Windows 7 over Windows XP

Hey guys, I've been a long time user to winxp and absolutely love it. I tried vista a few years back but it was slower than xp, just as far general use goes and "snappiness".

I tried 7 the other day, and again, find it to be quite less snappy than xp, and to use a lot more ram. I'm getting a laptop replacement soon with 4 gigs of ram, and i heard xp 32 bit cant handle that much, so ive got a few questions for those who really know their stuff on OS's.

1. can windows xp 64 bit handle 4 gigs of ram? must i use a 64bit OS if i have that much ram? what are the pros and cons of 64 bit. can i use winxp 32 bit? I always thought 64 bit was slower and less compatible with things..

2. windows 7 vs windows xp. what makes 7 any better than xp besides the "pretty" factor. everything works great for me on xp, i don't see what windows 7 does better than xp.

Again, I really don't know much about the new os's, and cant find any straightforward information on the differences and why upgrading is worth it.

Hope you guys can shed some light, appreciate any info you give =)

 

There's a lot more useful features in 7 over XP, besides a lot of security fixes. A lot of new programs are starting to not work on XP, and a lot of companies aren't making XP drivers anymore either, so problems could come up there.

Basically XP is old and outdated, and most people are too scared to relearn things on a new OS. Sure it might feel a bit slower (and that could be outdated hardware), but things work a lot faster in the background from what I've experienced. The many changes to the GUI save seconds here and there, which adds up throughout the day.

64 bit computing would be better if programmers made 64 bit programs~ But XP 64 should be able to see 4+ GB of RAM.

 

You must have a 64 bit OS to use more than 3GB of memory be it Windows, OS X or Linux.

Then why change. Like you said other than a slicker interface, Vista or Win 7 do not offer much that XP can't.

 

XP 64-bit is a bad choice since it was never well adopted and thus has horrible driver support.

There is pretty much no reason why an average consumer should still be using XP. Windows 7 is more secure (UAC, Kernal Patch Protection, signed drivers, improved firewall), supports newer technology (DirectX 10/11), more reliable (Shadow Copy) and easier to use (Start Search, Window tiling, keyboard shortcuts).

 

I played with Windows 7 for a couple of days and finally switched back to XP.
Windows 7 is good, no doubt about it. It's just not necessary for me. Maybe later, but not now.

To answer your question 1, XP can only use about 3.2G of my 4G ram so about 800MB of ram is just wasted.
BTW, does the Windows 7 32-bit can use all of the 4GB? I need someone to tell me.

 

Good question Kuz.

I don't understand why they need to complicate things and make a 32bit and 64 bit. Does 64 run faster?

I HOPE the only benefit of going 64 bit isn't the ram =p

 

that snappiness is only perceived due to animations and effects when displaying things (menus, minimizing etc). Speed is probably faster.

1. No point getting XP 64bit. As said by others, it has horrible driver support.
2. Windows 7 has a whole load of features that XP and Vista don't have. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/what-is-windows-7.aspx

 

well i was playing around with 7 again but theres a few things i noticed...

when i went to install it it said it had to make an extra partition thts about 100mb, any idea why?

also, it seems i have two program files folders, one for 32 bit apps and one for 64 bit apps. is this normal? i didn't know even apps had to be designed for 64 or 32 bit.

 

That extra partition MIGHT be for recovery tools for the OS (don't quote me on this) lol.

Yes, apps have to be coded to run in 64 bit and take advantage of its features. The 32 bit program files folder is required in order for 32 bit programs to run successfully.

 

Security, stability, better drivers and having some better features.
One the downside, you might lose some game compatibility, but I hear that Windows 7 is still better than Vista at it.

 

well it seems im being forced into windows 7 64 bit because of the ram issue, and the 64 bit xp driver issue.

i still don't know exactly why 64 bit is better =p

 

It was just mentioned...

 

hmm i thought they were referring to windows 7, no?

anyway, just read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit#32_vs_64_bit

hate the fact it uses more ram. Like i mentioned before, xp uses 240mb page file, while 7 is using nearly 700mb =(

oh well, its probably worth it for the 4gb ram =)

 

32 bit is 32 bit it cant address more then 3.2 gigs of ram ANY 64 bit OS can address more

there are no differences in th flavors ....

64 bit = 64 bit every time ....

 

64-bit architecture is a requirement for computers to advance.

 

If you're interested in this issue, and technical reasons behind why 64-bit is much better than 32-bit, give this article a good read. If you would rather get a brief summary, I'll excerpt from the last page of that article for you:

Also, you need to realize that using more RAM is not a bad thing. Unused RAM is pretty much wasted RAM, a philosophy that Windows 7 and Windows Vista keeps in mind - Vista and Win7 do a much better job than XP of caching data in RAM, so it can be quickly accessed. If a user's program requires more RAM, that space can easily be freed for that program's use.

Thus, I would highly suggest going with Windows 7 64-bit on your new laptop.

 

thank you!!! nothing wrong with higher ram usage, in fact it's better!!!
why would you want to see all that ram you bought idling?

 

I see...never thought about caching, but it makes sense.

So, 64-bit is the evolution of 32-bit, better in almost every way, but has higher hardware requirements (especially ram, but it makes sense since all computer evolution should be with equivalently evolved hardware/software). It's funny because the extra ram you'll be gaining by going 64bit will be used by the 64 bit architecture, but should still give better speeds because of the caching and therefore is very worth it.

