Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance shootout

B

beowulf7

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
10,433
I came across this article that some of you may find interesting. So far so good for Windows 7.

Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance shootout - which is best?

I'm copying and pasting the intro below. Check out the link for the results.

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes said:
How does the latest leaked build of Windows 7 (7048) compare to the beta 1 (build 7000), Vista SP1 and XP SP3 in terms of performance? According to my Hardware 2.0 inbox, this is a question that you want answered. Let’s see if I can answer it for those of you who are interested!

...

Rather than publish a series of synthetic benchmark results for the three operating systems (something which Microsoft frowns upon for beta builds, not to mention the fact that the final numbers only really matter for the release candidate and RTM builds), I’ve decided to put Windows 7, Vista and XP head-to-head in a series of real-world tests to find out which OS comes out top.

Let’s look at the test systems and the tests …
Click to expand...
 
Saw this earlier yesterday, the score card is an interesting way to do the benchmarking but would have been nice to see the actual benchmark numbers behind the score card.

But really he's not saying anything that most people haven't seen already. Windows 7 is overall should be the best performing modern desktop OS that Microsoft has ever released.
 
I'm really looking forward to Win 7 and sort of regret not getting on the beta program before MS pulled it. A coworker got on the program and he said he is really impressed w/ the 64-bit Win 7 beta he installed. And he normally is pretty critical of Windows in general.

Too bad MS couldn't give this Windows a better name than "7". Hell, call it Windows 2010 if need be. Maybe even Windows MMC to get Roman Numeral on it. But not 7! :mad:
 
I don't trust those benchmarks at all. No scores anywhere. Just ranked by number. I know windows 7 is going to be one of the fastest windows out yet but they should at least give us some real numbers.
 
beowulf7 said:
I'm really looking forward to Win 7 and sort of regret not getting on the beta program before MS pulled it. A coworker got on the program and he said he is really impressed w/ the 64-bit Win 7 beta he installed. And he normally is pretty critical of Windows in general.

Too bad MS couldn't give this Windows a better name than "7". Hell, call it Windows 2010 if need be. Maybe even Windows MMC to get Roman Numeral on it. But not 7! :mad:
Click to expand...

I think 7 is a great name. Personally I think Microsoft should stick with the simple version naming scheme for Windows for a while.
 
Conker said:
I don't trust those benchmarks at all. No scores anywhere. Just ranked by number. I know windows 7 is going to be one of the fastest windows out yet but they should at least give us some real numbers.
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with the scorecard system he used but it would be nice to seethe numbers.
 
heatlesssun said:
I think 7 is a great name. Personally I think Microsoft should stick with the simple version naming scheme for Windows for a while.
Click to expand...
It would've been a great name if MS called the previous Windows "1", "2", and so on.

heatlesssun said:
There's nothing wrong with the scorecard system he used but it would be nice to seethe numbers.
Click to expand...
Same here. The relative rankings make sense in the way he presented the results, but it would've been nice to know if the difference in time between 1st and 5th place was 1%, 10%, 100%, etc.

I can't imagine the file copies and transfers he conducted would've differed much between the versions of Windows. I'd imagine installing and booting up Windows would be where the difference in speed becomes more noticeable. But I'm just conjecturing.
 
Conker said:
I don't trust those benchmarks at all. No scores anywhere. Just ranked by number. I know windows 7 is going to be one of the fastest windows out yet but they should at least give us some real numbers.
Click to expand...

MS specifically states no posting of bench marks of their beta builds. Sure true numbers would be great, but he's not going to lose his job over it.
 
d3c1us said:
MS specifically states no posting of bench marks of their beta builds. Sure true numbers would be great, but he's not going to lose his job over it.
Click to expand...

Perhaps he could've legally circumvented the rules by not posting actual times, but by saying in terms of percentage, how the results compare from 1st to 5th. For example, he could say "1" for the OS that came in 1st place, then say "+5%" for the 2nd place OS if it was 5% slower, and so on.
 
beowulf7 said:
It would've been a great name if MS called the previous Windows "1", "2", and so on.
Click to expand...

