where is the improvement?

[colore]

hello

I managed to get a new laptop that has Intel Celeron 900 processor, 2GB RAM of unknown speed and Windows 7 64bit system, which is a signigicant upgrade from the previous laptop of Intel 2050, WinXP 32bit Pro.

What I expected from this upgrade:

1) faster boot and shut down speeds

2) more responsive system

3) system that is able to hold more open windows/apps

4) new innovative functionality from OS

instead, I noticed almost NONE improvement

the only innovation I saw in Win7 is the start menu and its ability to search there (oh, I really don't care about fancy animations while opening or closing windows)

do I miss something?

what does Win7 offer over WinXP?

what does 64bit offer over 32bit?

what do newer processors offer over old ones?

are there any tests to see the supposed improvement?

thanks

[cluberti]

If you are looking for UI improvements on such old hardware, you will be disappointed. There is much improved in dwm/aero, the kernel memory manager, stability, etc. The only real differences you would see with your eyes are not going to really be there on old hardware, so I am not surprised by your statement/questions.

[colore]

Intel Celeron 900 processor is new in comparison with Intel T2050

[CoffeeFiend]

Intel Celeron 900 processor is new in comparison with Intel T2050

Hardly. In terms of performance at least. In passmark, the T2050 scores 762, whereas the Celeron 900 scores 766. That's a whooping 0.5% faster (in fact, it's likely slower in many tasks). It's hardly what I would call an "average" processor these days (it's not even dual core for starters). And that's almost certainly paired with a sub-par GPU (Intel GMA) too, and Win 7 benefits quite a bit from having at least what I would call an "adequate" GPU (doubly so if the CPU could use the extra help). If your old laptop had a half-decent GPU, then it probably was faster/better overall.

Long story short, don't expect miracles out of low-end, netbook-class hardware.

[colore]

this is not very strong arguement

you say Win7 needs a better CPU to show that it's superior to WinXP

but if I use a better CPU with WinXP it may end up faster than Win7 with that better CPU!

I think it MUST be expected that Win7 must perform better with even the pretty much same CPU, in comparison with WinXP, that's what we should call a leap forward

[CoffeeFiend]

this is not very strong arguement

That low-end hardware performs poorly (except when you use a 10 year old OS on it)? Netbooks aren't normally expected to perform as good as a "traditional" computers (they're mainly for portability)

you say Win7 needs a better CPU to show that it's superior to WinXP

If you have a good enough CPU and good enough GPU, win 7 will be fantastic compared to how it would run on XP. However, if you have a low end or fairly old machine (doubly so if the CPU *and* GPU are both low end much like in your machine), the latest and greatest OS doesn't necessarily perform great -- this has been true for any OS released so far.

I think it MUST be expected that Win7 must perform better with even the pretty much same CPU, in comparison with WinXP, that's what we should call a leap forward

It does, except for the really old or slow, low-end CPUs. Besides, running on underpowered, anemic hardware isn't what I would call a leap forward. If that's the kind of leap forward you're looking for then wait no more, your answer lies here. If that's the way you see things, you will be deceived by every single OS that will come out in the future.

Personally, I'm happy with the vastly improved interface and usability, the start menu search, the new task bar (love it), the GPU-accelerated GUI and window composition (Aero in general), the fantastic performance on any modern/decent machine, the countless new features, the security improvements, power management that works better than ever, the nice keyboard shortcuts, the multi-monitor improvements, the 64 bit-ness (that actually works), the improved task manager and resource monitor, SSD TRIM support, the many apps that have been greatly improved (like media center), the new built-in technologies that aren't a separate download anymore (PowerShell, .NET FW 3.5, etc), the new network stack, DirectX 11, great touch interface support, being able to hide annoying tray icons, jump lists, libraries, desktop gadgets, great themes out of the box (then again, anything beats XP's teletubbies/fisher price default theme -- or the "search dog"), the new IIS version, the breadcrumbs nav in explorer, the sidebar, UAC's added security, IE protected mode, the service hardening done, the built-in shadow copy feature, the new and more "stable" video driver model, windows update that doesn't need/use IE, Direct2D, improvements to WMI classes, new deployment methods that aren't based on NT3.x-era stuff, the far better firewall, the improved group policy, MUI support that rocks, exFAT support, the ribbon interface in some apps, the more secure remote desktop, the new file copy dialog, the new audio mixer that actually works, sensible defaults for mostly everything (doesn't need 6 million reg tweaks to be tolerable unlike XP), SPTI, ... The list is just about endless. It's a GIGANTIC leap forward compared to XP.

[colore]

are you happy with notepad in Win7 too ?

[CoffeeFiend]

are you happy with notepad in Win7 too ?

What's wrong with it?

Not that I'm a big notepad user in the first place (notepad++ fits my needs better most of the time)

Again, if you actually don't care for any of the new features (there's LOADS of them too), and that your idea of progress is running on substandard hardware, then Win9x is the main "upgrade" path for you.

[ricktendo]

Quit bitchin and go back to XP

[cluberti]

My original statement stands - on older hardware you are *not* going to actually *see* any real improvement. It is all under the hood.

[MagicAndre1981]

The list is just about endless. It's a GIGANTIC leap forward compared to XP.

compare this too Vista and the list is much, much smaller Most of your things you like were done with Vista and "tweaked" in Windows 7 a bit to make the mass of people happy.

[CoffeeFiend]

compare this too Vista and the list is much, much smaller

I know. I willingly included those as we are comparing against XP (seemingly none of this matters to him, it seems to be all about running on second-rate hardware). Vista was ok, but Win 7 is a nice improvement over that. XP is really starting to show its age.

[dencorso]

That's why one should install the right OS for the right hardware. Win XP SP3 is perfect for Celeron 900s and the like. If MS wanted, it could have continued being sold with netbooks for two more years, maybe, and still be profitable. But supporting a 10 year old OS may have speaken louder. Be as it may, there's always eBay, so it's far from unavailable, at present, and it's very affordable. But for one looking to buy it, here goes some advice: be sure to buy FPP!

[GrofLuigi]

Substract the difference between the system requirements (real, not on paper) between the two OSes and you get the real value of the Microsoft tax. I might be old school, I'm used to the idea of the OS being an operating system, and not trying to make me coffee (no pun intended) even when I don't want it to. If I want it to make coffee, I'll teach it (obtain a program). Maybe I don't drink coffee at all? That's why "liters" are so popular. Win7 was supposed to be modular, but it's all but. The five different Win7 editions are only for segmenting the market, if you rely on them to select a list of features you need, they're useless. XP was no angel too, but with a lot of work it could be 'tamed down' to do only what you want. With Win7 it's impossible. Control is taken away from the user. Also, with new features come new incompatibilities, annoyances, DRMs and general restrictions.

GL