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!

Windows 7 Hard Drive and SSD Performance Analyzed

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-compared-to-the-old-one dept.

Data Storage 248

bigwophh writes "Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of performance. With that in mind, this article looks at how various types of disks perform under Windows 7, both the traditional platter-based variety and newer solid state disks. Disk performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using a hard drive and an SSD. SSD performance with and without TRIM enabled is tested. Application performance is also tested on a variety of drives. Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 disk performance, particularly with regard to solid state drives."

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

But... (5, Funny)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#28134887)

Is is fast enough to get first post?

(Sarcasm guys)

Re:But... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135167)

I fucked your great grandmother's dead body.

Re:But... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135377)

you're

fixed

Re:But... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135401)

you're

fixed

Lol you're an idiot.

Re:But... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28136945)

you're

fixed

Lol your an idiot.

fixed

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135495)

Please don't ever reproduce.

Re:But... (1)

GreenTech11 (1471589) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135685)

two things: a. DNFTT b. He was right the first time,

Re:But... (2, Interesting)

johannesg (664142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135707)

Is is fast enough to get first post?

(Sarcasm guys)

Depends. What were you using when making that comment?

Anyway, why doesn't the article compare to XP as well? I'm sure 7 is beter than Vista, but we all agreed that Vista was crappy anyway. Will I see any benefit moving from XP though?

Re:But... (4, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136099)

Because the entire article is basically a press release for Windows 7. They compare it to something they know sucks, because they know it wouldn't look nearly as good compared to the thing (XP) people are actually running now.

Re:But... (1)

park3r (833325) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136907)

Like a chubby girl standing next to an obese one. Nice.

Re:But... (0, Troll)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136909)

No. But nice try.

Re:But... (1)

mspohr (589790) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136963)

Windows 7 is undoubtedly the most exciting new operating system to come out of Microsoft within the past decade--

When the article starts out like this, you can guess where it's going.

Re:But... (1)

mrmeval (662166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135741)

Its good enough to get first place.

So? (5, Insightful)

Seriousity (1441391) | more than 5 years ago | (#28134889)

This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?

Re:So? (5, Insightful)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135065)

They also forgot the most important test with Crysis - framerates!

Older tests [anandtech.com] have proven that SSDs have a massive impact on the minimum framerate for texture hungry games. Waiting 15ms for some textures is bad since that wastes most of that whole frame.

I don't understand why the article writer is so enamored by burst speeds. Burst is just data coming in from cache... my old 320GB Seagate drives get burst speeds over 200MB/sec. I threw four of them in RAID and was enjoying a comfortable 700MB/sec burst speed; though sustained read was barely over 220MB/sec.

But burst almost never comes into play. The most likely scenario for seeing its effect would be... starting up a game, exiting, then starting the same game over again. Although I suppose burst is several seconds long, so it does reflect on the drives' skill in reading data before it's needed. (Something SSDs don't really have to do, so no impressive data bursts; just super high sustained read)

Re:So? (4, Funny)

jabithew (1340853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135885)

The most likely scenario for seeing its effect would be... starting up a game, exiting, then starting the same game over again.

Ah, I see you've been playing Empire too!

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136419)

Older tests have proven that SSDs have a massive impact on the minimum framerate for texture hungry games.

Any reviewer measuring FPS in relation to SSD performance should go get a job painting fences.

Re:So? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136901)

But burst almost never comes into play.

I managed to get extremely good throughput by getting disks that had cache as large as the drive size and by running "cat /dev/sda > /dev/null" on boot. They're a bit hard to come by but if you insist your reseller will surely find some.

Of course YMMV.

Re:So? (2, Informative)

R4nneko (1194727) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135103)

Well, I admit this isn't the newest test, but Win 7 was already beating XP in build 7000 [zdnet.com] , heck it is worth noting that Vista vs XP comparison is not particularly bad either.

Re:So? (1)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135171)

Old isn't so much the problem, as is Adrian Kingsley-Hughes's super accurate "1,2,3" grading scale. He's a journalist first and it shows.

Re:So? (5, Funny)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136111)

Build 7000 (beta) was notably faster and slimmer than Build 7100 (RC) when we tried it here - 7000 was highly responsive and usable in 512MB, 7100 thrashes and is slow in 1GB. We were horrified. So forget 7000's admirable speed - it appears the RC was compiled with -fsuck-like-a-dyson-on-steroids enabled.

