Windows 7 - The undisputed king... and it ain't even finished yet :)

J

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236

Check that out, kids. Windows 7 stomps the living daylights outta Vista and even XP, and it's still not even close to being tweaked out for performance.

So far in my own testing, I get basically the same kinds of results in most general day to day activities. Pretty amazing stuff... and it'll only get better.
 
I wouldn't mind trying some of this out for myself but at the moment I don't seem to be able to get hold of a 64 bit version of Windows 7 beta 7000 which is a deal killer for me. I basically refuse to use anything other than a 64 bit OS on my machines capable of running a 64 bit OS.

Besides that, I would hope that the disk transfer and network transfers on Windows 7 is faster than Vista as that has been a major letdown for me. I've run multiple OSes with much better disk and network transfer speeds and this has been something that pisses me off greatly about Vista.

There's no way in hell I would take this guy's "word" that all the benchmarks he did are legit since I can't see the results. Not to mention his scoring system is useless since direct comparisons between the results from the different OSes can't be compared. I'm not a Vista fan by any means but for all we know the differences between Vista and Windows 7 in many of these cases could be very close and just as likely within a certain margin of error. Without solid numbers I can't make any type of determination although I would love the performance of Windows 7 to destroy the current Vista performance as I find it's performance to be lousy. I would also love to see a lot of changes done to the UI and the way the OS is designed and the way it works to make it more user friendly for the average user as well as the more advanced user. UAC wasn't a bad idea but I still think the implementation is terrible. For an example of this I'll have to bring a Linux distro into the discussion. openSUSE has Yast which is similar to Windows' Control Panel. However, you get an admin password prompt for Yast when you start up Yast but you don't have to worry about further prompts for anything started in Yast. UAC doesn't have anything like this which I think is a huge mistake.

 
Oh right, Slashdot... home of Vista Bashers Anonymous. Sorry, I don't think so... ;)

Besides, I run my own benchmarks and in my own testing that article's writer is very close to the results I've encountered with build 7000. He does things a bit differently but, the end results still show Windows 7 with a decided lead over all previous versions of Windows (except... yes, XP Pro x64). :D
 
Joe Average said:
Oh right, Slashdot... home of Vista Bashers Anonymous. Sorry, I don't think so... ;)

Besides, I run my own benchmarks and in my own testing that article's writer is very close to the results I've encountered with build 7000. He does things a bit differently but, the end results still show Windows 7 with a decided lead over all previous versions of Windows (except... yes, XP Pro x64). :D
Click to expand...

As I said, I would do something similar to his benchmarks but I need a copy of the 64 bit beta Windows 7. I would do the testing on my main machine and I refuse to allow a 32 bit version of any OS on this machine for various reasons.

However, there would have to be a huge performance increase to beat XP64 in my experience. That's just one really fast and responsive OS. No, I don't run it on my main machine because of a few reasons even though I would like to for my Windows usage.

I would love to see Windows 7 beat the pants off of Vista in every performance and usability category as I think the current iteration of Vista was a mistake, but that's my own opinion.

The simple fact is that I won't trust this guy's results without seeing the actual results of his testing.
 
Joe Average said:
So, so... so.

Do your own testing, simple.
Click to expand...

I guess I should have specified. I'm not saying his results are wrong, just that without results I can verify I will not believe his results.

Again, I have yet to find a legal way to get a copy of Windows 7 64 bit as of yet. Since I love messing with new OSes, I'll more than likely snag a legal copy of Windows 7 64 bit as soon as I'm able.
 
Joe Average said:
Oh right, Slashdot... home of Vista Bashers Anonymous. Sorry, I don't think so... ;)

Besides, I run my own benchmarks and in my own testing that article's writer is very close to the results I've encountered with build 7000. He does things a bit differently but, the end results still show Windows 7 with a decided lead over all previous versions of Windows (except... yes, XP Pro x64). :D
Click to expand...

I already did a while ago...
windows7.screen.shot.png
 
You ran a beta OS in a VM and you're trying to imply what, exactly... ?
 
Joe Average said:
You ran a beta OS in a VM and you're trying to imply what, exactly... ?
Click to expand...

