Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Portables Power Hardware Technology

Windows 7 vs. Windows XP On a Netbook 397

Posted by timothy
from the all-battery-life-claims-are-lies dept.
Justin writes "Many in the industry are counting on Windows 7 to bring the netbook market to the next level. Having netbook manufacturers ship netbooks with 7+ year old Windows XP pre-installed surely deterred some from joining the ranks of households with the small, light and portable netbooks. It seems Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP. Legit Reviews has the full scoop of battery life and performance tests pitting Windows 7 against Windows XP on the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA Netbook." I'd like to see a follow-up with a few different Netbook-friendly Linux distros, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 vs. Windows XP On a Netbook

Comments Filter:
  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LeinadSpoon (1602063) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:50PM (#28871057)
    I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:54PM (#28871119)

    Doom 2 versus Quake 2 on a 386.

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Wowsers (1151731) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:55PM (#28871127) Journal

    The point of installing Windows 7 is to keep Linux OFF a netbook!

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by wjousts (1529427) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:02PM (#28871253)
    Security for starters. Vista changed a lot under the hood to improve security. So if your netbook is only for accessing the internet, there is actually more, not less, reason for dumping XP.
  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Absolut187 (816431) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:06PM (#28871315) Homepage

    If Windows 7 catches on, it won't be long before you run across software that refuses to run on XP.

    Which is necessary to Microsoft's survival, being their own biggest competitor and all.

  • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by LeinadSpoon (1602063) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:12PM (#28871405)
    I've ran XP for years and never had a security issue. Standard practices such as not opening attachments from people you don't know and keeping everything updated do wonderfully. Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.
  • why use old RC (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jupiterssj4 (801031) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:17PM (#28871509)
    Should have used the RTM that came out... the RC is months old... lots of stuff has changed
  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:28PM (#28871671)

    /facepalm -- Keeping Linux off the Netbook IS about making MS money.. are you new here?

  • Footprint? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argent (18001) <peter@nospAM.slashdot.2006.taronga.com> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:35PM (#28871765) Homepage Journal

    Let's see... a bunch of hardware benchmarks, which would be expected to result in negligible difference between different versions of Windows. Does Vista REALLY come out significantly worse than XP on these kinds of benchmarks?

    How about something relevant to netbooks? What's the memory footprint? Disk footprint?

  • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PPH (736903) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:36PM (#28871783)

    If your whole point in installing Windows 7 is to not run something else, then just think of the money you could save by just not buying a netbook. Or a PC. Or a broadband or dialup Internet connection.

    I choose my O/S based upon what it does run.

  • Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:36PM (#28871795) Homepage Journal

    Faster than XP? I've seen benchmarks, but a clean install of Windows 7 was slower than my old install of XP x64. 7 may be faster than Vista, but not XP.

    It should be noted though that the Windows 7 MS is hyping for netbooks has MANY services disabled, where as they are comparing it to an XP that hasn't be similarly optimized.

  • What a Joke! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:40PM (#28871881)

    Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP.

    What a fracking joke! That the new product is almost as good as the 7 year old one that it replaces.

  • by s7uar7 (746699) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:42PM (#28871925) Homepage
    It might not be Ubuntu's fault, but it's Ubuntu's problem.
  • Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:44PM (#28871957)

    Anonymous coward would like to point out that you've missed the point entirely

  • by pushing-robot (1037830) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:48PM (#28872027)

    Do you honestly think that a stock install of Ubuntu 9.04 uses fewer CPU cycles than, say, Debian Woody? Hell, grab some floppies and fire up that old 286; with all the improvements to Linux over the years, new distros must run circles around the old ones we had back then!

    Software becomes more complicated with each new version. Features get added. The UI gets improved. Security gets heightened. The fact the Microsoft managed to include all the new features of the past seven years without significantly increasing power consumption or decreasing performance is indeed an accomplishment.

    Also, note the difference between performance and productivity. A GUI is a good example. A command line will always perform better than a GUI. It can run on even the lightest of hardware. But you can (usually) be more productive with a GUI than by typing long, obscure commands into a Bash terminal. Another example is the search indexer: It may be more work for your CPU and hard drive, but it saves you lots of time hunting for files or emails.

  • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Sancho (17056) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:59PM (#28872239) Homepage

    Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.

    I wish I could mod you "naive".

    Besides, there are still drive-by vulnerabilities to worry about. Vista+IE actually does a lot to mitigate and prevent vulnerabilities in the browser (Vista+Chrome also does a pretty good job.)

