Hi friends,
According to you which is best Windows XP or the Windows 7.Windows 7 is new but my friends are using and say that its processing is slow.is it true?Can i use both windows in my computer?Windows 7 supports IE 9, which in my own experience is a great improvement over IE 8-its page loading speeds are noticeably faster. It also has a "compatibility mode" feature to support older websites which may not be displayed properly. It supports the latest games more effectively by supporting DirectX 10 and 11, which are 3D engines used to render graphics more effectively. Manufacturers are also gearing most of their newer hardware at Windows 7 and are even starting to drop support for Windows XP, which was developed in 2000. I do not see any incentive to use Windows XP unless you are on an older system which does not support/will not run effectively Windows 7.


"Processing is slow." I'm afraid you may have to elaborate on that-if you have an older computer, i.e. (Athlon X2 5200+, 1 GB DDR2 RAM, nVidia 9400 GT, 80 GB 5400 RPM HDD), you will definitely see a performance decrease, like I did with my Sony Vaio W netbook. What are the specifications of your friends' computers? What are the specifications of your computer?
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/system-requirementsI like Windows XP more than Windows 7.even though windows xp dont have any graphics like 7,Windows XP is very simple and efficient.but unfortunately Microsoft does not provide any more updates for windows XP. It is better to use windows xp in less memmory machine. and also It is possible to use both windows xp and 7 at the same time by using a software called VIRTUALBOX.You can find more information about virtualbox in its wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_box and here also http://www.virtualbox.org/

Windows XP:

1.Released a decade ago. It got the EXACT same reception as Windows Vista. I'm not even exaggerating. But that's not relevant. The important thing is that it was released a decade ago. Think about it. If you are running Windows XP, you are running software whose code was by and large written at the time the NSYNC & the backstreet boys were popular. People like to say "well, it's well-tested"! Which is true. But so was the Space shuttle Columbia. And, to be frank, it's NOT well-tested. It was well-tested on a variety of hardware throughout the years, but a lot of people are installing it on new machines with gobs of RAM and enough video processing power to launch a sheep CLEAR past the horizon (which I will get to) and a lot of other people who claim that MS is in on some gigantic conspiracy to keep people from using XP, and install those utterly ridiculous DirectX 10 on XP and other aftermarket crap. A working software ecosystem is the sum of it's parts, and the fact remains that running XP with gobs of RAM and dual graphics cards and "deluxe" sound systems and other stuff simply isn't the scenario that was tested for the last 10 years of running on manufactured PCs. And additionally, the claim is redundant, because Windows Vista and 7 are Windows XP- they are merely a newer version of it. They didn't rewrite the entire OS. the vast majority of the codebase is almost certainly unchanged. And what was changed is what was well-tested. So basically, Windows Vista/7 is the "well-tested" part of XP, combined with well-tested new additions. I fail to see the logic in sticking with a 10 year old operating system if the hardware can support the newer version. It's inspired only be sheer pig-headedness and ignorance.

2.Uses standard 2-D graphics mode for the desktop.

This is important. Using Windows Aero on a newer machine, and the desktop will be faster- since newer Graphics cards a typically refined to deliver good 3-D performance, but their 2-D operations can be somewhat lacking. More to the point, but I paid for my 9800GT to use it. If I was using XP, I'd only really be using it if I was playing a game. Otherwise, I'd just be in the standard 2-D graphics mode, which isn't exactly full-utilization of my hardware, is it? Why should a person with a 9800GT or a 250GTX be looking at the same desktop as somebody who ran a ATI Rage Pro 10 years ago? What are they getting for the higher price point aside from a bunch of promising NUMBERS on a box if they run XP? Nothing, unless they constantly run games. In which case they would be getting better performance with Win Vista/7 assuming their system is capable, thus defeating the purpose.

3.Generally uses less memory,depending on ones choice of running software.

Which is good and bad. It's good for older PCs that have less memory, but it's bad for PCs that have more.

Look, I have 8GB of RAM. I paid for it. And My Operating System better bloody well USE that memory. If I was to install XP, even the 64-bit edition (which would be the only way to get it to use more than the licensing limit of ~3.5GB, and would moot the comparison since XP x64 is really just Server 2003 with a new hairstyle), my RAM would just sit there, idle. Sure, I'd have 8GB of RAM, could start photoshop, Firefox, Visual Studio, and still ahve 4GB left over, but that isn't a good thing. Free RAM is wasted RAM. Thus, superfetch (and a few OSS alternatives available on Linux distros, I forget the specific name but they seem to work well). People who install XP in a 8/16GB machine with a super awesomeo hex-core system and have 5TB HARD drives aren't interested in "performance"; they are the same type of idiots who would stick a body kit on a Camry to make it look more like a corvette and consider it a performance upgrade. Their interested in perceptions of performance. Sure, running Windows XP on that super awesome new system gives a perception of performance, but so would running Windows 3.1 on a system from 2001. So why aren't people yelling about how much better Windows 3.1 was, why is it Windows XP? I honestly don't know. my best guess is people sticking with XP (on new systems particularly) are, well, for lack of a better term, mouth-breathing idiots.

Now to be clear, Windows XP is a fine system- for using on systems well-suited to it. For example, an older machine. They were designed for XP, after all. Just as Windows 98 or 95 are good for machines designed for each of those. But to install XP on an NEW system is no different than installing one of those even older Operating Systems on a newer system. you trade a perception of speed for real performance. Then you have people who are so devoted to the idea that XP makes things faster and is all-around better that they fabricate benchmarks and make stuff up. There was one forum member here that has been curiously absent since I proved that the DX10 on XP thing was a utter load of nonsense, despite his insistence that he ran Crysis on Ultra high settings in Windows XP and it worked fine (which was quite clearly a lie), and that the entire thing was a giant conspiracy by Microsoft for the sole purpose of doing something as clearly evil as trying to sell their newer Operating System.

A sidebar, because I do this- I've never understood the XP diehards, really. They constantly complain about how Microsoft is abandoning them and how it's totally unfair. You paid them for XP (ironically, a lot of the people who complain about MS not caring about XP users are themselves using a pirated copy or they got it with their system and thus didn't really pay for it and got it free with said system). But that makes no sense. That would be like owning a car for 40 years, and when the manufacturer says "well, we aren't making some of the parts for that system anymore" the owners of the car complain that they are being abandoned in such a way as to complain that they didn't somehow get their money's worth.


4.Has the most ridiculous default theme for any desktop operating system ever conceived by humanity.

This isn't really relevant but it's worth mentioning. Particularly since that was the common complaint of the day when it was Windows 98 that was the "Superior" system (when XP was released). The more things change, the more they stay the same, SEEMS to ring true even in the otherwise constantly changing world of computers and their software.
Good Post BCP