(07-26-2009, 11:17 AM)CacoFFF Wrote: [ -> ]in after fanboys
Why does Windows 7 look good?
Because every new release is compared to the previous one.
Would Windows 7 still be that great had Vista never seen the light?
I'm not saying it wouldn't, but there wouldn't have been so much expectation for the new OS.
In terms of speed, Vista and 7 need at least 8 cores and so in order to start outperforming XP, as well as +4gb ram.
If only server licences didn't cost a kidney...
what? 8 cores? For what? xp can use 8 cores just fine.
Going from XP Pro to XP Pro x64, I went from ~15 fps to ~50 fps. Going from XP Pro x64 to Vista Ultimate x64, I went up to ~125 fps.
I haven't tested Windows 7 yet, but Vista runs EVERYTHING significantly faster than XP on my machine.
is this a controlled test? Same revision? Swapping oses did nothing to any of my benchmarks, except vista was slightly lower.
Same version, same Game, same settings, same hardware (well, accept the case, but I seriously doubt that made a difference).
Wait, I just thought of something that changed. In XP (both versions) I had the AMD dual-core optimizer, I didn't in Vista. I'll download that and see what happens.
Dipped the FPS by 1 or 2, but didn't change much.
I think the reason Vista was slower for you was because you didn't disable everything. I've stripped the system down, and it use less of everything than XP besides RAM. And seriously, if you don't have 2GB by now, go spend $20 on a 2 gig upgrade.
Plus Vista handles resources better (in distributing them and such).