Microsoft abandoned version names long ago with Windows 95 so 7 actually holds a little nostalgia plus 7 is a lucky number so in a way the name is a bit of a pun if you think of 7 in terms of Microsoft having better luck with 7 than with Vista, which MS clearly could use. 7 is a perfect name for this Windows release.
 
heatlesssun said:
Microsoft abandoned version names long ago with Windows 95 so 7 actually holds a little nostalgia plus 7 is a lucky number so in a way the name is a bit of a pun if you think of 7 in terms of Microsoft having better luck with 7 than with Vista, which MS clearly could use. 7 is a perfect name for this Windows release.
Click to expand...

But how's MS going to market that to the average public that thinks that "Bluetooth" and "Blu-ray" are related b/c they both start with "Blu"?

At least w/ XP and Vista, they were able to market the name. But now that MS is using a number instead, these people will think bigger is better. So 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, ... then 7? :confused:
 
I still look at the name as appropriate myself. It's the 7th major release of Windows since the "32 bit revolution" began, as I don't consider the server based versions as consumer OSes:

1) Windows 95
2) Windows 98 (and yes, SE was another one but it's the same basic OS so...)
3) Windows 2000
4) Windows ME
5) Windows XP
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7

Not sure if that plays into the reasoning behind the name, but that's how I view it myself. While "7" might be luckier than anything else, it's nowhere near the cool hip outta this world "X" that Apple chose for OS 10 which should be the actual name. They banked on the "X" factor meaning anything with "X" in the name (X-Games, Xbox, X-treme sports, etc) automagically implies hip and cool, hence I still and always will call it OS X (as in Ecks)... you won't catch me calling it "ten" ever.

Hey, those didn't choose Roman numerals for previous versions, fuck 'em - it's the letter X so that's the name. :)
 
Joe Average said:
I still look at the name as appropriate myself. It's the 7th major release of Windows since the "32 bit revolution" began, as I don't consider the server based versions as consumer OSes:

1) Windows 95
2) Windows 98 (and yes, SE was another one but it's the same basic OS so...)
3) Windows 2000
4) Windows ME
5) Windows XP
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7
Click to expand...

Where's NT 4.0 Workstation? :p
 
Yah, I knew that was coming from someone after I posted the list but but but... that wasn't really for home users (neither was Windows 2000 Professional to be honest) but, in terms of the number of people that actually did use it at home, Win2K ruled way way waaaaay over NT4.0 on that one... bleh. I know that people DID use it at home, but nowhere near the penetration that Win2K had, especially for gamers and enthusiasts.

It's my list, dammit, lemme alone... :D
 
Joe Average said:
I still look at the name as appropriate myself. It's the 7th major release of Windows since the "32 bit revolution" began, as I don't consider the server based versions as consumer OSes:

1) Windows 95
2) Windows 98 (and yes, SE was another one but it's the same basic OS so...)
3) Windows 2000
4) Windows ME
5) Windows XP
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7

Not sure if that plays into the reasoning behind the name, but that's how I view it myself. While "7" might be luckier than anything else, it's nowhere near the cool hip outta this world "X" that Apple chose for OS 10 which should be the actual name. They banked on the "X" factor meaning anything with "X" in the name (X-Games, Xbox, X-treme sports, etc) automagically implies hip and cool, hence I still and always will call it OS X (as in Ecks)... you won't catch me calling it "ten" ever.

Hey, those didn't choose Roman numerals for previous versions, fuck 'em - it's the letter X so that's the name. :)
Click to expand...
I don't mean to throw water on your list, which does make sense, but I found this article, which tries to explain the name and version number.

1.) Windows 1.0
2.) Windows 2.0
3.) Windows 3.0/3.1/NT
4.) Windows 9x/ME
5.) Windows 2000/XP
6.) Windows Vista
7.) Windows 7

What's pretty screwy is that Windows 7's version number will actually be 6.1, which is the same as Windows Server 2008. Yep, leave it to MS to mess things up. :mad:
 
beowulf7 said:
What's pretty screwy is that Windows 7's version number will actually be 6.1, which is the same as Windows Server 2008. Yep, leave it to MS to mess things up. :mad:
Click to expand...

I always assumed that the final build would be NT 7. XP was 5, Vista was 6...
 
There's absolutely nothing stopping Microsoft from changing the version number to 7 across the board with Windows 7... come on, you don't really think they're going to stick with 6.1 for the RTM do you? <hint, hint> :p
 
beowulf7 said:
What's pretty screwy is that Windows 7's version number will actually be 6.1, which is the same as Windows Server 2008. Yep, leave it to MS to mess things up. :mad:
Click to expand...

