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

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837

I had a chuckle when I read this:
I have laptop with 1Gb RAM & Turion64 duel core 1.6Ghz running vista premium no probs
I fully agree with both Oscar and JH
Most people who put down vista either haven't used it or are trying to use old hardware with it
I am suprised that nobody is suggesting linux as an alternative
I say go for it just make sure you get a duel core processor as that is what vista is designed for
I have Vista on a 1G machine AMD Turion 64x2 processor. From pressing the on button to being on line is approximately 60 seconds. Running Vista Home Premium. It is not slow on this machine. I love my laptop and Vista. Why does everyone think is slow? I just don't know. I have had no problems whatsoever, maybe they are discussing the professional package. I promise you Home Vista Premium is fine as long as you have no tailor made software that is only supported by XP..
1 year ago

From http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070923140252AA6cxpw - first relevent link in google.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
seriously bonsai, im usually a big "anti-Microsoft fanboy" kinda guy, so its frustrating that your are as clueless as you are and forcing me to take their side..... just. stop.
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
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.

MinWin is the beginnings of them re-organzing the windows architecture. Their taking the interdependent mess that windows has become and analyzing, reworking, and compartmentalizing systems. The MinWin kernel was the first step in that, they isolated the very core operations of the kernel that are necessary for minimal windows functions. Apparently these optimizations are present in Win7. They are now working on taking the next level of that and building on top of it. This is can lead to much more compartmentalized systems, better optimization, and much less quirky interdependency that Windows is notorious for. Far down the road this hopefully can allow windows the type of full control and end user customization we see in systems like Linux.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
Bonsai thinks he is personally going to cause microsoft's downfall by spamming the internet with his fud. :rolleyes: Just grab some popcorn, and watch him get his ass kicked all night..nothing better to do. :D
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
MinWin is the beginnings of them re-organzing the windows architecture. Their taking the interdependent mess that windows has become and analyzing, reworking, and compartmentalizing systems. The MinWin kernel was the first step in that, they isolated the very core operations of the kernel that are necessary for minimal windows functions. Apparently these optimizations are present in Win7. They are now working on taking the next level of that and building on top of it. This is can lead to much more compartmentalized systems, better optimization, and much less quirky interdependency that Windows is notorious for. Far down the road this hopefully can allow windows the type of full control and end user customization we see in systems like Linux.

It's not going to make any kind of difference to the user, it's for internal testing only. Watch the video, bonsai. I even gave you the time index where they state this.
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
It's not going to make any kind of difference to the user, it's for internal testing only. Watch the video, bonsai. I even gave you the time index where they state this.

And as he states later in the video they're working on the next steps to continue those optimizations. That's going to lead to a better, more compartmentalized, more customizable Windows down the road. Which was pertinent to the conversation earlier about how flexible Linux is compared to Windows.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
And as he states later in the video they're working on the next steps to continue those optimization. That's going to lead to a better, more compartmentalized, more customizable Windows down the road. Which was pertinent to the conversation earlier about how flexible Linux is compared to Windows.

I see, so windows improving (if minwin actually improves anything for users) is proof that windows sucks and isn't optimized, but when linux and mac os x release new versions, it's just a good OS getting better and better.. :rolleyes:
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
I'm going to agree with Bonsai with one thing. One gig isn't enough for Vista or Win7. It wasn't designed to utilize only few hundred Megs of cache. Notice, everyone says, "just leave Vista alone, it will get faster." Why do you think people assume that? It is the damn ram cache. More shit get cache, less it has to pull from the drive. Vista gets usable under 2gigs to 4gigs of ram with a dual to quad core system with directx 10 graphics. Ms is getting pretty good at understanding their shitty file system and learning to allocate and prefetch faster to load the GUI right away. At the same time other MS departments are writing LARGER codes. It would be nice if MS development teams are more structural.

MS needs to stop bull shiting about their system requirements. They just need to more honest if they want a bigger market share. Their minimum requirement standards always caused confusion about the performance.