That he has done a rather poor attempt at sarcasm or that he is a XP fanboi who listen to all the FUD like it's some sort of holy scriptures and therefore all his impressions will be tainted no matter how good they may/might be.

Ah, he's using failnux, that explains it ;)
 
I have a mate and he is a big linux fan and he admins a silly number of computers (servers, desktops..) with all OS's (>50% linux mind since he pushes where it is the right choice)

and he completly dissed Vista, from early beta (got it via MSDN or whatever it is) all the way till now with latest SP. He goes on how it is just shite, its slow, does things awful (goes on abt some networking stuff I don't follow)

Now he got access to Win7 last week and basically he just went DAMB! going on how it sits there using little over 400meg (as opose to vista and 1gig NOT counting the caching), how it is fast (not just feels fast, but actually does things faster).

So looks like Vista was a modern day Windows-ME (or at best Windows-98) and Win7 is present time Windows-XP (or Windows-98SE)

This I might buy, since I am getting 6Gig of RAM on monday my 32bit XP is going to either not boot or well not see > (4gig - 512meg - ???) for those few win apps I have left
 
Raudulfr said:
That he has done a rather poor attempt at sarcasm or that he is a XP fanboi who listen to all the FUD like it's some sort of holy scriptures and therefore all his impressions will be tainted no matter how good they may/might be.

Ah, he's using failnux, that explains it ;)
Click to expand...

Well concidering he is running GNOME/Linux for the host of VMware I wouldn't say he is a XP funboi. - interesting you couldn't tell tho :D

Yer using a VM todo a "benchmark" isn't really valid but you at least get a feel for it
From what he is just saying is, it feels just like Vista
 
I actually may upgrade to Win7 from WinXP. Never though I'd say that :p

Waiting patiently for the first RCs...
 
Oh man. Some of you are serious OS bias people. This is "HARD" forum. Hardcore PC users, not Windows lovers. Right. Always compare the orange with orange. "Win7 rocks, because it is a slight improvement over crappie VISTA!" I worked with midrange mainframes to various x86 OS. I'm comparing speed and feel with other OSes. Least, try to bite other fruits before claiming orange is the only fruit for ya. Windows 7 will be a slight improvement over Vista over the memory management, because processors and memory improved drastically in the hardware market, and finally MS is utilizing the modern instruction sets like Linux and OSX did many years ago. However, no way in hell is faster than XP. The article is complete B.S. I am going to dump Visual Studio and see if instructional set is any different Vista. Based just on a "feel," it is the same OS with the improved memory management.
 
I have the latest release of Windows 7 on my system now. I also have Vista x64 and OSX 10.5.6

I see no difference in speed between Windows 7 and Vista. Startup, shutdown or otherwise. Granted I haven't tested it extensively.

Windows XP did occupy the drive that 7 is on now. I can easily say that Vista x64 and 7 are easily as fast as XP if not faster.

Not that i'm complaining. Vista x64 is very fast on my system. And more responsive than OSX.
I do like all the little changes in 7. I love the new taskbar and mouse gestures.
 
I think its fair to say that unless you have two identical pc's setup directly next to eachother, one with the newest build of 7, and the the other with XP/Vista, your "benchmarks" are absolutely useless.

requiemnoise, a VM? and you want to be taken seriously? next!

I for one don't have a setup like I described above, but I have no reason to believe that the claims of people who do that 7 is fast are not true. Its not like it matters either way. Some people just need to get over themselves.
 
Joe Average said:
You ran a beta OS in a VM and you're trying to imply what, exactly... ?
Click to expand...


requiemnoise, a VM? and you want to be taken seriously? next!
Click to expand...

I ran the beta OS in VM, because usually a beta OS doesn't come with enough drivers. If the OS constantly crashes due to poor drivers, I wouldn't give a fair chance of how the kernel operates.
 
requiemnoise said:
I ran the beta OS in VM, because usually a beta OS doesn't come with enough drivers. If the OS constantly crashes due to poor drivers, I wouldn't give a fair chance of how the kernel operates.
Click to expand...

It has all the drivers vista does and then some. This beta is done differently than past MS betas.
 
requiemnoise said:
I ran the beta OS in VM, because usually a beta OS doesn't come with enough drivers. If the OS constantly crashes due to poor drivers, I wouldn't give a fair chance of how the kernel operates.
Click to expand...

