-
Listen to a special audio message from Bill Roper to the Hive Workshop community (Bill is a former Vice President of Blizzard Entertainment, Producer, Designer, Musician, Voice Actor) 🔗Click here to hear his message!
-
Read Evilhog's interview with Gregory Alper, the original composer of the music for WarCraft: Orcs & Humans 🔗Click here to read the full interview.
-
Create a void inspired texture for Warcraft 3 and enter Hive's 34th Texturing Contest: Void! Click here to enter!
-
The Hive's 22nd Icon Contest: Creep Abilities is now concluded, time to vote for your favourite set of icons! Click here to vote!
Which one is faster??
- Status
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,392
In regards to style and programs:
Personally I prefer windows 7, but thats due to some specific programs I need.
As for the fastest; Windows 8 is faster than windows 7, however in an overall score (less bugs, less crashes, works with older CPU's, more familiar so forth) windows 7 ranks slightly better (tends to score higher point, more compatible).
I've would recommend 7, unless you want the touchscreen stuff or have something specific you want to run. But again, personal choice.
Compare requirements here (see the similarity):
Windows 7
Windows 8
Really you should just read and decide for yourself:
Windows 8 review
Windows 7 review
Good luck
Personally I prefer windows 7, but thats due to some specific programs I need.
As for the fastest; Windows 8 is faster than windows 7, however in an overall score (less bugs, less crashes, works with older CPU's, more familiar so forth) windows 7 ranks slightly better (tends to score higher point, more compatible).
I've would recommend 7, unless you want the touchscreen stuff or have something specific you want to run. But again, personal choice.
Compare requirements here (see the similarity):
Windows 7
Windows 8
Really you should just read and decide for yourself:
Windows 8 review
Windows 7 review
Good luck
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,174
If you have a laptop designed for Windows XP, I would really suggest you to not get Windows 7 or 8.
For some reason people think that their bad laptops can magically run fast newer Windows versions, even though they have terrible CPUs and even more terrible RAM sizes (and this is actually the really major bottleneck).
If you list your specs, we might be wiser.
For some reason people think that their bad laptops can magically run fast newer Windows versions, even though they have terrible CPUs and even more terrible RAM sizes (and this is actually the really major bottleneck).
If you list your specs, we might be wiser.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,392
Well knowing that, don't upgrade. Your running a 32 bit celeron with 1gb ram, yea. You need another hardware setup to take any advantage of a newer OS.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,392
You know, that laptop can installed by Windows 7
But I downgrade it because Windows 7 is suck
Well, I will try to contact services
TQ everyone
Given a stronger setup I believe you'll enjoy Windows 7, but wise move for now.
Dr Super Good
Spell Reviewer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 27,345
Performance wise Windows 8 is the best.
Windows XP suffers due to useless x86-64 support and dumb multi-core thread management. It also cannot use the advanced features of modern day GPUs due to the way the kernel was designed greatly limiting graphic performance and even support (modern software no longer supports such old interfaces).
Windows 7 is pretty good and is more than a capable OS. However it still lacks some of the optimizations and technology Windows 8 uses (example, the victim page algorithm in Windows 8 is more effective at producing working sets). Next to that performance is largely identical.
Modern OS use a lot of disk space to install. If you are running on a storage limited setup it might not leave much free space if you use Windows 7/8. XP is considerably smaller, largely due to the lack of needing parallel libraries for both x86 and x86-64 operation which 7 and 8 need and also because it is plain simpler (lacks many features that 7 and 8 have).
Memory wise XP probably has a smaller kernel. Again this is because it just has less in it. Just because it uses less memory does not make it run faster however.
Performance wise 7 and 8 will probably be slower than XP on very old hardware. This is largely due to them being designed for multi-core processors (the standard in this day and age) so have an associated overhead for efficient multi-core support that is not required on old processors which only have a single core. On all modern processors 7 and 8 will be considerably faster as they have far better multi-cure management than XP and can even use special instruction set features only available on more modern processors. It should be noted that part of the performance improvements from 8 have come about by raising the minimum processor requirement to one with a higher performance instruction set extension which means it cannot run on processors as old as XP and 7 can.
