Back to Windows, and running HijackThis

[General Zod]

Are you arguing with his infallible intuition? 7 runs like dogshit on 256/512 (ie, the very first eeePCs) but any of the modern lot are fine, and ironically the better compatibility of 7 means running shit old games (ie the only games that'll work on a netbook) is easier.

Like I wrote, until someone produces actual test numbers, I trust my intuition on this matter. But like I also wrote, 7 does run acceptably on the latest generation of 1 GiB netbooks. That still does not mean that there is no reason to run XP on them or other systems with similar amount of RAM and processor performance.

An analogy from history: XP runs acceptably on any system with at least 256 MiB of main memory (some would say 128 or 192 MiB, but they are patient folks, especially if any kind of multi-tasking is involved) and a Pentium III level processor, but up to 384 MiB W2k is faster, and about this there are actual test results at least with the applications available at the time it was relevant. Similar examples could be produced from NT 4.0 and W2k, but of course with smaller amounts of RAM.

So exactly what are you arguing about? Your whole spiel seems to be "but, but, old machines!!!!1!1" when everyone else is saying there's no reason to use Windows 7 unless you're running an ancient machine and can't afford to upgrade. Key word "unless".

[Marcus Aurelius]

So exactly what are you arguing about? Your whole spiel seems to be "but, but, old machines!!!!1!1" when everyone else is saying there's no reason to use Windows 7 unless you're running an ancient machine and can't afford to upgrade. Key word "unless".

I am arguing that XP might very well run faster even on modern netbooks with 1 GiB of RAM. Whereas Stark says that there is no reason not to run 7 even on netbooks. In my book (pun intended) better performance would count as a reason, especially on netbooks. All other relatively new systems probably have enough main memory and fast enough processor to run 7 so fast that running XP would not make much sense.

[General Zod]

I am arguing that XP might very well run faster even on modern netbooks with 1 GiB of RAM. Whereas Stark says that there is no reason not to run 7 even on netbooks. In my book (pun intended) better performance would count as a reason, especially on netbooks. All other relatively new systems probably have enough main memory and fast enough processor to run 7 so fast that running XP would not make much sense.

Someone's already done the benchmarks you were too lazy to google. Any perceived gain over XP is negligible at best considering the superiority of the UI and compatibility in Win 7.