Windows 7.

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

When I bought my new PC, I just got XP. I'm happy with what it does, and it does it well. Which is why I didn't get vista and probably won't get 7 for a while. Just don't see what they add that I need.

wheter XP is broken or not is a matter of opinion.

Windows 7 = XP's performance + Vista's theme

THIS

+ FASTER

why the question? of course win 7

please explain why you would go with Win7

He has a DX11 spec card, and XP doesn't support DX11.
XP will only address ~3GB of his 6GB ram.
Win7 is more responsive/feels snappier than XP
Win7 GUI is better and the libraries feature is genius
SSD support is better with Win7

The "Windows 7 feels snappier" part is a blatant lie and you know it

On my present rig I upgraded from XP to win7 back in october and I feel it is snappier. I'm not talking about benchmarks. Feels like the general I/O portion of the OS has been sped up, not that your sysmark or 3Dmark score would improve at all.

IMO its just the menu delays and the such have been reduced, you can do that with your copy of XP too if you want to make it feel snappier.
Unless if you were talking about something else, then i'm out of context.

That is exactly right. XP is an old OS and I had tweaked it just fine, but win7 is snappier. If you don't trust my comment just google it

"Russinovich went on to explain why Windows 7 is faster. Memory footprint was reduced by up to 30 per cent by reviewing excessive memory allocations, and by refactoring the Desktop Window Manager (DWM) to avoid a second copy of every Window being held in memory. Processes that consume large amounts of memory are more aggressively pruned. Microsoft also picked out 300 common user actions, such as clicking the Start menu or opening Control Panel, and gave them intensive optimisation to improve perceived performance"

The underlined section explains why I feel (and everybody should feel) the UI to be snappier.

Much of the tightening was made possible by MS's minwin project, which is afaik a self contained windows kernel + the bare minimum (networking/file management) to run as an OS (no gui just a cmd prompt). This is the core of win7 and any future windows OS. Anybody who thinks it performs like vista hasn't used it.

hmm, that makes sense,
i think its vista that sort of made people afraid to switch to new OSs. which is why the reluctance to use Win7,
and tbh, even vista isn't all that bad as an OS after SP2.

I "upgraded" to win7 late last year and it feels way slower to me
ive turned off all the stupid animations aswell and it still feels slower
amd phenom II x3, 4gb ram, 4830

there are other things u can do, like turning off system restore and disabling the virtual memory/swap file.

xp 64bit do support more than 3gb son...

It's a poor choice, "son"

son, i am disappoint

Good luck getting proper driver support for XP 64-bit. Also, he has a DX11 card...

I would stick with XP for now.. using Windows 7 atm, even 10 year old games are stuttering and choking. And yes there's no accelfix-like fix for Win7, you have to rely on reg fix..

Yes there is.

i7, 6gb ram = some 64bit OS.. dno about winxp 64.. and i cant recommend ms' newer OS's..

Windows 7, easily.

Upgrade already.

7 is fine, there are numerous mouse fixes for accel. Infact theres one on this website somewhere.. i keep approving comments for the damn thing!

Cheers.

me too.

We should have that thread locked.

85Hz :/

Windows 7 is superior in every conceivable category. XP is an old, clunky piece of shit. Plus, if you want access to the full 6 GB of ram, you'll need 7 anyways. Get the 64-bit version.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366..._windows_7

For the most part the FPS is actually lower in W7 compared to XP, see http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/wind...page=0%2C3

only slightly, and bear in mind that all titles are optimised for XP 32-bit, so it's an apples and oranges comparison right now. 32 bit apps run under emulation on x64 win7, otherwise 32 bit apps couldn't be run at all.

It's called WOW64.

It isn't win7's fault that XP is faster with 32 bit games

I doubt the people playing cares whose fault it is, they just want the better performance.

forgive me for thinking anyone might like to know why

Anyone who is building a computer that has new parts should be going xp.

If i had a pentium 4 2.4 with 1gb of ram with my 6600GT then it's xp
If i've got an i5 with a 4890 and 4gb of ram it is windows 7
if it is an i7 with a 5870 and 6gb of ram it is definately windows 7

windows 7= trim support

do you buy a ferrari and put 13" rims on it that are 5" wide?

stupid question tbh, win 7.