Windows7 grabbed all my drivers via Windows update no problem. As long as you have a Vista capable machine, you have a Windows7 machine.

Anyways, I'm really digging what MS has done and will be doing with Windows7. I'm almost curious that now that Gates is out of the picture, if the devs and managers have more control over the product or something?


Now Apple needs to hurry the fuck up, because I'm getting sick of Leopard being such a dog.
 
d3c1us said:
Anyways, I'm really digging what MS has done and will be doing with Windows7. I'm almost curious that now that Gates is out of the picture, if the devs and managers have more control over the product or something?
Click to expand...

I hope they shot/fired some managers and made the dev teams more into a technocracy than led by the marketing department. The problem with Vista and other projects was always that managers were micro-managing their own little piece of the project, with no one having a full overview of what was going on. This is generally a bad idea, especially when the project is an OS :)
 
requiemnoise said:
Oh man. Some of you are serious OS bias people. This is "HARD" forum. Hardcore PC users, not Windows lovers. Right. Always compare the orange with orange. "Win7 rocks, because it is a slight improvement over crappie VISTA!" I worked with midrange mainframes to various x86 OS.
Click to expand...
You seriously need to get off that high-horse. Every fucking thread you're in you're touting how much you know about a subject, how you've got great experience in so many areas like "MIDRANGE mainframes".... WOW!!!

And I'll tell you right now that Joe_Average knows his stuff and if you disagree with anything he's saying, you better make damn sure you do your homework before calling him on it, because he's usually right.

And guess what, there's a shitload more experience on these forums than anywhere else you'll find. Contrary to what you may think in your company among the end-users all day, you aren't the only person that knows a thing or two about computers and networking around here.

Your credibility left the building when you tried to use an OS in a VM as "proof" or an example of sorts of any sort of real-world scenario.


</endrant>

Now then, to the original subject... Windows 7 looks great. Vista's already great, Windows 7 looks like it could be the best Windows release to-date.
Only negative things I see stemming from its release is customers pissed off that they just bought Vista. Everyone on here for the most part realizes that Microsoft is simply getting back into their old release cycle, put the Sheeple public forgets things rather quickly.

Curious to see when they'll release a public beta. At this point, my opinion is RTM in 4Q2009, and a release 1Q2010.
 
TechieSooner said:
You seriously need to get off that high-horse. Every fucking thread you're in you're touting how much you know about a subject, how you've got great experience in so many areas like "MIDRANGE mainframes".... WOW!!!

Your credibility left the building when you tried to use an OS in a VM as "proof" or an example of sorts of any sort of real-world scenario.

</endrant>
Click to expand...

I guess after this you will follow me around the forum and ask me to help you.
 
lol that was pleasent! :)

i like how microsoft is taking some different approaches to the next os~
it will be quite interesting to see how it turns out.
 
For one thing, I certainly like how MS is doing their beta's; they definitely seem a LOT more polished than previous generation beta's (in general).
 
comparing a beta code release to a final product release is a big no no but u suckers fell for it anyways.......anyone remember the beta of OS-2? it was faster than windows but by the time it was releaesd it was significantly slower.......
 
I just don't understand how people take a new OS release so personal. It's like Microsoft just pissed in their Cheerios or something. I gladly welcome any new OS release from Microsoft - server or desktop. I love Vista x64. I've loved it from the beginning. If W7x64 improves upon that (and it will) then I'm the first in line.

Vx64 has been better than XP for me in almost every way...I'm sure W7x64 will be the same...
 
Brahmzy said:
I just don't understand how people take a new OS release so personal. It's like Microsoft just pissed in their Cheerios or something. I gladly welcome any new OS release from Microsoft - server or desktop. I love Vista x64. I've loved it from the beginning. If W7x64 improves upon that (and it will) then I'm the first in line.

Vx64 has been better than XP for me in almost every way...I'm sure W7x64 will be the same...
Click to expand...

For admins and developers, a bad release means working 40hrs a week to 65hrs a week until the latest service pack is released. That is why most corporations never migrate until service pack2 is released.
 