  • by trum4n (982031) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:01PM (#28872269)
    It's about how well they run on these machines. It's ALL ABOUT the hardware!
    Your comment is some retarded shit. RTFA
  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:04PM (#28872331)

    Yes, that's good, isn't it? A 7 year old OS vs. a not-yet-released OS running on current hardware... and the not-yet-released OS performs almost just as well as the 7 year old OS?

    I'd say that's pretty good. Typical idea is that older OS's will run faster since they were smaller and HAD to run on .. less hardware. Hardware is better, so OS's can plan on using more of it. An OS that is able to run almost as well as a 7 year old OS on CURRENT hardware is doing pretty well.

  • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by thatskinnyguy (1129515) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:26PM (#28872755)
    It's within a company's best interest to cannibalize their own products. It was somewhat of a failure in this situation in that the market share previously held by XP wasn't overwhelmingly overtaken by Vista. Instead, of that segment of Vista non-adopters, the market share went to Apple or Linux or, more often than not, back to XP.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:30PM (#28872833)

    "Security for starters. Vista changed a lot under the hood to improve security" - by wjousts (1529427) on Wednesday July 29, @03:02PM (#28871253)

    Well... they did, AND THEY DIDN'T: Like what, you might ask?

    1.) HOSTS files not being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a CUSTOM HOSTS FILE (for both added speed & security), vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter" being the WORST of the lot, in terms of efficiency & internal file read speed in loops to 'suck it in' to either the local DNS cache client OR the diskcache (which again, MS has a problem in the DNS Client of it 'breaking down' on LARGER hosts files (purely relative, iirc, when they go over the 4mb mark in size) & it should not be - it's like it is a static sized array/buffer, vs. a dynamic one, like the local diskcache uses, which "takes over" when you turn off the faulty DNS client).

    AND

    2.) WFP & NDIS6 (which I get into the former & why I think it's not as solid as the 3 part "zone defense"/"greek phalanx" of the older models of Windows for IPSEC.SYS, IPNAT.SYS, TCPIP.SYS, IPFLTDRV.SYS, & AFD.SYS, which acted like a zone defense/greek phalanx via 3 separate drivers, operating @ 3 DIFFERENT LEVELS of the IP stack (whereas it appears WFP only uses a single point layer defense, & when it's down? It's done for, which is NOT the case with the older model))...

    3.) NDIS6 based firewalls... see my p.s. below, for that from ROOTKIT.COM

    Lots more, & here are the details:

    Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:

    1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.

    So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?

    Ok - since you can technically use either:

    a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
    b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
    c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0

    PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...

    You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??

    Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.

    Simply because

    1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
    2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
    3.) 0 = 1 byte

    Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.

    Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 [securityfocus.com]

    AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))

    Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & ma

  • Re:What a Joke! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Absolut187 (816431) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:33PM (#28872895) Homepage

    Because they essentially have no competition.

    MS isn't improving the performance or security of their operating system.
    Instead, they are simply cramming more products in and calling the monstrosity an "operating system" - in an effort to expand into more markets.

    Intel and AMD have been making dual-core CPUs for more than FOUR YEARS.
    http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htm [intel.com]

    Intel has announced 8-core CPUs.
    And yet the "new" (its basically a rebranded Vista) Windows 7 will barely take advantage of any of them other than the first..
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1612 [zdnet.com]

    This is what happens when you don't have any competition. Its not an operating system, its a bloated behemoth born of a monopoly that wants to kill competition in every software market it can.

    Microsoft should have been split up in 2000.
    You can't create competition through regulation.

  • by master811 (874700) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:41PM (#28873083)

    Bare in mind that netbook hardware is most certainly anything but current. Performance is roughly equivalent to a 5 year old Pentium M. The only difference is that it has been shrunk and power consumption reduced to the point where 5 year old mid class laptop has been reduced significantly in size.
     
    Running Win 7 on a modern mobile (Core 2 Duo) CPU would give a much better comparison, and really show the true benefits it has.

  • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:56PM (#28873347)

    Linux doesn't default to granting root privileges, I know. And you don't need root privileges to delete files out of your own home directory. Hence the tilde before the slash: ~/* not /*

    Linux does have executable files.

    Now, I am not entirely certain it could have the +x flag set on the file after being an e-mailed attachment, though, actually. I could be mistaken there.

