Windows 7 vs Windows XP

[Jomapil]

Hi, everyone.

I want to know if Windows 7 is 100% compatible with Windows XP, i.e., if all the programs that run with Windows XP
also run with Windows 7.

Thank you.

[hech54]

http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=20

[jagabo]

I want to know if Windows 7 is 100% compatible with Windows XP, i.e., if all the programs that run with Windows XP also run with Windows 7.

No. Only about 99 percent. Most of the stuff that doesn't work are hardware related -- because there aren't drivers. Old DOS programs (that worked under XP) don't work but you can often run them via an emulator like DosBox. Old 16 bit Windows programs don't work. Again, you can run them under emulators like VirtualBox.

DosBox runing Doom Demo:
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/339237-Old-technology-running-on-new-equipment?p=21...=1#post2108691

[jman98]

If you use 32 bit Windows 7 you'll have a better chance of old programs working than with 64 bit Windows 7. I have found a very small number of programs that worked fine on XP that I cannot get to work at all under 64 bit Windows 7 but I either run them in an XP virtual machine or I just found replacements for them. Almost everything I used under XP works fine for me under Windows 7 64 bit.

Some poorly designed programs may rely on old system libraries that are changed under Win 7. Also sometimes people wrote programs using old releases of things like .Net and those older releases of .Net may not work at all under Win 7 and may not even be available any more.

I have no idea if this is important to you, but VCDEasy is an example of a program that does not work at all on Vista or Windows 7 and since the author has basically stopped all work on it, it's unlikely that he'll ever create a version that works on anything after XP.

[v491138]

Hi, everyone.

I want to know if Windows 7 is 100% compatible with Windows XP, i.e., if all the programs that run with Windows XP
also run with Windows 7.

Thank you.

Answers I've scanned don't quite get it. I'd say more than a few don't work. Perhaps most.
Interesting that Decrypter and Shrink do still work. The excellent ImgBurn as well. Many others do not.
In fact, Nero 7 works on Vista but not on 7. So that complicates things further.
In other words, not only do most XP apps not run on 7, but even all Vista apps do not always run on 7,
even when the author thinks it does.
You likely have to try it, but then again, why go from XP to 7?? XP is good and I've seen lot of posts about
falling back to it. Ain't easy to do. One thing though. Do avoid Vista.

[Jomapil]

Thank you everyone.

I only want to know if the games run on Windows 7. Because, for instance, it looks like Battlefield 3 only runs on Windows XP.

[jman98]

Nero 10 works fine on Win 7. To be fair, Nero 7 hasn't been supported for YEARS now and was developed before there even was a Win 7, so I'm not seeing how it's fair to complain about this when Nero has given you no reason to think it should work.

Some XP and Vista apps do not work on Win 7. That is correct. I can only say that my experience is clearly that MOST apps do indeed work in Win 7. v491138 may have completely different needs than I do. XP will no longer be updated by Microsoft, not even for heinous security problems, after April 8, 2014.

This says that Battlefield 3 will NOT run on XP!
http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-system-requirements/
It says you need at least Vista but Win 7 is recommended.

[jagabo]

it looks like Battlefield 3 only runs on Windows XP.

Recommended system requirements for Battlefield 3
OS: Windows 7 64-bit

http://bf3blog.com/battlefield-3-system-requirements/

[v491138]

I get this way too much, let this be IT for this topic and myself.
I only pointed out that Nero 7 worked with Vista but not 7.
Simple FACT with no good or bad implied by me.
When I complain about something, I'll usually explain WHY.
Try NOT to read between the lines unless you have reason to believe there is something there.
I do NOT usually put things there as you might notice from this post.
As I said, please let this be it on this. I'd say fewer XP apps work on 7 than Visto apps that work on 7.
Point being that there is no certainty, even when the author says it since I have encounted such.
Almost works is what is sometimes the case and one usually needs to see it for themselves knowing that even Vista compatibility is no assurance with that example that I gave as case3 in point and nothing more. Of course Nero has moved on.
Question: Is Nero 10 compatible with XP? Not that I care, but I'm interested. Thing is, Microsoft has made this compatibility thing such that we need to ultimately move to 7, but in order to do that, most XP folks will need a new computer. Were I in that position, I wouldn't worry till 1/1/2014. XP can run in as little as 512MB where Vista and 7 need a lot more than that!
Anyhow this is more than I meant to say and a bit hotter too. Sorry abouyt that.
I just wish folks wouldn't read more into things than what is actually there.
Unless otherwise noted a fact is simply that. OK?

[jagabo]

not only do most XP apps not run on 7

That is patently wrong. Most XP apps do run on Win 7.

