Benchmarks: 64-Bit XP, Vista, and Windows 7 Beta Compared

Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
Does OSX let you pick and choose stuff during the installation? No? Wonder why... <hint, hint> (and yes I know some aspects can be customized during the install, but not what most people here are looking for or discussing)

Does any modern Linux distribution let you pick and choose during the installation precisely what you want? No? Wonder why... <hint, hint>

And don't play semantics here: I am speaking about modern common popular Linux distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, and others that have GUI installers - so they're compared with Windows and OSX - and they simply do not give the user the options that people seem to feel are their god given right to have). I ain't talkin' about Arch, Debian base, Gentoo, etc... those are hardcore and way beyond your average Joe (not me, I assure you).

We are talking about the Enterprise version. That is why division between products must be concrete. The needs are more different than ever.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
the point i'm making is, while i dont consider vista to be bloated, its pretty hard to argue against linux being the king of the very, very, very, *very* low end or old computers, especially when you consider that running older versions of Windows usually means sacrificing the latest in Microsoft's security enhancements, whereas with linux, you always have the latest, and best security that is available.

I understand. I'm just saying that in my experience it's a pain in the butt to get some of the more popular Linux distros working on really old hardware in their standard configuration. XP worked fine on that old Thinkpad.

Security wasn't really an issue since it didn't have an ethernet port, wifi, USB or a newer PCMCIA slot. I wasn't going online with that thing. :D

It was about the same size and weight as my textbooks at the time, its crazy how far we've come. :)
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
Does OSX let you pick and choose stuff during the installation? No? Wonder why... <hint, hint> (and yes I know some aspects can be customized during the install, but not what most people here are looking for or discussing)

Does any modern Linux distribution let you pick and choose during the installation precisely what you want? No? Wonder why... <hint, hint>

And don't play semantics here: I am speaking about modern common popular Linux distros like Ubuntu, Fedora, and others that have GUI installers - so they're compared with Windows and OSX - and they simply do not give the user the options that people seem to feel are their god given right to have). I ain't talkin' about Arch, Debian base, Gentoo, etc... those are hardcore and way beyond your average Joe (not me, I assure you).


OSX not letting you pick and choose what you want during install is a symptom (and stated goal really) of Apple's overriding philosophy.... besides, your standard OSX install is more lightweight than your standard windows install (even my girlfriend's netbook gets a solid 30 more minutes of runtime using OSx86 than it does with Xp of Vista). Also, once OSX is up and running, it is quite easy to go into the applications folder and drag and drop most of that it contains into the trash... not so easy with windows to do the same...

Debian is a modern linux with a GUI installer that lets you pick and choose what you want, and, just like OSX, once most newbie friendly Linux distros are up and running, it is fairly simple to fire up the package manager and start chipping away... once again, not so simple with windows...
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Yet, it's no faster than XP...

It is at opening programs thanks to superfetch, and it is slightly faster at just about everything. Vista/7 also boot and shut down faster. Vista/7 are also more secure.

Again, if raw performance is everything then why even go from 2000 to XP? Vista adds very useful new features like Media Center that 64-Bit XP lacks.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
It is at opening programs thanks to superfetch, and it is slightly faster at just about everything.

Again, if raw performance is everything they why even go from 2000 to XP? Vista adds very useful new features like Media Center that 64-Bit XP lacks.

Hmm... You guys like to confuse each other for nothing.
You are right, because it is caching and not pulling from the drive. Still, the computer needs to be idle some period of time to adjust data to the cache. If someone is working right after it booted, a person with XP will be a lot more efficient. I know RAM is darn cheap, so does it matter? For certain cases, they really do. The hardware has came very far. Especially the speed of the RAM.
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
Does any modern Linux distribution let you pick and choose during the installation precisely what you want? No? Wonder why... <hint, hint>

The difference comes after installation. Microsoft says you will use our os how WE want you too. Linux is designed so that you can use it how YOU want to.