Like I said before Win7 has the improved memory management. It will appear to be faster in certain cases. If you are going to buy a new PC, wait for 7. If you have Vista, save your money and get more RAM. If you are still running an older system and you want to utilize it, start migrating to LINUX. If your older system has less than 2gigs, it isn't worth it.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
So yours is? :rolleyes:

mine isnt, look around long enough, and you'd realize that most of the people complaining about 1gb of ram not being good enough on vista and you'd realized that those people either got butchered OEM installs, or were using it to do things that wouldnt have worked well with XP and 1gb of ram either.....

like i said, i run vista on 768mb of ram and 1gb of ram regularly, and it runs just fine as long as i stay realistic about what i can run on it
 

bonsai

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 27, 2008
Messages
1,282
Oh, okay so now I understand, only if you know what you're doing, you do some vliting, some tweaks and some optimizations, and you are selective in what you actually run on the machine, then 1 gb is all Vista needs. That sounds exactly like the standard we should be judging against. :rolleyes:

Please... you people are delusional.
 

FragMagnet

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 11, 2000
Messages
1,529
To the OP, not sure what issue you had with 3dm 06, I did the same benches here yesterday and it installed and ran fine ?
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
I think the issue is you guys are blindly responding to each other without understanding each others point. If this test was automated with a GUI scripting tool and launched after it booted, Bonsai is clearly a winner for choosing XP. After everything is loaded with a decent machine with 2gigs or more with a multi-core processor, the result will be very similar across different OSes. However, if you constantly repeat the test without a reboot, I bet Win7 will kick the rest.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2004
Messages
3,720
Oh, okay so now I understand, only if you know what you're doing, you do some vliting, some tweaks and some optimizations, and you are selective in what you actually run on the machine, then 1 gb is all Vista needs. That sounds exactly like the standard we should be judging against. :rolleyes:

Please... you people are delusional.

not even, a stock vista will do well enough also, i just like to squeeze every little bit that i can out of my system...

even my main gamer box at home, which has 4gb of ram is heavily vlited

but yea, i've run stock vista installations on 1gb, not a problem.....
 

TechieSooner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
7,601
That's going to lead to a better, more compartmentalized, more customizable Windows down the road.

Holy crap. Microsoft like seriously needs to hire this guy or something... Because, darnit, this guy can predict the future!
 

Arainach

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
2,353
Like I said before Win7 has the improved memory management. It will appear to be faster in certain cases. If you are going to buy a new PC, wait for 7. If you have Vista, save your money and get more RAM. If you are still running an older system and you want to utilize it, start migrating to LINUX. If your older system has less than 2gigs, it isn't worth it.
I call bullshit. I've had a desktop machine running fine on Vista with 1GB of RAM for over a year now, and I've been using the W7 Beta for a week now on a machine with 1GB of RAM for a full workload (development/office/web browsing) with no issues.
 

TechieSooner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
7,601
I call bullshit. I've had a desktop machine running fine on Vista with 1GB of RAM for over a year now, and I've been using the W7 Beta for a week now on a machine with 1GB of RAM for a full workload (development/office/web browsing) with no issues.

Shoot, I even used it on a machine with 512MB of RAM for a few days. Not the fastest thing on earth, but I've definitely used much slower XP machines. The big difference is Superfetch cannot do its thing with 512MB of RAM.
 

devil22

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 1, 2003
Messages
3,837
For real, the reason people sugguest 2GBs then 4GBs for Vista, is because 4GBs of Ram cost freakin 20 bucks! And vista will USE it (but doesn't need it.) Some people just don't get it.
 

ddeen

n00b
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
9
I wanted to see how Windows 7 would run on my aging HTPC box compared to Vista and XP, all 32 bit versions. The spec is AMD Sempron 2500+, VIA chipset, 512 RAM, 200GB Harddrive, ATI 9600 video card, which was a fairly ok system for HTPC with WinXP Pro. All I mainly do with the HTPC is watch ripped DVDs and stream Netflix.

I all instances with Win7, Vista, and XP the interface ran very well, response was snappy, programs installed fine, had to manually install some drivers on Win7 because some of the installers would choke and say that it wasn't Vista, but everything worked well. So I'm sure for easy office work or internet browsing all would be fine.

