[MP-Ryan]

not arguing with you on that, just pointing out the line "Win7 has immensely superior performance to XP in, oh, just about everything" isnt true

That's my bad for using "performance."  I should have said it's just all-around superior =)   Seriously though, the only reasons to still be using XP are:  (1) can't afford to upgrade, (2) hardware doesn't support it, or (3) IT department forces you into it [my work PC].  A lot of gamers give themselves no end of trouble because they've convinced themselves that XP is God's gift to OS', and are trying to run modern games on a 10+ year-old OS that simply was never meant to run them.  XP was a great OS, and is still functional, but not for cutting-edge applications (which new games are by their very nature).

But I digress.

[MP-Ryan]

+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition.  If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender is my recommendation.  ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get.  I'd go for the middle option.)

Agreed on Norton and McAffee, but disagree on AVG.  It has higher overhead than the competition.  Surprisingly, the AV to beat right now (in the free realm)  is Microsoft's Security Essentials, which is oddly good in comparison testing.  I haven't found a compelling reason to switch off Avast!'s free version yet, but if I ever do I plan to check out MSE.  A lot of my buddies in IT are raving (positively) about it.

[Mongoose]

I could probably handle 7 on this rig, but I honestly don't see any real reason to upgrade.  It's a six-year-old Dell P4 box, so I'm not exactly going to be sinking any more money into it than I have already.  Whenever I get the chance to build a shiny new system, of course I'll go with 7, but so long as XP is still supported by MS, I'm fine sticking with it.

[Nuke]

Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag.  (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free and Game Booster [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)

In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.

No I don't work for them.  I use them.  Give it a shot, you'll be glad you did.  And like I said, don't buy them unless you really want to pay for more convenience.  ASC will every few weeks remind you that it can fix more errors with the paid version.  That's ok, you don't really need them fixed.  The only thing I'd say that makes ASC worth buying is if you really want it out of your hair and automatic.

Also, I use the free program CCleaner; It has a junk cleaner and registry cleaner that gets a few spots ASC doesn't.

Between these programs and the free version of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, (full version is one-time fee of ~$30 and adds real-time protection, auto-updates, and scheduled scanning) I keep my computers running pretty darn fast.

+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition.  If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender is my recommendation.  ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get.  I'd go for the middle option.)

its most definately not a fragmentation issue. nor is it a malware issue. it is an inherit inefficiency (possibly caused by drm routines) with the copy routine that has been in use since vista. this kinda thing happens with fresh installs and new partitions.

[Flaser]

Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag.  (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free and Game Booster [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)

In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.

No I don't work for them.  I use them.  Give it a shot, you'll be glad you did.  And like I said, don't buy them unless you really want to pay for more convenience.  ASC will every few weeks remind you that it can fix more errors with the paid version.  That's ok, you don't really need them fixed.  The only thing I'd say that makes ASC worth buying is if you really want it out of your hair and automatic.

Also, I use the free program CCleaner; It has a junk cleaner and registry cleaner that gets a few spots ASC doesn't.

Between these programs and the free version of Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware, (full version is one-time fee of ~$30 and adds real-time protection, auto-updates, and scheduled scanning) I keep my computers running pretty darn fast.

+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition.  If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender is my recommendation.  ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get.  I'd go for the middle option.)

its most definately not a fragmentation issue. nor is it a malware issue. it is an inherit inefficiency (possibly caused by drm routines) with the copy routine that has been in use since vista. this kinda thing happens with fresh installs and new partitions.

I can attest to this. Recently I've been routinely copying hundreds of gigabytes of data.
Even rudimentary benchmarking has shown Vista/7 to be a lot slower then XP/Ubuntu.

[The E]

Hard disk copy rate can be improved by having your computer defrag while it's idle using Smart Defrag.  (Free program; I also recommend their programs ]Advanced System Care Free and Game Booster [free version] -- you don't need the full versions, the free ones work just great, unless you can't be arsed to run ASC manually once in a while or you absolutely have to get max performance on your games.)