Microsoft has seen the error of their ways and it's starting with MinWin, they're going back through everything starting with bare minimum kernel, and sorting and untangling, the mess they've built over the past 15 years. It's gonna be a while but I think we'll eventually see better options from MS in the future.
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,443
I don't see why they don't give you the option at setup now to only install the bare minimal. Hopefully it's something they do in the future.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Hmm... You guys like to confuse each other for nothing.
You are right, because it is caching and not pulling from the drive. Still, the computer needs to be idle some period of time to adjust data to the cache.

Not really, it seems like it just looks at what apps you use most often and loads them into memory. I've never noticed a slowdown after rebooting, although that would be hard to quantify.
 

firebane

Gawd
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
572
Does any modern Linux distribution let you pick and choose during the installation precisely what you want? No? Wonder why... <hint, hint>

Define "modern" linux.

Because I know when I setup my linux box I use a 45mb install disc with nothing more than a base system and from there I decide what is put on my system; but again this is because I know what I'm doing.

Something like Ubuntu is pre-setup so that people don't have to think about it but at the same time if someone felt comfortable enough they could pick and choose how their linux system looked too.

So yes I agree Windows should allow us to pick and choose what we want installed because things like IE or Media Player I don't use.
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
No, no, and no, several times over.

Let's just cut to the chase and make it simple:

If you want to customize the OS, if you want choice and flexibility, Windows is not for you. Move on. It's written for the largest common denominator, across the widest variety of hardware they can muster, with all the "stuff" that people have told them they want.

'Nuff typed.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
Not really, it seems like it just looks at what apps you use most often and loads them into memory. I've never noticed a slowdown after rebooting, although that would be hard to quantify.

Let's don't get into a debate about the fetching. The concept of fetching has been around. It isn't a new idea.

Anyway, the ultimate point is Enterprise wants things to be lighter and efficient, because they are nothing but focusing on the bottom line. They are all about the cost savings and able to be more mobile than ever. So smaller and efficient make sense. For home, it is all about self repair, self-maintenance, and trouble free lifestyle. JoeMom doesn't know jack shit about the speed of ram and cpu. She is going to keep on buying long as PC does what she wants easier than ever at the $500 price tag. They totally have two different mission statements. You can't use the same OS for the different needs.
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
I don't see why they don't give you the option at setup now to only install the bare minimal.

It's called money. They want you to use Microsoft Internet Explorer, and Microsoft Chat, and connect to Microsoft Live, and go to the Microsoft Network, so you can order a new Microsoft Mouse. The more brand building they do and the more Microsoft products you use, the more they can charge you and the more money they can milk out of you. Just look at the sticker price of Vista compared to XP and see what I mean.

It's all starting to backfire though...
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
Anyway, we don't know exactly what the future will hold. Ballmer has been bragging about CloudOS for a while. Maybe, that is the answer. We will see. Not to mention, compiling GoogleOS into a laptop has been proven it can be done. More BiosOS will be coming soon. The concept of phone and PC will be blur. That is why don't discount the concept of lighter and thinner. There is a huge market for it.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
I had a roommate with a 1.7 GHz Pentium M tablet with 1 GB of RAM and a Radeon mobility x550. It runs Vista and will even play a few relatively modern games like Age of Empires III just fine.

My Dad's PC is an AMD 64 3800+ (single core) processor with 1GB of PC3200 and a GeForce 5600 video board. It runs Vista well with Aero on.

My work PC is a 2.4Ghz Core 2 Duo with a low end video chipset (A Dell Optiplex 755) with 1GB of RAM. It runs Vista business well.

I wouldn't play any modern games on either but I wouldn't play any modern games under XP with 1GB either.

The truth is, on really old PCs with 512MB (lets face it, XP sucks on 256MB for any uses) XP will edge Vista, but on any PC that's 5 years old or newer with 1GB of RAM performance is about the same. Once you start getting to new PCs with 2+GB, and especially 4+GB, Vista (and soon Win7) is edging out XP.

In reality, it doesn't matter if the OS is taking up 1MB, 1GB or 10GB of HD space on modern PCs when even a $470 Dell laptop is coming with 120GB and $600 laptops with 300GB.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
No, no, and no, several times over.

