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!

Windows 7 "Not Much Faster" Than Vista

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the its-the-pedal-on-the-right dept.

Windows 821

PLSQL Guy writes "Tests of the Windows 7 Release Candidate in a PC World Test Center found that while Windows 7 was slightly faster on our WorldBench 6 suite, the differences may be barely noticeable to users. The PCs tested were slightly faster when running Windows 7, but in no case was the overall improvement greater than 5 percent, considered to be a threshold for when an actual performance change is noticeable to the average user. One of the major complaints about Windows Vista was the fact that it was consistently slower than Windows XP. If Windows 7 can't significantly improve that situation, what chance does it have to convince people to move away from Windows XP?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered


Weren't the earlier betas much faster? (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859281)

Is there some code like this in every windows release?

#ifndef BETA

Re:Weren't the earlier betas much faster? (5, Funny)

Big Nothing (229456) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859409)

I modded you up because your sig ordered me to. Fortunately, the sig doesn't say anything about posting comments afterwards.

sudo don't change your sig

Vista is Already Fast Enough (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859413)

What kind of shit programming language are you using anyways?

Is that KASH. What kind of circumcised douchebag uses Kike Again Shell?

That programming language is for scheming Jews.

Re:Weren't the earlier betas much faster? (2, Interesting)

mario_grgic (515333) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859611)

No, but there is a switch to turn on all kinds of DRM in release version.

Re:Weren't the earlier betas much faster? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859781)

In all seriousness, I'd like to see a comparison of RC to beta. Saying its closer to vista than you think doesn't mean much to me except setting off FUD alarms. I've been using the beta since it was released, and performance wise it's fine. XP is obviously a little faster, but on any actual hardware that I'm likely to personally use, the difference is negligible.

Now if it's getting slower from beta to RC, then that's worth knowing.

A pretty good one, actually (5, Insightful)

Gorm the DBA (581373) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859291)

Once vendors start including it on the box by default at build time, people will adopt it.

It's too much hassle to switch back *for the average user*.

Yes, the Slashdot crowd will rollback, but for Joe "I just wanna check e-mail and look at my porn on the Intraweb", whatever comes on the box at purchase time will be the OS he uses...and that's a majority of the market right now.

Re:A pretty good one, actually (1)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859345)

Those "Joes" would be better served with a Anything-but-Windows OS.

Re:A pretty good one, actually (5, Insightful)

Gorm the DBA (581373) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859429)


"Okay Joe, here's your options, you can take this box home for $699, plug it in, turn it on and it will work reasonably well...*OR* you can use your old PC to download one of 1000 linux variants, all with different advantages and disadvantages, copy it over to this new box, spend hours installing and tweaking it, with no guarantee it will work with this hardware, and then it will work....reasonably well.

which way is Joe gonna go?

Re:A pretty good one, actually (4, Informative)

John Betonschaar (178617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859513)

Yeah because

1) insert ubuntu live cd,
2) enter your name,
3) choose guided install,
4) wait,

Really is a bridge to far for average Joe... :-/

Only thing Joe has to make sure if he wants his old PC to work right out of the box is to have someone check his wireless chipset if he even has one. That's about the only piece of commodity hardware that's sometimes a problem with modern linux distro's.

Re:A pretty good one, actually (5, Insightful)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859565)

Where does Joe get his Ubuntu Live CD?

Windows can't burn ISOs out of the box (or XP can't) and he likely doesn't know what a "ISO" is anyway.

Re:A pretty good one, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859641)


Re:A pretty good one, actually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859643)

7 can

i burned my windows 7 RC1 disc using the util in windows 7 b7000, wether vista also does this, i dont know (sidestepped that one..)

Re:A pretty good one, actually (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859893)

wouldn't windows get sued for antitrust crap if they included an iso burner with windows 7?

Re:A pretty good one, actually (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859925)

I'm not going to argue that Ubuntu is good for "Joe", but getting it isn't exactly difficult.

Even if he's a total retard and can't burn the ISO... even if he's an impatient mofo and can't wait for the free disk to come in the mail... he can still use the Wubi [ubuntu.com] installer, which can be installed from right inside Windows.

Re:A pretty good one, actually (3, Insightful)

wh1pp3t (1286918) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859829)

I propose all the people pushing Joe to use Linux sign a registry to be a public technical support contact (no, forums are not a substitute).

As a Solaris and Redhat sysadmin, I love all things *nix, but have to concede it is still not ready for prime time.

Re:A pretty good one, actually (3, Insightful)

I'mTheEvilTwin (1544645) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859945)

you forgot the part about telling Joe that none of his old programs or games will work anymore. Now he is going to have to search out FOSS apps that may or may not be complete. Don't even start on the "it will run under Wine" argument because who is going to set that up for him? For that matter, who is going to tell him about it in the first place?

