Windows 7 Beta Outperforms XP and Vista

jroe52 said:
computer might be fast, but all the unneeded prompts slows you down.

if you have to finish a computer program lets say that has data on the network (your files that you'll move back and forth for example, ftp etc)...

1. lets say your computer takes 1 second longer with xp to do 60 seconds of work... CPU CYCLE WISE than vista

2. vista might give you 1-10 prompts every time you try to do something with file transfers on your network... with changes, with admin tools.

3. which one is slower? the clunkier older windows xp, or the super fast vista with dozens of prompts even with UAC off on an admin account?...

vista. because it requires extra bullshit
Click to expand...


i find Vista far better at copying and moving files, in Xp you had to say "yes, yes yes yes yes" on every file it found that existed, Vista you say "yes to all" done walk away!

what are these dozens of prompts with UAC off you talk of? i have seen none..... of course when you try to move files that exist it will ask you, in Xp, vista, 2000, heck back as far as i can recall....

Would love some examples of these dozens of prompts you get in vista, even with UAC off...
 
I'm no MS fanboy, and do use Gentoo and Mythbuntu, but I have to say this whole Server 2008 = Vista is wrong.

Yeah it's the same kernel, but if you read the reviews no one can give a definite 100% reason as to why it performs so much better. I have to say that Server 2008 is the best OS I've ever used, and it was legally free. Once you set it up as "Windows Workstation 2008" you turn all that stuff that was "turned off" back on, and its still much faster than Vista. I also like the fact that my 32-bit Enterprise edition can blow the 4GB ram "limitation" all the way up to 64Gb. I have no problem with my 8Gbs on a 32-bit system.

The minor compatibility problems are well worth the speed and flexibility, you just have so much control (For Microsoft) - I agree that Server 2008 is what Vista should have been.

In fact, I really would like to give 7 a try, but I have trouble believing it will be set up as good as Server 08 is.

---

As an aside, am I the only one who was ready to dump XP? It was getting long in the tooth 2 years ago and I had much more hardware compatibility problems than I did with Vista 64 (native SATA support drove me up the wall). Maybe I just have a deep burning hatred for floppy disks, or maybe its the extremely dated XP layout and feature set, whatever it is I jumped on the Vista boat and never looked back.
 
Let's play Spot the People Who Never Tried Vista Before in this thread. The amount of FUD in this forum is astounding. You'd think you've walked into Reader's Digest forum instead of a technology forum.
 
of course Server 2008 will perform better, it is meant to be fast and efficient with minimum services running, it is made to use as little footprint as possible to give room to the applications and roles it will run.

it is still the same, kernal and all in that sense, just Vista is made for the home user and such so it has more crap in it for home users that a server OS has no buisbess having on or installed.
 
As an aside, am I the only one who was ready to dump XP? It was getting long in the tooth 2 years ago and I had much more hardware compatibility problems than I did with Vista 64 (native SATA support drove me up the wall). Maybe I just have a deep burning hatred for floppy disks, or maybe its the extremely dated XP layout and feature set, whatever it is I jumped on the Vista boat and never looked back.
Click to expand...

Nope. i was so sick of XP as well i was happy to use early Vista Beta's!
 
T-rock said:
I also like the fact that my 32-bit Enterprise edition can blow the 4GB ram "limitation" all the way up to 64Gb. I have no problem with my 8Gbs on a 32-bit system.
Click to expand...

You do realize that this is impossible, yes? The reason why a 32 bit OS, any OS, can not handle more than 4GB of RAM has to do with the ability for a 32 bit OS to actually address the memory to be able to use more than 4GB and has absolutely nothing to do with who made the OS.

By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).
 
PMildren said:
You do realize that this is impossible, yes? The reason why a 32 bit OS, any OS, can not handle more than 4GB of RAM has to do with the ability for a 32 bit OS to actually address the memory to be able to use more than 4GB and has absolutely nothing to do with who made the OS.

By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).
Click to expand...

Exactly. You may have no problems with 8GB of ram in a 32 bit system, but you aren't actually USING it.
 
now try to win me over on buying vista... when you OWN xp. lol

theres no reason to. everyone i've known has begged me to reinstall winxp except one person... so thats about 50 computers.

so maybe thats the ratio microsoft is going for.
 
PMildren said:
You do realize that this is impossible, yes? The reason why a 32 bit OS, any OS, can not handle more than 4GB of RAM has to do with the ability for a 32 bit OS to actually address the memory to be able to use more than 4GB and has absolutely nothing to do with who made the OS.

By definition, a 32-bit processor uses 32 bits to refer to the location of each byte of memory. 2^32 = 4.2 billion, which means a memory address that's 32 bits long can only refer to 4.2 billion unique locations (i.e. 4 GB).
Click to expand...