The reasons I finally switched to Windows 7 were:

I was using WinXP 32-bit and hence could not use my CPU to its full potential (as it was 64-bit), which gives better performance in some applications I use.

Could only use DirectX 9 in XP.

But mainly, could only use 2,4GB of my 6GB RAM.

Does Windows 7 have the same mouse sensitivity/curve/whatever as XP? I don't use any mousefix or any shit like that. Just use XP as it comes and it works great. If 7 has the same mouse and is as good for gaming, then I may switch just for the other stuff...

Desktop acceleration on Windows 7 when the 'Enhance pointer precision' option is set is very similar and better even than XP and Vista.

Two changes when 'Enhance pointer precision' is ON:

- 7 now scales the accel curve properly by multiplying by desktop DPI, and no longer scales by monitor refresh rate. If you use non-100% DPI and used refresh rate >60Hz on XP or Vista before, you may notice some pointer speed differences with 7, which can likely be tweaked out with the pointer speed slider.

- Slow movements no longer cause wobble and drift to the left and up. See my blog where I talk about these things: http://donewmouseaccel.blogspot.com

yah go for 7. only thing that annoys me atm is that overclocking the usb port is such a hassle.

I hope you got i7 930 instead of the 920.

what? why? the multiplier is just higher on the 930, there is no other difference

Not true.

The i7 920 is being discontinued and replaced by the i7 930 which is the same price and slightly faster, but it also overclocks higher. Also the 920's have been out a longish time, so if you ever wanted to sell that CPU, the buyer would know at best it was produced in 2010 therefore, you will get a higher price than somethign which could have been produced about 12-18 months earlier and could have been run to within an inch of its life. Althoug the D0 stepping would be a big help for you in that department.

Saying that, unless you're overclocking past the 4ghz mark there is little between the CPU's.

But I would still prefer the 930 because...

Its newer, clocked a bit faster at default speed than the 920 and overclocks more and costs the same. If something overclocks more it usually means it'll run less stressed at the lower frequencies. has a higher resale value.

Its not really going to make much difference and they are both good, just saying if you buying now, it does not make sense to buy the older, slower, less efficient chip, even if there is not much in it.

I'm probably going to get a few myself, been waiting to see what intels 6 cores are like, nice, but I think they are just going to keep them at the 800 pound mark and so its not worth upgrading.

However, a few i7 930 with a modest overclock should give a nice boost over my Q6600's. Maybe if thye can come down in price on the 6 cores I will, but I think they just did that to squeeze AMD's server/work station market. Intel are quite predictable as a company but when you have the fastest CPU's and an opposition that can only compete with price cuts, you rule the roost.

jamerio is so poor, when he goes to KFC he has to lick other peoples fingers

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

jamerio is so poor he was kicking a can down the street and I asked him what he was doing and he said "moving"

jamerio is so poor, when he goes to KFC he has to lick other peoples fingers

jamerio is so poor he can't afford to pay attention

jamerio is so poor he was kicking a can down the street and I asked him what he was doing and he said "moving"

The RAM argument doesn't count, he can just get a 64-bit version of XP.

I'd say that 64-bit XP is way worse than Windows 7 due to compatibility issues. Better stick to 32-bit then if you're going to use XP.

Mark'Cs accelfix for Windows 7 works great.. But i do still prefer XP over Windows 7. Do like me and just Dual-boot it?

So you just use XP for the games?

For my competative game yes, if I'm playing MMORPG, Wathing movies and stuff like that i Usually boot Win 7.

Windows 7.

reasons I boot in XP 32bit SP3

1) better compatibility with older titles
2) native EAX support for directsound games (alchemy sucks balls )
3) no headphone option in windows control panel sound settings, just stereo speakers quadrophonic 5.1 etc
4) no BSODs occuring in killing floor / red orchestra when using hardware openAL support ( system driver UNchecked in audio settings )
5) hidusbf ( mouse overclocking utility ) works hassle free, so does ati tray tools
6) some games run noticeably smoother on xp 32bit like L4D2, ( while others run worse )
7) problems with EDID and CRT monitors ( I recently upgraded to samsung 2233RZ so it doesn't affect me anymore )