Wrong. Server 2008 shares the same version number with Vista.

DeathFromBelow said:
I always assumed that the final build would be NT 7. XP was 5, Vista was 6...
Click to expand...

2000 is 5.
XP is 5.1.

Vista is 6.
Windows 7 is 6.1.

I'm seeing a trend here.
 
The Windows 7 name makes most sense to me as a Windows NT version number, surely? Microsoft may claim that they're counting significant releases, including 9x, but it sounds like they're rationalising the choice to a consumer audience. NT started at version 3.1 for parity with Windows 3.1, and NT 4.0 was the next major release - that 9x also had 4.x version numbers is just because they started NT where they did. 7 might not actually be NT 7.0, but Windows 6.1 would be a bad name (especially as they want to get away from Vista's bad press).

Of course, NT 6.1 is the best technical version number for Windows 7, since it is a development of the existing Vista (NT 6.0) codebase rather than being substantially different like NT 4.0, 5.0 (2000) and 6.0 (Vista) were to their predecessors.
 
GushpinBob said:
Wrong. Server 2008 shares the same version number with Vista.



2000 is 5.
XP is 5.1.

Vista is 6.
Windows 7 is 6.1.

I'm seeing a trend here.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. I was misinformed by a link, but further searching indicates Win Server '08 shares the Vista kernel (i.e., 6.0).

But MS should've really called Windows 7 as Version 7.0 when you run "winver". The average customer won't know or care (I bet most people aren't even familiar w/ the "winver" command), but for those of us who do run that, it would make a lot more sense for 7 to equal 7.0 rather than 6.1

But like Joe Average said, maybe there's hope MS will come to their senses and increment it to 7.0 when the final Win 7 code is released.
 
Oh God, naming schemes. This reminds me of a similar argument on whether Apple could ever release a 10.x.10, or if it would stop at .9, etc. Pages and pages of discussion over something so trivial.

Anyway, this is good to see, but with the newest build (7057?) just released, I think this is kind of trivial now.
 
Joe Average said:
I still look at the name as appropriate myself. It's the 7th major release of Windows since the "32 bit revolution" began, as I don't consider the server based versions as consumer OSes:

1) Windows 95
2) Windows 98 (and yes, SE was another one but it's the same basic OS so...)
3) Windows 2000
4) Windows ME
5) Windows XP
6) Windows Vista
7) Windows 7

Not sure if that plays into the reasoning behind the name, but that's how I view it myself. While "7" might be luckier than anything else, it's nowhere near the cool hip outta this world "X" that Apple chose for OS 10 which should be the actual name. They banked on the "X" factor meaning anything with "X" in the name (X-Games, Xbox, X-treme sports, etc) automagically implies hip and cool, hence I still and always will call it OS X (as in Ecks)... you won't catch me calling it "ten" ever.

Hey, those didn't choose Roman numerals for previous versions, fuck 'em - it's the letter X so that's the name. :)
Click to expand...

It's 7 because that's what it is. Windows version 7.0 going by the NT kernel's timeline.

Windows for Workgroup 3.x, Windows NT 4.0, Windows NT 5.0 (2000), Windows NT 5.1 (XP), Windows NT 6.0 (Vista), Windows 7.0 (7).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 9x/ME kernels.
 
Azhar said:
It's 7 because that's what it is. Windows version 7.0 going by the NT kernel's timeline.

Windows for Workgroup 3.x, Windows NT 4.0, Windows NT 5.0 (2000), Windows NT 5.1 (XP), Windows NT 6.0 (Vista), Windows 7.0 (7).

It has absolutely nothing to do with the 9x/ME kernels.
Click to expand...

but thats only 6?:confused:

And if we're going to count sub-releases such as NT5.1 then Windows 7 is really Windows 14. . .
 
d3c1us said:
but thats only 6?:confused:

And if we're going to count sub-releases such as NT5.1 then Windows 7 is really Windows 14. . .
Click to expand...

Actually NT 5 was Windows 2000 and NT 5.1 was Windows XP. Vista is version 6 and Windows 7 is actually 6.1. Version number and product naming is harder than people think. 7 is just a cool name. And really, its something that you can only do with Windows. If I say 7 now, most tech people are going to think Windows 7, not Adobe 7 or Ubuntu 7 or any other 7.

