# Windows 7 vs XP Performance Shoot-Out



## Gauravs90 (Nov 11, 2009)

After I compared the performance of Windows 7 with that of Windows Vista , a lot of readers expressed interest in seeing a comparison with the decade-old, but still popular, Windows XP. So I decided to see how each of the three operating systems compared to each other in several crucial categories. Frankly, the results were a bit surprising. While they aren't a knockout blow for Windows 7, they do show that, by some measures, XP outperforms Windows 7 on legacy hardware.

To start, I did a clean install of each OS on a 1.73-GHz Toshiba Satellite M45-S269 laptop with 1GB RAM and a 100GB hard drive. Because upgrading from XP will be of interest to businesses as well individuals, I chose to install Windows XP Professional, and stuck with the Professional edition for Vista and 7. I used 32-bit versions, since most XP installations are of that variety. For each OS version, I performed a clean installation. 

I then installed Microsoft Office 2007 Ultimate , Windows Live Essentials  (Mail, Movie Maker , Photo Gallery , Messenger), and Picasa 3.5 , since testing a PC with no programs installed wouldn't tell much about real-world performance. Then I ran a series of tests to determine the PC's start-up and shutdown times in each OS, as well as its performance on a series of benchmark tests. I ran each test at least three times and averaged the results.

*Start-up and Shutdown*



The results from these two most basic tests were somewhat surprising. For startup comparison, I pressed the power button and stopped the timer when the desktop and all interface elements appeared and the Start menu became operational. Windows XP actually started up fastest, but keep in mind that my test machine was built in the XP days; new machines will be more tuned for quick start-up in Windows 7, possibly _very_ quick start-up. But for the purposes of this story, testing on one of those machines would be pointless—this story's about the experience those who are upgrading can expect. For most people, that means an older machine.
*img40.imageshack.us/img40/6131/windowsb.jpg


Windows 7 evened the score when it came to shutdown, however, besting XP by an impressive 5.5 seconds, or 32 percent. As in my previous testing, Windows 7 surpasses Vista in both start-up and shutdown time. One of the major criticisms of XP performance has been the long "Windows is shutting down" time, and my testing bears this out. Even Vista shut down faster than XP did. Of course, startup speed is _far_ more important to most users—so far, XP is in the lead.

Source: *www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2355703,00.asp?kc=PCRSS05079TX1K0000993


----------



## krishnandu.sarkar (Nov 11, 2009)

Wow.....!! Nice.....!!


----------



## Krow (Nov 11, 2009)

XP still performs best on low end rigs.


----------



## saqib_khan (Nov 11, 2009)

^^hehe...thats so true..


----------



## Cool G5 (Nov 11, 2009)

For me Vista shutsdown way slower than XP. I still like XP.


----------



## papul1993 (Nov 11, 2009)

what would be the price of win7 home premium?


----------



## desiibond (Nov 12, 2009)

^ 7k.

xp slows down a lot after few months and win7 is much better in this regard.

also, when using AD account to login, xp takes lot lot more time than win7


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Nov 12, 2009)

Now with Win7 Ult 64bit and Vista sp2 32bit dual boot. I must say win7 performs soo much better than vista.


----------



## Krazzy Warrior (Nov 12, 2009)

I am stuck on Vista  !! hmm will be trying Windows 7 soon! heard from many sources that it is alot better than vista and xp, and stand as a complete replacement for xp user!


----------



## Krow (Nov 12, 2009)

desiibond said:


> ^ 7k.
> 
> xp slows down a lot after few months and win7 is much better in this regard.
> 
> also, when using AD account to login, xp takes lot lot more time than win7


My experience has been completely different. Been on XP for like 4 years now. Never had a guest account on my PC. Even my P4 rig used to boot very fast due to good maintenance. XP slowed down only when infected with a virus. When I boot XP, without antivirus, it has about 20 processes running. The same is about 32 when on Win7. There lies the main speed difference. Lesser processes to run, means faster bootup. Vista was a nuisance though, with about 40 processes on bootup. Never has Win7 x64 booted faster than XP 32bit for me.



