I haven't noticed slowness in the Gui at all, in fact I find it very fast. I have heard its an Nvidia issue with is staic Directx 10 support opposed to the Radeon's Directx 10.1 and now 11, but thats probably just conjecture at best.
When I got my laptop with Vista pre-installed I didn't know how fast I went back to XP but it was very fast. But it's 2009 now and don't flame me for this, I feel XP is starting to feel the teeth of time. Time to switch over and 7 is the perfect step forward for me.
Yes, that's true. I know win7 uses direct2d and direct3d, as where xp used the lighter GDI/GDI+. But 2d rendering in win7 at the moment IS 4x slower than xp. This is because wddm 1.1 drivers still don't have full 2d hardware accelleration, which makes win7 gui a lot slower then xp's. True, not noticable unless u scroll like a madman, but it is a fact, and will only be resolved when full 2d accelleration get's implemented in these drivers. wddm 1.0 specificly require the lack of 2d accelleration according to Microsoft documentation. WDDM 1.1 drivers have to have SOME 2D hardware accelerated functions in order to get the 1.1 certification. But most used 2d functions are still rendered in software. Finally, Windows nvidia drivers installed by default are WDDM 1.1, nvidia WHQL drivers for Windows 7 at the moment are not. Anyway there are little no none difference in 2d performance since none of them include full hardware 2d acceleration, which inevitably leads to a much slower gui. It'll be resolved, but for now these are the facts we cannot deny
I figured dude. I just know a lot about win95 because I used it for many years on like a 93 edition Compaq.
Dude I use Win95 and NT 3.5 for all my advanced applications. It flies on my Core 2. You guys should benchmark win7 against THAT!! It will beat your fancy OS any day
Funny you mention that. Today just for s**ts and grins I created a DOS 6.5 VM, installed Windows 3.11 and played the original Doom game. It reminded me how manual everything was, like manually editing the config.sys and autoexec.bat files to get the cdrom and sound to work. Fun times back then. I miss dialing up to BBS's
I believe that this is matter of the machine's age. XP was released some years ago with all these older computers at that time. Hardware was designed for the operating system as you mostly can read on the stickers places somewhere on the computer. When using a later itteration of windows, some electrical parts might not fit to the os as at that time when it matched perfectly with XP. In other words, i belive, you cannot say that W7 is better than XP but has to do with a perfact match of both machine and os. Correct me if I'm wrong
win 98 SE is the best just kidding , for old pc's Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic or Windows XP Pro SP3, good luck
If you're implying that compatibility influences performance, yes that's true. but still...at this time xp's gui performs better then win7 gui, and is explained in posts above. Win7's direct2d/3d gui is better then xp's older gdi/gdi+, but just can't reach it's full potential yet, cause of incompatibility with current wddm functionality. But in general win7 actually is a step forward compared to xp, allthough compatibility of win7 with certain drivers and software still has to improve. So in a way, comparison between the two, at the moment isn't entirely fair. When we compare win7 with xp in the near future, both having a perfect match in hardware and compatible soft (including still to come wddm 1.1 WITH full 2d hardware accelleration for win7), then it'll be a fair game, and xp will have to lay it down for the new os.