Re:So? (4, Funny)

elashish14 (1302231) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135163)

This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?

Even more importantly, in the particular frame of reference, where XP is moving at a velocity of 38.5% c relative to Windows 7, with a time of passing of 92.3% relative to XP, do these calculations add up?

Re:So? (5, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135215)

Which one is going east?

Windows is an old Indian word for "bottleneck". (2, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135455)

I'd like to see some impartial figures to see how disk subsystem performance (regular and raided) compares with FreeBSD. You can even use FreeBSD 2.2.1 if you want.

And them again under heavy load. Not just "oooh, lets try a million database reads".

I'll wait. I use windows. I'm used to it.

Re:So? (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136379)

Well considering this is a slash-ad for Win7, and the last time I read about Win7 and Vista going against WinXP in benchmarks it got its ass kicked [engadget.com] , I am really not surprised they didn't run against XP. I especially liked the part where Infoworld said that XP should only win until you go past 8 cores, that after that Vista and Win7 should win. Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon?

Hell most of the time my Phenom dual core sits around twiddling its thumbs because it has so much more power than what is required for most everyday tasks. What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills? When I built this new box I finally took the plunge and went to XP X64 and I have to say I am impressed. It has run everything I have thrown at it with the exception of a 7 year old cheapo TV tuner which I found an X64 replacement for a grand total of $34. So while I think Win7 looks purty, I think I'll just sit this one out, thanks. To anyone who hasn't tried it XP X64 is awesome if you mobo supports it. And with all the bells and whistles, along with a real firewall and AV, I'm running a grand total of 438Mb of RAM, leaving the bulk of my 4 and soon to be 8Gb of RAM for the stuff I ACTUALLY want to run, you know, things other than the OS.

Add to that the fact that XP X64 doesn't seem to be pounding the firewall wanting to call home like Vista did, along with running every single game and app I have thrown at it thanks to WOW, and I think I've found a winner. Question to you Win7 users: Does it try to phone home all the damned time like Vista did last time I tried it? Does it support the older games and apps as well as XP?

Re:So? (1)

hackstraw (262471) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136851)

Of course how many of us are likely to have a 16 or 24 core box sitting around anytime soon?

In the US, we have 8 core boxes today. 4 core notebooks. 16 core is in preproduction.

Moore's law is still live and well. Linux and the other OSes need to get their act together for these bigger SMP (or whatever you want to call it) boxes.

iiiiiis it (1)

unity100 (970058) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136949)

and how many apps and games out there that use even 2 cores ?

Re:So? (1)

Fred_A (10934) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136959)

What in the hell would most of us even DO with a 16 or 24 core box besides crank up our electric and cooling bills?

I'm not sure how Windows handles this since I only run it for games and all I really do there is click on icons, but the PC Unix systems still have a way to go to handle multi-core CPUs efficiently.

I'm regularly looking at my (dual core) machines overloading one CPU while the other one is mostly idle. I know that it's fairly difficult to handle efficient load balancing, and that there are lots of apps that don't scale gracefully. But the CPU intensive current desktops really should start to look into this (presumably they already are, hopefully). Single CPU (or single core) machines are soon going to disappear, apparently even the CPU itself is getting distributed with things like CUDA. Getting the software to deal with this is the real challenge.

Re:So? (1)

PMBjornerud (947233) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136593)

This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?

Just don't try to delete lots of small files. I have an old app which is based on a thousands of tiny text files.

Tried to delete a backup on a USB disk. Win7 came up with "Deleting... Estimated time remaining: 4 days".

Gave it 5 minutes to ensure it was not a bad initial estimate. Stopped the process, plugged into XP machine, deleted same files in 4 minutes.

My impression is that the overhead on each file operation is huge compared to XP. In that specific case, a big enough problem to be a deal-breaker.

FP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28134893)

I love you Janey

Re:FP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135153)

Too little, too late.

I'm with RaShawn now and he's taken me places I've never been before. I've never felt so...safe and secure than with him.

I'm sorry that it didn't work out between us. I hope you will find a woman who likes to do the stuff you do like play computer games and fly model rockets. I'm sorry for dragging you to all those college basketball games for I know that you will never appreaciate basketball players like I do.