You do realize this ISN'T impossible, yes? "By Definition" it can only support 4Gb, but there are a couple of ways to circumvent this. I'm surprised that you did not know this, what with the needless exhibition of your knowledge and all. The one I'm referring to (and utilizing) involves extending that address, physical address extension. Once pae is enabled, you DO have access to more than 4Gb. There is another way as well (4GT) but I'm not familiar with it.

Scroll down to Windows Server 2008 Enterprise here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx

And look here for more information: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc784574.aspx

----

Oh, and I'm no hardware or software engineer, but it IS possible. So please don't criticize or patronize people when it's actually YOU that doesn't know.
 
T-rock said:
Oh, and I'm no hardware or software engineer, but it IS possible. So please don't criticize or patronize people when it's actually YOU that doesn't know.
Click to expand...

You can see up to 64 GB of RAM with PAE, but individual applications are limited to four gigs unless they support special work arounds.

Anyone who's still on the "Vista is teh suck, server 2008 is great" bandwagon doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

I am a software engineer, FWIW. :)
 
DeathFromBelow said:
You can see up to 64 GB of RAM with PAE, but individual applications are limited to four gigs unless they support special work arounds.
Click to expand...

Yes with PAE you can get upto 64gig of RAM BUT windows severely limited the MAXIMUM RAM all desktop flavours and virtually all server editions
 
DeathFromBelow said:
You can see up to 64 GB of RAM with PAE, but individual applications are limited to four gigs unless they support special work arounds.

Anyone who's still on the "Vista is teh suck, server 2008 is great" bandwagon doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

I am a software engineer, FWIW. :)
Click to expand...


Well like I said I'm not an expert enough to know of "special work-arounds," But the BIOS, Windows, and CPU-Z recognize 8Gb, so I assume that it is capable of being used. If not, I couldn't tell without benchmarking.

Oh, and by the way I never claimed "Vista is teh suck, server 2008 is great." In fact in that same post I was praising Vista for its lack of hardware incompatibility and I enjoy it much more than I ever did XP. One thing is for sure though, Server 2008 IS great ;)
 
MrGuvernment said:
i find Vista far better at copying and moving files, in Xp you had to say "yes, yes yes yes yes" on every file it found that existed, Vista you say "yes to all" done walk away!

what are these dozens of prompts with UAC off you talk of? i have seen none..... of course when you try to move files that exist it will ask you, in Xp, vista, 2000, heck back as far as i can recall....

Would love some examples of these dozens of prompts you get in vista, even with UAC off...
Click to expand...


Robocopy XP..faster than the GUI based copying ;)
 
eeyrjmr said:
Yes with PAE you can get upto 64gig of RAM BUT windows severely limited the MAXIMUM RAM all desktop flavours and virtually all server editions
Click to expand...

Was going to mention that but you beat me to it. We are not trying to say your stupid or ignorant. We are trying to educate people is all. Yes, you can get a system to recognize the additional memory. Yes, programs will see it as well. BUT, there are very few programs that will actually be able to use/ address this additional memory. The OS is still limited by its 32 bit address scheme. I would suggest doing some more research on PAE. We are not saying your wrong, just that your not entirely correct is all.
 
MrGuvernment said:
what are these dozens of prompts with UAC off you talk of?
Click to expand...
jroe52 said:
now try to win me over on buying vista... when you OWN xp. lol
theres no reason to. everyone i've known has begged me to reinstall winxp except one person... so thats about 50 computers.
so maybe thats the ratio microsoft is going for.
Click to expand...


Way to skirt around the question :rolleyes:

Funny how when someone gets called on the FUD that they spew, they run circles around the actual question.

T-rock said:
I'm no MS fanboy, and do use Gentoo and Mythbuntu, but I have to say this whole Server 2008 = Vista is wrong.

Yeah it's the same kernel, but if you read the reviews no one can give a definite 100% reason as to why it performs so much better.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong.
Vista is the same thing where it matters as Server 2008 is.
Server 2008 runs better because that's what it's designed to do. Run more efficiently, and not have any of the things a workstation needs to have. It's really cut back on features.

You can turn Vista into a workstation version of 2008 quite easily just by cutting all of the features back. Folks have done this around here before, and unlike XP/2003, there's no conclusive evidence that Server 2008 really outperforms Vista (when you've got them closely configured). It's because they are essential the SAME THING.
 
Great news :) Can't wait till windows 7 comes out .. gonna get it the day it comes out :eek: :)
 
For me it depends on how much better Win7 is compared to Vista. Since Vista and since it will have DX11 support, I don't know how quickly I will make the switch.

