Solve : Does Windows XP Handel gaming better than Vista/7?

1.	Solve : Does Windows XP Handel gaming better than Vista/7?
Answer» I have alot of games on the shelf and it shows that it takes less system resources when you run the game with XP. But I have always ran them with vista. Would I see any increase in performance if I ran these games on XP? Quote from: johngetter on December 09, 2010, 07:56:36 PM I have alot of games on the shelf and it shows that it takes less system resources when you run the game with XP. But I have always ran them with vista. Would I see any increase in performance if I ran these games on XP? No. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page3.asp Quote from: BC_Programmer on December 09, 2010, 08:07:17 PM No. http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page3.asp Oh ok thanks. Just wanted to know.I didn't think you believed in those benchmark sites, BC_Programmer. I've used all three, from what I can see WinXP SP3 still outperforms Vista SP2 and yes even Win7 in most first person shooter games. I perfer Win7 for pretties and DirectX10, but was horrified it still dropped fps (DirectX9 only games). If using DirectX10 and the newer graphic cards which support it however, that's another story, the graphic card will boost the performance up using it's hardware. Vista is slower than XP, even with all the bells and whistles turned off, and it still goobles up almost twice the amount of memory doing it - loading everything, once for system RAM and then copies that to graphic card RAM. Maybe that's just my personal experience with benchmarking them with the same games on the same hardware... and the 100,000s of other's on the net. I thought Win7 would outperform it too, but nope. I would suggest, older systems and directx9 graphic cards = stick with WinXP SP3, anything newer upgrade to Win7 for future proofing, networking, multitasking and pretties. If your got Vista, highly recommend replacing it with Win7 Ultimate - it's Vista without half the mess.ignore the above post. Quote from: BC_Programmer on December 10, 2010, 12:38:53 AM ignore the above post. Yeah okFeel free to ignore and while your being bios... Quote Although it’s been common knowledge among computer professionals for some time, there is now official research that proves that Windows new Vista operating system is slower and less responsive than Windows XP. The Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating systems. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in every single test. This is with Vista having 2GB and WinXP having only 1GB to run with. The tests also showed that Vista “locked up” most additional memory added to a computer. This means that by upgrading a laptop from 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM, researchers were only able to improve Vista’s performance by 4%! Benchmarks all depend on your hardware for end results. Vista is considered a hog, it would gooble up your system. If you don't have the resources it will struggle (low spec computers should stick with WinXP), if you do have the money for more memory and processing and graphic card memory, then it's still throwing it to a bit of waste (Win7 has a reduced thumbprint), but by all means, simply ignore that and it will run. Maybe when I wasn't looking they patched up Vista for free to Win7 anyways to get rid of all the issues?You are truly an idiot. I'm not even going to bother responding to that because I already have in numerous other posts. Quote from: johngetter on December 09, 2010, 07:56:36 PM I have alot of games on the shelf and it shows that it takes less system resources when you run the game with XP. But I have always ran them with vista. Would I see any increase in performance if I ran these games on XP? Is this the computer that has the one gig of RAM that you were wanting to upgrade to two gigs? Did you buy the new RAM yet? I'd recommend at least two gigs for vista. What kind of computer is it? Have you checked to see if there are xp drivers available for your machine? Quote from: BC_Programmer on December 11, 2010, 07:40:13 PM You are truly an idiot. BC_P, you beat me to it. You can truly blindsided BS_Programmer and Trout well he would follow you off a cliff thinking it's a great idea just because you said so. What 'JJ3000' said is what people should be looking at before even thinking of upgrading to Vista. Granted most newer computers will handle Vista no problems but why bother when you can now get Win7 which is a patched up version of their completely premature, memory hog of a OS. If you don't take my word, why not ask Microsoft themselves. They have already admited Vista was a complete failure and moved on. Quote from: Azzaboi on December 12, 2010, 04:48:28 PM They have already admited Vista was a complete failure Document that please.ironically, "Devil Mountain software" is just the fictitious some idiot uses to name his blog. I could just as well say that "BASeCamp Corporation" performed a similar test and found that the results were quite the opposite. In every single case, Vista ran faster. from http://makfu.