Take care, you were always such a sweetheart watching my purse at the basketball dances!

Linux already has this (5, Informative)

Saba (308071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28134927)

Linux already supports SSD's and other flash media by having a noop scheduler. The basic premise is that devices that don't depend on mechanical movement to access data don't need reordering of requests. This is also the scheduler you use if you have an advanced controller (RAID, etc) that is capable of doing it's own I/O rescheduling.

To see what scheduler you are running (on this case /dev/sda):

# cat /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
noop anticipatory deadline [cfq]

Here the completely fair scheduler is currently running. To swap to the noop scheduler:

# echo noop > /sys/block/sda/queue/scheduler
[noop] anticipatory deadline cfq

Re:Linux already has this (2, Informative)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135101)

I found that CFQ gave best results on my Ubuntu box. When moving files around, it was usually about 20% faster than deadline, and 100% faster than anticipatory. I can't remember if I tested noop.

Re:Linux already has this (3, Informative)

marm (144733) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136503)

On my eee 1000 (with its slow pair of SSDs) I found that while CFQ gave the best average throughput, the noop IO scheduler gave me the best disk latencies and the best interactive performance, which IMHO is much more important on a netbook than raw throughput. I think the issue is that the netbook SSDs have such slow write speeds (and no write cache on the SSD) that any long sequential write freezes all other IO for obviously noticeable periods of time. All of the 'intelligent' IO schedulers in Linux reorder IO requests so that writes happen in one long sequential block if possible to avoid seeking, which is the right strategy for traditional Winchester disks and probably even SSDs with a decent amount of write cache, but wrong for simple, slow SSDs. CFQ isn't too bad as it tries to be fair to different processes asking for simultaneous IO so there aren't too many very long writes, but the anticipatory and deadline schedulers are really painful on my eee.

Re:Linux already has this (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135281)

Being that the world runs primarily on Windows for desktop PC's, nobody really gives a shit about Linux. Well, except for slashdud nerds. Keep on topic please.

Re:Linux already has this (4, Informative)

TheLink (130905) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135397)

noop scheduler != support for SSDs.

Sequential writes in common Flash SSDs are faster than random writes. Sequential reads are also usually faster than random reads.

See: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=3531 [anandtech.com]

For RAM + battery based SSDs, while there's still a difference the difference should be unnoticeable for drive workloads.

Re:Linux already has this (1)

Henk Poley (308046) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135499)

You lose I/O prioritisation going from CFQ to something else. Also, writes should be as sequential as possible on most SSDs.

Re:Linux already has this (3, Informative)

ihavnoid (749312) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135637)

noop scheduler isn't SSD support. Seems like you didn't RTFA, which means that you didn't understand what TRIM is.

From the article, page 4:

"If the drive broadcasts itself as a solid state drive (which can be done through the latest ATA specification), Windows 7 can make adjustments to ensure that the drive performs at its best. For example, if Windows 7 can verify that you're running a solid state disk, it will disable defragmentation for that drive (as defragging puts un-necessary wear on SSD's and doesn't help performance). Windows 7 will also enable support for "TRIM", also known as DisableDeleteNotify, an add-on to the ATA specification which allows for enhanced performance and decreased strain on the drive. According to Microsoft, here's what TRIM brings to the table.

        * Enhancing device wear leveling by eliminating merge operation for all deleted data blocks
        * Making early garbage collection possible for fast write
        * Keeping deviceâ(TM)s unused storage area as much as possible; more room for device wear leveling.

Basically, Windows 7 will send TRIM commands down the storage chain, but it's up to the drive to accept the commands and utilize them. In order for TRIM to work, you not only need Windows 7, but you'll need a solid state hard disk which has support for TRIM via its Firmware."

Re:Linux already has this (4, Insightful)

smallfries (601545) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136529)

You've quoted the marketing fluff from the article about what Microsoft says TRIM support in Windows 7 will achieve. Do you think that this is a demonstration that you understand TRIM?

I'd refer you to the link [anandtech.com] higher up the thread. Now it's a hell of a long article, but at least it explains what TRIM is. It allows blocks to be invalidated on the drive directly. Without waiting for them to be overwritten. Note that this explanation is two short sentences and explains *exactly* what TRIM is. Your quote is a marketing attempt to explain what TRIM will achieve.