It should also be noted that Windows 7 and 8 does not support a lot of old hardware. Since they require signed drivers a lot of old hardware cannot be used since the hardware itself is no longer maintained so the manufacturers have not spent money porting and updating the drivers. You should always check for hardware compatibility before doing an upgrade. This is especially the problem with laptops as they mostly use OEM hardware with OEM drivers that are only updated for a year odd after the system was first produced.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,392
Not necessarily - I could easily argue for Windows 7 being better than 8 and vice versa pending on what you need from your OS.
Dr Super Good
Spell Reviewer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 27,345
Please explain how I am using IE11 on Windows 7 then? It also works fine.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2008
- Messages
- 3,141
Windows XP support will end by 8th april 2014 so there is no real excuse not to update your windows. Working on platform without support is just dangerous.
Windows 7 still holds the title of most polular OS, XP following after. It's cheaper than 8 and basically contains everything typical user would require to work with computer by daily. Choice depends on your machine, your preferences and of course the purpose you need OS for. Windows 8 on new hardware is faster which was proven by multiple tests, both startup and in games. However, the difference between 7 & 8 is small and also depends on application (especially for which hardware given program was written for, the desired hardware). The are some issues with 8 tho. Fking Modern interface with no option to force pulpit-only mode is the popular example.
Windows 7 still holds the title of most polular OS, XP following after. It's cheaper than 8 and basically contains everything typical user would require to work with computer by daily. Choice depends on your machine, your preferences and of course the purpose you need OS for. Windows 8 on new hardware is faster which was proven by multiple tests, both startup and in games. However, the difference between 7 & 8 is small and also depends on application (especially for which hardware given program was written for, the desired hardware). The are some issues with 8 tho. Fking Modern interface with no option to force pulpit-only mode is the popular example.
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2012
- Messages
- 1,021
@Chaosy
LoL'z I love the Windows 8 design very much, it's a perfect design, Windows 7 design is suck!!
@Spinnaker
The Windows 8 is so fast when I use it at my friend laptop
BTW, the Start menu is lovely :3 :3 I don't know why the other hate Windows 8 :/ :/
LoL'z I love the Windows 8 design very much, it's a perfect design, Windows 7 design is suck!!
@Spinnaker
The Windows 8 is so fast when I use it at my friend laptop
BTW, the Start menu is lovely :3 :3 I don't know why the other hate Windows 8 :/ :/
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2013
- Messages
- 12,872
Honestly, I prefer Windows 7 than Windows 8 due to Windows 8 is uncomfortable.
You may find it cool at first glance, but you later realize it's not that better. Windows 8 Metro "apps" aren't cool, you need to clean them up for better experience, but it shouldn't be pretty bad once you get it properly setup.
I love XP's start menu to be honest.
You may find it cool at first glance, but you later realize it's not that better. Windows 8 Metro "apps" aren't cool, you need to clean them up for better experience, but it shouldn't be pretty bad once you get it properly setup.
I love XP's start menu to be honest.
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 6,392
Just wanted to note that notebooks does not equal slow
Even more so since it depends on what he is running on it, in addition to windows 8.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2013
- Messages
- 772
@Daffa
Wait, what?
Remove IE support?
They are still a lot of users using IE. I don't believe they'll give up easily, unless something surpasses Chrome's awesomeness.
That annoyed me a bit.
Wait, what?
Remove IE support?
They are still a lot of users using IE. I don't believe they'll give up easily, unless something surpasses Chrome's awesomeness.
That annoyed me a bit.
Dr Super Good
Spell Reviewer
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2005
- Messages
- 27,345
In all seriousness IE is horribly under-ratted at the moment. People pretend that FireFox and Chrome are better/more secure but that is not the case. All of the browsers pass ACID tests with full marks (unless a more recent one was made).
- Status