Brahmzy said:
I just don't understand how people take a new OS release so personal. It's like Microsoft just pissed in their Cheerios or something. I gladly welcome any new OS release from Microsoft - server or desktop.
Click to expand...

For home users..it's fine.

For people doing IT in SMB/Enterprise...it can be a nightmare.

XP ==> Vista was a major..major change. Prior to that..NT4==>2K==>XP were small incremental steps...didn't have to reinvent the wheel very much for each of those upgrades. But with Vista...huge changes, huge headaches. A lot of stuff just didn't work well with existing servers (2K3) and Vista workstations. Hopefully Microsoft listened to a lot of this feedback and W7 will be smoother.
 
I played with Windows 7 x86 in a dual-boot. It was 32-bit (on my 64-bit capable hardware) but I was surprised how fast it ran given that it only had access to about 2.2GB RAM (of 8GB). And that wasn't even build 7000!

MS got kicked in the arse hard for some of the things they did with Vista (even if some changes were beneficial and necessary *cough UAC cough*). Windows 7 just shows they're trying to learn from their mistakes...without making any crippling new ones. Based on my very limited experience with Windows 7, Microsoft seems to be succeeding rather well.
 
Windows 7>>>>>>>>Vista, it no longer takes eons to start up nor does it take 5 minutes to open my computer on my VM with 1GB RAM. Of course it's not even close to OS X since it's still........windoze :)
 
Neb said:
For one thing, I certainly like how MS is doing their beta's; they definitely seem a LOT more polished than previous generation beta's (in general).
Click to expand...

Because Windows 7 IS VISTA, with more performance enhancements and features added into it.

They didn't start from [virtually] the ground up this time.

It's why Windows 7 will only have ONE SINGLE Beta. It's so well done, the Beta could almost be the finished product!
 
I tried x86 build 7000 for a bit last night, pretty nice, like the look better than vista. Also liked the 5.5gb footprint once you remove everything (superfetch, indexing, hibernation which takes 2.99gb, and system restore), even at fresh install it was only 11gb, 2gb less than Vista x64, but can't get vista down to even 10gb unless I use vlite.

I write about size due to using SSD, might be important to some, but didn't install it on my SSD, just testing on a regular HDD.

Drivers were good but need to get vista's videocard drivers to make my text appear proper. Install off a usb flash drive was quick, like 10 mins then the rest was just setup.

Overall, if it keeps the way it is, slim and fast, i'll be lining up for a retail copy.
 
alex2792 said:
Windows 7>>>>>>>>Vista, it no longer takes eons to start up nor does it take 5 minutes to open my computer on my VM with 1GB RAM. Of course it's not even close to OS X since it's still........windoze :)
Click to expand...

I have Vista x64, Windows 7 build 7000 and OSX 10.5.6 on the same machine. Which makes it easy to test all operating systems with the exact same hardware.

Contrary to popular belief Vista spanks the crap out of OSX in terms of speed and overall system responsiveness. Also in gaming when using native games such as WoW I get higher FPS in Vista than OSX.

However I do like the look, feel and cleanliness of OSX.
 
The only thing I'd note about comparing Windows 7 beta performance to Windows Vista betas is that Vista was, in many ways, a new platform, whereas Windows 7 is based on the foundation of Vista; therefore it doesn't surprise me so much that the Windows 7 betas are better than those for Vista at the same stage. While I can't remember whether it was the case, it wouldn't surprise me if the XP betas were fairly mature while those for Windows 2000 were not so good before RTM either.

If there are significant performance benefits then I might consider upgrading from Vista, though otherwise I expect I'll be waiting until a new build (which won't be for a while). I wonder what the lifecycle of Windows 7 will be - I think they expect to return to a more normal ~3 or so years between releases?
 
I find it funny that everyone spams these out saying LOOK ITS BETTER THAN VISTA, SCREW VISTA.

Check your same benchmarks, it was faster than XP a lot of the time. I love dumb people.
 
Where are the actual benchmarks? If you look at the review, it's just a bunch of 1, 2 and 3's which represent what? Where are the actual numbers showing 7 is so good as he claims it to be?

Windows 7 may or may not be the next definitive OS, but if you're trying to use this article to back up your claims you're just a tool.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top