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/screw-you-randall-c-kennedy-and-idg/ Quote So now it’s all out in the open: Randall C. Kennedy is pathological liar who created a fake persona in the form of one Craig Barth, CTO of Devil Mountain Software. These are He is the clowns clown who claimed that Server 2008 performed substantially better than Windows Vista SP1 despite the fact that they are two editions of THE SAME OPERATING SYSTEM! Kennedy is also the fool who, after making asinine assertions about Windows Vista and Win7 thread counts on his InfoWorld blog, proceeded to embarrass himself in an online debate with Thom Holwerda (of OSNEWS.COM) that highlighted what a know-nothing blowhard he was. However, that wasn’t enough for Randall, not by a long shot. Ever obsessed with trashing Microsoft, AND appearing to be a big shot, he actually published, via his fake company blog, a bunch of absurd statistics regarding Windows 7 memory usage. His lack of understanding about some fundamental memory counters and usage behavior in NT (and specifically Win7 with superfetch enabled) ultimately led to the discovery of one of the most unbelievable bits of tech media drama this industry has ever seen: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024&tag=content;wrapper . Now, I find it odd that some in the tech press are surprised to find out that Kennedy was the defacto boss of Devil Mountain, as running Office Bench throws up lots of content with Kennedy’s bio and articles sprinkled throughout. What blew me away was hearing that Craig Barth was an invention of Randall’s mind. You have to be kidding me?!! And IDG took this long to figure this out?! It was ZDNet, a competing blog site, over the course of a few days that managed to uncover this!? No, the real story isn’t that Randall Kennedy is an incompetent, disgraceful boob (anyone with half a clue knew this already). The REAL story is that the tech media (and even major media) outlets single sourced their information from Devil Mountain Software or Craig Barth without vetting their source AND, most importantly, providing alternative sources that could verify or debunk Kennedy’s (AKA Devil Mountain / Craig Barth’s) claims. People like Computer World’s Gregg Keizer should be ASHAMED of themselves for simply acting as a mouthpiece for Kennedy/Barth/DMS without doing ANY real investigative journalism. IDG NEVER validated Kennedy’s bio, NEVER validated the benchmark software he provided for them (as detailed in the ZDNet expose) and never validated the statements that Kennedy made. In short, IDG and the broader media allowed one man to run a massive FUD campaign against Microsoft by parroting his statements when it served their purposes of feeding a BIAS or driving hits to their sites. Disgusting doesn’t go far enough in describing the conduct of IDG, InfoWorld, ComputerWorld or the rest of the tech media that allowed this to go unchecked for well over a decade. Quote from: Azzaboi on December 12, 2010, 04:48:28 PM You can truly blindsided BS_Programmer and Trout well he would follow you off a cliff thinking it's a great idea just because you said so. your ability to troll is unsurpassed by anybody, save maybe slashdotters. Quote What 'JJ3000' said is what people should be looking at before even thinking of upgrading to Vista. Granted most newer computers will handle Vista no problems but why bother when you can now get Win7 which is a patched up version of their completely premature, memory hog of a OS. Why bother upgrading at all? Windows 98 works for Excel, Word, and Office applications. Most people upgrade because they have more demanding applications, mostly games. Here's a surprise, a LOT of newer games are being written exclusively for DX10. And as I already proved, you can't get DX10 running on XP. Although I find that whole debate pointless. Idiots with no clue like to say "I'm running Crysis in DX10 mode and Ultra High" Well, obviously if they are just running it through the wrapper, most of the functions are probably just stubs, so you get no damned advantage. They keep saying it like it's a good thing, Christ, I don't understand why people weren't eager to backport DX 9.0c to Windows 98SE in the same fashion. Vista, at a glance, should run games slower then XP; and this is true, if you're running a 7 or 8 year old system. Vista has to translate DX9 and previous games (in a way) so that it supports the new driver engine (this very same engine that idiotic morons like to pretend doesn't exist); however, at the same time, it has better RAM manipulation and deals with the system more effectively (the new kernel that the new driver engine happens to interface with, also). It's like those dumbasses saying that games run slower with Aero On then with Aero of, which doesn't make any sense since windows shuts off aero when you start a full-screen application, so obviously they are just making shite up, which is pretty par for the course. Windows XP did NOT because the fan favourite instantly. There were holdouts for years holding onto Windows 98SE and refusing to upgrade to XP because.... wait for it... wait for it... It was better for gaming! The similiarities here amuse me. A bunch of random tards who are sticking to an old OS for no real reason other then their hate of change (And don't PULL the old "OMG new