    On the other hand, you could just bundle it up into an RPM, make it look "real" and people will "install" the "video." If you switch the average Windows user to Linux, they'll know even less about Linux than they do about Windows. They'll install RPMs (or whatever) as quickly as they will install Smilie Packs on Windows. If that means typing in their password - which they'd be used to, by now, if they've been installing updates - then they will type it in.

  • by Draek (916851) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:18PM (#28873715)

    From experience I can tell you that Windows 7 (64-bit version) can be installed on a 10 GB partition. Barely, but it does work.

    If you want light, Minix still can't be beat but I don't see anyone using it as a desktop OS. I wonder why.

  • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gparent (1242548) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:23PM (#28873813)
    Okay, maybe I worded it wrong (the stupid anti-MS trolls still rated me funny, but whatever).

    It's faster in the sense that it does more things than XP *and* manages to go at the same speed (the microbenchmarks were very slightly favorable towards XP as you've said, but nowhere significant).

    However, by going for Windows 7, you get a better sound solution (Mixer, for instance), increased security via UAC, a non-IE dependant Windows Update, virtual store, etc., then on top of that you get a lot less reboots when installing software/drivers/updates, faster hibernation wakeup, generally faster disk I/O, and basically just a ton of nice things that XP just doesn't have.

    Sure, maybe you'll boot up in 21 seconds instead of 20. But that extra second will get you a hundred features that in my opinion, are worth switching from an old, dead and now worthless operating system.
  • by Draek (916851) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:27PM (#28873881)

    Because most people get whatever their OEM will sell them and stick with it 'til they buy something newer, and those of us who build our own jumped ship to 64-bits *years* ago.

    The market of "people not ready to upgrade their 32-bit hardware looking for a new OS" is statistically insignificant.

  • Re:What a Joke! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by recoiledsnake (879048) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:44PM (#28874157)

    Because they essentially have no competition.

    MS isn't improving the performance or security of their operating system.
    Instead, they are simply cramming more products in and calling the monstrosity an "operating system" - in an effort to expand into more markets.

    Huh? MS just fixed and tweaked what was wrong with Vista without promising or adding a bajillion new features. Security is a lot better, with many exploits for XP that are coming out not working on Vista or 7.

    Intel and AMD have been making dual-core CPUs for more than FOUR YEARS.
    http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20050418comp.htm [intel.com]

    Intel has announced 8-core CPUs.
    And yet the "new" (its basically a rebranded Vista) Windows 7 will barely take advantage of any of them other than the first..
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1612 [zdnet.com]

    Why link to outdated speculation? Check these real tests and benchmarks out instead. http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/generation-gap-windows-multicore-273 [infoworld.com]

    Even Slashdot linked to it. http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09%2F01%2F22%2F1554224&from=rss [slashdot.org]

    This is what happens when you don't have any competition. Its not an operating system, its a bloated behemoth born of a monopoly that wants to kill competition in every software market it can.

    Microsoft should have been split up in 2000.
    You can't create competition through regulation.

    Err, you want MS to be split up because of regulation and then say you can't create competition through regulation. Cognitive dissonance?

    Are you sure you didn't mean to post this comment when Vista launched? If not, all I can say is this --> http://linux.slashdot.org/story/09/07/25/1757253/Linus-Calls-MicrosoftHatred-a-Disease [slashdot.org]

    If your sole objective was to irrationally hate on Microsoft and gather Slashdot karma, Congratulations, you've been modded up already.

  • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The End Of Days (1243248) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:13PM (#28874543)

    The main reason IE needs that is because it is so integrated into the O.S.

    Are we back to the 1990s belief that IE somehow runs "in the kernel?" Can you Microsoft bashers at least get up to date on this stuff please? IE is no more "integrated into the OS" than any other application that uses a system library.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:15PM (#28874575)

    Part of the problem is the hatred of the proprietary, which is a huge deterant for the hardware and software support they actualy need (from video chip makers and adobe) which would allow them to grow up and be an "OS for real people."

    Have I got this straight: Adobe is shipping a crappy proprietary flash implementation because the "hatred of the proprietary" deters them from fixing it, not because they think Linux is marginal and not worth spending more time on. So, supposing we really loved proprietary software, Adobe would magically ship better implementations because of... what, karma? It's not as if flash isn't installed on practically every single Linux desktop out there, so they're not going to see a bigger installed base by eliminating this "hatred".

    Also, the notion that "real people" would have youtube and browser games as primary concerns is bollocks. "Real people" use Linux and other UNIXen all the time, including for "real work".