So the noop scheduler would be the correct choice for a drive that supports TRIM, as the GP claimed. Although the scheduler itself will still need direct support for sending TRIM commands to the storage.

Re:Linux already has this (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135959)

Only on Slashdot could an inaccurate post be modded "Informative" simply because it "bigs up" Linux.

Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (2, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#28134929)

Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7. Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35% improvement in read performance and up to a 23% boost in write performance

About as much after as Vista was slower than XP. Perhaps a very marginal improvement. At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.

Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7, as low, machine-halting performance won't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.

Nope. Same old reason to hate them. They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.

We should be jeering not cheering.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28134947)

It is pretty common to have some performance regression when adding features. Nice to see that they've been able to overcome that hit now.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (-1, Flamebait)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135089)

For regular software, yes - but for operating systems and kernels, performance regressions are the exception rather than the rule, and Microsoft is almost always that exception.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (0, Troll)

BikeHelmet (1437881) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136425)

I don't quite understand why this was flamebait.

Every time the linux kernel gets updated, speeds in benchmarks (both synthetic and real world) go up.

Sure, software like Gnome or KDE gets slower over time, but the kernel gets faster and faster.

Exact same thing for OSX, and BSD. New versions are usually faster at specific things.

Windows, though - always slower by a few percent with each new version of Windows. Then they patch the performance up a bit with service packs, and after that they worsen it by implementing new DRM. With Vista, media playback took a big CPU usage hit!

If you look at the benchmarks in other articles, XP still reliably comes out ahead of Vista, and by proxy ahead of Win7.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28136777)

I think yours is the flamebait. Windows is not a kernel. Windows is more akin to a Kernal+Gmoes/KDE+supporting software, which as you pointed out gets slower over time as they bloat. The main kernel might be going along at a nice clip but few care about it in and of itself, its the tools sitting on top of it that are important.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (1, Interesting)

Jamie's Nightmare (1410247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135091)

They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.

Right. So then, can you please point us in the direction of the PC operating system that is "on time" according to your criteria? You can scratch Linux off that list, it's still stuck in the 90s. OS X only runs on Apple hardware. Is there an OS out there that only you know about? Please share it with us.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135893)

How is linux still stuck in the 90s when it supports drive encryption, loopback mounting, and a ton of other things you have to pay for or download off a shady website to work on windows?

Not to mention Ubuntu's package management system is eons ahead of anything windows based.

haha, captcha = provoked

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135115)

Remove your blind rose-tinted open-source fanboy glasses and type that comment out again.

Just because it's from Microsoft doesn't mean it's bad. Open-source is so fragmented these days you Linux zealots are to blame for operating systems being "set back" by half a decade. Pick a fucking window manager, kernel and source distribution and stick with it.

Re:Finally, it's about as fast as XP was! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135225)

Watch out at supermarket buddy, they have different varieties of varieties of cereals! And they picture different bowls on the box! OH the humanity! What will we eat?

I'm glad I can keep changing kernels & window managers. The one that came with Windows 3.1 sucked!

Buy it, please? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28134991)

Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of your checkbook.

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Buy it, please? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135919)

Wow, what an incredibly cutting bit of satire you just produced there...flipping Microsoft's own words like that! You should write for a paper or something, but to be honest with a pen as sharp as yours I doubt any of the Big Corporations (tm) would allow it, the thought of an intellect as mighty as yours on the loose, giving ideas to our mindless sheep population, would surely chill them to the bone.

Control test? (5, Informative)

viyh (620825) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135015)

They should have also included a benchmark test against Windows XP so that we could see how much it's decreased/increased since then. A majority of people haven't upgraded to Vista yet so it would have been useful to give an idea to those users. And perhaps, benchmarking other OSs to see how they all stand.

Re:Control test? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135505)

I agree.

This is like saying "I run faster then a snail". While true, it doesn't prove much.

Re:Control test? (0, Redundant)

Daengbo (523424) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135601)

This is like saying "I run faster then a snail". While true, it doesn't prove much.

I can't tell if it's true or not. When I run your code through my interpreter it's gives the following error:
 

ERROR 317: Malformed sentence
Expected verb after "snail"

Please fix and resubmit.