OS's need so much morez RAM" because people pull that censored with every OS release, Some people even make up companies and purport their data as the truth, and then morons will use those entirely invented facts as if they are true. despite the fact that they simply don't understand the basic concepts involved) If you don't want to use a lot of RAM, run CP/M. I'd explain what that is but I'm SURE you either already have or are forming yet another gargantuan conspiracy theory involving microsoft "stealing" CP/M or some other false nonsense. You can even find sites that express that. The only thing that finally convinced them to switch to XP was newer games looking a censored of a lot better and working a lot faster, or simply requiring, DX9, which wasn't available for windows 98 (because of the evil bill, obviously). I also love how people who probably pirated the OS, or bought it 7 years ago (which would translate to like a 10th of a cent a day) still think that MS owes them something as collosal an engineering undertaking as backporting a hardware/software interface that currently communicates using a new driver architecture to a totally new kernel back to a 7 year old operating system that they had forked from long before they had even considered the design implications of DX10. Come on, you used the OS you bought for 7 years. And if you pirated it, you're just a self-indulgent douche anyway and your demands are both unrealistic and not worth their time. Quote If you don't take my word, why not ask Microsoft themselves. They have already admited Vista was a complete failure and moved on. No they didn't. a few employees expressed an opinion. Most of whom were probably on teams totally unrelated to windows development. I just love how people seem to think that everybody working there works on everything. One afternoon somebody might be working on office, and the next a kernel mode keyboard driver. That's not the way it works, obviously. For all we know those people were on one of the office teams, or even one of the teams that works on mac software. Quote from: Azzaboi on December 12, 2010, 04:48:28 PM Trout well he would follow you off a cliff thinking it's a great idea just because you said so. No, it's just that we both happen, independently, to think that you are abusive language deleted by Allan and warning issuedAzzaboi: All people are asking for is proof. Not opinion. Not hearsay. Not confabulation. Proof. If you can't provide proof, don't sell it as 100% fact. Anyone can claim "I tried this and I can confirm that..." While that, in of itself, is not bad, it should be taken as it is: a claim. For example (and I'll throw myself under the bus for a minute--not the first time I've done so ), I've posted my own results from freezing hard drives to recover data. I've even stated that I didn't know whether or not my positive results were simply correlation or that it could potentially work. As BC mentioned in a rebuttal to my claims, he mentioned that modern hard drives and their liquid bearings would not show any positive result from this, as the bearings could freeze and actually prohibit movement! Others have claimed that their results work (possibly on older drives without liquid bearings), but again...they're just that: claims. Should they be taken as absolute fact that it works? No. Should it be taken as "anyone who says it works is completely full of ____?" Only if they try to sell it as 100% fact. It should be taken as is: a claim. Obviously, I can't reproduce my "positive results" as easily on every drive with mechanical problems. If I had enough older hard drives with mechanical problems to play around with, I'd do some more experimenting myself (and probably post the results on Youtube or something). Worst case scenario, I would have ended up destroying several older drives that I don't care about (and let people know not to do this based on this). Best case, I could get some data back from all of them (provided that they have the same mechanical problem, they don't use liquid bearings, and that I've taken all necessary precautions to avoid having condensation form on the drives themselves), and put some disclaimer of "do at your own risk" alongside it. In your case: anyone can claim that Vista and 7 are slower than XP. How many of them are willing to go through the trouble of having 2-3 PCs with identical hardware running the different operating systems with multiple benchmarks (both synthetic and real-world) to make an honest comparison? Obviously the guys at the various benchmark sites have this luxury. Benchmark sites are fine...as long as you're willing to use the articles as intended and not "cherry pick" statements from it to try and sell a point. Multiple benchmark sites would be better, as people can fact-check against those (as well as what they know) and make their own informed decision. Unlike the hard drive freezing example, your claim can easily be tested against and confirmed/refuted without a whole lot of effort. If you continue to post anything short of this while trying to sell your point, ignoring evidence that contradicts your point, then you're simply trolling--POSTING only to solicit negative responses and start conflict.

