Crazy Homeless Guy Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 Interesting since I think most people consider Tom's Hardware to be one of the top dog's for reviews, and technical information. According to them, XP still reigns king in MS's OS lineup. Maybe I should continue to let the Windows7 disk sit next to my computer, rather than installing it. http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/windows-7-notebook,review-31756-6.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabkal Posted December 27, 2009 Share Posted December 27, 2009 I think we should refer to them as the good, the bad, and the ugly.which is which is dependant on a persons viewpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted December 27, 2009 Author Share Posted December 27, 2009 (edited) 7 does provide better battery life, and is supposed to have superior memory management. But.. I would guess that most people doing viz production work are on desktops, with 6-12gb of ram. Which negates battery life, and to a lesser extent, ram efficiency. I will probably install 7 at home, and we are planning a first quarter upgrade in the office, but the reality of the matter still stands.... XP runs applications faster than 7. Meaning production should be faster on XP, which translates to lower production cost, and more profit. Edited December 27, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihabkal Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 Travis, I found out that the network speed benefit alone was more than enough for me to install it. Imagine opening 500MB photoshop files over the network at 1.5 to twice faster than xp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pons_saravanan Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 7 does provide better battery life, and is supposed to have superior memory management. But.. I would guess that most people doing viz production work are on desktops, with 6-12gb of ram. Which negates battery life, and to a lesser extent, ram efficiency. I will probably install 7 at home, and we are planning a first quarter upgrade in the office, but the reality of the matter still stands.... XP runs applications faster than 7. Meaning production should be faster on XP, which translates to lower production cost, and more profit. yes as you said it may not be good in power management, but the memory management is excellent. i am using a 64 bit version with 6GB ram. I can say it can not be compared with any operating system at the moment in terms of performance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share Posted December 28, 2009 Travis, I found out that the network speed benefit alone was more than enough for me to install it. Imagine opening 500MB photoshop files over the network at 1.5 to twice faster than xp. That would save a great deal of time. Typically once my files pass 500 megs I prefer to start working local because of serer write time. If that was negated, then it would be an improvement, and less of a chance for user error in terms of making sure the file is backed up at the end of the project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 According to them, XP still reigns king in MS's OS lineup. not according to my experience.. also, i've posted some info about Win7 in here a while back.. so here it is in case u missed it: http://forums.cgarchitect.com/37191-windows-7-benchmarked.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share Posted December 28, 2009 not according to my experience.. also, i've posted some info about Win7 in here a while back.. so here it is in case u missed it: http://forums.cgarchitect.com/37191-windows-7-benchmarked.html XP is not present on the application tests in the link. It is present on the start-up and shutdown, and looses those battles, but not the performance of the applications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beestee Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 The results seem to vary quite a bit depending on the competence of the hardware, and in the original link the testbed was a notebook, so mid to low end hardware at best. On modern and capable hardware, 7 should obviously win out because it utilizes the new hardware in a more efficient manner. Just a quick look at the caching (superfetch) test results in Francisco's link are clear evidence of this...why XP is not included in that test is beyond me since superfetch was added within one of the later SPs, but you can be assured that MS would not have sabotaged Vista by giving XP a better build of superfetch. SSDs are another matter to consider, where once again Windows 7 has been optimized for making best use of this new technology and XP just patched for the sake of making it work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazy Homeless Guy Posted December 28, 2009 Author Share Posted December 28, 2009 But wasn't Prefetch about the time it takes to launch an application, and not about the performance of the application? Isn't Superfetch similar? ....it helps the speed at which the application launches, and not the speed at which the application runs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 (edited) i guess u r right Travis.. after a second search i found this on various occasions XP does seem to take the lead n sometimes it doesnt, by a small margin in both cases.. looks like where XP really takes the lead is with OpenGL (which i dont personaly have a use for).. all in all i'd say both OS's just perform too closely to really tell the difference, but with 7 taking the lead here n XP there, except for all the new advantages n new technological implementations 7 brings.. in either case, i have a dual-boot setup XP/7 so i dont really care lol im really liking 7 a lot, but XP was my first love so i still use it, for one because it works, secondly cuz there r still few applications that r non-win7 ready, so i always have XP close-by ready for orders anyways, what use r benchmarks of a bunch of crap u probly wont have a use for? nothing like benchmarking urself with the applications u actually use regularly n make ur own assessments.. PS: lol i just scrolled down to the end of the link i posted here.. dude says he DIDNT turn off 7's Aero feature for the benchmarks which is a considerable resource hog, especially on inferior systems.. Edited December 29, 2009 by F J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo scapi Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 I am building a new system and was thinking on win 7 for it, but i allready have my render machine with xp 64 bit, rendering with backburner. So my question is. Would i have any problem working in win 7 with my workstation and sending the renders to a xp system trough backburner??? anyone have tested this? Apart of the novelty of win 7 i was looking to be able to finally use itunes in my machine (wich is not posible with xp 64bit) Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F J Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 the only thing i've heard so far about rendering with both XP/Win7 is that they both need to be either 32bit or 64bit, cant mix those two.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pablo scapi Posted January 6, 2010 Share Posted January 6, 2010 Ok. in that case i should have no problem since both will be 64 bit. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gputhige Posted January 10, 2010 Share Posted January 10, 2010 Hi all having gone thru the above posts and also the post of Fransisco, I am confused on what os to use. Our company wishes to move to a new system and has asked me to suggest one. We are into architectural walkthru's using 3DS max and vray. We were looking of setting up new systems for our office with Windows 7 as our experience in the past with Vista were bad. (Not only with 3ds - but also with AE) Has some one tried W7 with 3DS max 2009 with good results? And if so with what system config? Would appreciate help on this to make the right decision for our company before we spend our money out. Regards, GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr-JosE Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 3ds max 2009 works perfectly well on Windows 7. We have 3 machines running Windows 7 Professional and 3ds max 2009 and 2010. All three perform very well. They are i7 based machines running at 3.6ghz, with 12gb ram, and geforce 285 2gb graphics cards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gputhige Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 Thank You Jose, good to know that there are no issues with W7. By the way, is it 32 bit or 64 bit? Also what is the Mother Board used with i7 Processor? Regards, GP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr-JosE Posted January 11, 2010 Share Posted January 11, 2010 64bit and ASUS P6T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now