Failure to compare with XP (4, Interesting)

lanner (107308) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135019)

Why did they fail to compare performance with Windows XP?

Re:Failure to compare with XP (3, Funny)

mb1 (966747) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135571)

...because the benchmark is still running :)

Re:Failure to compare with XP (4, Informative)

Tanman (90298) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135647)

Well, maybe they did. However, if the article's opening paragraph was:

Windows 7 accessed data noticeably faster than Windows Vista, although still not as fast as XP. However . . .

Most of us would never get past that first line there.

Re:Failure to compare with XP (0, Troll)

olivier69 (1176459) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136151)

Why did they fail to compare performance with Windows XP?

Because Vista was really slower than XP, and 7 is only a little bit faster than Vista (but still a lot slower than XP). That's why it was not in the benchmarks. Marketing...
If you search for XP vs Vista vs 7 (and, why not, vs Linux) disk/networking benchmarks, you'll see what I mean.

More SSD Benchmarks (4, Insightful)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135165)

Phoronix has some Linux 2.6.30 Kernel Benchmarks [phoronix.com] , some on SSD. Not surprisingly they forgot to include comparison with Windows 7, as that HotHardware article forgot to include comparison with Linux. Are they both biased?

Anyhow, SSD is the future.

Wrong, no SSD (4, Interesting)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135205)

Sorry, I mistook the "160GB Western Digital WD1600JS-00M SATA 2.0 hard drive" for a SSD.

Still, I don't understand how HotHardware can write: "At this point, everything seems like it's moving in the right direction with this new operating system, and Microsoft is finally showing that it can better compete in terms of usability and user-experience in today's computing environments against OSX and Linux, providing a compelling case why the Windows operating system is such a dominant force." without having compared it with OSX or Linux.

Sorry for the mixup above.

Re:Wrong, no SSD (4, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135331)

maybe they wanted to compare apples with apples? it's hard to imagine a comparison that everyone would be happy with. if windows 7 beats linux an any given benchmark (which i'm sure it would in some) the linux crowd will just boo hiss and proclaim you forgot option X, proudly declaring the comparison invalid. i can't say i blame them for staying away from that one.

And in benchmarks linux beats windows in, you'll have the windows crowd screaming murder because windows 7 isn't finished yet.

fuck getting in the middle of that gun fight....

Re:Wrong, no SSD (1)

maglor_83 (856254) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135621)

If they were worrying about that (doubt it - it'd just mean more page hits for them), then they shouldn't bring OSX and Linux into it at all.

But will installing Windows 7... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135213)

...fix Slashdot's RSS feed so it doesn't give links that go to the utterly terrible AJAX version of Slashdot even when I've explicitly opted out of such bullshit?

Fresh new light? (4, Insightful)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135269)

Of course Windows 7 will seem like a completely different OS if you look at it in a "new light" as MS says. OTOH, if you look at it the same way, admitting that Microsoft hasn't changed its customs and see the same bullshit as in 95 - Vista, you can't argue with them, because they can just reply "but it's different this time, just look at it with new eyes." Of course you can't compare it to anything if you try to forget what you've saw before.

I've seen bugs that have been around since Windows 95 in Internet Explorer (since 4.4 until 8.1, there's a limit of 32 <style> tags per page and MS still insists that its only a 4.4 - 6 without saying anything about 7 and that the limit is 31) and in Windows Explorer (when you try to minimize and focus applications, in certain conditions they won't listen. They have changed the way the UI looks, the kernel and added some drivers. Otherwise, I see absolutely no point in trying to analyze Windows 7's performance or compare it to previous versions of Windows. If you look at the bugs, you'll see that there have been bugs around in Windows sincefor 15 years and nobody touched them. I have given them the benefit of the doubt and installed Windows 7 RC1, hoping for a change in attitude from MS, but now I don't want to see anything about Windows again because the only change MS ever made was in the UI.

Please stop "analyzing" what Windows 7 can do and go after what's more important: what Windows 7 really is.

Re:Fresh new light? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135665)

You're referring to stuff that's a decade or three old. Get some fresh air and stop hating, my brother.

By all means, do use whatever OS you prefer - but don't waste so much time on hating. It's not good for you or anyone.