Answer»

I have alot of games on the shelf and it shows that it takes less system resources when you run the game with XP. But I have always ran them with vista. Would I see any increase in performance if I ran these games on XP? Quote from: johngetter on December 09, 2010, 07:56:36 PM

I have alot of games on the shelf and it shows that it takes less system resources when you run the game with XP. But I have always ran them with vista. Would I see any increase in performance if I ran these games on XP?

No.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page3.asp

Quote from: BC_Programmer on December 09, 2010, 08:07:17 PM

No.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_windows_vista_driver_performance_update/page3.asp

Oh ok thanks. Just wanted to know.I didn't think you believed in those benchmark sites, BC_Programmer.

I've used all three, from what I can see WinXP SP3 still outperforms Vista SP2 and yes even Win7 in most first person shooter games. I perfer Win7 for pretties and DirectX10, but was horrified it still dropped fps (DirectX9 only games). If using DirectX10 and the newer graphic cards which support it however, that's another story, the graphic card will boost the performance up using it's hardware.

Vista is slower than XP, even with all the bells and whistles turned off, and it still goobles up almost twice the amount of memory doing it - loading everything, once for system RAM and then copies that to graphic card RAM.

Maybe that's just my personal experience with benchmarking them with the same games on the same hardware... and the 100,000s of other's on the net. I thought Win7 would outperform it too, but nope.

I would suggest, older systems and directx9 graphic cards = stick with WinXP SP3, anything newer upgrade to Win7 for future proofing, networking, multitasking and pretties. If your got Vista, highly recommend replacing it with Win7 Ultimate - it's Vista without half the mess.ignore the above post. Quote from: BC_Programmer on December 10, 2010, 12:38:53 AM

ignore the above post.

Yeah okFeel free to ignore and while your being bios...
Quote

Although it’s been common knowledge among computer professionals for some time, there is now official research that proves that Windows new Vista operating system is slower and less responsive than Windows XP. The Florida-based development and research company, Devil Mountain Software, compared performance benchmarks between the two operating systems. The end result? Windows XP outperformed Vista in every single test.

This is with Vista having 2GB and WinXP having only 1GB to run with.

The tests also showed that Vista “locked up” most additional memory added to a computer. This means that by upgrading a laptop from 1 GB to 2 GB of RAM, researchers were only able to improve Vista’s performance by 4%!

Benchmarks all depend on your hardware for end results. Vista is considered a hog, it would gooble up your system. If you don't have the resources it will struggle (low spec computers should stick with WinXP), if you do have the money for more memory and processing and graphic card memory, then it's still throwing it to a bit of waste (Win7 has a reduced thumbprint), but by all means, simply ignore that and it will run.

Maybe when I wasn't looking they patched up Vista for free to Win7 anyways to get rid of all the issues?You are truly an idiot. I'm not even going to bother responding to that because I already have in numerous other posts. Quote from: johngetter on December 09, 2010, 07:56:36 PM

I have alot of games on the shelf and it shows that it takes less system resources when you run the game with XP. But I have always ran them with vista. Would I see any increase in performance if I ran these games on XP?

Is this the computer that has the one gig of RAM that you were wanting to upgrade to two gigs?

Did you buy the new RAM yet? I'd recommend at least two gigs for vista.

What kind of computer is it? Have you checked to see if there are xp drivers available for your machine? Quote from: BC_Programmer on December 11, 2010, 07:40:13 PM

You are truly an idiot.

BC_P, you beat me to it.

You can truly blindsided BS_Programmer and Trout well he would follow you off a cliff thinking it's a great idea just because you said so.

What 'JJ3000' said is what people should be looking at before even thinking of upgrading to Vista. Granted most newer computers will handle Vista no problems but why bother when you can now get Win7 which is a patched up version of their completely premature, memory hog of a OS.

If you don't take my word, why not ask Microsoft themselves. They have already admited Vista was a complete failure and moved on. Quote from: Azzaboi on December 12, 2010, 04:48:28 PM

They have already admited Vista was a complete failure

Document that please.ironically, "Devil Mountain software" is just the fictitious some idiot uses to name his blog. I could just as well say that "BASeCamp Corporation" performed a similar test and found that the results were quite the opposite. In every single case, Vista ran faster.

from http://makfu.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/screw-you-randall-c-kennedy-and-idg/

Quote

So now it’s all out in the open: Randall C. Kennedy is pathological liar who created a fake persona in the form of one Craig Barth, CTO of Devil Mountain Software. These are He is the clowns clown who claimed that Server 2008 performed substantially better than Windows Vista SP1 despite the fact that they are two editions of THE SAME OPERATING SYSTEM! Kennedy is also the fool who, after making asinine assertions about Windows Vista and Win7 thread counts on his InfoWorld blog, proceeded to embarrass himself in an online debate with Thom Holwerda (of OSNEWS.COM) that highlighted what a know-nothing blowhard he was.