  • Re:So what? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:30PM (#28874775)

    I for one do really enjoy the new taskbar, but I feel that a good chunk of the UI in Vista/7 is still a huge regression. It takes more clicks to perform the same tasks.

    That's also the way with the Office 2007 ribbon. It makes sense if you think about it. As Microsoft adds more features (because they use them for product differentiation in marketing) they have to provide access to those features. That means that your menu item tree either gets deeper (leading to more clicks) or gets wider (leading to a confusion of options). Either way, you get more mouse travel per menu function.

    You can try different approaches to deal with that. Back in Office 2000/3 they had tried to hide the options that you didn't use but they did it poorly, with a small memory capacity for what you used that forgot every time you restarted the apps. You often wound up needing to unhide everything to get what you wanted as a result and still had to deal with a huge menu tree. Maybe they could have kept those option profiles in documents and doc templates, with a couple of standard "hiding" profiles automatically chosen depending on your early function usage in a new document and customized from there. Instead we got the ribbon, a waste of screen surface area which they assumed would be acceptable because everybody would have screen resolutions of over 1024x768 due to cheap LCD panels.

    Since Word and Excel no longer have separate panes or even tabs for each document, you now need multiple actions to switch between documents by going View->Switch Windows-> (because huge ribbons are OK but thin document tabs or separate windows are a waste of screen area). In fact, once you do anything more than basic formatting, pretty well most actions are going to require two widely spaced clicks for what once used to be a short click/hold->slide->release menu selection. But I'm not bitter.

  • by cjonslashdot (904508) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:02PM (#28875131)

    In 1993 I had a Compaq Concerto. It was my favorite computer of all time (even more than my Macs that I have now). It was a pen-based machine and also had a keyboard. (Contrary to popular opinion, handwriting recognition actually worked: the catch is that it required the user to adapt and learn how to write so that the system can read your writing. If you were willing to do that, it had a very high rate of recognition.) The machine came with 4Mb or RAM but I put 12Mb in it - and that was considered HUGE at that time. (The battery lasted for four hours, and I had two so I could go for eight hours.) I ran Photoshop with NO PROBLEM on the machine, and many apps at once, including Netscape, etc. - which as you might recall had Java and lots of things bundled into it. I used to program in C++, Java, and Pascal on the thing. I seem to recall that it had a 128Mb disk drive.

    So what the heck is the 16Gb of Windows 7 for????? In terms of the value of my computing experience, they are about the same - except that the Concerto would not have been able to handle the large media files of today unless you increased the RAM and disk space - but the OS certainly would not have minded as long as the codecs were installed. And let's not say it is because Windows is now multi-tasking where as Win 3.1 wasn't, because the original Unix was multi-tasking, and it fit in 4k or something like that.

    I recall that I once installed Photoshop 3 on a Windows ME machine at a time when the latest version of Photoshop was 7. (Photoshop 7 was designed to run on Macs and Windows 3.1.) It started and was ready to use in under one second!!! And it was lightning fast. Using the current Photoshop of that time required the usual 30 seconds to start up. Yet, Photoshop 3 did everything - it just did not have some of the bells and whistles of later versions that one normally does not use - things that should not be part of the runtime anyway. In any case, any new features were not worth a factor of 20+ in startup time and a similar factor in memory footprint!

    So my conclusion is that the current bloatware is somehow designed to be bloated. Something is fishy! Is it the large OS libraries that must be linked in now? The .Net, layered on top of the Win API? (talking about Windows here - similar questions for other OSs.) I suspect that our software could be much leaner, and run on much smaller footprints, and start and run much, much faster, and therefore use much less power - and therefore run for much longer without recharging. Again, I wish someone would decompile the code of some of these programs (and OSs) and see what the extra bloat is actually doing and what the source of it is.

  • by mgblst (80109) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @06:56PM (#28875663) Homepage

    Good point, if there was only some way we could balance things, rather than going to the extremes. Unfortunately, we all know the law, forcing us to adopt either the biggest or smallest OS footprint.

  • Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by w0mprat (1317953) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @08:26PM (#28876421)
    Suckage is not just proprietary there's plenty of suckage in the free software universe.
  • by Spliffster (755587) on Thursday July 30, 2009 @04:01AM (#28878963) Homepage Journal
    So, if I understand this right: 7 is faster than XP because it offloads things to the GPU XP doesn't do (window compositing)? -S

"Ahead warp factor 1" - Captain Kirk

Working...