Re:Fresh new light? (0, Troll)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136057)

I am hating this, because that is what it really deserves. I choose to share my hate with everyone else, so they'll know they shouldn't love something like that, otherwise they'll be impressed by announcements like "it's brand new, faster, better, etc" and won't know the truth about the product. I choose not only to love what I like but to also hate what I dislike and let others know of my feelings and the reasons behind them, so they won't make the mistakes I almost made.

Microsoft has declared war on many moral issues (eg, they simply LIE and keep Windows closed-source so if you manage to prove they're lying, you'll go to jail for reverse-engineering it) and we can't just go to the battlefield and fight with daisies. Peace is a beautiful thing that deserves all our respect, but you can't just turn the other cheek. We need to fight for the truth, we can't let anyone who wants to lie however they want. We want to reveal the truth, so everybody would know what's really going on and how Microsoft charges shitloads just for repackaging some of their products.

They made .NET and that's really cool. They actually gave their interest and worked very hard on it and it came out as a great framework for developing all kinds of applications. All's fine and dandy, but, they will start forcing you to use (read: "buy") a new version of Windows so that you can run (read: "buy") the latest version of Visual Studio so that you can take advantage of .NET. Same goes with Office. They break things on purpose, so you'll have to use a new version of Windows to use the latest version of Office and you have to do that, because they gave it away for free to some government organization that spreads documents in the latest Office format and forces you to read them in order for you to know your rights and obligations when dealing with that government agency - and this happens in a lot of countries and you simply can't avoid it (example: my girlfriend is an accountant, she has to send documents to a government agency every month and read documents sent to her by them; they use the latest version of Office to write those documents, because they got it for free; now she has to buy the latest version of Microsoft Office to work with them).

This is what Microsoft does. They deserve to be hated, because that should at least cast some doubt in ignorant minds. If we express our hate hard enough, then maybe those government agencies will understand what's going on and refuse the free Microsoft Office in favor of the free Open Office.

Re:Fresh new light? (1)

Archon-X (264195) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136247)

Tell me why you'd possibly need 32 style tags in a HTML document?

Re:Fresh new light? (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136447)

Why would you possibly need more than 640 KB of RAM ?

Re:Fresh new light? (1)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136517)

That's besides the point. The point is that they're using old crap, putting it in a new package and pushing it to everyone as something completely new.

Re:Fresh new light? (1)

drsmithy (35869) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136749)

That's besides the point. The point is that they're using old crap, putting it in a new package and pushing it to everyone as something completely new.

Are you seriously trying to suggest Microsoft is the only OS vendor who a) builds on previous codebases and b) has some long-running bugs (or "bugs") ?

"Fresh new light" (4, Insightful)

winphreak (915766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135343)

Going from XP to 7 Beta1 (and now RC), am I the only one who feels that the improved performance issues of Windows 7 may actually work? I installed a copy of the RC on my laptop, and it worked beyond what I expected. The Laptop was "powerful" enough for Vista, and it couldn't even compare to the performance my laptop was giving me currently.
I installed the Beta on my desktop, and only had one issue that isn't worth the words to complain about.
I know Vista may have been a flop to some people, but this just seems like a repeat of about 8-10 years ago. When ME came out, users found it abyssmal. But the solution seemed to be to go from 98SE to XP, and everyone was content.

This just seems like repeated history to me, as everyone jumps the XP ship for 7, because Vista is still taking water.

P.S. It's rather late here, apologies in advance. I'm probably rambling by now.

Re:"Fresh new light" (1, Interesting)

thatkid_2002 (1529917) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135381)

I am a full time Linux user and every time I get on an XP machine it always excruciatingly slow. I tried Win 7 and I can confirm that it feels a whole lot faster than Win XP.

Re:"Fresh new light" (4, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136149)

My work laptop dual-boots XP and Ubuntu. Doing the same things (Firefox, SSH sessions, music playing) on the same hardware is noticeably slower on XP and the battery lasts about an hour less. I blame the antivirus. Windows without an antivirus runs at full speed, Windows with an antivirus is as crippled as would be expected by running a watchdog program filtering literally every byte written to or from the disk or network.

Re:"Fresh new light" (2, Interesting)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136297)

Then ditch your Windows anti-virus [msdn.com] . I've been running Windows XP for 2.5 years without it and it's great !