However, that wasn’t enough for Randall, not by a long shot. Ever obsessed with trashing Microsoft, AND appearing to be a big shot, he actually published, via his fake company blog, a bunch of absurd statistics regarding Windows 7 memory usage. His lack of understanding about some fundamental memory counters and usage behavior in NT (and specifically Win7 with superfetch enabled) ultimately led to the discovery of one of the most unbelievable bits of tech media drama this industry has ever seen: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=31024&tag=content;wrapper .

Now, I find it odd that some in the tech press are surprised to find out that Kennedy was the defacto boss of Devil Mountain, as running Office Bench throws up lots of content with Kennedy’s bio and articles sprinkled throughout. What blew me away was hearing that Craig Barth was an invention of Randall’s mind. You have to be kidding me?!! And IDG took this long to figure this out?! It was ZDNet, a competing blog site, over the course of a few days that managed to uncover this!?

No, the real story isn’t that Randall Kennedy is an incompetent, disgraceful boob (anyone with half a clue knew this already). The REAL story is that the tech media (and even major media) outlets single sourced their information from Devil Mountain Software or Craig Barth without vetting their source AND, most importantly, providing alternative sources that could verify or debunk Kennedy’s (AKA Devil Mountain / Craig Barth’s) claims. People like Computer World’s Gregg Keizer should be ASHAMED of themselves for simply acting as a mouthpiece for Kennedy/Barth/DMS without doing ANY real investigative journalism. IDG NEVER validated Kennedy’s bio, NEVER validated the benchmark software he provided for them (as detailed in the ZDNet expose) and never validated the statements that Kennedy made.

In short, IDG and the broader media allowed one man to run a massive FUD campaign against Microsoft by parroting his statements when it served their purposes of feeding a BIAS or driving hits to their sites. Disgusting doesn’t go far enough in describing the conduct of IDG, InfoWorld, ComputerWorld or the rest of the tech media that allowed this to go unchecked for well over a decade.

Quote from: Azzaboi on December 12, 2010, 04:48:28 PM

You can truly blindsided BS_Programmer and Trout well he would follow you off a cliff thinking it's a great idea just because you said so.

your ability to troll is unsurpassed by anybody, save maybe slashdotters.

Quote

What 'JJ3000' said is what people should be looking at before even thinking of upgrading to Vista. Granted most newer computers will handle Vista no problems but why bother when you can now get Win7 which is a patched up version of their completely premature, memory hog of a OS.

Why bother upgrading at all? Windows 98 works for Excel, Word, and Office applications. Most people upgrade because they have more demanding applications, mostly games. Here's a surprise, a LOT of newer games are being written exclusively for DX10. And as I already proved, you can't get DX10 running on XP. Although I find that whole debate pointless. Idiots with no clue like to say "I'm running Crysis in DX10 mode and Ultra High" Well, obviously if they are just running it through the wrapper, most of the functions are probably just stubs, so you get no damned advantage. They keep saying it like it's a good thing, Christ, I don't understand why people weren't eager to backport DX 9.0c to Windows 98SE in the same fashion.

Vista, at a glance, should run games slower then XP; and this is true, if you're running a 7 or 8 year old system. Vista has to translate DX9 and previous games (in a way) so that it supports the new driver engine (this very same engine that idiotic morons like to pretend doesn't exist); however, at the same time, it has better RAM manipulation and deals with the system more effectively (the new kernel that the new driver engine happens to interface with, also). It's like those dumbasses saying that games run slower with Aero On then with Aero of, which doesn't make any sense since windows shuts off aero when you start a full-screen application, so obviously they are just making shite up, which is pretty par for the course.

Windows XP did NOT because the fan favourite instantly. There were holdouts for years holding onto Windows 98SE and refusing to upgrade to XP because.... wait for it... wait for it...

It was better for gaming!