WinXP like I said handled mp4, avi video well, cpu utilization was 50% or so and the videos looked good and there were no dropped frames.

Vista would run most of my videos well with no dropped frames, a few would max out the cpu utilization and start dropping frames but not too badly.

Win7 would completely rail the cpu utilization to 100% as soon as the video started playing and was never lower than 100%, video would play for sec. stop for 2 sec, play for another sec., you get the idea.

So while Win7 will technically work on older systems and looks fantastic working in Word or browsing with IE8, the cpu requirements are much higher than XP or even Vista when video is introduced.
 
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
726
I call bullshit. I've had a desktop machine running fine on Vista with 1GB of RAM for over a year now, and I've been using the W7 Beta for a week now on a machine with 1GB of RAM for a full workload (development/office/web browsing) with no issues.

stop trolling. read the entire thread. you are a serious freaking troll. the biggest one here.

added


Kids... We aren't talking about each others mothers. We are talking about an OS. Open your limited mind and learn to compare different products and use what is best for the occasion.
 

griffinhart

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 3, 2005
Messages
1,294
Oh, okay so now I understand, only if you know what you're doing, you do some vliting, some tweaks and some optimizations, and you are selective in what you actually run on the machine, then 1 gb is all Vista needs. That sounds exactly like the standard we should be judging against. :rolleyes:

Please... you people are delusional.

I haven't v-lited anything. I haven't done any tweaks to it other than to install it and not load it down with a dozen useless or redundant apps at start up.

On my 1GB Vista Business PC at work, I run Lotus Notes, Domino Admin clients, Various Office 2007 apps, IE7 and or Firefox and a couple of remote desktop sessions open. And it runs fine. It would absolutely fly if I had 2GB for sure, but XP didn't perform any better on this machine.
 

Joe Average

Ad Blocker - Banned
Joined
Apr 6, 2008
Messages
15,459
Win7 would completely rail the cpu utilization to 100% as soon as the video started playing and was never lower than 100%, video would play for sec. stop for 2 sec, play for another sec., you get the idea.

So while Win7 will technically work on older systems and looks fantastic working in Word or browsing with IE8, the cpu requirements are much higher than XP or even Vista when video is introduced.

This high CPU usage would be due to one of two things:

1) Bad video drivers that aren't assisting with the decoding (likely), or...

2) Your media player hasn't been changed to work with the EVR (Enhanced Video Renderer) in Windows 7, which could be the most likely case.

I had the same issue myself recently and was skewled by someone more knowledgeable than I that Media Player Classic and Home Cinema (my chosen players of choice) need to be adjusted to use the EVR for playback purposes. Without it - using the "System Default" - the CPU usage spiked to 100% and stayed there for 1080 files; changing it to EVR and restarting MPC/HC and playing the same files had 20-40% usage...

WMP12 won't play MKV files (the sample ones I had) but MPCHC can (there's an issue with it, hence the creation of MPCHC) in Wndows 7. So far I've been able to play every single video format I can find with MPCHC - a single .exe application - in Windows 7 except for Real Media crap, which never touches my machines anyway.

Just the bare OS and one tiny .exe file are playing all the stuff I've encountered... pretty amazing, I'd say. :)
 

Snowknight26

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,314
Joe, EVR (or VMR9 if you're on XP) alone doesn't decrease CPU usage. It only works when you have a video card that can do DXVA and a file that can be bitstreamed to the GPU, which is limited to H.264, MPEG-2, and VC-1 videos. And not all of those can use DXVA either. Still depends on the file's specifications/how it was encoded.

What's even better is, I'm not entirely positive that WMP12 uses EVR at all, yet it does harware acceleration for VC-1, MPEG-2, and H.264 videos. What a twist.

Still more complicated than that but theres a basic rundown.

nbc_the_more_you_know.jpg


Plus, with his hardware, hes not going to get hardware acceleration. Sounds like hes isn't using the same decoder or isn't playing the same file.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
Win7 would completely rail the cpu utilization to 100% as soon as the video started playing and was never lower than 100%, video would play for sec. stop for 2 sec, play for another sec., you get the idea.