I really don't care what 95% of the population says about Vista.
 
i waited to get vista until service pack 1 came out. with every new release of windows its using more and more ram. what new features are we getting with each and every release of windows other then it looks different? the new stuff ms wants to come out with gets scrapped. i think windows i7 is gonna be a stripped down version of vista in other words what vista should of been in the first place. except yes you guessed it charge us money to get it. like windows 98 to 98 second edition.
 
not very happy with the results.. 1 2 3? what sort of margins are we talking about is the difference in transferring 2.5gb file 0.1seconds?

can [H] improve on this?? [H] knows how to do head to head....
 
The EULA forbids any actual benchmark numbers from being posted, this is why you are seeing 1 2 3 rankings instead of hard numbers. Understandable too, since this is beta software and numbers will change. The internet flamefest will freak out if the numbers shift either way between the beta and final release version.

That said, I'll take what I can get. I'm loving what I'm seeing. I already couldn't be happier with everything I've read about Windows 7 prior to this comparison article (UI streamlining, etc), and this just puts it over the top for me. Can't wait.
 
gaspah said:
not very happy with the results.. 1 2 3? what sort of margins are we talking about is the difference in transferring 2.5gb file 0.1seconds?

can [H] improve on this?? [H] knows how to do head to head....
Click to expand...

If you hang around the OS forums at all... Something I found out today...

It's against the EULA to post benchmarks of the beta. So they can't post the raw data for that reason.
 
knothead34 said:
i waited to get vista until service pack 1 came out. with every new release of windows its using more and more ram. what new features are we getting with each and every release of windows other then it looks different?QUOTE]

why not try and actually read up on vista instead of assume that it only looks different, so sick of hearing that "vista only has a new GUI, nothing else" :rolleyes: something like %60 of the code in vista is NEW code, from the bottom up....and there were alot of other things changed and added.
Click to expand...
 
I have a little old Compaq CQ50-139w that im triple booting XP PRO, Vista w/ SP 2 Beta and Windows 7 Build7000.. I havent had a SINGLE driver issue with Windows 7, File moves are pretty quick, everything work how it SHOULD have when vista released..

Windows 7 is looking very promising.. I cant wait till I see an RC
 
I would love to do some beta testing for Win7, just not sure where to get on the list if that option is still available. Have been thinking of torrenting it, just to see what I am missing.
 
TechieSooner said:
Way to skirt around the question :rolleyes:

Funny how when someone gets called on the FUD that they spew, they run circles around the actual question.

.
Click to expand...



Yup, hey jroe52 , still waiting for all those apparent prompts you get even with UAC off, would love you to prove us all wrong here, or maybe you cant cause your full of it...:rolleyes:
 
IMO the FUD thrown around with various OS's is the big twist in everyone's panties and the article in the OP clearly adds to the misinformation being thrown around. First, it's a beta version and last, it doesn't have the specific numbers--as was mentioned, the EULA doesn't allow benchies for beta and rightly so. As was also mentioned, beta vs. production performance can differ drastically.

For the record I'm finally making the jump to Vista; IMO it's mature enough that I'm comfortable upgrading to it. I would've done so soon after the SP1 release but this coincides with a new build. I love XP and it has served me well but it's time to move on. As far as upgrading to Windows 7, the release date of the OS matters less to me than the release date of SP1 for Windows 7.
 
MrGuvernment said:
knothead34 said:
i waited to get vista until service pack 1 came out. with every new release of windows its using more and more ram. what new features are we getting with each and every release of windows other then it looks different?QUOTE]

why not try and actually read up on vista instead of assume that it only looks different, so sick of hearing that "vista only has a new GUI, nothing else" :rolleyes: something like %60 of the code in vista is NEW code, from the bottom up....and there were alot of other things changed and added.
Click to expand...

you must be talking about the widgets they added with vista big deal. you forgot to mention the things they scrapped as well . they moved a few things around in the drop down menus. ok ill try to contain my excitement. vista just wasnt needed in my book.......xp was working fine. ms should of skipped vista all together and worked on the code longer to come up with windows i7. what is it 4 different versions of vista? also wasnt needed. basic vista is not even worth the money. ill leave you to your vista fanboy attitude though.
Click to expand...
 
knothead34 said:
you must be talking about the widgets they added with vista big deal.
Click to expand...
Nevermind the memory management, security features, management tools, power management, plug and play, HAL, registry, services, WHEA, kernel patch protection, partitioning tools, boot enhancements, the list goes on.

One common thing is these are all under-the-hood changes. It's why Microsoft-bashers like yourself that have no clue what's going on don't understand that Microsoft changed a crap load of stuff...