Re:A pretty good one, actually (1)

kingcobra0128 (1131641) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859951)

As per all Linux's out there You still have to tweak and make things work. Still they haven't got Bluetooth wireless headsets to work properly. And Gaming lets not even go there

Re:A pretty good one, actually (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859451)

> Once vendors start including it on the box by default at build time, people will adopt it.


Once shooters start blasting victims by default at dinner time, people will adopt it.

...as if they had a choice.

Oh, and so people know, vendors don't 'include' anything they don't have forced on them either by contract or coercion, which when MS is involved, is the same thing.

Windows 7 vs. XP (4, Interesting)

yakatz (1176317) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859297)

When I run Windows 7 vs. Windows XP Pro in Microsoft Virtual PC, the performance in many areas is the same and also notably faster that Vista. Tests in a lab environment frequently do not represent real world result.

Re:Windows 7 vs. XP (2, Interesting)

briggsl (1475399) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859443)

I personally also noticed and instant improvemant in boot times, performace and feedback from the OS compared with Vista Ultimate and Windows XP.

Re:Windows 7 vs. XP (3, Informative)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859651)

The first beta release though is SIGNIFICANTLY faster than the RC1. Most of us here are very disappointed with the RC released this week...

Typical for MSFT to screw things up. I wonder what they "added" to make it slower than the beta.

Re:Windows 7 vs. XP (2, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859799)

The benchmark they ran has an obvious flaw. They are benchmarking applications. Applications use the same code on Vista as on Windows 7, they don't operate any differently so naturally performance is going to be exactly the same.

The only area Windows is going to make any difference is in terms of caching and system calls, and maybe some better memory management, but 5% is pretty much all you would expect for that.

Javadot is much slower than Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859315)

This javescript loaded Slashdot is epic slow on IE8/Vista. Just saying....

So stability doesn't mean anythign anymore? (4, Insightful)

FlickieStrife (1304115) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859317)

I've never had a problem at all with Vista's speed, it was the stability and incompatibility with many software packages that made it not really worth the money, seeing that in Win 7 XP mode is available and that it (even the beta) is much more stable than vista, i have to call shenanigans on whoever made the comment.

Its all about marketing (1)

gsaraber (46165) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859319)

Because the marketing department will tell them it's faster, maybe they'll commision a few "studies" that show it's faster.. and voila.. all the people who didn't do any actual testing will think and say its "a lot faster".

hmmm... (1)

rvJJax (1165589) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859323)

did they try it with anti-virus installed ?
try it and keep running several weeks and then do a benchmark again.

What else did we expect? (4, Funny)

jkrise (535370) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859331)

Vista SP3 PLUS Marketing hype PLUS Lipstick on a Pig... doesn't make it much faster.

My guess is that XP will live a long long while on Netbooks at least.

Re:What else did we expect? (4, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859499)

Vista SP3 PLUS Marketing hype PLUS Lipstick on a Pig... doesn't make it much faster.

You're absolutely right. The thing is though, Vista is a good operating system that is plagued by a stigma that is largely persisted by technology sites that, by default and in some sort of nerd conformance insist that all Microsoft products are garbage, an opinion formed with disregard to objectivity. By rebranding Windows Vista as Windows 7 and getting some tech sites to view it in a positive light, the layperson who holds any nerds technology opinion as inherent truth will be more apt to try and view it in a positive light as well.

Re:What else did we expect? (1, Flamebait)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859607)

You're absolutely right. The thing is though, Vista is a good operating system that is plagued by a stigma that is largely persisted by technology sites that, by default and in some sort of nerd conformance insist that all Microsoft products are garbage, an opinion formed with disregard to objectivity.

No, Vista got slapped with the reputation for being a worthless piece of shite by, hmm, let's see, being a worthless piece of shite. In other news, porcupines object to being described as "prickly."

Re:What else did we expect? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859633)

Vista is a good operating system that is plagued by a stigma that is largely persisted by technology sites
Yes, and you're an intelligent coherent person plagued by a stigma that is largely persisted by psychiatrists.

Speed is one thing, how about the DRM? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859351)

Vista was locked down so hard that it was almost impossible to copy.

I do most of my installs from the same pirate disc, I just make sure my clients have enough licenses to cover their workstations.

If I was expected to nurse along the factory image, and call an 800 number to re-authorize it, well, I'd undermine that platform so I didn't have to support it.

Let's face it, guys, the reason we don't use Vista is due to the copy protection, it's way too intrusive.

Re:Speed is one thing, how about the DRM? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859845)

Ah great, modded down by some marketing chick at Microsoft. Haven't their ips been banned? Astroturfing sellouts...

