): max 143fps, avg 65fps, min 34fps
WinVista (64bit): max 82fps, avg 41fps, min 13fps


X3 Terran Conflict (Maxed Resolution)

XP64: Min FPS - 12, Max FPS - 197, Avg FPS - 65.4
VS64: Min FPS - 16, Max FPS - 196, Avg FPS - 77.030


In OpenGL and CPU Intensive testing Windows XP handles them much better than the other two operating systems.

Crystalmark (higher score is better)

XP: 197395 / Tweaked: 198154
Vista: 185769 / Tweaked: 185772
Win7: 181032 / Tweaked: 181091

Super Pi (lower score of time is better)

XP: 18.01 / Tweaked: 16.92
Vista: 18.04 / Tweaked: 17.09
Win7: 17.43 / Tweaked: 17.10

Video Conversion (lower time is better)

XP: 11.1 / Tweaked: 9.7
Vista: 11.31 / Tweaked: 10.21
Win7: 11.16 / Tweaked: 10.13

3D Mark (higher score is better)

XP: 16313 / Tweaked: 16601
Vista: 15171 / Tweaked: 15342
Win7: 15381 / Tweaked: 15428

Cinebench (higher score is better)

XP: 3304 / 4790 / 11723
Vista: 3272 / 3767 / 11281
Win7: 3312 / 4071 / 11729

Cache and Memory (lower the better)

XP: 32.6 / 152.6
Vista 31.7 / 161.2
Win7: 33 / 156.7

CPU Arithmetic (higher the better)

XP: 44.12 / 47.68 / 51.24
Vista: 39 / 47 / 55
Win7: 39.79 / 47.47 / 55.15

Multi-Core Processing (higher the better)

XP: 16.14 / 44
Vista: 15.14 / 38
Win7: 16.48 / 44

[rthompson80819]

Would you take a poll about cars owned over a span of decades and ask which was the worst?

Good analogy.

I've used a number of different operating systems, other than windows, and going from one windows OS to another is one of the easiest transitions you can make.

[Accessless]

I can't vote in the poll because it is absurd to me.  For one thing, I can't easily recall all the details of using Win 3.1 or Win 95; that was a long time ago.  Also, it doesn't make sense to me to compare products (in the computer world) from a span of ... what ... 20 years or so and ask which was the worst?  Would you take a poll about cars owned over a span of decades and ask which was the worst?  What sense would it make to compare cars from the 60's or earlier which had no air conditioning, no power windows, no power mirrors, no power door locks, not even power steering, not even power brakes, etc., to cars from the 90's and later and ask which was worst? 

No obviously you can't directly compare WinXP to 3.1 but which did you find the least usefull at the time you had the software. I will always say that my Windows ME machine was the best (pre-IE 5 or 6 version, I forget which). Nowadays such a machine would be near useless but I found that OS to be the most satisfactory at the time. On the other hand I hated XP when it was released because of it's general lack of support for everything (times have changed now), nowadays I get on well with it, but Vista gave me much more trouble hence why it gets my vote.

And yes. Yes I would make a poll about cars spanning the decades. For example if you had the choice of a 1961 Jaguar E-Type & a 2006 Jaguar X150 you would go for the E-Type because it was the better car.

[patio]

I have zero issues on my Vista machine ...and it runs 24/7...
Never understood all the Vista angst myself...

Actually most people who state Vista suxx used it for less than 3 days and moved on.

[Accessless]

You'll be glad to know then that I used Vista for 2-3 months on PC and nearly 2 years on laptop (trialing on Win7 now) and I still think it sucks.