Krazzy Warrior said:


> I am stuck on Vista  !! hmm will be trying Windows 7 soon! heard from many sources that it is alot better than vista and xp, and stand as a complete replacement for xp user!


For low end rigs, still XP is king. If you have more than 2GB RAM, then nothing in W7 should worry you. But still, for systems with 2GB RAM, the eyecandy better be turned off in W7.


----------



## Cool G5 (Nov 12, 2009)

I agree with you krow. XP is still the king for most of the PC out there.


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Nov 12, 2009)

> For low end rigs, still XP is king. If you have more than 2GB RAM, then nothing in W7 should worry you. But still, for systems with 2GB RAM, the eyecandy better be turned off in W7.


You are right. I agree. But my rig consists of 3.2gb ram, C2Q6600, Palit 8600gt . So no probs with my rig. But moving of from xp is worth it coz win7 is sure to give better perfermance and the "WOW" effect as users not experienced with vista and still using xp will definitely  feel it. But for experienced vista users the "WOW" effect is low.


----------



## Krow (Nov 12, 2009)

Lol. Yeah. But for WOW effect, Mac is better as it will give a huge WOW effect. Even better is Ubuntu with compiz fusion.


----------



## satyamy (Nov 12, 2009)

nice testing
in all respect Win7 is best


----------



## Aspire (Nov 12, 2009)

*gigasmilies.googlepages.com/42a.gif Windows 7 !!!


----------



## Krow (Nov 12, 2009)

satyamy said:


> nice testing
> in all respect Win7 is best


No. Startup time, PCMark test and Picasa encoding are won by XP!


----------



## Krazzy Warrior (Nov 12, 2009)

Krow said:


> No. Startup time, PCMark test and Picasa encoding are won by XP!


Heh! if u take an average of all things, Win7 stands first 



Krow said:


> For low end rigs, still XP is king. If you have more than 2GB RAM, then nothing in W7 should worry you. But still, for systems with 2GB RAM, the eyecandy better be turned off in W7.


Oh, i see...


----------



## 6x6 (Nov 12, 2009)

desiibond said:


> ^ 7k.
> xp slows down a lot after few months and win7 is much better in this regard.


Lets hope so. how many months have you used win7 ?


----------



## desiibond (Nov 13, 2009)

^^Been using RC since it is released and only one reinstall done due to HDD crash. 

Even in my work laptop, there is huge difference between performance of XP and win7, right from the time of installation.


----------



## Krow (Nov 13, 2009)

Krazzy Warrior said:


> Heh! if u take an average of all things, Win7 stands first


3 won by xp. 3 won by 7. Average, eh?


----------



## harihacker (Nov 13, 2009)

Have been using Win 7 from the day beta started to leak... And I can assure u that if u have 2 GB card and a descent graphics chipset, then Win 7 runs like breeze... No problems what so ever.... It have now evolved to become rock solid and secure OS....


----------



## Aspire (Nov 13, 2009)

> Heh! if u take an average of all things, Win7 stands first


Looks like Someone's maths is weak


----------



## kalpik (Nov 13, 2009)

^^ User banned for 3 days for trolling.. Was already warned by Shantanu.


----------



## Krazzy Warrior (Nov 13, 2009)

Krow said:


> 3 won by xp. 3 won by 7. Average, eh?


LOL!  average in this context doesn't mean mathematical average  k!!! then look Out of 7, 3 are won by XP and in 3 xp is at last but on the other hand 3 are won by win7 but win7 is not last in any...lol u took it other way..Hope u get what i am trying to say... or i think i have to say Kaaaw Kaaw Kraaaaw    hehe


----------



## furious_gamer (Nov 13, 2009)

I have been using Windows 7 since its RC release and now using the 64 bit RTM . Haven't yet faced any problems with it, but re-installed thrice due to the bad sectors in HDD(see my siggy). In all aspects,it won IMO. 