What? (5, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859355)

The question isn't whether 7 is faster, it's whether it's faster on shitty hardware. Vista has run pretty well since SP1 by most accounts, but only if you have big iron to run it on. Windows 7 is allegedly dramatically faster on limited systems, you know, the kind with less than a gigabyte of RAM. (My teenage self sitting at a Sun 4/260 with 24 MB of RAM would be fucking speechless, though.)

Re:What? (2, Interesting)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859419)

The question isn't whether 7 is faster, it's whether it's faster on shitty hardware.

Agreed. Running XP wasn't that stable when it was first released, and it didn't even support all my hardware, Vista does, but since my system is just enough to be considered usable with the aero interface I decided to use Vista. I know that as soon as the first service pack comes out for vista a lot of problems will be addressed, but why should we have to wait for that? I could run linux only, but it is more useful as a backup system since most of my favorite apps run in windows, like office. I don't choose to use a windows emulator in linux to run my windows programs, because that just seems obsurd. I really don't understand why OS's such as OSx and xgl linux can run on hardware that aero won't run on. It just doesnt make sense why microsoft doesn't produce a nice graphical OS that supports more standard workstations, but it does if you think about how much more hardware people are going to have to purchase if they want aero running smoothly on par with OSx or XGL. Microsoft just needs to realize that it is digging a hole for itself while more people realize how smooth and beautiful XGL or OSx run with half the amount of $ spent. For the price of a really nice vista system with aero you could have a system running OSx and another running XP and linux with XGL.

Why, my dear little poo, is this the case?


Re:What? (3, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859639)

my dear little poo

Okay, NEVER AGAIN. Thank you.

Back on topic: I feel that Vista is the fall that comes after pride. Microsoft thought that everyone would just play along again. They were wrong. There are real alternatives today. With that said, OSX and Vista both have smoother animations than Compiz, and Xgl [wikipedia.org] is dead, long live AIGLX [wikipedia.org] .

I did have Compiz+Xgl working on Ubuntu once, I forget if it was Hardy or Intrepid. It was awesomely fast. I look forward to having that experience again someday. (For example, the Magic Lamp transition was actually fluid, no joke. I have a Quadro 2700M in 8 bit mode and it's not fluid here. I miss Xgl.)

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859717)

You know what else is Faster on Limited systems (And Very limited Netbooks)?

Windows XP.
Nuff' Said, down with Win7.

Damn it... (5, Funny)

Bicx (1042846) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859357)

I want to be excited about Windows 7, and I don't need to hear this nonsense. I want hype. I thrive on it, and it makes me want to get up in the morning. I'm just going to pretend like I didn't read this.

Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859363)

It's a RC not a final build. Final Builds area ALWAYS faster.

Beta or Gold? (2, Insightful)

Smidge207 (1278042) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859365)

Bah. Whether Windows 7 ends up 'faster' will have everything to do with the final version, and not the beta versions. Too many times in the past, Microsoft has released promising betas and release candidates, and delivered a hopeless mess, so Windows 7 benchmarks have little validity at this point.

A beta like this tends to attract more nerd-boys with faster specced systems than mainstream users. They kept the 'old' graphics driver because their system was stable for all of the time preceding the beta. They end up with the newest graphics driver with the beta and get what seems like a big improvement in performance.

They had a fragmented Windows partition with a hundred million hooks to nowhere in the registry. They install a fresh new beta on a freshly formatted partition. WOW! What an improvement! They install it on that second hard drive that happens to be newer/better than the one they were booting the previous OS from. Relatively few people are installing a fresh XP partition and patching it up with the best drivers, then installing a Windows 7 partition along-side it on the same drive. And of course it's going to be somewhat faster than Vista. All they gotta do is strip out the DRM and get a boost. Of course, they might have to put the DRM right back in again the week before they ship, because of the contracts they signed with various media outlets.


The test is flawed (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859375)

I read the FA, and the authors did not take any precautions to ensure that their computer had not been tampered with by Italians, or that Italians were not interfering in the system's operation during the test using their nefarious Italian network messages. Without the proper anti-Italian protections, computers can behave erratically and even dangerously. It is a sad commentary on the lax attitude to system security in M$ Windows that in this day and age, protection against Italian attacks is not enabled by default. Does Bill Gates want us all to catch the Italian virus flu?

5%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859387)

5%? That's still very, very low - 5% is about what you'll notice without resorting to tools, profiling etc. if you're actually *looking* for a change.

If you're not, the minimum difference that you'll notice ("gee, this computer seems faster than the old one!") is on the order of 30%. And even that's just *any* difference - we're still not talking about huge jumps.

Not to defend Microsoft (2, Insightful)

Rich2k (1227830) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859391)

But should an operating system that is 8 years older really run just as fast, if not faster on exactly the same hardware? I suspect the answer is, it depends. It depends on many factors, such as new features, new processes or simply extra bloat.