[Noahtuck]

not only do most XP apps not run on 7

That is patently wrong. Most XP apps do run on Win 7.

Yep, i'd have to agree.......

Answers I've scanned don't quite get it. I'd say more than a few don't work. Perhaps most.

I'd have to say, the few times i remember seeing you replying to a thread or Q, you were WRONG....
As once again....

Blah blah blah......

In fact, Nero 7 works on Vista but not on 7

That alone to anyone with any experience say's a LOT!!!!!!!!!
LOL!!!

[Backpain]

I do have to admit that I have found only 1 program not to work with Win 7 64bit. It was an older 16 bit program. I try not to live in the past and keep up to date with both my OS and also with up dating my programs. Granted that newer is not always better.

[ranchhand]

Well, the handwriting is on the wall anyway... eventually everything will be 64 (or higher!) bit in a couple of years, so might as well start making the transition.

[Kakujitsu]

I have not had any problems with older apps running in Windows 7. 99% of all the apps I have work without any changes, for the apps that don't simply use Compatibility Mode. I don't think anyone has mention this yet, why?

Compatibility mode allows a older program written for an earlier versions of Windows to possibly run in Windows 7. You can also use Compatibility mode to always have a program to Run as an administrator.

If changing the Compatibility settings does not fix the problem, go to the program manufacturer's website to see if there is an update for the program.

To see if your software is compatible with Windows 7, check it here: Windows 7 Compatibility Center home.

[jman98]

I didn't mention compatibility mode because while it may indeed fix your problem, in my case I have a couple of programs I like to use and compatibility mode did not help them. It's definitely worth trying though. In my case I was able to get my programs to run in the XP virtual machine you can get for free from Microsoft if you have Win 7 Ultimate and as little as I need those programs, running them in a virtual machine is OK for me.

[jagabo]

for the apps that don't simply use Compatibility Mode. I don't think anyone has mention this yet, why?

In my experience it works with so few programs it's hardly worth mentioning.

But I did find one program where it worked. I have an old (2000 era) copy of Netscape that I used up until recently because I liked its email client and it ran properly off a network share. It wouldn't run natively under Win7-64 but it would work in XP SP3 compatibility mode.

[fritzi93]

In my experience it works with so few programs it's hardly worth mentioning.

In my limited experience, I also found that to be so. When I say limited, I mean Win7 64-bit, as I encountered no problems with 32-bit. Luckily, I could either update the program or find an alternative that would work.

About six months ago I asked here about Vista SP2 vs Win7. I also let slip that I thought I'd dual-boot. Luckily jman (among others) dissuaded me from Vista and advised running XP in a VM. (I did try Vista SP2 and while serviceable, Win7 is far better.) So I got Win7 32 bit and soon gave up XP, no need for it.

Then I built a new computer a couple months ago and got the 64-bit version of Win7. I did have a few problems, for instance an old solitaire program that wouldn't exit unless I used task manager. Also HDConvertToX, which would not remux to complete whatever job I was doing. Pretty sure the hangup is AviMuxGUI, and compatibility setting doesn't fix it. So the 32-bit version of Win7 came in handy, running it in VMWare. HDC now works again.

There were a few more, not many, but for the life of me I can't remember the names of the programs at the moment.

Anyway, I'd say that while Vista SP2 wasn't a worthy upgrade from XP, Win7 emphatically is. If you have gobs of memory to spare, 64-bit is worth the few headaches, as you can always run XP in a VM.

Good luck.

[EDIT] Oh yeah, the Hauppauge HD-PVR requires latest 64-bit drivers or no go in Win7 X64. And TME needs latest update to work; you gotta install the first version from disc and close the error box, then apply the update package.

[usually_quiet]

Moving from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 2-bit was relatively painless for me. At least 90% of the programs I attempted to install worked correctly. One even worked better under compatibility mode than with XP SP3. A few are only partially compatible and certain feature do not work.

Some older video-related programs were completely incompatible (Nero Express 6, PowerDVD 5, PowerDirector 2 Gold). My scanner and drawing tablet didn't have compatible drivers, so I couldn't use them.

Windows XP does work with 512MB of RAM, but from personal experience, when antivirus and firewall software are installed, it works a whole lot better with 1GB of RAM.

[Constant Gardener]

Moving from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 2-bit...

That would be one step below Windows 7 Basic...

I have some favorite programs that won't run under Win7 64-bit, including a simple game (blocks.exe), an old version of C++ Builder, and some decryption tools that I use for liberating e-books. They all run well in a virtual XP machine.

[usually_quiet]

Moving from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 2-bit...

That would be one step below Windows 7 Basic...

No, it is a step above both Windows 7 Basic (sold only in emerging markets) and Windows 7 Starter (for netbooks).