In Smart Defrag, make sure to check all the options under the "Boot Defrag" tab on, also go to settings and enable scheduled deep defrag of your hard disks once a week.

Why would I use programs that actively interfere with the self-optimization routines Windows 7 and Vista employ?

+, I personally hate both Norton and McAffee; ditch them and use AVG Free Edition.  If you want better security and don't mind paying, BitDefender is my recommendation.  ($40/yr for 3 PCs for basic AV, $60/yr for Internet Security Suite with Firewal etc., and $80/yr for all the bells and whistles you can get.  I'd go for the middle option.)

Microsoft Security Essentials FTW. All the security, none of the nagging to buy the commercial version and none of the "look at me I am here protecting you" security theater.

[Scourge of Ages]

Microsoft Security Essentials FTW. All the security, none of the nagging to buy the commercial version and none of the "look at me I am here protecting you" security theater.

+1

[jr2]

i personally DON'T recommend Advanced System Care.  it gave me no apparant or measurable performance increase, and caused problems with more than one application.

Which version, and what app?  Right now I'm running ASC 4, but I've also been running ASC 3 with no problems.  And, if you run such utilities as CCleaner and Malwarebytes, there is a great deal of overlap in what is cleaned so you may not notice it.  I just like being thorough (until it comes to paying, then I think I don't need to be that thorough!

[Nuke]

i tend to avoid 3rd party performance tuning and system maintenance applications. il run avg, and rarely a spyware scanner and a registry utility (and only when the need arises, and when im done i usually uninstall them). i find background utilities to be counter-intuitive. you free up cpu time by reducing concurrent process, not increasing them. windows runs enough mysterious processes in the background and i dont need to add to it.

[newman]

I don't use anti-virus apps that run in the background all the time. I know how to identify and avoid suspect sites and harmful emails and that alone reduces my chances of being infected by a huge amount. If I suspect my computer might have been infected by something I'll temporarily install an anti virus to deal with it, provided I can't remove it manually using stuff like hijack this to identify problems, etc.
In general, however, I find that resident anti virus applications waste a hell of a lot more of my time and system resources than a virus ever would, and the irony is not lost on me. Before someone assumes that I've been doing this for a short time and it'll result in a disaster, I've been doing this for at least 5 years and have no problems to report. My current i7 based system chugs along just fine and I'm perfectly happy not wasting cpu-run time on needless background processes.

[CP5670]

That's my bad for using "performance."  I should have said it's just all-around superior =)   Seriously though, the only reasons to still be using XP are:  (1) can't afford to upgrade, (2) hardware doesn't support it, or (3) IT department forces you into it [my work PC].  A lot of gamers give themselves no end of trouble because they've convinced themselves that XP is God's gift to OS', and are trying to run modern games on a 10+ year-old OS that simply was never meant to run them.  XP was a great OS, and is still functional, but not for cutting-edge applications (which new games are by their very nature).

But I digress.

I still use XP on my desktop because the Yamaha SYXG50 softsynth driver only exists for XP, and I haven't had time to upgrade anyway. I play D2X-XL a lot, which uses midi music and benefits from it immensely. However, after looking into it recently it may actually be possible to get this thing working on 7 with some hacks. If I can get it working on my laptop that runs 7, I will switch over to 7 on the main machine as well.

At the same time, the only reasons I want 7 are the 64-bit support (for computational programs) and maybe the nicer interface (I use this theme). It has no other benefits over XP as far as I'm concerned, even for games.

[SpardaSon21]

XP can't do DX10+.

[CP5670]

There are very few games where DX11 actually does anything substantial though (and practically none at all for DX10). PC games these days are all designed around DX9 era console hardware, with occasionally a few token effects tacked on for the PC version.

[jr2]

That's my bad for using "performance."  I should have said it's just all-around superior =)   Seriously though, the only reasons to still be using XP are:  (1) can't afford to upgrade, (2) hardware doesn't support it, or (3) IT department forces you into it [my work PC].  A lot of gamers give themselves no end of trouble because they've convinced themselves that XP is God's gift to OS', and are trying to run modern games on a 10+ year-old OS that simply was never meant to run them.  XP was a great OS, and is still functional, but not for cutting-edge applications (which new games are by their very nature).