Re:"Fresh new light" (1)

ocularsinister (774024) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136569)

I couldn't agree more. It annoys me when people compare a clean Windows PC *without anti-virus* to a *nix/OS X/whatever. Many years ago now I had a problem with InstallShield taking hours to build a CAB file. Turning off the anti-virus reduced the build time from several hours down to about 10 minutes. Anti-virus software has a very real impact on performance, especially when your software is doing lots of small writes - e.g. compilers. With regard to the suggestion that users should run as Admin and not use anti-virus... well, even the guy you linked to recommends you run 'anti-malware' if it doesn't require elevated privileges.

Re:"Fresh new light" (1)

Yvanhoe (564877) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135915)

It still took two service packs for users to be happy with XP.

Re:"Fresh new light" (1)

Phil Urich (841393) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136197)

It still took two service packs for users to be happy with XP.

Really? I liked the first service pack; the second service pack broke enough that was keeping me using Windows (such as a few games I liked) that I finally made the switch to using Linux full time, and I haven't looked back since (well that's not true, I've often glanced back and gone "phew, there but for the grace of Linus....")

Even the turfers... (1)

msimm (580077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136075)

...am I the only one who feels that the improved performance issues of Windows 7 may actually work? I installed a copy of the RC on my laptop, and it worked beyond what I expected. The Laptop was "powerful" enough for Vista, and it couldn't even compare to the performance my laptop was giving me currently.

I don't know if I should laugh or cry. It certainly is a glowing review. ;-)

Re:"Fresh new light" (1)

Nichole_knc (790047) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136671)

No you are not the only one who feels that way. I installed a second SATA drive on my XP machine and installed Win 7 RC. Loaded all the same software as I have on the XP side, run the same services as I have on the XP side and low and behold Win 7 smokes XPs performance. The only real difference is the software/drivers install were some of the software/drivers are "vista" or Win 7 specific. However not all vista flavor drivers worked but XP drivers did. Other than two driver incompatibilities and a re-occurring issue with RealPlayer I have had no problems. I am not a big MS/Windows fan as my past post suggest but I am impressed with Win 7. They are doing somethings right but could still do way better in many area...

TRIM is not a final spec (4, Informative)

AllynM (600515) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135353)

The TRIM spec is not yet final, and most SSD's will not support it until it is. It's also a safe bet that the WIndows 7 RC does not yet issue TRIM commands (for the very same reason). My testing suggests TRIM is *not* yet at play in the 7100 build of 7. The *slight* gain in write performance seen in the linked review is likely due to the fact that they used two different firmwares for the supposed TRIM enabled / disabled testing. TRIM on a Vertex would give you more than the gain they saw.

Allyn Malventano
Storage Editor, PC Perspective

Re:TRIM is not a final spec (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28135555)

More importantly, TRIM does nothing for fully encrypted disks, because unused blocks must be treated like in-use blocks or you'll reveal information about the disk's content. You do encrypt all your data, don't you?

Re:TRIM is not a final spec (1)

Chris_Jefferson (581445) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136401)

All you would reveal would be how full the disk is. Is that a serious concern? If so, you will have to accept the cost of slowed encrypted discs.

Re:TRIM is not a final spec (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136291)

i think that windows 7 supporting trim will MAKE it final.

Re:TRIM is not a final spec (5, Informative)

mooglez (795643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136387)

According to one of the Win7 developers blog post, the TRIM is already being used in the Windows 7 RC release.

It's just a matter of getting firmwares that support said TRIM command out in to the existing SSD's now.

Yes, Trim is already in the Win7 RC.

Trim is enabled by default but can be turned off. You can use the "fsutil behavior query|set DisableDeleteNotify" command to query or set Trim.

from the comments section of this:
http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx [msdn.com]

SSD analyzed according to OS (2, Insightful)

bagsta (1562275) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135447)

I believe that in order to have a more global picture about ssd disks performance, the comparison must be made in all OS available today, Windows flavors, Linux flavors, Unix flavors, Mac OS, Solaris and others that I maybe forget.

Windows XP does not support SSDs like this.. (5, Insightful)

magamiako1 (1026318) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135465)

The large problem with Windows XP and SSD's is that Windows XP does not properly handle SSDs similar to how Windows Vista does not. You have to go in and manually disable these things to fix performance and increase longevity while it is handled automatically in Windows 7. You cannot expect end users to "tweak" their systems to properly handle these drives, so the real world benefit of paring Windows 7 and an SSD is there that beats out both Vista and XP.