Let's just cut to the chase and make it simple:

If you want to customize the OS, if you want choice and flexibility, Windows is not for you. Move on. It's written for the largest common denominator, across the widest variety of hardware they can muster, with all the "stuff" that people have told them they want.

'Nuff typed.

during the windows 9x days MS allowed people to pick and choose what they wanted.... and one of the stated goals of the new vista line is modularity...

so for the *option* to not be there is disappointing. and yea, for the option to not strip stuff out *after* install to not be there is also very disappointing, like i pointed out (and you conveniently ignored), OSX and Linux distros both allow you to uninstall much of what you might not want post install ....
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Actually it doesn't. You still fail to understand what bloat really means. Let's look at this definition from Wiki:



The more than necessary part is the crucial bit. According to the benchs the OP has presented, XP performs essentially the same as Vista. Yet, Vista needs more far more system resources to do it. By definition alone, that means it is bloated.

Wrong. Vista does not need more resources to perform the same as XP, Vista performs the same or better than XP on the SAME HARDWARE. It doesn't need more hardware to match XP.

Yes, XP has bloat too, but not as much as Vista. Bloat is expected, but Vista really went overboard, and is why it got such a bad rep. So some people still prefer XP. Even Ubuntu has bloat, (and is sadly becoming more bloated) but there some Linux distros that are very streamlined, has essentially no bloat, and manage to accomplish everything your average desktop PC should. That's powerful and really says something. Don't you ever wonder why our computers are becoming faster and more powerful, where we have a computer today running Vista that is 10x as powerful as a computer from 2001 running XP yet, (according to the benchmarks presented today) we are still computing at the same speed? Bloat is a big part of that answer.

How are we computing at the same speed? A computer 10x as powerful as one in 2001 will run be 10x as powerful running Vista. The only things that don't increase in speed are things that are user bottlenecked, like notepad. You seem to think you should be able to type 10x as fast because your processor is 10x as powerful or you have 10x as much ram, you obviously have the understanding of computers that a horse fly has...


You know, it's astounding that many people around here are quick to understand how many apps like iTunes, Nero, Adobe Reader, Norton, Quicktime, AIM, etc are bloated. They bash on them all day long, and use streamlined alternatives like VLC, imgburn, foxit, Avast, Pidgin, etc. Yet, mention bloat and Vista, and how quickly the fanboi blinders come on and all reason becomes futile.

Probably the same people that bash Vista and every Windows release for being 'bloated;' personally I have no problem with such apps.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
. Just look at the sticker price of Vista compared to XP and see what I mean.

It's all starting to backfire though...

The sticker price of XP vs Vista, at release, was identical. The only difference is that they added a couple of retail SKUs that only existed in OEM or not at all. Vista Home and XP Home were both $99 for retail upgrades. Vista Business and XP Pro were both $199 for retail upgrade versions. There was no equivalent to Vista Ultimate, and The product most closely related to Vista Home Premium was Windows Media Center which had no retail version and only sold as OEM.

Today, XP pro and Vista business, both retail and OEM versions are within a few dollars of each other with XP being the higher.

Too many people looked at ultimate and compared it to XP pro and Home premium to XP home for price comparisons, but if you look at the actual feature sets of the versions, they were not equivalent.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Too many people looked at ultimate and compared it to XP pro and Home premium to XP home for price comparisons, but if you look at the actual feature sets of the versions, they were not equivalent.
Yeah, Ultimate was supposed to take the place of the old Plus Packs.

I'm hoping Windows 7 will have fewer versions (there should be 7 Home, 7 Pro, and 7 Ultimate + 64-bit Versions) and more Ultimate Extras. Dreamscene was nice, but not enough to justify the cost.
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
Wrong. Vista does not need more resources to perform the same as XP, Vista performs the same or better than XP on the SAME HARDWARE.
We've already established that as false.