If im not mistaken then, a rule of thumb is newer systems w/4gig ram should go 64 bit, while older systems w/2gig ram and less should go 32 bit, and hopefully in the near future everyone switches over to 64 bit. If I read correctly it's easier for programmers too because of the significantly longer words and the use of relative pointers.

Sounds good, I originally tried 64 bit W7 with only 2 gigs of ram, which why i might have been experiencing slowdown. hopfully the 4 gigs will make it run like it should =)

 

No. Current programs are run in the x86-32 instruction set. The x86-64 ISA is fully backwards compatible with x86-32. Programs can take up more memory due to larger pointers, but they run at the same speed.

Programs are coded in higher level languages, such as C/C++, etc... and then compiled into x86-32 or x86-64. Almost all programs choose the former for compatibility sake. However, for software development, and computing in general, the industry needs to move to 64-bit architecture, so consumers need to move over as well.

 

Aye, I noticed that while re-reading the article. that's why they do it in 16-bit increments, because of backwards compatibility.

 

2 gigo is good enough for W7, 4gigo is better ... But this should not give you slow down of any sorts. Might want to review your configuration (services, processes, ...) first.

cheers ...

 

llmercll: I can not afford Winsows 7 at this time but there is software on the Windows 7 that will allow you to make it more snappy like XP. ReadyBoost will allow up to 256 increased ram. You use usb drives or sd cards to increase your usable ram and you can get a significant startup speed and applications will load faster and installs will take less time. I found commercial software for the XP that lets me use what is left over of the 4 gig installed at purchase. In the Beta version It allows over 4gig. You can add up to 4 gig at a time using a combination of usb drives and memory cards. Limited to four ports. My sony vaio runs quieter and faster and cooler with this software. I suggest a 16gig or 32gig sdhc card for the Windows 7. I read a review and the poster claimed his Windows 7 computer took between 4 and 5 seconds to boot up with 16gig.

 

I am currently running windws 7 on my desktop with 2 gigs of RAM. Today I was playing Fallout 3 MAXXXXED out, while installing Prototype at the same time. With Chrome open and was still not using 2 gigs

 

Having more ram will allow your computer to last longer. It will run longer on batteries if it is a laptop. It will run cooler. The ReadyBoost program that comes on the Windows 7 allows the use of cheap flash memory like usb drives and sd/sdhc cards. Here is a link to a discussion on Windows 7 readyboost http://jasonkneen.blogspot.com/2009/01/windows-7-readyboost-andlow-cpu-usage.html

 

Hi...llmercll. I am a newbie here. Well about your question, here is the link, which explained it clearly with apt links in the post. I hope this would add some more information to this discussion.

 

I will wait until they launch SP2 or ideally SP3 for Windows 7.. lol
Anyways I am sure that 7 better than Vista but XP is matured and time tested.
-------------
Sony Vaio 13

 

Page file has anything directly to do with RAM. You can run your computers without page file if you have enough ram.


Like some have said XP 64 bits is a dead end and it was problematic at least with drivers.

If you have 4GB RAM your only choice is W7 64bits or Linux.

 

MidnightSun finally hit upon a decent explanation. In general, I'd recommend Windows 7 for the average consumer. 32-bit or 64-bit really doesn't matter much for the average consumer; 32-bit is a little safer for compatibility, but 64-bit should be fine for most people, too.

The memory limit is the most practical benefit of 64-bit (especially noting that 32-bit Windows limits most programs to 2 GB each) for most people, though. However, 3 GB is still plenty for most people. And 32-bit operating systems (at least, Win2K or later) will do fine with more than 4 GB installed - they just won't be able to use all of it. The exact amount they can use will depend, among other things, on how much video memory the system has. My XP 32-bit can use 3.5 GB of RAM. If you have dual high-end video cards, you might only be able to use 2 GB with a 32-bit OS.

If Windows 7 does bring unacceptable compatibility/performance problems for you, XP is still a viable option. However, doing some research on what systems it is compatible would be a good idea before purchasing, especially with notebooks. Some vendors (HP, Toshiba) make it difficult to install XP. Others (Lenovo, Dell) make it easy enough. If you're concerned Win7 won't suit you well, buying Professional may be a good idea, as it includes downgrade rights to XP Pro (and Vista Business, but that's not a very logical downgrade).

XP 64-bit is much rarer, and is supported on very few laptops (some Dell business laptops do support it, however). If you're considering it, you should definitely do research on compatibility, even for a desktop. It can be viable - I ran it for a few months earlier this year. But driver support for modems, memory card readers, scanners - anything less common - can be pretty iffy. XP x64 isn't for the faint of heart when it comes to technology.

As for software support - XP x64 support is at times missing. Examples include iTunes, Zune, and Microsoft Security Essentials (yes, Microsoft is the biggest offender for XP x64 support that I've found thus far). XP 32-bit support is generally still universal. I know of one yet-to-be-released game that will require Vista, and that's it, except for the Vista promotion that was Halo 2 for Windows Vista. I wouldn't be too concerned with software support for XP 32-bit.

In the end, go with what seems like the best option. Chances are either will work well, but you're setting yourself up well by doing research now so that if you fall into a camp where one is clearly better for you, you'll probably know.