Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 24th Apr 2009 23:44 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows It's something lots of people here on OSNews have been waiting for. It's something we've talked about, something we've theorised about, and something we've declared as the future for Windows' backwards compatibility - and now it's here, and official. Over a month ago, Microsoft bloggers Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrott have been briefed by Microsoft on a technology for Windows 7 called Windows XP Mode. Available as a free download for Windows 7 Professional, Enterprise, and Ultimate users, it's a fully integrated and licensed copy of Windows XP SP3 in a VirtualPC-based environment, with full "coherence" support. In other words, it's Microsoft's variant of Apple's Classic environment, and it's coming to Windows 7, for free. Near-instant update: The Windows 7 RC will indeed be available publicly on May 5. TechNet/MSDN will get it April 30.
Thread beginning with comment 360505
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Still worse than XP...
by sukru on Sat 25th Apr 2009 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Still worse than XP..."
sukru
Member since:
2006-11-19

There were many benchmarks on Windows 7 vs Vista vs XP. Basically if you have a modern machine (4GB RAM, etc), Windows 7 is the OS you'd like to use for the maximum performance.

XP is old, and if your machine is so too (like 5+ years), then you should stay with XP.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Still worse than XP...
by naranha on Sat 25th Apr 2009 12:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Still worse than XP..."
naranha Member since:
2009-02-25

I still prefer WindowsXP over WinVista even though I have a quick machine with 8 gigs of ram. I rather run XP with 3 gigs of ram than use Vista with 8. I just had so many bad experiences with it. Most important reason is, that XP still feels a lot snappier and faster.

For example this happened recently:
While running Vista win explorer showed a strange behaviour, i could not click on files, open them etc. Then the machine hung and I needed to reboot. Vista was not able to read the NTFS filesystem anymore. I started Linux and I was able to browse the filesystem and back the important stuff up. I started from Vistas recovery cd and ran chkdsk, this nearly took 4 hours and there was a lot of fixing. Still the MBR was gone and somehow not fixable. Additionally I was not able to mount the drive in linux anymore. I reinstalled Vista on a new drive, but I gave up as the first bluescreen appeared while installing the SP1. Now I'm back to XP and I will stick with it for as long as possible. At least it makes me somewhat independent from microsoft terrible update packages, since only real important updates will show up in the future.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The only way I can see happening what you described is if you had a bad driver, or gave permission to install shady software. Vista doesn't just crap out like that for no reason. Or, a faulty hard drive. considered that one?

It's not XP we're talking about.

Edited 2009-04-25 13:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You are describing a hard drive failure. Even if it is working now, it is just a matter of time before it dies again. I would highly recommend getting a new one, and until you do back everything up as rigorously as possible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Still worse than XP...
by kaiwai on Sun 26th Apr 2009 03:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Still worse than XP..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I still prefer WindowsXP over WinVista even though I have a quick machine with 8 gigs of ram. I rather run XP with 3 gigs of ram than use Vista with 8. I just had so many bad experiences with it. Most important reason is, that XP still feels a lot snappier and faster.


So let me get this staight, you are basing your assessment of Windows 7 on Windows Vista even though there have been reports after reports, articles after articles showing a dramatic decrease in memory usage, improvement in performance over Windows XP on the same hardware. So rather than looking at facts you resort to lying to justify your decision - interesting to see that honesty is a rare commodity on this forum.

Reply Parent Score: 2