It's a complaint that Microsoft made Vista look different ("eye-candy"), however I think it's the opposite. They should have thrown MORE eye candy into Vista so all the ignorant users out there think they've got something new.

knothead34 said:
you forgot to mention the things they scrapped as well . they moved a few things around in the drop down menus.
Click to expand...
You came up with one example? Wow. Just wow.

knothead34 said:
ms should of skipped vista all together and worked on the code longer to come up with windows i7.
Click to expand...
i7 is a freaking processor made by Intel. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

knothead34 said:
what is it 4 different versions of vista? also wasnt needed. basic vista is not even worth the money.
Click to expand...
What if not everyone wants to shell out $400 on Ultimate if all they will be using is internet and email? Hence Vista Home Basic. You're argument is absolute crap and almost laughable.

The versions cannot be more self-explanatory.
Home Basic- For the basics. What an extraordinary name!
Home Premium- For casual users that want more features (Hence the "premium"... again, awesome naming convention!)
Business- Business capability... Amazing how the name matches!
Ultimate- Everything above. This is truly the Ultimate version of Vista... Wait a minute, it matches the name!
 
BillR said:
Although I've become a big fan of Vista-64 for MS to create a brand new OS so close to the release of the last one may become disturbing.
Click to expand...

Actually, if I'm counting correctly, it's already been about 4 years since Vista has been available, and W7 isn't coming for about another year. That's a much bigger gap than previous releases.
 
stop!theradio said:
Actually, if I'm counting correctly, it's already been about 4 years since Vista has been available, and W7 isn't coming for about another year. That's a much bigger gap than previous releases.
Click to expand...

What? Windows Vista went retail channel release in January 2007. 2 years ago, Not four. Windows XP was released Oct 2001.

It is probably going to look like this:

XP 2001
Vista 2007
7 2010.

Clearly Vista is a short release, they just want the bad press behind them. Windows 7 is essentially Vista SE.
 
Snowdog said:
What? Windows Vista went retail channel release in January 2007. 2 years ago, Not four. Windows XP was released Oct 2001.

It is probably going to look like this:

XP 2001
Vista 2007
7 2010.

Clearly Vista is a short release, they just want the bad press behind them. Windows 7 is essentially Vista SE.
Click to expand...

Why stop there? Throw in the other dates: Win3.x, Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2000..

Only Windows XP was given a large shelf life. Win7 is right on par with other Windows releases. Vista is NOT a short release.
 
Azhar said:
Why stop there? Throw in the other dates: Win3.x, Win95, Win98, Win98SE, WinME, Win2000..

Only Windows XP was given a large shelf life. Win7 is right on par with other Windows releases. Vista is NOT a short release.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to provide a history lesson just correct the mistaken assertion that Vista has been out for 4 years. Do you think it has been out for 4 years?

Times have changed. In these times Vista is a short release, it will be replaced before it surpasses XP in market shares, it will be one of the few MS OSes to NEVER surpass it's predecessor ( something in common with WinMe).

Regardless of the actual merits of Vista, the perception is largely negative, MS is anxious to get that perception behind them.
 
Snowdog said:
Times have changed. In these times Vista is a short release, it will be replaced before it surpasses XP in market shares, it will be one of the few MS OSes to NEVER surpass it's predecessor ( something in common with WinMe).
Click to expand...

Only because XP was out for so long.

Vista was not a short release, XP was a long release.
 
Snowdog said:
I didn't intend to provide a history lesson just correct the mistaken assertion that Vista has been out for 4 years. Do you think it has been out for 4 years?

Times have changed. In these times Vista is a short release, it will be replaced before it surpasses XP in market shares, it will be one of the few MS OSes to NEVER surpass it's predecessor ( something in common with WinMe).

Regardless of the actual merits of Vista, the perception is largely negative, MS is anxious to get that perception behind them.
Click to expand...

I never said I thought Vista was out for 4 years. I'm saying Vista didn't have a short lifespan compared to other operating systems. And I very much doubt times had changed that much, regardless of Vista's popularity or lack of it.
 
Snowdog said:
What? Windows Vista went retail channel release in January 2007. 2 years ago, Not four. Windows XP was released Oct 2001.

It is probably going to look like this:

XP 2001
Vista 2007
7 2010.

Clearly Vista is a short release, they just want the bad press behind them. Windows 7 is essentially Vista SE.
Click to expand...

Ohhh, you invented the hockey-stick global warming graph too, didn't you?


Next time, try including all the data.

Xp is the only windows OS in history to last 6 years. EVERY SINGLE OTHER OS has been 1.5-3 years between releases. The fact that everyone bitched endlessly when Vista was release just goes to prove that they shouldn't be spending that much time on developments, and should release ever 2-3 years to keep the fanboy base for any particular version of Windows from growing. The army of incompetent idiots that thinks the only thing new in Vista was a UI was a huge problem for Vista.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top