Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Performance Tests Show Early Windows 7 Build Beats Vista

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the room-for-improvement dept.

Windows 534

The Other A.N. Other writes "How does the latest build of Windows 7 stack up against Windows Vista? The answer seems to be very well if the benchmarks run by ZDNet are anything to go by. If Microsoft keeps up the good then Windows 7 should be head and shoulders better than Vista. 'What we have here is one set of data points for one particular system, but I think that the results are very promising. The fact that Windows 7 comes out on top in three out of four of these tests at this early stage is very promising indeed. The boot time and PCMark Vantage results are particularly good.'"

cancel ×

534 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Don't worry, it's not done yet (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083421)

Microsoft still has plenty of time to slow it down.

This just in... (5, Insightful)

Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084001)

Performance tests show that an abacus and a box of crayons beat Vista.

(Apologies to Tycho and Gabe)

Parent is actually insightful. (5, Interesting)

RudeIota (1131331) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084353)

This is honestly insightful, because the more they work on it, the more it will suffer from the heavy weight of feature creep. I hope their claim of 'modular' is still in the plans.

Re:Don't worry, it's not done yet (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084473)

i beleive that may not be as much of a joke as some think. don't most early MS Windows builds beat the last version with performance? it's adding all the legacy support that seems to slow things down (and add security holes).

or have i got this wrong?

secondly, it's not hard to beat vista on performance, no? esp with aero left on as the default on an OEM install.

to me this doesn't read so much as "yay, our new stuff is getting better" as "hey guys, just hold on, our new stuff isn't the pure manure our last stuff was".

replies welcome.

Congratulations! (5, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083433)

Let's all give MS a pat on the back for clearing such a low bar.

-jcr

Dead Herring (5, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083461)

Indeed. I think the question isn't how it compares to Vista but how it compares to XP. Anything else is simply following the Microsoft's red herring.

Vista Perf == XP Perf Retard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084053)

But way to go staying on top of teh 'Microsoft red herrings' for the rest of us!

Re:Dead Herring (5, Informative)

g4pengts (1050568) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084067)

This additional test [zdnet.com] by the same guy shows that it performs better than XP.

Re:Dead Herring (1)

wdhowellsr (530924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084463)

That is why I am so thankful that I still have ten XP licenses from a MSDN subscription I bought back in 2003. The first thing I do when I get a new computer or laptop for personal use is reload it with XP.

Since I'll never have more than ten personal computers or laptops I'm going to be set for at least the next few releases.

Handbasket brake lever found (5, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083585)

Things are improving. Or at least, the rate at which they're going to hell is decreasing.

At Least They Didn't Stoop To... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083917)

comparing to that dog OS X.

Vista runs exactly the same as XP with the exception of the desktop being quite a bit smoother with Aero turned on. Games run with a frame or two per second between Vista and XP.

Can't really say how it compares to OS X since no one but Blizzard puts out games for the overpriced niche platform Apple for some reason still bothers to make.

Re:At Least They Didn't Stoop To... (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084055)

Thanks for stopping by to give us your views, Mr. Ballmer.

-jcr

Aww, The Liddle Emo Mac Faggot Got Hurt... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084111)

How goes those fixes for the laughably poor performing Mach message queues in the shitty OS X kernel.

Guess Apple has just giving up trying to make OS X competitive with Linux and Windows kernel.

Re:Aww, The Liddle Emo Mac Faggot Got Hurt... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084189)

poor performing Mach message queues

[citation needed]

Mach messaging is highly efficient, in my experience. What kind of problems are you seeing?

-jcr

Obsolete Microkernel Dooms Mac OS X to Lag Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084245)

"Obsolete Microkernel Dooms Mac OS X to Lag Linux in Performance"

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6105

I am shocked that the primary Slashdot Mac Troll pretends ignorance of the well known and laughably bad OS X performance compared to Linux and Windows...

Re:Obsolete Microkernel Dooms Mac OS X to Lag Linu (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084301)

The article you link is an opinion piece, which cites no actual examples of performance issues on Mac OS X.

Care to try again?

-jcr

Re:At Least They Didn't Stoop To... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084095)

Can't really say how it compares to OS X since no one but Blizzard puts out games for the overpriced niche platform Apple for some reason still bothers to make.

As of this writing, Newegg has 72 Mac games [newegg.com] for sale, and none of them are Blizzard titles.

Re:At Least They Didn't Stoop To... (2, Insightful)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084399)

Yeah, including such stellar titles as Wingnuts 2, Jeopardy Deluxe, Drop Point Alaska, a brand new Star Wars adventure titled Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (/endsarcasm), etc. Don't ever dare compare the OS X operating system to windows or even Linux with WINE in terms of gaming ever again. There are some relevant games in that list, but most of those are years old. There's a reason why Mac geeks who also happened to be gamers rejoiced when Boot Camp came out. So they could finally play some good PC Games.

Re:At Least They Didn't Stoop To... (4, Funny)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084429)

Don't ever dare compare the OS X operating system to windows or even Linux with WINE in terms of gaming ever again.

I'm curious.. Do you actually expect people to comply when you issue a demand like this?

-jcr

Re:Congratulations! (1)

Stormx2 (1003260) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084081)

"But your highness, she's a commoner, her slurm will taste fowl!"

"Yes! Which is why we'll market it as new slurm, then, when everyone hates it, we'll bring back slurm classic, and make BILLIONS!"

  - Futurama

Re:Congratulations! (2, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084089)

Reminds me of that old Microsoft joke:

Bill Gates dies and in respect to his immense success but his torment of computer users, God gives him the choice of going to Heaven or Hell.

Bill gates goes to hell and Satan is showing him around.

They go into a room that is filled with beautiful women and free running wine. In the background plays sweet beautiful music. "That isn't so bad" thinks Bill, "but i think I'll check out heaven first"

Bill is transported to heaven and shown around. Everyone is praying, or singing hymns whilst fluttering about on their angel wings with their little angel harps. "Hmmm", thinks Bill "this looks a bit dull. I think I'll go back to Hell!"

Instantly Bill is transported to hell where he finds himself knee deep in shit and being tormented by hells' many demons.

"OUCH! SATAN!" shouts Bill,

"What do you want scumbag?" says Beelzebub

"What happened to the maidens and the flowing wine?" says Bill

"Oh, that was the beta version" says Satan

Re:Congratulations! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084509)

It seems every time a new windows product get press here the heathen armies of haters are ready for bloodshed. What makes Vista so damn bad, I use vista64 and it is probably one of the most stable os's ive used to date, I never have to restart and it never throws some bogus quirk at me. I see so much complaining, but it seems like that is all it is, I rarely see any evidence to justify these claims. So please, enlighten me on exactly why this os is the worst thing this side of hell before you complain any more.

Yay (3, Funny)

alexborges (313924) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083435)

NT4 is faster than vista.

So there.

Re:Yay (1)

s_p_oneil (795792) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083887)

And Windows 95 was faster than NT 4.0 (if you don't count the reboots from all the crashes).

First Post (5, Funny)

EEBaum (520514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083443)

First Post! But I posted it with Vista, so it may actually show up a bit later.

How about throwing *nix into the mix? (-1, Troll)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083447)

This test will pitch Windows 7 build 6956 32-bit against Windows Vista RTM 32-bit and Windows Vista SP1 32-bit.

...and this proves what exactly? That tan turds will slide out your ass quicker than brown turds will?

Re:How about throwing *nix into the mix? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083709)

I've often found that white gerbils slide out of my ass easier than brown ones.

Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
Pants are optional

Windows ME-2 (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083459)

It is sounding more and more like Vista really is the newest generation of Windows ME. People hated Windows ME. But Microsoft didn't shove it down anyone's throat so people danced around WinME without concern. But now, removing other alternatives aggressively, people are really getting annoyed with Vista. This is all good for Mac OS X adoption I suppose, but frankly, even though I am a Linux user, my professional life would be much better if Microsoft would either extend the availability of XP or get something better than Vista out the door soon.

Re:Windows ME-2 (1, Insightful)

Robowally (649265) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083721)

What a load of rubbish. I have Vista on several PCs and it is FAR superior to XP in many small ways.

Re:Windows ME-2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083897)

Yes, I'm sure ME was "far superior" to 98SE too.

Re:Windows ME-2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083977)

Posting AC since I already modded in this post.

What a load of rubbish. I have Vista on several PCs and it is FAR superior to XP in many small ways.

That's the thing - many 'small' ways. When you have to go through the pain of upgrading a park of PCs, or having to support a variety of OSs, you really want a compeling reason to do so.

I'm neither an Apple shill, nor a Linux fanboi, but based on my person and professional experience I see no reason to move.

Shoot the messenger. (5, Insightful)

kwabbles (259554) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083907)

This is all good for Mac OS X adoption I suppose, but frankly, even though I am a Linux user, my professional life would be much better if Microsoft would either extend the availability of XP or get something better than Vista out the door soon.

I'm running into the same problem. I've got so many customers that are running either specialty or legacy apps that simply will not run on Vista - or they run into stability issues with apps that are supported by Vista. Then, they basically shoot the messenger and make my life a living hell - since I really have no other alternative for them. When I could offer them XP, I could offer them a stable, working solution that they were happy with. Microsoft has stripped me of that option. I really don't see the light at the end of the tunnel with Windows 7, either. To me, it just looks like what the final release of Vista really should have been. Yes, it may be more stable and have better performance - but that doesn't help me when I need to go and install said specialty or legacy apps on it.

I am basically at a crossroads where I have to take a lot of clients into a completely new system, with completely new applications. And let me tell you - after what Microsoft's done, I'm not about to set them up with another Microsoft solution that railroads them into situations like this again. As long as I'm having to redo entire enterprises, I might as well roll out open source solutions or Macs.

Re:Shoot the messenger. (4, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084309)

Buy volume licenses of Windows Vista. You will have downgrade rights to legally put WindowsXP on machines that need it. Another part of the problem you may encounter is the lack of device drivers for WindowsXP made available by the computer's maker/seller. I had a problem like this once but was able to get around the problem by downloading drivers for a very similar machine that did have WindowsXP support. But we cannot depend on this to always work. The doors on XP are being forcibly shut... and it is a very unpleasant situation for IT professionals everywhere.

Re:Shoot the messenger. (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084505)

As long as I'm having to redo entire enterprises, I might as well roll out open source solutions or Macs.

Right because Apple's so good about offering support for anything legacy? Give me a break.

OSS at least is a decent option, but honestly, Vista is FAR FAR FAR more compatible with legacy windows than anything else on the market. So unless you plan to rewrite and/or find substitutes for practically everything, Vista is probably the best solution.

If you are truly in a situation where a switch to OSS actually makes sense, then you don't actually have all these legacy compatibility requirements you mentioned.

OSS makes sense if you need generic email/web/office or you need a 'terminal' for citrix/web apps/hosted apps/whatever (which does describe a LOT of people) but it rarely really makes sense in a situation where there are a lot of custom Windows apps knocking around, or where you need to use 3rd party apps that are windows only.

Try and find some contact lens design/lab control software that runs on Macs or Linux and integrates into both your accounting system and controls your lens lathe.

Try to run a cellular service center, where you need to run all those 3rd party phone-flash/reflash/updater tools, the latest software from blackberry (blackberry desktop) and microsoft (activesync), where support for mac lags behind windows, and support for linux is a joke. While in the back you've got someone running battery diagnostic software from Maccor or Cadex.

Try to find mac/linux software designed to run an optometrists office. Nevermined the total lack of OSX / Linux patient management systems, you also have to contend with the fact that all the instruments (topographers, perimeters, etc) run windows systems, often with integration features into windows patient management system.

And lets be honest, the companies that need generic terminals or basic office apps - those really AREN'T the ones having trouble with Vista. Its the manufacturers, the service centers, the doctors, etc, and as much as their is migration pain with Vista -- switching to OSX or Linux would make a masochist cringe in fear.

Re:Windows ME-2 (3, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084013)

The problem for Microsoft isn't just that there are more alternatives to Windows in general. The problem is that unlike ME, there are no Windows alternatives to Vista. Businesses had Win 2K. Consumers could stick with 98. Both would only have to wait a year for XP. This time Microsoft offered no other option. Vista or else. That's why they are trying furiously to get Win7 out.

Re:Windows ME-2 (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084125)

But unlike WinME you can actually purchase hardware that will work under Vista and work well. Personally, I've not had a single issue with Vista. I had some initial problems with getting Ubuntu64 installed due to lack of NIC support, but that was taken care of within a month (same for Suse and Mandriva too).

Re:Windows ME-2 (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084141)

It is sounding more and more like Vista really is the newest generation of Windows ME.

Only to people who wish that were true. Its not.

People hated Windows ME. But Microsoft didn't shove it down anyone's throat so people danced around WinME without concern.

WinME was for home consumers not businesses. Businesses never had to deal with ME.

Honestly it really wouldn't have mattered what Vista was. Unless it was fully compatible with 2k/xp they were going to reject it. And if MS had kept it more compatible, they would not have been able to move forwards on things like security. Vista's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but even if vista was simply XP with the ability to run as administrator finally "turned off", businesses would have thrown the same fit they are throwing.

So Vista is slower on the same hardware? Big deal, every OS is. Win98 RAN well with 64MB of RAM, and took a couple hundred megabytes of disk. Try doing that with XP.

So Vista is isn't compatible with a lot of hardware, and buggy drivers abound. That's not new. Think back to XP, again, there was tons of low rent 'consumer oriented' hardware that only had win9x drivers.

The only reason there wasn't the same massive backlash to XP that there was to Vista is that BUSINESSES weren't *really* affected by XP. XP used the same drivers as 2k, so most of the hardware support businesses needed was already in place and mature. XP was little more than a minor update to 2k.

And even then, tons of companies vowed they'd never upgrade, and blasted everything from the color scheme, the deeper integration of windows media player, and the licensing issues (including "windows product activation").

Vista is stable, performs well on hardware its compatible with, is genuinely more secure than previous versions, features a number of real UI improvements. (The new start menu for example), and its desktop compisiting engine is far more modern, catching it up with OSX and Linux (Compiz).

It has its flaws too.. of course, but overall it is actually a decent step forward. It just has the misfortune of being a painful one for users with a lot of legacy dependencies, while simultaneously breaking new ground on the driver front so its has to suffer while it waits for hardware vendors getting drivers to maturity or for users to toss the old hardware.

The next version of Windows is just going to be a more refined version of Vista... but its acceptance will be much higher because the hardware driver issues will have matured, and a lot of the 'legacy dependencies' will have aged into obsolescent non-issues.

Microsoft's strategy is really little more than wait until Vista forces the market to accept the changes, and then launch it all over again with a new name and few tweaks... but because the market will have already mostly accommodated Vista, 7 will be a 'smooth transition'. Its that simple. And its a good strategy, because people are =that= stupid.

Re:Windows ME-2 (3, Informative)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084493)

Let's not forget that MS provided RC versions of Vista to manufacturers well in advance of it's commercial release, and yet most of them could not get reasonable drivers for hardware that was made before Vista in time for the launch. IIRC, the launch was even pushed back due to a lack of a good driver base.

Re:Windows ME-2 (4, Interesting)

Luscious868 (679143) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084201)

Agreed. The consulting business that I work for has an IT services side that I fill in on from time to time if they are short staffed. Most of my clients on the consulting side of the business and most of the small businesses that we provide completely or partially outsourced IT services for that believed they'd need new PC's in the next couple of years (who didn't have volume licenses for XP) have already purchased them so they could downgrade to XP. These are mostly non-tech savvy people here who have either heard bad things about Vista from others or who have some first hand experience with it on a home PC that they purchased and they wanted to be sure to buy new systems while they could still get XP. We have a neutral policy when it comes to Vista so they haven't been doing this at our behest.

In fact, I can count on two hands the number of times I've encountered a client who has one or more machines on-site running Vista. It's amazing to me how few clients we have that have even a single Vista machine and it's amazing to me what a bad rap Vista has with the non-tech savvy crowd.

I don't particularly like Vista and on my box at work I've stuck with XP but I don't absolutely hate the thing either. Perhaps that's because I have limited experience with it but if they replaced my box at work with new PC (and I wasn't given the choice to go with a Mac ... I switched at home in 2006) and the box came with Vista pre-installed I probably wouldn't wipe it and re-install XP unless the box was a total POS and I needed to downgrade for performance reasons. I think the Vista to Windows Millenium comparison takes things a bit too far. Millenium was a complete and total POS that was clearly less stable than Windows 98 even on new hardware that came with the OS pre-installed. I've found that Vista, from the admittedly limited experience that I have with it, isn't that bad when it comes pre-installed on new hardware but Microsoft clearly screwed the pouch with it and I think that Apple is benefiting a little bit. We've had higher ups at a few of our clients opt for Macs in the last six or seven months who have asked us to setup Boot Camp or a VM product to run their Windows apps and if you would have told me we'd be seeing that a year ago I would have laughed in your face.

Re:Windows ME-2 (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084479)

I can count on two hands the number of times I've encountered a client who has one or more machines on-site running Vista.

That's rather interesting. I wonder whether windows 7 is going to see any better rate of uptake.

-jcr

Re:Windows ME-2 (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084511)

Got Vista Home Premium on my Gateway FX Series laptop, and haven't had any issues with it that I didn't already have with XP. Most of the horror stories relate to legacy stuff and old hardware.

Re:Windows ME-2 (2, Informative)

mellestad (1301507) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084391)

Man, I just don't get this. ME really sucked. Vista is stable, has some nice eye candy, and seems to avoid infection better than XP. The only thing against it is a performance hit and driver issues that even a die hard Linux guy will say is not the fault of MS. One of our engineers rants about how much he hates Vista, but it is all silly things like the changed start menu and control panel. We heard the same stuff when XP came out. I can accept someone saying Vista is not a large improvement over XP (and agree) but I really don't get the hate. We run Vista on about 50 PC's, and another 70 have XP, and the Vista machines do not give us any headaches. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? Or is it all UAC? The UAC you can just turn off?

Re:Windows ME-2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084415)

Actually Microsoft did make something quite decent about 20 years ago. It was called Xenix and had a monolithic kernel. Shame on them for selling it to SCO.

Been waiting... (4, Funny)

Slur (61510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083473)

Could this be the version of Windows that will finally get me to switch? Stay tuned!

Re:Been waiting... (4, Funny)

SpeedyDX (1014595) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083613)

Oh boy! I can't wait to find out!

Re:Been waiting... (2, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084217)

Vista got a lot of people to switch... Away from MS.

-jcr

Re:Been waiting... (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084447)

Well, it got me to switch to Apple. First a MacBook, the just last week upgraded to a MacBook Pro.

Re:Been waiting... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084439)

Yes, this will definitely be the year for Windows on the desktop.

Yawn (-1, Troll)

IDKmyBFFJill (1428815) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083505)

Another shameless public masturbation bought to you by Microsoft.

Re:Yawn (0, Offtopic)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083571)

Another shameless public masturbation bought to you by Microsoft.

Since its both "quicker", AND "pre-beta", I think it's probably more like the premature ejaculation scene from American Pie. All the fanbois watching via their webcams, and ... OOPS! AW!!! UCK! Shit, dude, you are SUCH a LOSER!

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084069)

AGAIN!!?!

Don't Worry (4, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083521)

By the time they release it, they'll have fixed this bug.

Under the fancy hood (3, Informative)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083525)

From my tests, not all Vista drivers were 100% compatible with 6.1 (I refuse to call it "7"). I tested some "Vista certified" graphics drivers, and they were real edgy in the latest (leaked) Vista beta. I wonder if the new !backwardscompatible DirectX has anything to do with it, or if Microsoft plans on doing the same to the new WDM.

Then again, it was a beta, and other than that most of my personal kernel code ran fine. Maybe the big-time driver overlords just need more time to catch up with 6.1.

Re:Under the fancy hood (3, Insightful)

TOGSolid (1412915) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083603)

For a second there I was about ready to hollar at you about it being beta. Thank fully I read the entire post before I hit reply.

Sadly, most people will try out a leaked version, see a driver doesn't work and instantly rage against Microsoft (though that behavior is pretty much the norm for any beta program). Yes, I know, the company's reputation at this point, but hell, at least keep the torches and pitchforks in the shed until the final build is released into the wild.

Re:Under the fancy hood (4, Funny)

DrugCheese (266151) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083799)

Why did you read the entire post before replying? Crazy talk!

Re:Under the fancy hood (1)

Anthony_Cargile (1336739) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083825)

Hence the careful wording ;). Just stating what I've seen/eXPerienced so far.

Re:Under the fancy hood (2, Informative)

faraway (174370) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084471)

Man my brother works at MS and had me over last week specifically to demo Win7. I was impressed. Quick and responsive and clean!

I was particularly impressed at the switching speed between apps (in this case Left 4 Dead) which he was able to switch to from another non-DX Windows app much quicker than I can do in XP.

Win7 looked really really promising.

Just wait until they (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083529)

fully embeds DRM in it, then it will be dog slow.

Remove the DRM from Vista nd it is damn fast.

Yes, I've done it.
of course, at My work i have access to the neceSsary tools.

Re:Just wait until they (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083769)

Well, this definitely sounds like it happened.

Not a very high bar to clear (4, Funny)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083535)

It will be about as difficult for Windows 7 to be a better OS than Vista as it is for Obama to be a better president than Bush!

Agree! What *isn't* better than Vista? (0)

KWTm (808824) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083715)

It will be about as difficult for Windows 7 to be a better OS than Vista as it is for Obama to be a better president than Bush!

Exactly! Why compare to Vista, which ranks slightly above Windows ME and slightly below Windows 3.1 for DOS? "Extra, extra! The new system we're making is better than the previous one --we think! But we're still running tests to make sure."

Good job, Microsoft! Or were you referring to Ubuntu 15.04, a.k.a. Vociferous Vista?

And Yet... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084253)

It will be about as difficult for Windows 7 to be a better OS than Vista as it is for Obama to be a better president than Bush!

And yet.... there is still time for both(W7 and Obama) to fail miserably before they even start. :-)

Instead of a modern chipset (2, Interesting)

joeflies (529536) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083549)

Wouldn't it have been a lot more fun for the author to do the benchmarks on an Intel 915 chipset? We all know that Intel 915 was claimed to be Vista certified, so if Windows 7 is indeed faster, shouldn't it work as well.

And wouldn't a great benchmark be "UAC dialog boxes per hour" instead?

I am surprised he was able to publish the benchmarks, usually there are a lot of license restriction on what you can do with pre release code. Perhaps in this case, since it was favorable to 7, maybe he got permission.

Re:Instead of a modern chipset (1)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083787)

Wouldn't it have been a lot more fun for the author to do the benchmarks on an Intel 915 chipset?

I have a better idea - benchmark it against DOS 5.0/Win3.1. That old POS will certainly score points for booting faster, if it boots at all. And points for lower ram usage, and quicker shutdown as well. Heck, you can probably boot it off a CD quicker than Win7 can boot of a hard drive.

QWERTY (1)

palantir (14323) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083569)

It will be slowed down so folks don't tangle the keys.

Microsoft has a history of promising the world (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083595)

and not shipping it. Vista was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and now it's only been 2 years since Vista. Typical to keep people to consider alternatives. With Vista, they set the bar so low, that almost any inevitable improvement in performance gets hailed. Who cares, wake me up when it's the final product and not just some build in the middle of product development cycle.

I think Microsoft will eventually be undone by their long development times unless Windows 7 starts becoming the trend rather than a frantic exception to counter the Vista stigma. Ubuntu and OS X is certainly improving much faster due to relatively short development cycles.

Re:Microsoft has a history of promising the world (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084119)

Posting AC since I already modded in this thread.

I really wonder why they can't do better than this? Surely not ALL the smart guys have gone to Google?

Is it the corporate dinosaur thing, or is it that they just have run out of ideas as to what could be the next great innovation to put into their OS? Any why do they have such an abysmal record of delivering on useful innovations that should, but then did not make it into Vista?

I wonder how much better they could make things if they were not constrained by 'activation' and DRM bullshit.

I don't care about benchmarks... (5, Insightful)

Darundal (891860) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083607)

...from non-final versions of Windows. The early publicly released betas of Vista performed better for me than the later RCs and the finished product, so I have a hard time getting excited about Windows 7 performing great in an early release.

Why no 2008 server compare? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083647)

I've been running it x64 for a few weeks and the reports are true. Even when you turn on the aero services and attempt to run it in the more bloated desktop vista config, it is faster.

Just like 2003 ran faster than XP. XP later got 2003's new heap manager, etc, in SP3.

I'd bet Windows 7 performs like 2008 server.

Wouldn't it be funny if... (3, Funny)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083667)

This were actually another Mojave experiment prank, played on ZDnet?

Older Hardware (4, Interesting)

MrSteve007 (1000823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083671)

It also seems to work quite well on older hardware. I've installed Win 7 Build 6081 on a 7 year old tablet I have around the office (a toshiba 3500).

The tablet has a 1.3 PIII & 512 of ram.

http://geekpi.com/?p=38#more-38 [geekpi.com]

Poor methodology (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083683)

Boot time and synthetic benchmarks are poor indicators of an operating system's performance and usability. It'd be like me comparing the zero to sixty time as the sole metric to judge a vehicle's fitness for use by, say, a college student. Perhaps Miles per Gallon might be better? Or even the number of cup holders? I'll believe Windows 7 is an improvement when it passes the Mom Test... Which is to say, we sit our mothers down at a computer and ask them "Is this better than XP?" But not your mother of course, because she's crazy. ;)

Re:Poor methodology (2, Insightful)

Arainach (906420) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083853)

I agree that synthetic CPU benchmarks are not the way to go - most CPU time is wasted waiting for user input, so a more responsive UI (which the Win7 builds have absolutely had) is a much better benchmark. But the "compare it to XP" test isn't a good usability benchmark either.

Users hate change. To get anything done, you need to shove it down their throats and anger them - hence the anger at the move to Vista and, among other things, a true multi-user security model. But even in pure UI terms, a lot of people will complain because "it doesn't work exactly the way it did in XP". That's too bad. It's called progress. The UI is more responsive and more intuitive, and yet people will continue to complain. (See: Office 2007)

Re:Poor methodology (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084065)

Users hate change. To get anything done, you need to shove it down their throats and anger them - hence the anger at the move to Vista and, among other things, a true multi-user security model. But even in pure UI terms, a lot of people will complain because "it doesn't work exactly the way it did in XP". That's too bad. It's called progress. The UI is more responsive and more intuitive, and yet people will continue to complain. (See: Office 2007)

O_o You assume that people reflexively hate anything new. If that were the case, we wouldn't have technology of any kind to begin with. I find your statement to be either condescending or naive--I'm not sure which.

Re:Poor methodology (1)

Lord MuffloN (1310101) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083893)

I'm running Win7 6956 on a T60 ThinkPad, 1.66Ghz Single Core Intel CPU, 1Gb DDR RAM and a 945GM Express, and you know what? It works MUCH better than WinXP, yes, full aero effects and everything, it's faster then WinXP, not only that, the battery performance is 20min better than XP. I'm tired of hearing all the anti MS crap on /., they may be evil but MS deserves some serious credit for Win7 so far.

fuck a tR0llkore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26083693)

WASTE OF BITS AND GAY NIGGERS from

Defrag the hard drive? (5, Funny)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083727)

He comments:

No optimizations were carried out other than to process idle tasks and defrag the hard drive between each test.

People still defragment hard drives? NTFS isn't resistant to fragmentation?

Re:Defrag the hard drive? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084233)

FYI: Defrag moves file fragments close together to minimize seek time, and to maximize the non-fragmented space available.

Defrag will become obsolete when SSDs become prevalent in a few years.

Re:Defrag the hard drive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084243)

NTFS is less bad than FAT, but still uses clusters etc. so can benefit from defrag from time to time, especially if you have files that start small and then grow, lots of OLTP with frequent file access and modifications, and creating and deleting files.

So, erm, like a fileserver, then.
(NTFS came out with NT as part of Ms's attack on the server market)

Just don't use the default windows defrag crap.

Ext3 is a journalled filesystem so much less prone, but not immune, to fragmentation.

BTW, you can download freeware to use ext3 on a windows platform...see here, for example:

http://tombuntu.com/index.php/2008/03/19/four-applications-for-accessing-ext3-partitions-from-windows/ [tombuntu.com]

Re:Defrag the hard drive? (3, Informative)

Bruce Cran (743059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084337)

NTFS is supposed to be more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, and I'm not sure it actively needs defragmented. However people have become so used to it from previous versions of Windows that it's something Microsoft have to provide - there was even an outcry over the fact that Vista's defrag utility didn't provide a detailed progress dialog to let people see how much improvement was being made.

Re:Defrag the hard drive? (1)

Eudial (590661) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084369)

It could be done to make sure that any cached disk data is invalidated I suppose. But then a reboot is probably smarter.

Re:Defrag the hard drive? (1)

Trogre (513942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084513)

No, no it is not.

- Trogre, a system administrator.

Ah, the new coke gambit (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083767)

Make something that just utterly and outright reeks, so whatever comes next is deemed so much better, no matter whether it's really better than what you had before the stinker.

Brilliant marketing? (1)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083809)

The interesting thing about Windows 7 is that it'll be released surprisingly hot on the heels of Vista. From a consumer perspective I'm sure they're hoping to encourage a lot of people to upgrade from Vista. However, corporate users are likely to postpone upgrades until Win 7 is available. It's like the Osbourne Effect, except in software, "Hey, look! The super-cool new model is just on the horizon, so don't buy our current stuff!" If MS blows their timeline, they're going to end up with a horrendous drop in revenue over the short term. Ah, well. Ubuntu should be rolling out Lofty Lemur for me by then, anyway.

Re:Brilliant marketing? (1)

Miseph (979059) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084127)

"they're going to end up with a horrendous drop in revenue over the short term"

Call me crazy, but I think they're looking at one of those either way; kind of like the one everyone else is staring at.

Re:Brilliant marketing? (1)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084417)

I don't get this. How is an ~3 year lifecycle for an Operating System "surprisingly hot on the heels"?

Why not... (1)

TailGunner (461259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083915)

come up with a 7failure tag and apply it? I mean, Win7 has 0 market share, so why not? Fuckin retards...

Don't get so worked up yet (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083943)

Vista SP1 is consistently slower than Vista, so expect the final Windows 7 will be slower than "early-stage" as well.

No 3rd party apps = vista launch (2, Interesting)

cepayne (998850) | more than 5 years ago | (#26083971)

When Windows7 is thrust upon the end users as the default OS
for new PC's, it will most likely not yet be supported by the
tens of thousands of 3rd party apps.

Vista was pushed out and the only real apps on the market were
a wet version of MS OFFICE2007.