Re:Not to defend Microsoft (2, Interesting)

zorro-z (1423959) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859517)

Your essential point- that XP is almost 10 years old, and therefore able to run on lesser h/w than either Vista or Win 7- is a reasonable one. But a better question is: what does the new OS offer to make it a 'must' for people currently using the older OS. If people figure that Win 7 is going to run only marginally faster on brand new equipment than XP does on their current, older equipment, it's a major disincentive to purchase the new PC w/the new OS.

In other words, even if Win 7 is a major improvement over Vista, users may still hesitate to adopt it, for some of the same reasons that they hesitated to adopt Vista.

Re:Not to defend Microsoft (1)

Rich2k (1227830) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859659)

Well, exactly, except to say for the Vista/Windows 7 GUI.... OMG shiny, I must upgrade!

Re:Not to defend Microsoft (1)

Renraku (518261) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859591)

There's only so much more graphics you can add until you start enabling things like 16x anti-aliasing to use up that spare CPU power.

Re:Not to defend Microsoft (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859647)

But should an operating system that is 8 years older really run just as fast, if not faster on exactly the same hardware? I suspect the answer is, it depends. It depends on many factors, such as new features, new processes or simply extra bloat.

I'm sure that OS X 10.0 would not run just as fast if not faster on the same hardware as Snow Leopard will...

Re:Not to defend Microsoft (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859755)

Not exactly a fair comparison, because OS X 10.0 sucked and most of the changes in 10.1 and 10.2 were optimizations and fixes to old and crufty code. Compare it to OPENSTEP 4.2, which ran very well on a 486 and flies even in a VM on a modern system and you'll find it much, much faster than Snow Leopard. Then compare what they do, and see if it's worth the extra hardware cost.

Not 8 years older (2, Interesting)

averner (1341263) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859783)

Windows XP got slightly more bloated with every service pack and security update. We're comparing Windows 7 with XP SP3, not the original XP. In other words we're not really comparing an 8 year old OS.

Re:Not 8 years older (1)

Rich2k (1227830) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859873)

Except that the article does not mention what version or SP of XP they are comparing against so their evaluations can't be genuinely compared until they actually give all details I'd expect XP and XP SP3 to give different benchmarks

It certainly seems faster to me.... (4, Insightful)

Tomsk70 (984457) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859395)

...but then we haven't had to deal with the needless bloatware that all the manufacturers love to install - *that* will be the test.

You know the drill....needless print engine? check. Unasked for toolbar/ systray icon? Check. Several services running for a single device (Creative, ATI, et all)? Check...

Fact Vs Fiction (3, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859399)

Fact #1: Microsoft's strategy when it comes to software sales: sexy > stable > performance.
Myth #1: Windows is only getting faster and better.
Fact #2: MS Marketing's job is to convince you that Myth #1 is true while at the same time maintaining sex appeal.
Fact #3: Windows 7 is still Windows.

Re:Fact Vs Fiction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859505)

Whilst it's Apples job to convince you that Myth #1 is true while at the same time maintaining same sex appeal.

history... (3, Insightful)

bartok (111886) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859403)

I still use Win2k because it is faster and uses much less memory than XP than anything MS has released after it, yet the vast majority of people changed to newer versions. The same could be said of every Windows release before that. I don't see why it would be different this time around.

Re:history... (2, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859675)

There is a reason people change. At the moment, on this system, XP is using about $18 worth of Ram (and that price has since come down) and less than 2% of the 3 year old processor.

I guess there is the argument that those are really high and not worth the added features of XP, but I don't agree that those values are high, and just the somewhat better hardware support is worth it.

Windows 7 is Mojave (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859421)

The way they developed this release makes me think Windows 7 is Mojave ...

Hardware improvements, duh. (1)

iamhigh (1252742) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859435)

If you release a new OS that adds features and stays "as fast" on the same hardware, when you put that OS on new hardware, it will seem much "faster" to the end user.

Windows really needs to push 64bit, as a box with a quad core processor and 8gb of ram will be standard in 2010. On that hardware, 7 should run fairly well (until the average user has used it for 6 months).

Save Vista! (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859449)

Windows 7 is CASTRATED APPEASEMENT to soy latte-sipping girly-men who wish they owned a Mac. We want a REAL operating system. An operating system that PERSONIFIES America's INDUSTRIAL MIGHT. That makes you feel AWE at the MAJESTY of the progress of its operation. VISTA is a monument to everything that makes us the country we are!

Like Chrysler, like Hummer, like Edsel - "Vista" is a name that will be remembered as the greatest operating system in Microsoft's history.

Just Say "No" To Seven -


Original blog post [today.com] - Facebook group [facebook.com]

We want ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE to join this group. So far we have nearly 30. TELL ALL YOUR FRIENDS!