Playing GTA 4 in W7 w/o any problem and eh... i forgot to install most of the drivers(except Catalyst 9.10),but still everything working great, even my Samsung ML1610 works great w/o even installing any driver.... 

As Krazzy Warrior said, Win 7 and XP levelled at the contest but newer is always better in may aspects.. Isn't it?


----------



## thewisecrab (Nov 13, 2009)

I'm a bit skeptical to run Win7 atm. Not to mention most offices and businesses still run XP to date. It's them that MS has to woo with immediate effect, we are already fans of Win7 (atleast _I _like it)

I did run the RC and beta versions of Win7 and found it much better than Vista anyday, in terms of responsiveness and stability. 

With XP though, I doubt whether booting a few seconds faster will make any difference. 

I prefer XP even now (mainly because I dont have money to upgrade to a bigger HDD and back-up), but given the chance (and money) I'll go ahead for win7.

For now (or atleast a few months) it's a pass for me.

Are there any application compatibilty issue? even if there are, is Virtual XP mode capable of handling it?


----------



## Krow (Nov 13, 2009)

Well, to me its still a shame that Win7 can't blow away an almost decade old OS (XP). Whatever laws of average you take, it will be the same.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 13, 2009)

^^Do you remember how fast windows 98SE used to be when compared to XP???

one or two years down the line, most of the games and s/w's will be optimized for win7 and then XP will be history


----------



## furious_gamer (Nov 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> ^^Do you remember how fast windows 98SE used to be when compared to XP???
> 
> one or two years down the line, most of the games and s/w's will be optimized for win7 and then XP will be history



Absolutely true.Cant say a word against it. Period....


----------



## thewisecrab (Nov 13, 2009)

The same was said about Vista, that soon "games and software" will be optimized for it. We all know where that went 

But I think Win7 will be a success. Albeit it's too early to judge now.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 13, 2009)

^^what I heard about vista is that it was ahead of it's time and also, it is not as optimized a win7.


----------



## manishjha18 (Nov 13, 2009)

hey i had to format my c drive every 6 months in xp.
with windows 7 --nothing. have been using for almost 6 months--best part it installs very quickly if u install it by a usb... and i love seven system restore function--way better than xp.in xp i had to boot by cd and then have to type command lines in dos..
u dont need these things in seven--
and last of all awesome library system of seven. i dont have to browse through different drives to search my all secretmyth collection..


----------



## Krow (Nov 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> ^^Do you remember how fast windows 98SE used to be when compared to XP???
> 
> one or two years down the line, most of the games and s/w's will be optimized for win7 and then XP will be history


Well, I did not need to format XP every other week, unlike 98SE. I have not had any virus attack on XP for about 3 years now, so security is no concern. It still should blow away XP IMO.



desiibond said:


> ^^what I heard about vista is that it was ahead of it's time and also, it is not as optimized a win7.


Hmmm... I really doubt that. What I felt about Vista was that it was rushed. Ahead of its time is a really doubtful thing for me. By those standards, Mac OS X was always in the future.


----------



## desiibond (Nov 13, 2009)

^^Mac OS X is designed with specific builds in mind. 

Vista's main problem was with h/w drivers. Most of the manufacturers did not bring out h/w drivers even months after vista's release. That hurt it most.

if you check win7, most of the h/w is ready for vista by the time win7 released and hence the positivity around win7.


----------



## Krow (Nov 13, 2009)

desiibond said:


> ^^Mac OS X is designed with specific builds in mind.
> 
> Vista's main problem was with h/w drivers. Most of the manufacturers did not bring out h/w drivers even months after vista's release. That hurt it most.


Well, FCP runs in mac and it is by far the industry standard video editing software. Not everyone can afford an AvidLiquid machine. FCP was a cheaper alternative which is as good for them. Agreed about vista drivers.


> if you check win7, most of the h/w is ready for vista by the time win7 released and hence the positivity around win7.


This is true


----------



## CA50 (Dec 2, 2009)

vista sucks, 7s grt


----------