But I digress.

I still use XP on my desktop because the Yamaha SYXG50 softsynth driver only exists for XP, and I haven't had time to upgrade anyway. I play D2X-XL a lot, which uses midi music and benefits from it immensely. However, after looking into it recently it may actually be possible to get this thing working on 7 with some hacks. If I can get it working on my laptop that runs 7, I will switch over to 7 on the main machine as well.

If you ever get that working....

[Thaeris]

Microsoft Security Essentials FTW. All the security, none of the nagging to buy the commercial version and none of the "look at me I am here protecting you" security theater.

+1

Forgive this late, somewhat ignorant interjection, but what is the difference between this and the default (possibly better stated as "defail") Windows security software like Defender, Firewall, etc.?

On another note, Avira Free is a nice little program, which I used as a supplemental scanner once I thought I had a virus the other day. If you are in want of free software, that's not a bad one to consider. My primary software remains Trend Micro, however.

[The E]

MSE is a full malware scanner. Together with the built-in Firewall, you have a pretty good security solution in place that will catch all the common attacks without any noticeable performance hit and without nagging you every ten seconds for something. Defender is a built-in virus scanner that is pretty useless on its own and deactivated as soon as something else is installed.

[jr2]

Just in case anyone was getting the wrong idea, AVG Free doesn't nag you... unless you call the little ad banner under the main scanner window a nag, or asking you maybe once a month if you'd like to upgrade.  Although it has gotten a bit more bloated in the last few releases...

MS Security Essentials I've stayed away from because I've seen a few issues with it not updating, not launching properly.  However, those were probably due to the customer's "money-saving" having only 256MB RAM with XPSP3 and multiple windows of office, IE, etc open.  2GB and he's good to go, but I had to tinker with his services, I think because Windows disabled some of them so it could breathe.  So, everyone thinks that it's a great AV.. good detection rates, all that?

[The E]

From all the tests I've seen, it consistently scores high enough for me to keep using it. Also, it seems they've finally nailed the "MSE doesn't update itself" issue, which was the biggest thing against it for a while.

[Mikes]

Umm... Ati cards run Source just fine. Not sure what your issue is but i got a 5870 in one machine and a 4870x2 in the other and framerates in HL2:ep2, Portal, Portal 2 etc. are absolutely smooth.

Current Source Engine games run perfectly smooth, maxed and in 1920/1200 without requiring any kind of significant percentage of either cards maximum processing power.

Returning to the topic at hand: If you can afford the price jump, go for NVidia.  ATI cards are only really useful if you 1. can't afford something better, or 2. the power supply doesn't have ridiculously high wattage (and you don't want to max it out).

I'm not really loyal to either brand. For this generation of cards it was hands down ATI for power efficiency, noise and raw performance however.
I like powerful computers... but they always double as work machines and are usually on for long hours so noise and power efficiency is definitely an issue for me.

That's for desktops. Laptops it's Nvidia all the way currently with dynamic power saving and overall performance.

As far as games and compatibility goes i don't have a single issue with either brand. I just do some research before installing drivers (which i would say is required with either brand  - both Nvidia and ATI have had drivers with huge issues now and then - which however can usually be easily avoided by a short visit to google.)

[CP5670]

If you ever get that working....

The idea is to output the midi commands to a virtual midi port driver and run that back into a midi sequencer program for playback. There are some obscure VSTI versions of the Yamaha synths that can be used for this (they were only sold in Japan but can be found online). This thread has a lot of information on it. I have the VSTI host program working now but not the virtual midi port, although there a couple of free options for this with native support for 7.

That's for desktops. Laptops it's Nvidia all the way currently with dynamic power saving and overall performance.

I prefer the manually switchable AMD/Intel setups over Optimus and specifically tried to avoid Optimus when I got a laptop recently. From what I'm reading there are still quite a few games that have issues with Optimus, and it cannot be overriden manually. Nvidia does have nice higher end (non-Optimus) options on laptops though.