"I fully support this initiative. My computer business employs 200 people; the best possible thing for it is to make sure Vista continues and goes forward." - M. Shuttleworth, London

"I can't tell you how much Vista has done for my business. So many people depend on it." - S. Jobs, Cupertino

"Vista is the one thing that will keep people seeking out and using systems that are at the forefront of technology. It's been the best thing for all of us." - L. Torvalds, Portland.

"I'm ... I'm touched. *sob* I didn't think anyone cared. You guys. Developers! *sob*" - S. Ballmer, Seattle.

Windows 98 FTW (4, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859453)

Shouldn't it be expected that Vista/7 would run slower than XP which was initially developed during a time when hardware was much slower? It's not bloat, it's taking advantage of current hardware to implement new technologies. Go throw Ubuntu on a computer from 2001 and then go cry about how Linux has gotten slower. What the hell is the difference? Get off my lawn?

Re:Windows 98 FTW (0, Troll)

Idaho (12907) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859625)

It's not bloat, it's taking advantage of current hardware to implement new technologies.

Where by "new technologies", you mean mainly "DRM".

Oh, and also a GUI that gives the impression that some Microsoft techies looked at Mac OS X, decided that the important technical improvement was that it uses OpenGL to draw the GUI, and then implemented some design-by-committee monstrosity on top of that, too.

Thanks, but no thanks. I'll stick to Mac OS X, Linux, and XP for the occasional gaming session, thank you very much. If I saw any actual "improvements" that I would care about in Vista, I'd have installed it long ago. Unfortunately for Microsoft, I don't.

Re:Windows 98 FTW (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859737)

That's not good enough.

The software I use runs fine under XP.

There is nothing the operating system can do that is more useful than running my application perfectly.

What possible benefits could a new operating system that runs my software slower have?

Microsoft need to remember that some people really don't give a shit about their operating systems at all, other than that the software they need works.

I run one app full screen all day. The only difference I will see in Win7 is slightly different window decorations and a different 'start' button. Is that really worth lower performance?

Not quite your point but... (3, Interesting)

Sits (117492) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859769)

I have a recent Ubuntu on a machine from 2000. Things actually feel faster than they did back in 2000 because the kernel itself is more preemptible and things like the IO scheduler have shown up in intervening years. Firefox feels better than Netscape 4 and so forth. Suspend to RAM/hibernate work for me with newer Linux releases (yes I am aware that it's still an issue for others). On boot more things happen in parallel which makes things faster. ACPI support is much improved.

The machine itself still has a dual booting Windows 98 on it (not the original install) and that runs quickly but again became "faster" over time with the release of new drivers before eventually becoming slower as the drivers became focussed on newer hardware.

You happened to pick a point that can go both ways (usually software becomes slower but it can go the other way). OSX is apparently another piece of software that has allegedly become faster on subsequent major releases (I'd imagine this only applies to fresh installs).

I wonder whose lawn I've just stood on - it's simply too easy to do...

Re:Windows 98 FTW (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859851)

They're actually taking a page from Apple. How? Remember how people keep saying that Mac OS X 10.2 is faster than 10.2, and 10.3 is faster than 10.2, and 10.4 is faster than 10.3? Well, MS just made Vista slow intentionally so that Windows 7 will seem faster, because it really is!*

*for those who lack a sense of humor, that was a joke by the way.

Re:Windows 98 FTW (1)

silver007 (1479955) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859933)

I totally agree. Isn't every new OS -expected- to be slower? They are always slower on the -same pc- and for obvious reasons. Linux is no different, albeit newer versions can be tweaked to run as/nearly as fast as older versions. I feel like I'm missing some huge chunk of info that 'everybody else knows'...

Stop with the !legos (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859469)

Yes, we all know that the proper name of the product is Lego. No 's'. We know this. When I was growing up, I called it Legos. Everyone called it Legos. Even now most people still call it Legos.

Legos legos, legos. Legos; legos legos. Legos.


Hardware (1)

just_another_sean (919159) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859477)

Maybe, and this is typical of them, they are just hoping hardware improves enough in the time running up to the final release that people won't notice.

They said the same about XP (5, Interesting)

FTWinston (1332785) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859491)

One of the major criticisms of XP was that it was much slower than 98.

Hell, I vastly prefer vista to XP, on account of it doing much fewer crazy and unpredictable things, and I look forward to 7.

the concept is "fast enough" (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859493)

a lot of these changes in speed are not noticeable. not many users care about the difference between 10ms and 100ms (unless it stacks of course). so vista is slower because when you hover over a placeholder in the taskbar, you get a little graphical popup of the window in question. do users like this? do they not? what is the trade off in speed? if it is on the order of 90ms, no one is really going to care, regardless of the marginal usability increases

to reverse the argument, look at the popularity of netbooks: a laptop with a cellphone's processor. this is acceptable to most because they aren't playing the latest fps or running photoshop, they are just reading email and web surfing, and the price differential makes it worthwhile. not that windows 7 won't be more expensive than a free os, i'm just dismantling the notion that the average user cares that much about speed at all

we are at an age where "fast enough and cheaper" is more important than "fastest". and yes, windows 7 is trying its darndest to compete on those principles in the netbook arena. stop poopooing windows 7's speed and start focusing on the gains that free os is making in the netbook arena, and focus on leveraging and extending those gains while microsoft scrambles to stay relevant

kind of like how the wii stole the thunder from the monster processing power of playstation 3: most people don't care about some redhead's hyperrealistic flowing hair. they just want a little pubhouse dartboard-and-foosball level time wasting light hearted fun. slower (and cheaper) is the new frontier nowadays. speed just isn't that big of a deal anymore. speed is a 1990s era concern of guys pouring liquid nitrogen on their processor

get over it. "fast enough" has been achieved. speed is only the concern now of a small minority of power users

Re:the concept is "fast enough" (3, Insightful)

averner (1341263) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859889)

"fast enough" has been achieved. speed is only the concern now of a small minority of power users

Vista was not "fast enough", due to being marketed for laptops with 512 MB RAM that couldn't handle it. Windows 7 is "fast enough", due to 3 years of improving hardware, even if it wasn't any faster than Vista. I'm betting Vista could have done very well if it was released this year or even last year, and only on systems with 2+ GB RAM.

Doesn't matter (1)

Joseph Lam (61951) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859497)

By the time it is released people don't need to be convinced to move away from XP, they just will/have to move either because their machines are too obsolete, or too crippled by viruses/spywares/whatever junk accumulated over the years. When they get Win 7 with brand new hardware, they will perceive it as faster (even though the speed up comes primarily from better hardware).

It works nicely for me (1)

macxcool (1370409) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859503)

I installed Windows 7 RC on a HP-Compaq D530 with 512MB of RAM. The install was so much faster than XP's it wasn't funny (I'm used to installing Linux off a DVD in 1/4 the time XP will install). When I tried it out everything seemed to be very snappy, even running Explorer, IE8, Media Player at the same time. Switching between them was very quick too. I use Linux almost exclusively, but I have to admit, Windows 7 looks pretty good (although I'm very unlikely to spend the money to install it on one of my machines).

Stupid. (5, Interesting)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859507)

I am sure systems like 20 years ago were faster than Windows 7 at doing some particular tasks.

The whole point of new systems, isn't just speed, but functionality, or what you can do with it.

The real question that should be asked is "does Windows 7 offer significantly improved feature set"?

If not, then one begs the question of why bother.

Re:Stupid. (1)

vistapwns (1103935) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859729)

http://begthequestion.info/ [begthequestion.info] Windows 7 and Vista have lots of features, the problem is the average user does not ever see them. How do you sell ASLR and sandboxed browsing to joe football? Yet they are features, and damn good ones. There are countless others, but they do what a feature should do; they work and make things better and stay out of the users face while he/she does what's important.

Re:Stupid. (3, Funny)

BlueScreenOfTOM (939766) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859869)

Dude, this is slashdot. Didn't you know that you should be able to run everything you'll ever need on that old-ass Pentium II with 64MB RAM in your basement? I mean, Linux runs fine on there, so why shouldn't everything else ever made? Graphical enhancements are entirely unnecessary. And any "improved feature set" provided by Microsoft is clearly going to be inferior to the way some ancient system did it 15 years ago.

Yes. I'm being sarcastic.

Nonsense Metric (5, Insightful)

Toreo asesino (951231) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859521)

First, if you want to talk about benchmarking tests speed, actually there's actually very little difference at all now [extremetech.com] between Vista and XP.

That leads us to "general user responsiveness" benchmarks...a user clicks something; how long before Windows finishes to do what the user said. Well, that's a more tricky one, but given a system has 2Gb RAM+ and has been used for a while Vista & Windows 7 will easily out-perform XP given how SuperFetch doesn't exist in XP. Any less and, well, who knows.

Finally, TFA linked suggesting Vista is slow is (unsurprisingly) dated Dec 27, 2006; probably not the most relevant material nowadays.

Expect many speed-up hacks (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859523)

As I understand it, the problem with Vista is that it has too many controls and limits for DRM and such. Windows7 will be the unavoidable "better" release but clearly not "better enough" and most likely for the same reasons. I predict some really smart people figuring out where all the slow-down code exists and neutralizing it with some NOOP and JMP instructions.

Vista is actually good now... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859533)

Can we stop using articles from 2006 that say that Vista isn't quick. Vista was sluggish when it came out, and I had bought it only to remove it a week or two later and go back to XP.

Over the years Vista has been updated and actually works great - I like having it instead of XP and so would most Vista bashers if they actually used it.

XP was hated for a long time over Windows 98 and no one would upgrade, they somehow XP became everyone's favorite version of Windows.

What MS should be doing - and I have no idea why they didn't this time - is bail on the 32 bit OS - especially since it's the largest limit on RAM and file size. Your OS is limiting the hardware, and that' just idiotic. If you need a 32 bit OS - stick with Windows XP - if you want a 64 bit OS, use Windows 7.

Nothing new.... (1)

Computershack (1143409) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859535)

So PC World have just found out what just about every single review site said when BETA1 Build 7000 was released for public consumption, that it doesn't really benchmark faster but in use "feels quicker". Way to go.

PC World - consistently behind the times since 1999

Personal Anecdote (4, Interesting)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859537)

I figured, what the hell, give it a spin. Tuesday I sat down and installed Windows 7 64bit on my desktop machine. The install took maybe a few mouse clicks, some typing, and thirty minutes to complete. On boot it recognized pretty much everything in the system save for the sound card (Curse you Creative Labs and your poor excuse for drivers). It even recognized my HP Printer when I accidently turned it on, installed the drivers, and non of the HP bloat. It recognized the Killer NIC card in the machine as well and that Razer gaming mouse. Came up quick and clean. It ran, in my opinion as this is a personal anecdote, just as fast as if I had freshly installed XP.

I was able to install my regular software (a bunch of games, some vista capable burning software, a few image editing tools) with no hassles what so ever. The games ran as well as they did on my XP machine.

Things I did not like. Certain things are not properly named. There are two 'Device Manager' links. One is the easy to recognize one from the My Computer right-click properties, which brings up the panel as it would in XP. The other I believe sits in the Control Panel and presents a very odd list of 'external devices' (think keyboard, printer, mouse, etc) that was not what I was expecting. If waiting on a slow task initialized from another program (clicking on the downloaded file in the firefox download manager for example), it will gray out the initializing task while it waits for a response from you or the software. What is this 'passcode' it uses for home networking? These are the ones that immediately come to mind.

It has only been a few days and most of my time has been spent playing games, surfing the net or watching a movie (common user operations?), so I can not say for sure how fast/reliable it will be. For now, I am cautiously optimistic about it's behavior and pace.

Side note, this is the first time I didn't have to preload some special drivers for it to recognize my hardware to do a 64bit install of an OS.

Yes, but... (4, Funny)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859541)

The true test will be if it can copy 16 1kb files from our server to my workstation in under 3 hours.

Convince me to switch (1)

getto man d (619850) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859557)

"If Windows 7 can't significantly improve that situation, what chance does it have to convince people to move away from Windows XP?"

Not just speed but usability. What features will Microsoft implement that are new and must have (that isn't stolen at least)?

I must say that I've been very disappointed with M$. I never saw a reason to move to Vista (don't care for DX10 and UAC - no thanks) and after playing with the RC1 I'm still wondering what the hell their brainstorming sessions actually do.

I want something new that won't hinder MY use of a computer whether it's visually, the performance, or even backwards compatibility. Why must we upgrade to something they dictate that is a meager step in place, rather than forward?

What the fuck is wrong with you fuckers? (1, Funny)

jollyreaper (513215) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859563)

Channeling Balmer here, forgive me.

Listen here, you pud-pulling jagoffs. We went and called it 7. Not R2, not Vista 1.5, not any motherfucking jungle cat name. No. It's 7! This means it's a completely different operating system, you fucking cunts. What's that, you say? The kernel on Vista is 6.0 and 7 is only 6.1? Security? Get over here. I want you to put on your dick-stomping boots and make this smart-ass' pride look like a waffle. Get the fuck out. Now as for the rest of you pole-smoking faggots, get with the story. 7 is what's it. It's the only game in town. Anything else is just stone age barbarism, may as well be using an abacus. Now I don't care if we have to throw in an extra blade and two aloe strips but this is going to be the biggest Windows launch ever or so help me, you better hope you have all your fucking chairs hidden.

That don't impress me much (1)

FreakUnique (927847) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859605)

It's still going to get changes between now and when it hits the shelves/warehouses. Between now and then a load could happen. I'm going to take this story with a very large pinch of salt. Maybe Honshu sized would be enough. Vista's a real big pain in the ass to me and hasn't impressed me. Some good ideas were badly implemented causing people to either disable the features or just get the dreaded "yes to everything" syndrome that I often see. If Windows 7 comes with any DRM I'm getting a Mac and grabbing some Windows XP disks and to f*** with what MS have to say. Digital Rights Management? Digital Rights Mangling more like. I haven't forgiven Sony/BGM for the 2 very public rootkitting incidents and for once slapping a rootkit on my machine after playing one of their CDs on my machine. I want to know who came up with that crap so I can punish them with a cactus up where the sun doesn't shine.

The reason people will move (1, Redundant)

PHPNerd (1039992) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859681)

It's faster than XP. It's really not, but most people will believe it is. Why? Because in the last 3 years nearly everyone has upgraded their PC, and a large portion of computers at workplaces have been upgraded within that time. So by the time they get to Win7 it will seem faster just because the hardware has finally caught up to the bloated monstrosity that is Windows. They won't know this, but they would have been happy about performance if Vista had been installed on their machines instead of Win7. Instead, what you'll hear is "Oh, I'm so glad we finally moved to Windows7 and skipped over Vista completely!"

Re:The reason people will move (1)

DaveV1.0 (203135) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859911)

It's faster than XP. It's really not, but most people will believe it is

Please prove your assertion that Windows 7 is not faster than Windows XP.

So despite the astro-hype it IS just another P.O.. (0, Flamebait)

distantbody (852269) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859725)

.Shit Microsoft OS. Microsoft had dozens of new technologies and UI innovations in the pipeline back in the day. Now all the marketing executives can pull out is 'it's faster than Vista'? What the hell happened to you M$?

Very Sneaky Summary - Lies Worthy of a Politician (5, Informative)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859843)

The summary says that 7 isn't much faster than Vista, and then says that Vista is much slower than XP. The implication is that 7 is slower than XP, which a lot of people seem to be commenting on here. However, the summary is very deceptive. Notice the lack of a link to a direct XP to 7 comparison (there are plenty). Now notice that the "Vista is slow" article is from 2006, back when Vista was slow.

If you want to look at a comparison that isn't sadly out of date or intentionally obfuscating the relative performance of these operating systems, look here:

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3557&p=15 [anandtech.com]

Click through all the performance pages. As usual, Anandtech does it right and is ignored by Slashdot, while some silly article by technically challenged people is featured. To summarize the direct comparison between 7, XP, and Vista:

Vista is usually slower than XP - by about 2%. 7 is usually faster than XP - by 2-10%. Everyone who is posting the "I hate MS as much as every other weirdo Slashdot fanatic but it makes sense than XP is the fastest" should cut it out and note instead that 7 is the fastest OS that Microsoft has produced since at least Win2k.

Infinitely Faster (1)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859859)

In my experience it is MUCH faster - since it is not crashing all the time, bugging you with security alerts etc - and actually lets you get your work done. CPU speed is almost irrelevant these days.

The user doesn't care about benchmarks (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859865)

I really don't understand why we see so many stories comparing new versions of Windows to old ones in benchmarks. The users don't care about benchmarks, they care about how responsive the OS is. After using Windows 7 for more than a month now, I have to say it's miles ahead of Vista in this regard. It feels just as responsive as XP while having all the nice new features of Vista (plus a few more).

Like I Said. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#27859867)

I already covered this topic and the Windows 7 hype [wordpress.com] back in February!

Those that don't understand (1)

Frizbie (1549673) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859885)

I love how it says that the main problem people had with Vista is that it is "slow". No one seems to understand the massive hardware requirement leaps that moving forward involves. That's as stupid as going from your 500Mhz System with 128 Meg Ram running windows 98 then upgrading to XP. "OMG XP is SOO SLOW, this is garbage /complain /complain"

My Quad Core system with 4 Gig's of Ram running windows Vista flat flys. I also hate the fact that people say:

"you shouldn't have to buy high end hardware to run a simple desktop operating system."

The reality of the situation is that a midrange quad core processor is around a $150-$250 and 4 Gig of Ram will set you back all of $99 ...

"Whoa!!! spending 500 dollars for a computer?! that's outrageous."

Well no fucking wonder your $99 piece of shit that you got used at a garage sale runs vista so slllloowwww /sob

Oh and btw it's not the community's fault that you spent $500 on a retail system at wal-mart or best buy that has retardidly low system spec's and is over priced. So don't argue that either.

Retail PC market is just like the Automotive Dealership... You know what youâ(TM)re doing your fine... You don't... Youâ(TM)re fucked.

Do your research or find a friend/someone that can help you... otherwise bend over and be ready to take it.

UI Responsiveness vs Process Performance. (4, Insightful)

Datasage (214357) | more than 4 years ago | (#27859903)

The issue with Vista had nothing to do with process performance, for the most part, burning a CD or running a batch operation in Photoshop, generally took the same amount of time in both XP and Vista.

The issue had to do with UI performance, for example, the time it takes for a menu to appear when a user requests it or how quickly a folder populates with file. Unfortunately, most benchmarks don't test that.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account