Comments on: Is This Really The ‘Killer’ Feature Of Windows 7?

By: James Lehman

James Lehman — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 22:56:00 +0000

I’ve got them both and 7 seems a little faster than XP
at some tasks. Even years after release not many software titles take advantage of multi-core systems. I think there are 3 or 4 on 7 now that do this.

By: Ron Schenone

Ron Schenone — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:00:34 +0000

Hi Dave,
Good point.
Regards, Ron

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:43:49 +0000

I’m running a Core I7 at home which I use to create original audio. That’s 4 cores, and with hyperthreading it looks like 8 cores, so I expect Windows 7 to make this purchase more than worthwhile. I’m in the planning stages for a clean 64 bit Windows 7 install.

At any rate, don’t be too hasty to put down this important feature. Anybody who plays multimedia files at home now needs a little more than a pentium with Windows 95.

By: Scott Lee

Scott Lee — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:30:57 +0000

I am running XP Pro SP3 on a P4 2.8Ghz w 1.5GB RAM.

I started with computers way back with the TI99-4/A and the C64 with their versions of BASIC, moved on to mainframes and RPG II, Fortran, and Pascal. Then came DOS 5, DOS 6.1, Windows 3.11, Windows 95, 98, Me, then XP. I dabbled in Linux Ubuntu for a while and then returned to XP.

Will I migrate to Windows 7 with my next computer? I don’t know. I have seen it, I have read the reviews. It’s not worth it to me to upgrade my entire system just to run the latest OS.

It’s like your yard work sneakers. They look nasty, but they’re comfortable, reassuring, they fit perfectly, and as long as you have a roll of duct tape, they work just fine for what you want to do. That’s my little OptiPlex.

By: stve

stve — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:04:08 +0000

The point is that your next computer 2 or more years down the line is going to be a lot more powerful than your present one & Windows 7 will be better able to take advantage of it .
Tracy is spot on that most people don’t need Windows 7 but need it or not they will be buying it.
Imagine a world where everyone only bought what they needed & not what they wanted, what a recession we’d have if it ever came to pass.

By: Ron Schenone

Ron Schenone — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 20:13:26 +0000

Thanks to all of you for sharing your comments with us. It is appreciated.

By: Daveyy

Daveyy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:49:25 +0000

I agree to some extent with what Tracy said, and it depends entirely on what you want to use your system for. Personally, I’ve found that the standard for business computers sometimes struggles to run the many applications that I want and need to run at the same time. This is where I do agree that Windows 7 comes into it’s own, but like you said, XP is fine for the regular end user.

By: Jim Wilson

Jim Wilson — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:45:00 +0000

I agree with Tracy. Most people don’t need that much power to begin with.

I can’t wait for Google to come out with their own operating system. I believe it wil run on a netbook just fine.

By: Tracy

Tracy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:59:21 +0000

I think most current PC’s are massively overpowered for about 85% of users. I’m basing this on being in direct sales now for over a year & keeping track of what people plan to use it for.

Email, net browsing, bit of photo work, bit of music work. If it weren’t for lack of good USB support & the fact it can’t run a current antivirus- I’d say most of the people could do their basics running a single Pentium on Win 95….

Tracy

By: joeg2

joeg2 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:40:01 +0000

When I installed a clean install of Windows 7 it was blazingly fast compared to XP. Then I thought about my install, the ‘old’ load of XP was a few years old, many software packags, etc. It was also 32 bit. The new Windows 7 I installed was 64 bit, and clean.

So I got another hard drive and loaded XP clean, just for apples-to-apples. No doubt that the XP took longer to load, counting service packs and updates, but the XP clean load was faster than the original load buy a very noticable amount.

The old XP load was so cloged and had slowed over a period of time that I did not notice any degradation. There was significant difference. Windows 7 still beat out the XP, but the XP was still 32 Bit, vs 64bit Win7.

Sure, I could slipstream XP service packs to load faster, go to 64bit, etc. But the bottom line is that the XP was still performing and had I not just wanted the ‘cool new features’ in Win 7, sticking with XP would not harm my computing experience.

Bottom line leassons: Windows 7 is polished and well-done, Win XP is still viable, and whatever OS you use – maintain your system by cleaning junk files and installs, cleaning the registry, and defraging.