[Dr_Layne]

Moving from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 2-bit...

That would be one step below Windows 7 Basic...

No, it is a step above both Windows 7 Basic (sold only in emerging markets) and Windows 7 Starter (for netbooks).

He was commenting on your error. You typed 2-bit instead of 32-bit.

A_L

[p_l]

Shave and a haircut, two bits.

[jagabo]

I got a laugh out of the 2-bit typo too.

[El Heggunte]

Windows XP does work with 512MB of RAM, but from personal experience, when antivirus and firewall software are installed, it works a whole lot better with 1GB of RAM.

Yes, the OS itself uses something between 128MB and 256MB of RAM, whereas the bloatwall and the bloatvirus eat the remainder

Back to the topic: indeed there are things that can be done only under Vista or Seven, but as long as one doesn't need the "features" of Vista and Seven, or doesn't need to buy newer hardware, there really is no point in moving from XP to the post-2k3 systems.

[usually_quiet]

Moving from XP to Windows 7 Home Premium 2-bit...

That would be one step below Windows 7 Basic...

No, it is a step above both Windows 7 Basic (sold only in emerging markets) and Windows 7 Starter (for netbooks).

He was commenting on your error. You typed 2-bit instead of 32-bit.

A_L

I freely admit I am terrible at proof-reading my own typing or cutting my own hair.

[usually_quiet]

Windows XP does work with 512MB of RAM, but from personal experience, when antivirus and firewall software are installed, it works a whole lot better with 1GB of RAM.

Yes, the OS itself uses something between 128MB and 256MB of RAM, whereas the bloatwall and the bloatvirus eat the remainder

512 MB may be enough if someone is willing to go out of their way to find lightweight software, but it is inadequate for an average XP user running typical consumer software. Performance improved significantly when I added more RAM to my sister's XP desktop and my nephew's XP laptop. Prior to that, I had already replaced the McAfee security software and obscure university-installed security software they were using with free security software that uses fewer resources, but it wasn't enough.

[v491138]

Gentlemen, it is clear that most experience here is focused on the topic and you haven't had the thrill of finding a favourite app that doesn't work on your new machine. Clear also is that few have experience with a system whose memory tops out at 512Mb.
yES, i AM FROM THE STONE AGE OF COMPUTERS AND ONE NEEDS TO REALIZE THE MAJOR CHANGES REQUIRED TO MOVE FROM xp INTO THE "Modern" world. Usually requiring a new computer. Even the "monster" I had that could het me 1GB of RAM wasn't good enough to go with.
Clearly our experience isn't quite the same. There are problems I've encountered that most folks wouldn't believe. Particularly this elite group. And I do mean that as a compliment. This is a great forum that greats most new folks heartily.
Just a little more respect for your elders would be nice. Spelling is not the issue. Eyesight is. <G>
Keep it up, but please turn down the thermostat. Sorry 'bout the caps. I keep hitting that darn caps lock.

[fritzi93]

Not to indulge too much in OT, but...Elders?

Last poll we had on members' ages had most well into middle-age and plenty of retirees. This isn't a site for kiddies, clearly.

[usually_quiet]

Gentlemen, it is clear that most experience here is focused on the topic and you haven't had the thrill of finding a favourite app that doesn't work on your new machine. Clear also is that few have experience with a system whose memory tops out at 512Mb.

You are mistaken on both counts. I lost access to my favorite bargain-bin drawing program, PC Paintbrush, when I moved from windows 95 to Windows XP and it cost me $80 to replace it with something else that was XP compatible.

My 10-year old XP machine, a Dell Dimension 4300 that I keep as a spare tops out at 512MB according to Dell, although it might take 1GB according some members here. I had already upgraded from the original 256MB in 2003. It has been painful to use it for about 3 years. When I fire it up to use some old peripherals, RAM and CPU are frequently maxed out by routine tasks using my same old software. XP updates and security software account for the difference.

[El Heggunte]

Just for the record...

...

My 10-year old XP machine, a Dell Dimension 4300 that I keep as a spare tops out at 512MB according to Dell, although it might take 1GB according some members here.

And it does support up to 1GB of RAM. Mine has 640MB (128MB by Samsung + 512MB by Kingston).

I had already upgraded from the original 256MB in 2003. It has been painful to use it for about 3 years. When I fire it up to use some old peripherals, RAM and CPU are frequently maxed out by routine tasks using my same old software. XP updates and security software account for the difference.

I don't use Windows Updates, I have no antivirus, my firewall is lightweight, and there is no room for the .NET frameworks. Seldom the OS needs to increase the size of the swap file (aka pagefile.sys) :–/