So while Win7 will technically work on older systems and looks fantastic working in Word or browsing with IE8, the cpu requirements are much higher than XP or even Vista when video is introduced.

I'm sure its a video driver/beta issue.

Has anyone else noticed sound distortion or other problems in Windows 7 Media Center? I was listening to some music ripped using WMA Lossless and about halfway through the album it started to go distorted and fuzzy and got worse as time went on. Exiting out Media Center and re-launching it eliminated the problem, but it keeps coming back after listening for awhile.
 

ddeen

n00b
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
9
Plus, with his hardware, hes not going to get hardware acceleration. Sounds like hes isn't using the same decoder or isn't playing the same file.

I was actually using 3 different Media Players to test. Windows Media Player and Zoom Player with ffdshow and Haali Media Splitter so I could play H.264 mp4's, as well as XVID avi's. And I also used VLC player with no other helpers. All results were the same, XP played all avi's and mp4's well. Vista played most well, and Windows 7 wasn't watchable with any of them.

It could very well be a setting or a driver issue, but all I had to work with was the original Windows 7 driver and the latest vista drivers, tried both. I'm sure Windows 7 would run as well as XP or Vista on modern hardware, I was just trying to get the word out that Windows 7 won't run as well as XP on older hardware, depending upon what you are trying to do with it.
 

TechieSooner

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Messages
7,601
Listening to WMP on Windows 7 right now (the need for no toolbar for WMP in the taskbar is sweet! built-in FTW).

No issues at all. Sounds great.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
No issues at all. Sounds great.

The fuzzy audio problem I had seems to be limited to Audigy 2 series cards. I found a fix if anyone else is having a problem:
Right click the volume icon
Select "Playback Devices"
Double click "Speakers"
Under the "Advanced" tab set the sample rate/bit depth to 24 bit, 44100 Hz
 

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
MinWin is the beginnings of them re-organzing the windows architecture. Their taking the interdependent mess that windows has become and analyzing, reworking, and compartmentalizing systems. The MinWin kernel was the first step in that, they isolated the very core operations of the kernel that are necessary for minimal windows functions. Apparently these optimizations are present in Win7. They are now working on taking the next level of that and building on top of it. This is can lead to much more compartmentalized systems, better optimization, and much less quirky interdependency that Windows is notorious for. Far down the road this hopefully can allow windows the type of full control and end user customization we see in systems like Linux.

Are you even reading the thread?
 

RESTfulADI

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
2,218
You can't argue with the facts.

I'm kind of curious to see if 7 fixes the gpu memory issues you see with Vista. You know that thing where games slowly start performing worse, then you reload them and they are fine again for a while? Crysis and Fallout 3 are bad at this.
that issue was solved a while ago with hotfixes which became part of SP1.
 

wingmaster

n00b
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
27
At Tom's theres an article using quad core systems that show xp faster but says it will change with 8 or more cores. Of corse I'm sure theres more polish on games for the newer OS which should just reason since almost all new systems will come with the new OS installed.
 

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
At Tom's theres an article using quad core systems that show xp faster but says it will change with 8 or more cores. Of corse I'm sure theres more polish on games for the newer OS which should just reason since almost all new systems will come with the new OS installed.

XP is so bloated though. Windows 98 runs much faster on the same machine! :rolleyes:
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,435
Actually, it does. Otherwise, even MS-DOS would be bloated, the only reason MS-DOS is not bloated is because the price of ram dropped from the days when 640KB of memory cost thousands of dollars or more. That is the nature of computers, cpu's get more powerful, ram gets cheaper and software adapts to put it all to use. 512MBs of Ram cost like $100 - $200 when XP was released, now you can buy 8GBs for less than $100, and Vista runs much better on 8GBs of ram than XP runs on 512MB, so relatively speaking, Vista is LESS bloated. The computer market is a complex thing, you can't always just add up the numbers without a deeper understanding of what's going on.
qft
 
Top