Here's my specs:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/402/specss.png/

get XP, your PC is weak.

this

xp

with the slow vid/ram, w7 would be a nightmare to configure

win95

XP isn't a bitch when it comes to configuring usb rates and monitor fresh rates. Not saying it's hard on Win7, but you can run into problems more easily, and some processes are longer/harder.

XP :D

Yep, XP with that rig.

ROFL! I love you guys! Serious, no homo but oh my gosh, you guys are like 10x more helpful then the whole forum in quake live. And yeah that's my laptop I use it's not that good so yeah :) Thanks for the advice guys :D

you're comparing ESR to QL forums? LOL

I thought Win7 was supposed to use less resources than XP?

So wouldn't it be better to use Win7 on an older rig?

less than vista maybe

xp doesn't require 1gb ram

No it can't use less ressources than XP. It can work decently on crap hardware (much better than Vista) but still can't compete with XP.

http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/07/31/1356217...Infections

no xp is just a decade old and full of exploits!

which is 100% what this thread is about.

Win 7 is hardly any better, I mean it still has filesharing, remote desktop and remote registry turned on BY FUCKING DEFAULT.

It's easy to turn them on or off but why does Microsoft feel the need to turn these things on by default?
It's like eh, let's make it easy for h4ck3rs!

I turn them off, easiest way is to download avg tune up, optimizes everything!

I do that too (and you really don't need a program to do that... it's piss easy) but that wasn't my point.

I was talking about the average joe who doesn't know about this. Why doesn't Windows ask us if we want to enable it or not while installing it for example? Warning us about the risks?

"The ones lacking in knowledge are the ones most likely to be exploited " (Sudell, 2011)

depends on what sp of the xp we re talking about, i remember sp2-3 were not making me happy when i used xp

Definately XP when I tried it on my netbook (atom CPU ion gpu) which is probably quite similar performance, I lost about 1/3 of the fps when I went from XP to W7.

xp, maybe even sp2 over sp3. if this fails, use linux and a shell without compositing (3d effects) and try again.

xp is cool, win7 is perfect

notin wrong with win 7, i have a weak pc and have 125 fps, only backside of the whole thing is that i had better usb rates on xp
its ql, if you want to run ql smooth dont think of modern pc's. usally old ass and mediocre pc s do the job best, while as you put togeather a brandnew rig and you have no garantee that you will have a smooth 125 fps @ ql (heard about alot that sucked at this point)

not true if you want lightmap, my old pc (athlon64/gf6800/2gb ram) struggled to stay above 100fps when i did that.

ye that doesn't stand for lightmap, least i never play lightmap
edit: i play ospdm6 with lightmap and there are no fps problems there

what does that have to do with anything? lightmap = less fps, period.

what kind of rig you got, and what is this inane babble about brandnew rigs struggling with quakelive? i ignored that at first, but wtf. i demand some sort of source/proof :d

dual 2.8, 2 gb ddr2, nvidia gt220, win7 32 ult, as for the brand new:O pc i dunno, the guy isnt online irc atm; >

windows xp for your PC

Yup i agree with most here. Went from XP to W7 and lost FPS. Before was solid 125 but after it would dip to 113ish in certain places. I noticed the same thing with all the XP service packs but not as much as the jump from XP to W7.

Ubuntu :-)