How are we computing at the same speed? A computer 10x as powerful as one in 2001 will run be 10x as powerful running Vista. The only things that don't increase in speed are things that are user bottlenecked, like notepad. You seem to think you should be able to type 10x as fast because your processor is 10x as powerful or you have 10x as much ram, you obviously have the understanding of computers that a horse fly has...

Perhaps you missed all the near identical benchmarks in the first post of this thread.

Probably the same people that bash Vista and every Windows release for being 'bloated;' personally I have no problem with such apps.

That's fine, then you have no understanding or appreciation of what bloat really means.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Here's some interesting little tidbits to put things into perspective:

Install Size
Win 95 (50 MB) -> Win 98 (250 MB) = increase by factor 5
Win 98 (250 MB) -> Win2000 (1 GB) = increase by factor 5
Win2000 (1 GB) -> WinXP (1.5 GB) = increase by factor 1.5 or factor 6 from Win98
WinXP (1.5 GB) -> WinVista (15 GB) = increase by factor 10!! wtf...

Here's a nice article detailing the history of bloat within Windows and Microsoft Office, sums it up pretty nicely I think. http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/04/14/16TC-winoffice-performance_1.html


Go look up "Moore's law" on wikipedia. The time difference between XP and Vista was also more than twice as long as any of those other OSes. And I love the "mass rejection" part of that tin foil hat crap you quoted. MS predicted they would sell 200 million copies of Vista in the first 24 months, long before all the 'cool kids' joined the Vista hate bandwagon; In actuality they sold 300 million copies in those 24 months. Yea, sounds like 'mass rejection' to me - mass rejection of anti-ms fanboys.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
We've already established that as false.
We did?

Perhaps you missed all the near identical benchmarks in the first post of this thread.

The ones where Vista and 7 outperformed XP on every test? :rolleyes:

Here's an idea, go do your own benchmarks with XP and Vista on 1 GB of RAM and post your results. Stop trolling my thread.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
The difference comes after installation. Microsoft says you will use our os how WE want you too. Linux is designed so that you can use it how YOU want to.

Microsoft has seen the error of their ways and it's starting with MinWin, they're going back through everything starting with bare minimum kernel, and sorting and untangling, the mess they've built over the past 15 years. It's gonna be a while but I think we'll eventually see better options from MS in the future.

Again you are plain wrong. You keep doing this, making up things, repeating crap you heard that you have no clue about...give it up alrady. MinWin is a reconfiguration of the kernel to make it easier to test the core of the OS, it has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
We've already established that as false.
Perhaps you missed all the near identical benchmarks in the first post of this thread.

No we haven't. Benchmarks have proven that it's true, benchmarks in this thread and other threads here. Please stop your pointless lying.


That's fine, then you have no understanding or appreciation of what bloat really means.

What I do understand is you're a jealous fanboy that would keep computers stuck in the year 2000 forever even as ram, cpu and disk prices drop like a rock. I, and most other users, want more features, we don't want to do the same thing we did in 2000, 10x as fast, we want to do new and better things. Almost nobody subscribes to your ignorant, small-minded vision of computing, so just get a life already.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
Damn! Some people. I think I mentioned a while back Win7 had a improved memory management than Vista. Fact that RAM is cheap and fast, it makes a HUGE difference how things work. Look at the data. Let's think this through. Loading an app takes similar FUCKING TIME for all OSes after everything is loaded. The OS with a better memory management will utilize cache more. The second launch will more efficient for Win7. Loading the basic kernel might have a similar range. Now, we all know newer OSes have more services, and few additional kernel enhancements. Those things will take longer. All Windows OS since XP constantly loads the rest of service after the GUI is loaded. It is totally different than UNIX like OSes. Even Vista finish loading the GUI, it will constantly load any other services and fetch anything that are requested by the OS in the background. Today's CPUs are dual to quad cores. You will not notice that much difference when these new machines are multi-tasking. You can write CPU limit for certain background applications and services, so you won't notice it, when you are utilizing the CPU in foreground such as the GUI operations. So you launch an app to do something, if something is like Winrar, it will make few kernel calls. That shit needs to write somewhere. "Hey, write this crap for me. You freaking OS!" He writes it. There might be few additional or less calls for Win7 compare to Vista. I think you guys are confusing yourself. Also, the fact GUI for Vista requires insane graphic power, human eyes will assume it is more snappy. Anyway, on the latest modern machines things are less blur even code instructions are HUGE. Also, don't forget 64bit is also wider bandwidth too. Let's talk about CATS and horses.
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
Again you are plain wrong. You keep doing this, making up things, repeating crap you heard that you have no clue about...give it up alrady. MinWin is a reconfiguration of the kernel to make it easier to test the core of the OS, it has nothing to do with anything you're talking about.

You might want to watch this: http://channel9.msdn.com/shows/Going+Deep/Mark-Russinovich-Inside-Windows-7/

It's a long video and he talks about MinWin at the end. It's the beginnings of them rebuilding the Windows architecture.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
Aside from a couple results, the difference is negligible. I thought that was established early on.

yes, but you see, if vista were truly bloated, it wouldnt be faster/as fast at all.....

big thing with vista is that it takes up much more space because it includes many more extra programs that many of us usually dont want....

the operating system itself though, can't really be called bloated when it performs as well as it does on equal hardware...
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Aside from a couple results, the difference is negligible. I thought that was established early on.

And there are things which can not be easily measured. The GPU accelerated GUI that never slows down (don't try to lie either, I've used XP and the GUI becomes slow often) and programs launching instantly (yes, after the computer has been on a few minutes, but I don't know of anyone who uses their computer for 5 minutes and reboots, over and over, that would not see advantages of superfetch.) DX10 in games like Far Cry 2, etc.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
Damn! Some people. I think I mentioned a while back Win7 had a improved memory management than Vista. Fact that RAM is cheap and fast, it makes a HUGE difference how things work. Look at the data. Let's think this through. Loading an app takes similar FUCKING TIME for all OSes at the first time it booted! The OS with a better memory management will utilize cache more. Loading the basic kernel might have similar range. Now, we don't newer OSes have more services, and few additional kernel enhancements. Those things will take longer. All Windows OS since XP constantly loads the rest of service after the GUI is loaded. It is totally different than UNIX like OSes. Even Vista was loaded, it will constantly load any other services and fetch anything that is requested by the OS in the background. Today's CPUs are dual to quad cores. You will not notice that much difference when these new machines are multi-tasking. You can write CPU limit for certain background applications and services, so you won't notice it is utilizing the CPU in foreground such as the GUI operations. So you launch an app to do something, if something is like Winrar, it will make few kernel calls. That shit needs to write somewhere. "Hey, write this crap for me. You freaking OS!" He writes it. There might be few additional or less (for Win7 compare to Vista) things newer OS might handle. I think you guys are confusing yourself. Also, the fact GUI for Vista requires insane graphic power, human eyes will assume it is more snappy. Anyway, on the lastest modern machines things are less blur even code instructions are HUGE. Also, don't forget 64bit is also wider bandwidth too. Let's talk about CATS and horses.

lolwut
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,443
It's all starting to backfire though...
I don't know if I would go that far. People are pretty fond about Windows 7 around here. The same goes for those crazy cats out there on that big bad Internet. I've had people at work ask me about 7 already, people who you would never in a million years think would ask about upgrading their OS.

As for WinMin, I remember reading about that about 6 months after Vista launched. It was 25MB worth of kernel code that they were building 7 on top of. I don't remember him ever saying that they were shipping a stand alone, tiny OS with it. It was just rewrote to help make Windows more efficient.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
I don't know if I would go that far. People are pretty fond about Windows 7 around here. The same goes for those crazy cats out there on that big bad Internet. I've had people at work ask me about 7 already, people who you would never in a million years think would ask about upgrading their OS.

yup, like i said, 7 is becoming quite the PR coup for MS.....
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
Sorry, I tend to gloss over and not remember things that are wrong.

and? what i said isn't wrong..... so yea, no excuse for you there.



its ok, i wont make fun of you, quite a few people never do make it though reading comprehension in the 1st grade
 
Top