The similiarities here amuse me. A bunch of random tards who are sticking to an old OS for no real reason other then their hate of change (And don't PULL the old "OMG new OS's need so much morez RAM" because people pull that *censored* with every OS release, Some people even make up companies and purport their data as the truth, and then morons will use those entirely invented facts as if they are true. despite the fact that they simply don't understand the basic concepts involved) If you don't want to use a lot of RAM, run CP/M. I'd explain what that is but I'm SURE you either already have or are forming yet another gargantuan conspiracy theory involving microsoft "stealing" CP/M or some other false nonsense. You can even find sites that express that. The only thing that finally convinced them to switch to XP was newer games looking a *censored* of a lot better and working a lot faster, or simply requiring, DX9, which wasn't available for windows 98 (because of the evil bill, obviously).

I also love how people who probably pirated the OS, or bought it 7 years ago (which would translate to like a 10th of a cent a day) still think that MS owes them something as collosal an engineering undertaking as backporting a hardware/software interface that currently communicates using a new driver architecture to a totally new kernel back to a 7 year old operating system that they had forked from long before they had even considered the design implications of DX10. Come on, you used the OS you bought for 7 years. And if you pirated it, you're just a self-indulgent douche anyway and your demands are both unrealistic and not worth their time.

Quote

If you don't take my word, why not ask Microsoft themselves. They have already admited Vista was a complete failure and moved on.

No they didn't. a few employees expressed an opinion. Most of whom were probably on teams totally unrelated to windows development. I just love how people seem to think that everybody working there works on everything. One afternoon somebody might be working on office, and the next a kernel mode keyboard driver. That's not the way it works, obviously. For all we know those people were on one of the office teams, or even one of the teams that works on mac software. Quote from: Azzaboi on December 12, 2010, 04:48:28 PM

Trout well he would follow you off a cliff thinking it's a great idea just because you said so.

No, it's just that we both happen, independently, to think that you are abusive language deleted by Allan and warning issuedAzzaboi:

All people are asking for is proof. Not opinion. Not hearsay. Not confabulation. Proof.

If you can't provide proof, don't sell it as 100% fact.

Anyone can claim "I tried this and I can confirm that..." While that, in of itself, is not bad, it should be taken as it is: a claim.

For example (and I'll throw myself under the bus for a minute--not the first time I've done so ), I've posted my own results from freezing hard drives to recover data. I've even stated that I didn't know whether or not my positive results were simply correlation or that it could potentially work. As BC mentioned in a rebuttal to my claims, he mentioned that modern hard drives and their liquid bearings would not show any positive result from this, as the bearings could freeze and actually prohibit movement! Others have claimed that their results work (possibly on older drives without liquid bearings), but again...they're just that: claims.

Should they be taken as absolute fact that it works? No.

Should it be taken as "anyone who says it works is completely full of ____?" Only if they try to sell it as 100% fact.

It should be taken as is: a claim.

Obviously, I can't reproduce my "positive results" as easily on every drive with mechanical problems. If I had enough older hard drives with mechanical problems to play around with, I'd do some more experimenting myself (and probably post the results on Youtube or something). Worst case scenario, I would have ended up destroying several older drives that I don't care about (and let people know not to do this based on this). Best case, I could get some data back from all of them (provided that they have the same mechanical problem, they don't use liquid bearings, and that I've taken all necessary precautions to avoid having condensation form on the drives themselves), and put some disclaimer of "do at your own risk" alongside it.

In your case: anyone can claim that Vista and 7 are slower than XP. How many of them are willing to go through the trouble of having 2-3 PCs with identical hardware running the different operating systems with multiple benchmarks (both synthetic and real-world) to make an honest comparison? Obviously the guys at the various benchmark sites have this luxury.

Benchmark sites are fine...as long as you're willing to use the articles as intended and not "cherry pick" statements from it to try and sell a point. Multiple benchmark sites would be better, as people can fact-check against those (as well as what they know) and make their own informed decision.

Unlike the hard drive freezing example, your claim can easily be tested against and confirmed/refuted without a whole lot of effort.

If you continue to post anything short of this while trying to sell your point, ignoring evidence that contradicts your point, then you're simply trolling--POSTING only to solicit negative responses and start conflict.

Solve : Does Windows XP Handel gaming better than Vista/7?

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment