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!

32bit Win7 Vs. Vista Vs. XP

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the getting-a-feel-for-it dept.

Windows 641

An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested the latest Win7 build against XP and Vista and came to a surprising conclusion: Win7 performs better than the other 2 OSs in the vast majority of the 23 tasks tested. Even installation. 'Rather than publish a series of 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...'" This review shows only a 1-2-3 ranking for each test, so there's no sense of the quantitative level of improvement.

cancel ×

641 comments

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

I question the results. (4, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315835)

Take results with a grain of salt. He ranks Vista as better than XP on the AMD machine and as nearly equal on the Pentium machine.

Of course, the AMD machine has 4 GB of RAM and the Pentium machine has 1 GB, so that could have something to do with it.

Re:I question the results. (4, Interesting)

N!NJA (1437175) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315941)

WTH! if i had run those tests and come to the conclusion that Win7 installs faster than XP, i would have rushed to the basement, grabbed my Win3 floppies and performed a "3 vs 7 Install Death-Match"!

that just sounds like a fisherman tale....

Re:I question the results. (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316177)

I got you beat man.

-- flings his MS-DOS 6.2 disks at you!

Re:I question the results. (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316315)

One of my instructors finally disposed of his DOS disks last semester. I think the oldest was DOS 2.

Re:I question the results. (3, Informative)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315981)

But the only number-one score for XP was on the Pentium machine - Move 100 MB files a quick glance through the results seemed to imply that XP usually came in second place for moving/opening smaller files, shutting down, and performance of few other tasks which would be attributed to a "stupider" computer. XP did come on second roughly half the time across both machines(from a quick glance, YMMV). It's nice that his charts are simple and straight-to-the-point instead of the usual spreading of the results across 10 pages, but I still find the results hard to believe.

It's possible that the people who compiled the test results rated the OS's from 1 to 3 with 3 being the best ;) and Mr. Hughes confused the data when he wrote the article. And even if he didn't confuse the results, the 1-2-3 standings aren't very meaningful when the first-place OS opened the file in 1.255 seconds and the second place OS opened the same file in 1.26 seconds.

Re:I question the results. (4, Insightful)

purpledinoz (573045) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316037)

If he tested all 3 OSes on the exact same hardware configuration and compared those results, then the tests results are valid.

My major problem with these test results is that he ranked them 1, 2, and 3. He should have put in the actual amount of time these tests took so we could see how much big of a difference it is. 1, 2, 3 tells me nothing. The difference between 1 and 2 could be 0.01% or 5000%.

Re:I question the results. (1)

rfuilrez (1213562) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316133)

Also, where he installed them on the disk could impact performance as well.

|-----7-----|---Vista--|-----XP----|

With 7 being at the beginning and XP at the end, 7 would obviously be faster.
However if he installed all of them to a fresh partition, on the same disk, well that's a little more valid.

(I'm pretty sure that's right...beginning == outside of platter? Correct me if I'm wrong.)

Re:I question the results. (2, Interesting)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316313)

Partitioning the drive won't make the test any more fair. It may lessen fragmentation between each "chunk" of the drive than an OS would ordinarily take (if you decided to falsely assume that you can put more than one copy of Windows on a single partition without it blowing up).

Hard drives are cheap, and quite re-usable. Get three identical ones. Do your testing, throw the results online, and then reformat the drives and throw them in the nearest fileserver.

Re:I question the results. (1)

schwinn8 (982110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316061)

Quite true. A quick search shows that even XP RC1 was supposed to be as fast as Win2k before it was released. In some cases, it was supposedly slightly faster. Of course, we know that this is not quite the truth/reality. For example, some of the articles:
http://74.125.45.132/search?q=cache:DdOzbFHRPI8J:thesource.ofallevil.com/windowsxp/home/evaluation/whyupgrade/performance.mspx+xp+release+candidate+faster+than+windows-2000&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us [74.125.45.132]
and
http://dgl.com/itinfo/2001/it010716.html [dgl.com]

So, as implied by the OP... I'll believe it when I see it.

Re:I question the results. (3, Informative)

Skal Tura (595728) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316139)

i've found out that generally speaking ZDNet articles are total bullshit, with no relevance to the real world.

This article and your example is just one example of that.

Re:I question the results. (5, Informative)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316375)

Take results with a grain of salt. He ranks Vista as better than XP on the AMD machine and as nearly equal on the Pentium machine

Sadly, as much as the SlashDot world not like to believe, this is accurate.

If you have 1GB of RAM even on old hardware, Vista is as fast as XP, as the extra RAM offsets the Vista features overhead and Superfetch and other tricks of Vista help make up performance gains.

With 2GB of RAM, Vista will be faster, even if you have a 800mzh PIII and a 1998 ATI video card.

Vista or should we say the NT kernel in Vista is not slow or bloated, it is the extra features that Vista is doing that consumes RAM that offsets its performance gains over XP. (Search Engine, etc.)

The CPU cycles for the Vista features are light, it is all about RAM. Just like with virtually every Windows and known OS update in history, they want more RAM for the features they add.

- Even for Leopard to perform as fast as Tiger you need 1GB of RAM, which is funny considering Apple was making fun of Vista for the exact same reason.

Here is how it works:

512MB RAM - XP > Vista
1GB RAM - XP = Vista
1.5GB+ RAM - Vista > XP

Windows7 so far is showing that even on 512MB is faster than XP in many cases, which is the result of the event based service manager, that unloads processes/services when not needed and saves RAM.

An example on a running test system with 3Ghz P4 and 1GB RAM:
Vista 41% - OS Consumed RAM
Win7 20% - OS Consumed RAM

See how that might help the Vista RAM overhead and put Win7 back in line with XP?

PS And on this test system Vista is faster than XP - even in gaming with a Geforce 5600 video card.

Still making 32 bit? (5, Interesting)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315841)

When are 32bit OSes going to start going away?

Re:Still making 32 bit? (4, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315855)

I agree. Nobody is selling 32-bit processors anymore.

Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?

Re:Still making 32 bit? (-1, Troll)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315899)

lol. you've drunk the kool-aid, 32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless...

Re:Still making 32 bit? (4, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315973)

32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless...

Unless you have more than 3.5 GB of RAM

Re:Still making 32 bit? (3, Informative)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316409)

Unless you have more than 3.5 GB of RAM

Unless you allocate more than 3.5 GB per process.

PAE has gotten around the 4 gig limit a long time ago.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

Mashiki (184564) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315979)

You mean like 8 and 16 bit addressing? Or did you miss the problems we're having with 32bit allocations?

Re:Still making 32 bit? (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316097)

I'm glad you brought that up, bro.

It's like all the wackos out there want to stop using 8-bit and 16-bit processors [wikipedia.org] and replace them with Pentiums. I'll upgrade my toaster when they pry it from my cold, dead hands!

Re:Still making 32 bit? (2, Interesting)

Cowmonaut (989226) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316197)

FYI, a commonly overlooked issue into why some 32-bit applications didn't initially work on a 64-bit OS was the 16-bit installer program. Occasionally, you could just move file programs over from a 32-bit XP install to a 64-bit XP or Vista install and run it without too many issues. Granted this is largely an irrelevant issue now that 64-bit OSes are prevalent but still. I'm sure in a business environment more than a domestic its still an issue.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316007)

Unless you are one of those crazy people who might want more than 4 gigs of RAM(in practice, given that video memory and a few other bits and bobs also has to cram into that address space, 32 bit x86s with more than 3 gigs are pretty much pointless). With 8 gigs of DDR2 going for less than $100, and desktop applications fatter than ever, wanting more than 3 gigs of memory is not a ludicrous or uncommon position.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (3, Insightful)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316121)

64bit x86 gives you 4 times the general purpose register space and twice as many vector registers, which is a huge benefit for an architecture that's so lacking in register space.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316155)

Some of us would like to actually be able to use 4GB or more of ram.

current desktop 32 bit versions of windows will only support 4GB of address space (XP RTM and SP1 supported more but MS disabled the functionality in SP2 allegedly due to driver compatibility issues).

How much usable ram that translates to depends on how much address space other stuff uses. Afaict most people end up with 3.GB but I have a friend whose machine ends up with only 2.5GB of usable ram under 64 bit XP.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (5, Informative)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316183)

lol. you've drunk the kool-aid, 32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless

There is kool-aid, but you need to check you own cup.

If you are referring to the Apple marketing machine, they ya, 32bit and 64bit are not much different, just larger memory addressing. (Of course OS X is still a 32bit OS could be the reason they like to create this mis-perception.)

On a real 64bit OS, there are 64bit registers and tons of other tricks and optimizations that happen, let alone full 64bit drivers that can shove data to devices oh like Video cards much faster.

If you look at Vista x64 it performs 15% faster than Vista x32 if you have 2GB of RAM.

This includes not only the OS's operation, but even 32bit applications running on the OS.

You see when you have a 64bit memory addressing and can optimize for this in the memory manager you no longer have FS and pagefile lookkup tables for extended amounts of RAM.

You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.

And we could go on and on and on...

Understand yet?

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316355)

The question is, is most of the application level optimization really done? Say I want to deal only with int32s array, I make one on a 32bit processor. Does the 64bit compiler automatically translate this to an instruction fetching two 32-bit words from memory?

Do two 32-bit addition in my program translate to one 64-bit vector addition in my new program?

We could go on and on, but in essence, the compiler has a really tough job to do; I doubt it does that.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (2, Informative)

644bd346996 (1012333) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316407)

While it may take a particularly clever compiler to use the extra width of the registers when operating on 32bit data, even the most basic compilers will be able to take advantage of the fact that there are twice as many general purpose registers.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (2, Insightful)

Just because I'm an (847583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316411)

If you are referring to the Apple marketing machine, they ya, 32bit and 64bit are not much different, just larger memory addressing. (Of course OS X is still a 32bit OS could be the reason they like to create this mis-perception.)

This is true(ish), I grant you, however at least there is a clear intent to redress this issue for the client OS within the next few months with the release of snow leopard [apple.com] and that will be the only OS Apple will distribute.

Microsoft will undoubtedly have versions of Windows 7 in 32 and 64-bit and by default distribute the 32-bit version. I completely understand why they might do this, I might even be convinced it is in their interest to do that, but I think it holds back the development of the platform in general.

Finally Leopard itself does support full 64-bitness, for example Apache on OS X Server is running as a proper 64-bit application. I don't mean to dispute your claims that it remains effectively a 32-bit OS, just that it's not as cut and dried as it might appear.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

justinlee37 (993373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316333)

Yeah, try telling that to my 8gb of system RAM.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315917)

Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?

Of course they can, and do. Vista x64 runs 32 bit apps just fine.

Unfortunately MS doesn't have the source for all the devices out there, and can't just recompile all of those to be 64-bit, and the 3rd party vendors that can do it, would rather not spend the effort -- hell, they kicked and screamed and did a half-assed job of updating their drivers to work with Vista in 32 bit (the main source of most real Vista woe).

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26315931)

Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?

Well obviously they can. What they can't support are:

A) 16-bit applications (rare, but some businesses hang onto them)
B) 32-bit drivers

A should be fixable; Microsoft purchased the guys that make Virtual PC, no doubt they could figure out a way to integrate that transparently into 64-bit Windows if they put their noggins to it.

B is a non-issue for the majority of recent computers. That said, it's still a problem for older harder, and especially for some older peripherals (scanners, printers, etc.). Even for the things which the manufacturers still support, the 64-bit drivers may only be available on the manufacturer's site and not the CD it came with, and the non-tech savvy will have issues and blame it on the OS.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316027)

There are also some applications that explicitly fail to support 64 bit environments(not that this is MS's fault, so far as I know). I had a rather unpleasant session with Dragon NaturallySpeaking 9 the other day, for a user who wanted to install it on his shiny new laptop. A dose of Orca took care of the 64bitness check in the installer; but the application was still a fairly serious mess once installed.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316145)

Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?
To some extent they can. The problem comes when an app relies on a custom driver (either because it really deals with hardware, to help it enforce it's drm, to provide drive mappings or whatever). 64 bit versions of both windows and linux need 64 bit drivers.

For example it is only recently that a netware client has appeared for 64 bit windows and it seems they still don't support 64 bit XP. And it looks like my first generation MPLAB ICD2 will never be supported on 64 bit windows.

MS also decided not to put the effort in to support win16 apps (rumour has it MS created code to do this but didn't release it due to bugs, wine seems to have no problem running win16 apps on 64 bit linux) which until recently a lot of applications either were or used for some support function (installers etc).

Re:Still making 32 bit? (4, Interesting)

DA-MAN (17442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316403)

I agree. Nobody is selling 32-bit processors anymore.

Intel's Atom processor is 32-bit.

Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?

It's the proprietary drivers that make it hard for MS to do the same. In Linux the vast majority of drivers are maintained in source, so this isn't as much of a problem.

Two reasons for this (3, Insightful)

bhpaddock (830350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315985)

1) Netbooks. The Atom processors in most netbooks are 32-bit only. Also consider any other embedded scenario where 64-bit CPUs are not available, practical, or where 64-bit addressing is not necessary.

2) Upgrades. Windows does not support upgrading from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS (you have to choose the "clean install" option). If you want to sell upgrade discs to the vast majority of current customers, you need to sell 32-bit copies.

Re:Two reasons for this (1)

CajunArson (465943) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316239)

About the Atom, while it is true that some models of the Atom CPU are 32-bit only, remember that the devices they are in are likely to have less than 4GB of RAM in them to begin with. The Atom line does support 64-bit (see the N230 used in desktop models), but not all of the Atom parts have it enabled, most likely to save a little bit of power on very small devices.
    Of course... even if Windows 7 is faster than XP, it would still likely struggle on a 32-bit Atom, so the question remains, why put it out in a 32 bit flavor at all... I'm not 100% sure. Frankly, while it would likely cause most of Slashdot to scream that Microsoft has "abandoned" old Athlons and P4's, I wouldn't mind if they went 64 bit only and left some of the cruft behind.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316013)

The last 32-bit only processors were sold about 2-3 years ago so I imagine that most OSes are going to continue to support regular x86 for a long time hence.

Most owners of the original macbooks (Intel Core Duo) would be pretty pissed if Snow Leopard didn't support them because their processors aren't x86-64 compatible.

32-bit CPUs are sold today. (1)

bhpaddock (830350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316035)

See "Atom" for instance.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316149)

Actually, Apple does this on a pretty routine basis. My girlfriend's powerbook is PowerPC based, so Snow Leopard won't run on it. My even older powerbook was 603e based, and couldn't run OSX. My desktop was 680x0 based, and couldn't run OS9.

Apple has transitioned many times throughout their history, each time adding a virtualization layer so that older applications could continue to run on new hardware. This didn't help older hardware run the new OS, but that has been seen as an acceptable compromise.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316217)

PowerPC is freaking ancient and were supported for 7-8 years, which is all you can reasonably expect. That means that the Core Duos will be phased out sometime in 2012 when OSXI comes out (they are going to run out of minor version numbers pretty soon, which will be irritating because 10.11 10.5 under every conceivable mathematical grammar).

Re:Still making 32 bit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316369)

Uh, no it isn't. Apple was selling G4 equipped computers not that long ago.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

BronsCon (927697) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316417)

Offtopic: Your signature is cake.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (3, Interesting)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316087)

What bothers me about Vista 64 is that Microsoft do not let you load unsigned drivers. Got a driver from a vendor that's not signed? You have to go through the trouble of signing it yourself and kicking your OS into test mode. The problem became worse with SP1 when MS made several known workarounds disappear.

I understand they're trying to work against root kits but I'd rather be able to easily install any drivers I choose on my own system then have Microsoft protecting me against myself and causing me all kinds of grief. I've also never been hit by a root kit and I would guess that regular viruses are just as problematic and more common for nearly everyone.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316293)

For people that actually need to load unsigned 64-bit drivers (myself, for instance, to patch tcpip.sys so I can have lots of half-open connections at once), the procedure is actually pretty simple. You generate a cert, sign the driver yourself and then put the computer into "testing mode", which allows for self-signed drivers. The whole process can be automated (for instance, the tcpip.sys patch is now one click plus reboot) so that it's transparent to the end user.

IMO, this is the correct way to do it -- you can sign the driver yourself but you have to explicitly tell Windows to accept that signature. Seems like a perfectly reasonable balance between protecting newbies and not aggravating power-users too much.

References
http://download.microsoft.com/download/9/c/5/9c5b2167-8017-4bae-9fde-d599bac8184a/kmsigning.doc [microsoft.com] (DOC WARNING)>
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=33920573 [rage3d.com]

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

DigitAl56K (805623) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316379)

For people that actually need to load unsigned 64-bit drivers (myself, for instance, to patch tcpip.sys so I can have lots of half-open connections at once), the procedure is actually pretty simple.

I followed the links that you posted and I think my definition of simple is different than yours.

IMO, this is the correct way to do it -- you can sign the driver yourself but you have to explicitly tell Windows to accept that signature.

Alternatively, Windows could tell you "Hey, this driver isn't signed, do you really want to install it?" with the same secure input method used by UAC. Which is pretty much how XP did it (minus secure confirmation). Which is my definition of simple.

You have to admit, the steps you have to go through under Vista are incomparable in terms of required knowledge and level of difficulty. Also, if this is the process MS requires to load an unsigned driver these tools should ship with the OS, not be part of a 2.7GB download.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316159)

aside form the fact that there are still a lot of 32-bit processors out there (AMD Geode, Intel Atom, Intel Celeron M, NVIDIA Tegra, VIA C7/C7-D/C7-M/C3/Eden, etc.), do current applications even gain that much of a benefit from 64-bit OSes or processors?

i know that Adobe has said that Photoshop CS4 takes advantage of 64-bit processing, but aside from people working with huge hi-res images or other extremely memory-intensive applications, most people aren't really going to see much benefit in having a 64-bit OS. a modern low-power 32-bit processor with 2~3 GB of RAM is more than enough for most casual computing applications. the average person would not only benefit from their lower cost, lower power consumption, but the "leaner" 32-bit pointers occupy less space in the memory. most people just don't need a 64-bit address space.

i mean, do Microsoft Word, PowerPoint, or Firefox see any speed increases with a 64-bit processor?

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

TheNetAvenger (624455) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316273)

When are 32bit OSes going to start going away?

Good question, and Apple would be one of the companies to ask first, being that OS X is still 32bit and even the kernel of Snow Leopard will still be 32bit.

The problem with moving to 64bit for companies like Apple and even in the OSS world is drivers. If Apple were to move to a real 64bit kernel, it would require new drivers for everything or provide a performance killing thunking layer that really hurts drivers.

Finding 64bit driver binaries in the OSS is also not extremely easy when dealing with closed source companies providing hardware.

Microsoft addressed this issue with Vista by REQUIRING hardware MFRS to make 64bit drivers along side 32bit drivers in order to get the MS Certifications/Logos for their products. This is a start, and why Vista x64 technically has more 64bit drivers than XP 32bit has.

If you look at Windows PC MFRs today even, Vista 64bit is usually an option and a default install on some models/series.

With Windows7, the driver issue will no longer be much of an issue except for a few legacy hardware users that can't get 64bit drivers.

You also have 'mobile' devices that are still 32bit, and with Windows Embedded - which gets updated with Windows7, it has to run on these 32bit devices and architectures.

Most of the desktop world will leave 32bit behind in the Windows world with Windows7. But that doesn't mean that embedded and other uses for 32bit versions of NT will not be needed in the future so don't expect MS to kill the 32bit version even in Windows8; however, it might not be offered to consumers.

PS Ignore the people that think 64bit doesn't matter, they are drinking either the Apple kool-aid or are working on toy OS technologies that are not 64bit optimized and just 32bit recompiles.

Re:Still making 32 bit? (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316341)

I bought a new machine a year or so back: Core 2 Quad, 4GB RAM, should be a textbook 64-bit machine. I run Windows XP 32-bit on it, even though it means I waste some of the RAM.

The reason is simple: lack of hardware vendor support for 64-bit drivers. It just isn't there for XP 64-bit: in just a few minutes of searching the web, I identified several moderately high-end but not exceptional components in my new system that not only weren't reliably supported on XP64 but also had vendors who openly said they never would be.

Since I had no intention of letting Vista anywhere near any box I owned, that left XP32. If Windows 7 is actually an improvement on XP in some way that is useful to me, I'll consider coughing up the cash for a 64-bit version, but until then, 32-bit it is.

hello (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26315843)

first

Re:hello (0, Offtopic)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315957)

First failure of the day...

Re:hello (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316069)

I really doubt this day was FAIL-free for 17 and a half hours until some retarded FP troll showed up.

win7 performance (-1, Troll)

ian_from_brisbane (596121) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315857)

"Win7 performs better than the other 2 OSs" In other words, it only crashes once a month, instead of once a week.

Re:win7 performance (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315933)

Vista is pretty stable. I know people like to crap on vista but in terms of stability it is far better than xp has been.

Re:win7 performance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26315967)

Vista is pretty stable. I know people like to crap on vista but in terms of stability it is far better than xp has been.

I agree. It's like the stability of a five legged chair versus the stability of a four legged plastic chair.
Who likes chairs anyway?

Re:win7 performance (3, Informative)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316187)

Who likes chairs anyway?

Steve Ballmer, that's who.

Re:win7 performance (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316247)

if you want a stable chair, you actually remove a leg and make it a 3 legged chair - they never rock

Completely useless (2, Insightful)

beef3k (551086) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315897)

This review shows only a 1-2-3 ranking for each test, so there's no sense of the quantitative level of improvement.

In other words a totally subjective opinion with no numbers/statistics to back it up, also known as Totally And Utterly Useless.

Re:Completely useless (5, Insightful)

bhpaddock (830350) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316009)

It isn't useless. It isn't "subjective" since it's based on actual objective measurements. It conveys the indication that Windows 7 has *broad* performance improvements.

It has been suggested that exact numbers were not given due to the beta's EULA clause that prohibits benchmarking against the pre-release build.

Re:Completely useless (1)

no.mantra_no.rule (1444457) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316161)

The article specifically says that he has to use a 1-2-3 ranking to avoid breaking the EULA. Although I wonder if the author could give concrete numbers as long as they are not published, perhaps by personal communication?

Re:Completely useless (3, Insightful)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316241)

You can dance all you want, but the truth is we have no evidence that they even performed testing since there are no numbers. That's not subjective, it's called an editorial/not factual.

If there are numbers out there, other people can compare and go "hey, that isn't what I got using the exact same setup as you tested with", etc.

The eula literally says "NO BENCHMARKING ALLOWED" so this means that this guy isn't even allowed to benchmark. It doesn't say "no posting of a benchmark", it says no benchmarking period. Therefore, he hasn't even done benchmarking. See how this works?

1 2 3 Not Completely useless (1)

deft (253558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316233)

Seems to work just fine for the olympics. If you just want to see who was the best, then its fine. The interesting bit being it beats both when everyone is so expecting another dissapointment. That actually is news till we see more.

It doesnt hope to be a quantitative comparison. And a certain audience really does care about that... just probably not slashdot.

People around these parts like #'s alot more. dont worry though, #'s will come.

When you're dealing with the Olympics (1)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316371)

There are also scores & times to back them up.

When you watch gymnastics, and after the competitor does their routine, you hear a bunch of numbers being rattled off like "5.1, 5.4, 5.3, 5.3, 4.0" (fucking Russian judge). Those are the numbers backing up the results, so people can discern for themselves who came in first, second and third. This does not exist in the article, you're basically just taking their word for it.

It also keeps the reader from performing their own benchmarks and comparing their results with those of the article, meaning that this article really can't be looked at in any scrutiny, meaning that the conclusions that they make are about as reliable as the theory of Intelligent Design (that is to say, sure they're possible, but there's no way that we can verify that - hence why ID isn't considered a science).

Anybody cares? (1)

deanston (1252868) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315925)

Anybody actually believes in others' test results or anecdotal evidence on any technology over his own experience?

Re:Anybody cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26315947)

Furthermore, does any of that really matter versus one's own experience?

Case in point, Windows Me was the best 9x-based Windows I ever used. On my particular hardware configuration, it was stable, quick-to-boot, and with my particular software I had no compatibility problems. That doesn't mean that Windows Me was a good OS, just that it worked great for me.

Rating is bull (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26315943)

How can vista boot up faster than XP.. i have never seen this is a real setup... windows 7 faster vista (I can believe that) but vista & windows 7 faster than XP.. Like above said.. take with a grain of salt..

win7 rocks (2, Interesting)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315955)

I'm using build 7000 right now. And yes, it is clearly quicker than XP, and there arent as many point where it has the potential to stop. It feels very fluid. Its the best windows version yet but a fair margin.

Re:win7 rocks (3, Funny)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316067)

A friend showed me build 7000 for the first time a few minutes ago.

It blue screens in kl1.sys and reboots the whole system every time he tries to register the Kapersky AV it nagged him to install.

I'm showing him Kubuntu 9.04 alpha 2 now, but I haven't found a way to show him a crash.

Re:win7 rocks (4, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316137)

Installing kernel level software that isn't certified for the OS you are using isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.

Re:win7 rocks (1)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316179)

It's not only certified, it's recommended. He got it by clicking the link from the "Recommended Win7 AV Software" (which contains only AVG and Kapersky).

Re:win7 rocks (0, Troll)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316271)

I understand that it may be recommended, but why do you think it is certified? Do you have a link to certified Kaspersky software for Win7?

Re:win7 rocks (3, Informative)

3vi1 (544505) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316393)

So, you're saying that when Win7 nags you and clicking the nag opens up http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx [microsoft.com] , they're pointing you to uncertified software? BTW - I just went to his system and did the install again and didn't get any warning about installing uncertified software, so I'm guessing it's signed.

Are you guys actively testing Win7, or just ragging on people that don't report the bestus experience ever?

Re:win7 rocks (2, Interesting)

networkzombie (921324) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316199)

His antivirus software doesn't work in a beta version of an unsupported OS? He should contact Kaspersky and complain. Maybe he can get his money back. I have b7000 running on a P4 2.8 (800MHz FSB) with 1 GB RAM and it performs pretty well. No crashes at all, but I'm throwing various hardware at it, not software. It really likes multiple video cards with multiple monitors on each card. The only slowdown I saw was opening the event log. The new event log is so bloated that it acts just like Vista. YMMV.

Re:win7 rocks (1)

mrphoton (1349555) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316261)

I wonder if build 7000 has all that wired DRM stuff from the vista kernel enabled. You know, the stuff which keeps your music and video encrypted all the way to the sound card/screen. If it were disabled on this beta then that would be a massive over head removed.

No 64bit test and a 4gb system? (2, Interesting)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 5 years ago | (#26315995)

Do a 64bit test as well as most system today with with 3-4gb ram + video ram and other system stuff go over the 4gb limit 32bit.

Re:No 64bit test and a 4gb system? (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316305)

I can imagine it was because they tested against XP 32-bit among the operating systems. This could in turn be because XP 64 is so poorly supported by driver developers that they couldn't get good matching 64-bit installs.

Different (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316023)

From the comment below it seems he seems to have had different beta experiences than me.

and as a rule beta builds are usually more geared towards stability than performance

That's great and all... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316029)

... but what about gaming? That's the metric I'm concerned about the most. My framerates were down 70% in Vista (HL2EP1). Given my computer is only barely cranking out 30fps on recent games at lowest settings, it's a big deal to me.

Poor (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316057)

Okay, so ignoring the fact that actually XP is "better" than Vista on machines with 4Gb and somehow "Windows 7" is top on virtually all tests on both types of machines (does the word "bollocks" mean anything to you?), this is ENTIRELY subjective.

For instance, one category is "Burning a DVD" with CDBurnerXP Pro. Somehow, XP gets a 3rd place or a 2 while Vista gets a 3 or a 1st and Windows 7 gets a 1 or a 2 (and, in fact, is one of the very few "non-1st" marks awarded to Windows 7). WTF were you measuring? How can you "rank" the burning of an ISO to DVD in the same software on two seperate machines differently between ANY vaguely similar OS's?

The *only* factor that differs is speed, so you're telling me that Windows 7 can burn disks faster than XP or Vista? Fine... show me the statistics, because I don't believe that XP or Windows 7 are that different when it comes to throwing some data down an IDE/SATA cable, yet somehow this idiot has "ranked" the OS's by some criteria and declared Windows 7 a winner.

Subjective, zero evidence for the reasons of the rankings, stupid scale (1st, 2nd, 3rd, then add up the place rankings and see who got lowest - not one single entry where there's a tied-first or other place, so it takes two "first places" to recover from one "third" place on another category), stupid benchmarks in the first place (i.e. burning a DVD is a valid benchmark but not when you don't say what you are measuring and/or what each OS scored - if one OS finished 0.00001 of a second later than the fastest OS, does that put it in 3rd place, for instance?), blatant sucking up.

If you're gonna claim to be a technology journalist and do such a comparison, at least do it vaguely correctly.

And, yeah, it's purely guesswork but the disclosures section on the author says nothing and yet everything I can find from him (even on Linux.com) is anti-Linux, pro-Microsoft and even the hint of possibly-future-pro-Apple stuff he mentions in passing never shows up as anything other than anti-Apple sentiment. We all have our opinions but this guy's just out to boost MS. Either he gets a lot of nice stuff in the post *cough* Windows 7 Beta's, Microsoft hardware to review *cough* or he's on the payroll.

Disregard.

Re:Poor (1)

Constantine XVI (880691) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316235)

(does the word "bollocks" mean anything to you?)

Testicles.

My benchmarking scheme (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316077)

Windows Vista 3rd
Windows XP 2nd
Windows 7 1st

Windows 7 wins... it uses the least number of letters.

Re:My benchmarking scheme (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316323)

...freeing more memory for the benchmark tasks. Of course!

Microsoft has a good version of Vista! (3, Informative)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316099)

Their 64 bit version of Vista is actually the best consumer level OS they've done so far. It's the version that should become Windows 7. It's stable, fast (way faster than the 32 bit version on my machine), and its backwards compatible with almost every application that I've tried.

If they made the default install 64 bits, they'd actually be pushing forward an improvement in their consumer OS. As it is, we'll be living with Vista mk. II.

I'll bet the folks who work on the 64 bit version are scratching their heads wondering why they bother!

Re:Microsoft has a good version of Vista! (1)

Z80xxc! (1111479) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316209)

Some OEM's are installing Vista x64 by default now. Dell does on laptops with 3 GB of RAM or more (which is most of them these days) and has it for many of their desktops, too. HP has it as an option, though I don't think it's default.

Re:Microsoft has a good version of Vista! (1)

Detritus (11846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316253)

I thought that it dropped support for 16-bit Windows applications. That's a problem for those of us that have some old programs that were never updated to run in 32-bit mode.

Just think how fast it will be (0, Troll)

Grand Facade (35180) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316105)

After they add the DRM and Malware tools that don't phone home!

How does it "feel"? (5, Insightful)

john.picard (1440397) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316123)

He tested things like moving files around, compression, decompression... This is all good and fine, but it's probably not the thing that most people "feel" when they use a computer. What I would like to know is how snappy or sluggish does the operating system "feel" when using it for every-day tasks? Does everything halt while the hard drive cranks away when you click a menu? Do the GUI animations help use the computer or do they simply slow you down? That's the sort of thing that matters to most users. How often do you really have to move 100 MB or 2.5 GB of files around?

Re:How does it "feel"? (1)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316203)

It feels faster than a 6 month install of XP and about the same as a fresh install of XP. It starts up faster than XP, awakes from sleep faster than XP, and shuts down faster than XP. Everything else feels pretty much the same. It's pretty much the best OS from MS yet; enough so that I am using win 7 as my main OS even though it is beta.

*Triple-booting XP tablet PC, vista business, and win 7 on a laptop 2.1ghz core2duo, 2gb ram, 32 bit everything, 7200rpm hd.

Re:How does it "feel"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26316243)

Valid point but even those aren't the things that matter in the end to most home users.

I have Windows XP Pro 64 bit. After a fresh install it is fast. After half a year of using it it slows down as a dozen programs have made themselves auto start, registry has all kinds of shit... Unless you are constantly cleaning it. Some of you might say "Well I use windows and don't experience that" but I am pretty confident when I say that then you are in the minority.

So... What benchmarks can never show is stuff that really matters. How does it feel in short time use (as parent asked) and long time use (as the paragraph above).

Also, IMHO all benchmarking should be done in real-life like enviroment. So if everyone have a reason to end up running it with antivirus softwares, firewalls, etc. benchmarking should be done with those.

Re:How does it "feel"? (3, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316285)

How often do you really have to move 100 MB or 2.5 GB of files around?

A benchmark like this still probably matters though, as if it's fast on moving 100 MB (a size more easily measurable than 10 MB), it's likely faster at 10 MB too. And it's at these ranges it starts creeping into everyday use and the "feel" you're talking of.

Re:How does it "feel"? (1)

chanrobi (944359) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316397)

How often do you really have to move 100 MB or 2.5 GB of files around?

Files by aXxo come to mind. And any other legit files that usually come in 700mb, 4.4gb or 7.8gb ;)

Betas are geared towards stability, and RTM aren't (1)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316163)

Important note: Before I go any further I feel I need to make a point, and make it clear. The build I'm testing of Windows 7 (build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400) is a beta build, and as a rule beta builds are usually more geared towards stability than performance.

So, that's why Google keeps releasing betas, as they don't need the performance, and Microsoft keeps trying to get us to buy new RTM releases to help us improve the performance. Now I Get It.

We know /. is a labor of love, so the editors don't get paid, but isn't ZDNet commercial, and should be paying some filthy lucre to get people who can actually write?

Judge it when it's done (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316173)

I've said the same when people complained about crappy Vista beta results, so I will say it again: Judge the system's speed when it is done. No nanosecond earlier.

The reason is simple. First, it's plenty possible that there are still parts missing. Parts that can weigh the system down again. In Vista's case, we saw a pretty good improvement in handling, but this can work the other way 'round too if early results are promising (maybe too promising) and optimizing takes a back seat to other matters.

From what I can see so far, Win7 still has some stability issues. Improving stability often comes at the price of speed. It is entirely possible that MS tried to get a system out for "beta report" tests that is as fast as possible to get these desired effects. Vista's resource hunger and its sluggish handling was one of the core gripes reviewers had, so it was likely the first tests Win7 will be put to will be about speed and handling. Vista had no really crippling stability issues (aside of driver problem which are arguably the hardware supplyer's problem), so this won't be one of the things reviewers will make a big fuss about.

So what did they produce for a beta review? Exactly what we have here. A system that is as fast as it can be, everything else back to the corner there. Yes, it's maybe crashing from time to time, but it's beta, you know, and Vista already was stable, so they'll get that done by release, no worries. Now imagine it was the other way 'round, stable as a rock but sluggish. Yes, it's beta, so the speed issues could be ironed out, but reviewers would have had a field day with it.

Bluntly, I don't give a flying fsck about a beta review of Win7. Wake me when it's ready for release. In other words, when SP1 arrives.

Let's wait for the final version (1, Interesting)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316193)

Does Win7 seem faster than Vista or XP ?

Don't worry, Microsoft has still plenty of time to fix this behaviour !

BTW, the article is really lame, since there is absolutely no indication why Win7 is faster.

How much did the writer get paid by Microsoft for this advertisement ?

Re:Let's wait for the final version (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316291)

No, it really is fast for a beta and compared to Vista, even XP, this has been independently confirmed by now since beta 1 leaked. Really, you don't even care to check, and waste our time.

No extra garbage (2, Insightful)

arkham6 (24514) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316213)

I'm sure the fact that this build of windows does not have tons of extra bells and whistles installed, thus leaving more system resources for doing benchmarking.

Re:No extra garbage (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316299)

I'm sure the fact that this build of windows does not have tons of extra bells and whistles installed, thus leaving more system resources for doing benchmarking.

No, it has bells and whistles installed. I mean, if you called it that in Vista? It even has more bells and whistles than Vista, as expected, and these effects are enabled.

Notebooks? (2)

hack slash (1064002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316339)

Has anyone tested it on an Asus Eee or the like in comparison with performance of XP on the same machine?

I think that would be an important test what with vendors clinging onto selling XP with laptops/notebooks for as long as possible.

It could be (4, Insightful)

ShooterNeo (555040) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316351)

The general feeling around here is that no-one WANTS to believe it is even possible that Windows 7 doesn't suck. Because if that were true, that would sort of devalue everything done to improve Linux the last few years. (because if Windows 7 is fast and stable and lets you play games, that doesn't leave any room for Linux on the desktop)

It could actually be that Microsoft got it right. It may be that the core of Vista is not as terrible as we all think it is. I've seen posts discussing how Vista uses a completely refactored kernel, with more layers of abstraction and cleaning up of many of the quirks of win32.

Then, on top of this decent foundation, they overloaded it with poorly thought out gimmicks in an attempt to compete with Apple. In addition, some of their rewrites introduced new bugs, such as the networking problems where Vista machines are unable to talk to shared file servers.

It's possible that Windows 7 succeeded. If they fixed the bugs, and ripped out some of the bloated, inefficient Vista code then you might have a decent OS after. Microsoft might be a monopoly, but if they sat on their heels for too long, eventually (it might take 10 years) alternatives would overtake them.

i'd like to see... (1)

boxlight (928484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316373)

I like the approach of casually rating the performance of common tasks (copying files, zipping files, installing Office, and so on).

But what I'd like to see is the tasks rated with the time it took, not just ranked 1, 2, 3. I mean, is the difference from #1 to #3 just a couple seconds, or it is minutes? 10 seconds versus 13 seconds to copy 100 megs is negligible, but if it's 10 seconds versus 110 seconds, then that's something care about!

Also, do all the tests on the same hardware. And so the tests for Mac Leopard and Snow Leopard too. NOW that would be a cool article!

here's my wish list (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316395)

I'm cautiously optimistic about Windows 7. I've held off moving from XP to Vista, but Windows 7 might convince me to leave XP. That said, here [blogspot.com] are my pet peeves that still aren't (and may never be) addressed.

Where's my 64 bit windows? (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26316405)

Everything I've read says XP and Vista 64 aren't true 64 bit OSes. DX10 isn't a large enough improvement in graphics over DX9 to warrant switching to Vista, and I'd like to be able to use more than 4GB of ram (RAM IS CHEAP!) with no problem. Will it be Windows 8 or windows 9 that we finally get a decent 64 bit os from microsoft?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?