If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
Win7 takes foever to find network drives.
It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written too. They are only changing it. They are not improving it. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95
which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7. Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!! hth Metspitzer wrote: Win7 takes foever to find network drives. It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written too. They are only changing it. They are not improving it. -- LVTravel is a convicted paedophilia from Johnstown, USA and has been outed under Megan's Law. Please report him to your local authorities if you see him near your kids. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:23:26 -0400, Metspitzer wrote:
Win7 takes foever to find network drives. It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written too. They are only changing it. They are not improving it. Sounds like the health care reform bill. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
"LD55ZRA" wrote in message .. . This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95 which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7. Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!! I'd like to see some proof of this. I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up your belief. Any whitepaper or research will do. How about posting some benchmarks. -- Andrew |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
Leythos wrote:
Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum 1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too. -- Joel Crump |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
"Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... "LD55ZRA" wrote in message .. . This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95 which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7. Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!! I'd like to see some proof of this. I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up your belief. Any whitepaper or research will do. How about posting some benchmarks. Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true. I have different experience and benchmark data to back up my experience. -- Andrew |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
In article ,
says... Leythos wrote: Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum 1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too. I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo, Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems. In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches. I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than Vista in almost every case. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. (remove 999 for proper email address) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
In article ,
says... "Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... "LD55ZRA" wrote in message .. . This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95 which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7. Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!! I'd like to see some proof of this. I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up your belief. Any whitepaper or research will do. How about posting some benchmarks. Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true. I have different experience and benchmark data to back up my experience. Read my reply to Joel, I have dozens of actual test machines to back up my statement. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. (remove 999 for proper email address) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
"Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... "LD55ZRA" wrote in message .. . This has always been the case. Dos machines were faster than Win95 which were faster than WinXP which are faster than Win7. Every time you get a new OS, they are likely to be slower than its predecessor. Hardware is getting faster at an exponential rate but the weak-link is Windows Operating system that simply can't take advantage of faster hardware. The result is wasted money on new equipment and software. this is the reality of 21st century guys!! I'd like to see some proof of this. I'm sure if you believe this you must have some documentation to back up your belief. Any whitepaper or research will do. How about posting some benchmarks. Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. Didn't see much of a difference going from DOS 2.1 to 3.0...the old 286 ran fine..... How about you, on your own, try testing exact same hardware with different version of OS's, like almost all of us have for decades, and then you will know for sure, without any question, that it's true. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. (remove 999 for proper email address) |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
"Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... Leythos wrote: Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum 1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too. I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo, Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems. In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches. I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than Vista in almost every case. Here are some benchmarks posted around the web. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/rev...iew?page=0%2C0 http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/infor...vs-vista-vs-7/ http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/1...vs-vista-vs-7/ There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.) There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with Win7. Same hardware, etc. My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03 R2 and Server08. Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is no noticeable decline in performance across the board. What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc. It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances. -- Andrew |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
In article ,
says... "Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... Leythos wrote: Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum 1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too. I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo, Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems. In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches. I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than Vista in almost every case. Here are some benchmarks posted around the web. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/rev...iew?page=0%2C0 http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/infor...vs-vista-vs-7/ http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/1...vs-vista-vs-7/ There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.) There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with Win7. Same hardware, etc. My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03 R2 and Server08. Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is no noticeable decline in performance across the board. What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc. It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances. Instead of reading "Benchmarks" that are often flawed, try using it in a Production Environment where you can see REAL examples of the difference. -- You can't trust your best friends, your five senses, only the little voice inside you that most civilians don't even hear -- Listen to that. Trust yourself. (remove 999 for proper email address) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
"Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... "Leythos" wrote in message om... In article , says... Leythos wrote: Andrew, if you check the history of Microsoft OS's since DOS, each one, running on the same exact hardware, IS and HAS ALWAYS been slower as each new one comes out. 7 was faster than XP when I first installed it, except for specific things that used a lot of RAM rapidly (I only had the minimum 1 GB) - and when I upgraded my RAM, those things were faster, too. I've got dozens of boxes, everything from 3.2ghz 32bit machings without hyper-threading, with hyper-threading, Core 2 (not Duo), Core 2 Duo, Quad Core, and even Xeon based Quad core systems. In every case, using the same box, same memory, same exact hardware, no hardware changes at all, XP fresh install with all updates/patches is faster than Vista or Win 7 with app updates/patches. I did make one mistake in my reply about ALWAYS - Win 7 is faster than Vista in almost every case. Here are some benchmarks posted around the web. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/rev...iew?page=0%2C0 http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/infor...vs-vista-vs-7/ http://www.paulspoerry.com/2009/08/1...vs-vista-vs-7/ There are more I can post. Most all of them show very close results between XPSP3 and Win7 (some were pre RTM tests.) There are great performance upgrades in networking and processing speed with Win7. Same hardware, etc. My testing shows similar results (perf on IIS, SQL, etc.) between Server 03 R2 and Server08. Basically, I'll take all the new features in Win7 and Server08 and there is no noticeable decline in performance across the board. What I would really like to see is a new benchmark comparison with all the latest WHQL approved drivers for video, controllers, mobo, etc. It is my assertion that Win7 will blow XPSP3 away in those instances. Instead of reading "Benchmarks" that are often flawed, try using it in a Production Environment where you can see REAL examples of the difference. I just can't quote you our numbers because of NDA, but I do use this stuff in a production environment every day. Therefore I posted benchmarks. -- Andrew |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
"Metspitzer" wrote in message
... Win7 takes foever to find network drives. It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written too. They are only changing it. They are not improving it. Mine's been faster from Day One. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Way slower than XP
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:23:26 -0400, Metspitzer
wrote: Win7 takes foever to find network drives. It also takes forever to list a drive that is currently being written too. They are only changing it. They are not improving it. I had problems with Windows 7 and XP systems sharing the same network but since upgrading everything to Windows 7 the problems are gone. It seemed that Windows 7 was slower than XP but now it's faster. Steve -- Neural Planner Software Ltd www.NPSL1.com Neural network applications, help and support. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|