And 7 is a lucky number. Don't think that that didn't have something to do with it. For instance, I don't think that pariticularly after a troubled release like Vista that Microsoft would have called this release Windows 13.

The number 7 just has a lot of context, mostly positive and its the best name for a Windows version to date. Windows 7.
 
heatlesssun said:
Actually NT 5 was Windows 2000 and NT 5.1 was Windows XP. Vista is version 6 and Windows 7 is actually 6.1. Version number and product naming is harder than people think. 7 is just a cool name. And really, its something that you can only do with Windows. If I say 7 now, most tech people are going to think Windows 7, not Adobe 7 or Ubuntu 7 or any other 7.

And 7 is a lucky number. Don't think that that didn't have something to do with it. For instance, I don't think that pariticularly after a troubled release like Vista that Microsoft would have called this release Windows 13.

The number 7 just has a lot of context, mostly positive and its the best name for a Windows version to date. Windows 7.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it... wasnt Vista technically "13" But I guess youre right. The new Office will be Office14, skipping unlucky 13.
 
Folks, there's no need to try to guess how MS came out w/ Windows 7 really being version 7 (technically 6.1). I posted a link a couple posts ago where an MS employee (tries to) explain how it's #7.

d3c1us said:
Come to think of it... wasnt Vista technically "13" But I guess youre right. The new Office will be Office14, skipping unlucky 13.
Click to expand...
LOL, that reminds me of many hotels call the 13th floor as the 14th floor. Damn superstition. :p
 
beowulf7 said:
Folks, there's no need to try to guess how MS came out w/ Windows 7 really being version 7 (technically 6.1). I posted a link a couple posts ago where an MS employee (tries to) explain how it's #7.


LOL, that reminds me of many hotels call the 13th floor as the 14th floor. Damn superstition. :p
Click to expand...

Not just hotels. The building I work in downtown Chicago goes 10, 11, 12, 14a, 14b, 15, 16, and so on.
 
beowulf7 said:
I'd hate to be working on floor 14a. :p
Click to expand...

yeah sometimes I joke around on the elevator saying to the people getting off on 14a, "hey no matter how much you try to fool yourself, this is the 13th floor." ;-)
 
beowulf7 said:
1.) Windows 1.0
2.) Windows 2.0
3.) Windows 3.0/3.1/NT
4.) Windows 9x/ME
5.) Windows 2000/XP
6.) Windows Vista
7.) Windows 7
Click to expand...
Yep I'd agree with yours.
beowulf7 said:
What's pretty screwy is that Windows 7's version number will actually be 6.1, which is the same as Windows Server 2008. Yep, leave it to MS to mess things up. :mad:
Click to expand...
XP was 5.1. The problem is (as always) third-party developers. When they released Vista as 6.0 (A whole new version number), there was too many issues with checking the compatibility so they decided in Windows 7 to leave the basic version number the same and just increment it... Which gives us 6.1
 
Well, let's hope Microsoft gets their shit squared away once and for all... Windows 7 should be version 7... kinda silly to say it's Windows 7, version 6.1... just ain't cutting it. :D
 
Joe Average said:
Well, let's hope Microsoft gets their shit squared away once and for all... Windows 7 should be version 7... kinda silly to say it's Windows 7, version 6.1... just ain't cutting it. :D
Click to expand...

Pretty sure that's its going to stay version 6.1 at this point. You of all people should know that changing the version number isn't a small thing and it would have needed to have been tested well before now. Version numbers cause all sorts of issues.
 
heatlesssun said:
Version numbers cause all sorts of issues.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's what contributed (not the main factor though) to Vista's compatibility from XP to Vista.

I highly doubt Microsoft wants to go through more compatibility issues.

Plus, we've all known this is a FEATURES release since the dawn of time. They're optimizing the system and adding some features. No use going through compatibility problems with the third-parties again.
 
I don't see the problem really. With the release of Windows 95 14 years ago Microsoft established that the name of the release has nothing with to do the version number. Windows 95, Version 4, Windows 7, Version 6.1.
 
heatlesssun said:
With the release of Windows 95 14 years ago Microsoft established that the name of the release has nothing with to do the version number. Windows 95, Version 4, Windows 7, Version 6.1.
Click to expand...

Except that Windows 95 made sense, because it was released in... you know... 1995. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top