I don't look forward to the new PC's arriving to my office, with
a new unsopported OS. Going on a hunch that Microsoft will
take the opportunity to remove more legacy support, I can
assume that more of our proprietary 3rd party apps will not
work on Windows7,

Our building automation (environmental controls software), our
gas pump management software, or hydro metering subsystem,
and dozens of other apps are doomed on Windows7 as they
currently are with Windows Vista.

Read between the lines that we are still on WinXP and Win2000pro.

MACs are appearing in the office, and people really like them.
XP runs well on them to boot (via vmware fusion).

Microsofts big challenge is going to be convincing the worlds
3rd party developers to embrace this new OS. And to do it
without threats or forcefully pulling support agreements, etc.
MS's typical business practices are their legacy.

Windows7 is akin to GM tossing a hybrid engine into a CHEVY Tahoe. It is still Vista under the hood, with a new skin on the
outside.

Good luck.

And please remember to extend the life of XP for another 5 years. Thanks.

So What? (1, Insightful)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084041)

An early, incomplete, OS is faster than a production ready OS. I can imagine that certain things that might slow an OS down are present in a production build that may not be present in a beta. Sure, the opposite is true, but there is no way of saying that the later outweighs the former.

Two years ago, much the same was being said about Vista. It was powerful, it was redesigned with wonderful new features. About the only hones thing that was said about Vista was that it would not work with much of the hardware that currently in use. This is why people stayed with XP. MS claims that it has many more device drivers, and if the shipping OS is faster, that will help also. But given history, I must wait to see the proof in the pudding.

In any case, I would much rather see MS support standards, rather than micromanage hardware. I mean, is it not a bit ridiculous that I have to download a new driver package everytime I use a different USB drive?

There is no shortcut (1)

code4fun (739014) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084101)

The article just means Microsoft released Vista way too soon. It was half baked and needed to beat on it some more. Apple held up the release of OS X Leopard and put in the quality.

A friend of mine bought a brand new HP system recently. It came with Vista 64-bit. None of his engineering software runs on it and his software costs thousands of dollars. He was hoping to get a faster machine to do his job and naively assumed Vista would just run his software. After spending a couple days fighting with Vista, he is now trying to return the system and get his money back.

Re:There is no shortcut (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084363)

Old software doesn't always run well on newer systems nor on a different cpu architecture. It very much depends on the software. I'm surprised that he didn't bother to check to see if it would run on the new OS before buying his new computer; I'm also surprised he didn't simply put XP on the computer.

One page (1)

g4pengts (1050568) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084179)

This page [zdnet.com] contains all the test results (including XP test) instead of spreading it to 6 pages. It does not have the specification of the system used or a brief description of each test though.

hahaha.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084221)

The title is so funy.... ROFL xD

Reason to switch? (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084247)

Here is the crux. Vista didn't provide enough reason to switch, and the interface was so poorly designed it aggravated users. Every screenshot I've seen on Windows 7 looks just like Vista. 7 will have multi-touch support, but I don't have a touchscreen.

Until I see a reason to switch (ie serious advantages over XP) why would I?

I run openSUSE 11.1 and Windows x64 and I'm happy with both.

MS is in a lose-lose situation on Slashdot. (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084259)

Early Windows 7 build shows performance ups and automatically they are viewed as stupid tests, anything can beat Vista, etc.

Oh well. Even if it beat Linux or OS X or every other OS on the planet at speed, the naysayers would still say that it doesn't matter because it's unstable, or too easily compromised, etc.

Basically, if you want to find fault, you will, and can. Unless you find fault with Linux, then you are obviously flamebait and don't know what you are talking about. :)

The only relevant benchmark... (5, Funny)

billybob_jcv (967047) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084307)

...is how long it takes for the first security hole to be found...

Ubuntu? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26084351)

Which douchebag is going around tagging every story about software with the ubuntu tag? What does a comparison between 2 versions of Windows have anything to do with any other OS? Shuttleworth, is that you?

Maybe people will figure out that throwing random tags around isn't the best idea when they go to do a search for stories tagged "ubuntu" and get presented with a load of crap that has nothing to do with Ubuntu.

SP4 (1)

unit8765 (1411141) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084367)

I think that microsoft could rescue vista by releasing Windows 7 as "Vista Service Pack 4", to keep with Windows' tradition of offering a stable product around service pack 2 or 3. That way, they could attract users to their product, and not force people to switch OS's again. But how do you make money like that?

Did nobody actually RTFA? (-1, Troll)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26084381)

Those are minimal speedups! Have a look at the graphs, don't waste time on the text of the article, and see for yourselves.

I am quite shocked that people give props to MS for... basically NOTHING.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>