reasons I boot in 7 home premium 64bit

1) 16-235 range and tv speakers fully working on my sony bravia 40W4000, so i can play without grey blacks and without headphones on the couch if i want to ( that's a fault in forceware drivers i guess, i should be able to disable hdmi audio in XP too )
2) I get noticably better framerates when playing battlefield bad company 2 - stalker clear sky and a few others compared to XP 32bit
3) more responsive OS in general as others stated
4) x-fi cmss3d headphone works flawlessly at 100% volume level, in xp i had to limit my master volume to 80% in order to minimise distortion while playing loud sounds ( kf7 soviet - CSS pump shotgun etc )
5) mark c mouse fix does not depend on resolution nor refresh rate while cheese mouse fix on xp does ( anir's stopped working in SP3 right ? )
6) my 4 gigs of ddr2 are fully recognised, while on xp 32bit it recognises 2 or 3 gigs depend on the BIOS settings
7) hopefully i can run fake factory 10.3 without crashes :D

hope that was informative

hackintosh (or cockintosh, whatever :p )

Windows 7 is great even though I still appreciate XP, windows 7 is better on a lot of fronts, especially for modern PCs.

Dualboot 64 bit win 7, if all the programs / drivers you need works, use that. If they don't keep using XP and try win7 in 2 months again.

For me windows 7 has offered, apart from the Libraries thing and cool theme, mostly problems :D. If I installed 64 bit version of 7, I would have gone back to XP already or re-installed 32 bit version fo 7.

1. Getting mouse to work with 500 hz was more or less pain ( had to put windows to some ''testing mode'' ( if anyone knows something as easy like the hidusbf, pls tell)

2. Soundcard drivers don't work too nicely ( probably not issue for gamers )

3. Sometimes Quake won't get focus (taskbar keeps getting focus, if i click quake live, it sort of suffles only and quake is running on background again )
4. Trackmania sometimes crashes

I presume you've seen and are talking about the painful combination of DSEO and hidusbf? http://www.ngohq.com/news/15043-how-to-increa...7-a-2.html

Yes

Worst part is if you fail it'll disable that USB port for your mouse.

Windows 7.

I got ~100 fps boost in QL using interrupt affinity feature.

can you elaborate? is it r_smp?

No, search Google for Interrupt Affinity Policy tool.

In fact it doesn't take these 100 FPS increase from nowhere - it just made it happen consistently on my 4 cores / 8 threads Core i7 860 .

Also, inspite of improving FPS of quake live, it worsens FPS of regular titles (like Metro 2033 or STALKER: Call of Prypyat), so this solution is quite controversial.

I plan to write a small QL optimization guide on multicore CPUs in the future which will include this topic.

Meanwhile, where can we get an idea of how to make it work ? (i googled it, dl'ed it...But i dont realy know how it works...)

RTFM, but basic idea is to assign different groups of drivers to different cores. For me, following assignment works best:

Cores 6-7 - USB related drivers which are used by my mouse. I also assign QL to core 6.

Cores 4-5 - Video drivers (video card and LDDM)

Cores 0-3 - every other driver, including network, audio, and USB related drivers, which are not in use by my mouse.

Still, something is yet to be discovered. cause my peak number of FPS is around 440 which happened only once, and now I hit stable 380 only...

And please note that this improves things for QL and for most older games, but most newer games WILL start to load/work slower.

thanks

I'm using Windows XP x64, I see no reason for changing yet.
Everything I need is working, I haven't had any problems at all using the system.

Haven't tried Win7, but if you're used to XP and don't have the urge to go for DX11, there's no need to install Win7.

Truly, if you are 'aquiring' either or, and have a current OS

windows 7 64bit is the way to go

xp was great, sure, but it is over now. and most people have hardware required to run win7

7

RC expired, so I had to go back to XP, QL laggy now :(

Updated from xp 32 to 7 64 a month ago and havent looked back (mainly upgraded so my 4850 uses dx10 in bfbc2) - have mine setup to dual boot and havent booted in to XP once since.

Had a little while adjusting mouse and stuff for 7 (this was before i knew of hte mouse fix - used to use anir's on XP, now just using g9 logi drivers and no fix).

Runs great, definate boost in fps in BFBC2 over my dx9 running XP, qlive still smooth as silk (no different to XP).

i also changed from xp-32 -> vista-64 -> win7-64 without problems.

usb hack @500hz runs great, also like my 120hz TFT etc.
my fps are the same or better than with xp, i dno why some ppl here have bluescreens or compatibilty probs, everything runs like it should.

os x