Caching, caching, and more caching (0, Troll)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28135843)

Isn't this really just tweaks to caching systems in Windows? I wonder if these performance gains also come at the price of an increased likelihood of disk corruption when the power suddenly cuts out? You might wanna buy a good UPS at the same time you install Windows 7.

Re:Caching, caching, and more caching (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28136021)

I wonder if these performance gains also come at the price of an increased likelihood of disk corruption when the power suddenly cuts out?

Nah, I don't think you can use ext4 as a file system for WIndows.

Re:Caching, caching, and more caching (1)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136421)

NTFS is a journaling file system. Vista introduced Transactional NTFS which improves reliablity further.

Re:Caching, caching, and more caching (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136971)

No. I know this is slashdot but if you're going to try to woo the crowd with a stunningly concise and accurate insight into the topic at hand, you might consider reading the first few lines of the article. It's not caching. No UPS required. Nice try, though.

What about other programs? (1)

irp (260932) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136213)

What about programs that continuously access the hard drive. My pet peeve is the ZoneAlarm software firewall. For some reasons it reads the same file repeatedly over and over again. Not only that, but it also continuously write a completely unusable log-file (every time I actually could use a log file, it has turned out not to record the particular information I needed to debug whatever network problem I had).

In the end I've stopped using ZoneAlarm, I couldn't take the never ending "tick-tick-tick" of the hdd. Now I'm relying on my router (And XP's own "firewall").

(I did try to create a RAM disk and set ZoneAlarm to log to that - it didn't work - I seem to remember the reason being twofold, first the repeated reading of the datafile, and second, that the .ini file containing the path to the log file was written on the same drive as the log file, i.e. whenever I rebooted it would reset to the default place on the harddrive...)

It would be nice to have some kind of 'override' - "whatever this program is writing, it is of so low importance that it can be kept in the cache for +5 minutes before written to disk, regardless of what the program claims"

Re:What about other programs? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136301)

i think wear-leveling logic is already able to take care of the issues you describe.

Unconvincing (3, Interesting)

Archtech (159117) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136283)

Having struggled with two Vista PCs for many months, I am perpetually on the lookout for a better solution. (I've even considered running XP in a VM under SuSE Linux). I have a pretty powerful desktop machine, with a 2.9MHz 4-core i7, 6GB of fast RAM, two Velociraptors and an SSD. This machine is very sluggish running 64-bit Vista SP2, and I am sick and tired of seeing everyday applications like Firefox flagged "Not Responding" (and living right up to that) for as much as minutes on end - while Task Manager shows the idle process running 85% of the time. My laptop, a ThinkPad T61 with 2GB RAM, shows similar symptoms but (oddly enough) doesn't tend to stay out to lunch quite as often or as long.

So I glommed right on to this review, hoping to see some impressive figures. But it seems to me they aren't. Improvements in disk read performance of around 10% might not change overall user responsiveness enough for you to notice it.

Why can't Microsoft simply produce a scheduler that understands the key principle: when the user wants to do something, everything else must get out of the way? Their trouble is that they just don't agree with what seems to obvious to me. It's MY computer, not theirs. I paid for it, I own it, I use it. So I want it to pay attention to ME, first, last, and foremost. Not some unnecessary housekeeping task that seem Microsoft developer or marketing chum decided to impose on me. It's ironic that an IBM mainframe should be so much more responsive than a supposedly end-user-centric "personal" computer whose OS is completely dominated by its UI.

Re:Unconvincing (0)

ciderVisor (1318765) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136329)

So I want it to pay attention to ME, first, last, and foremost.quote>

It's unlikely that Microsoft will be doing any further development on Windows ME.

Re:Unconvincing (1)

freedom_india (780002) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136351)

Well i can say this: Windows 7 rocks.
I use Windows 7 64-bit on a dual-core AMD X2. 4200+
4GB RAM. And i have two USB drives: a Seagate 250GB external drive and a Flash Drive for ReadyBoost.
Two internal drives: Hitachi 7200 RPM and a Seagate velociraptor as primary drive for OS.
I must say that Windows 7 is much much faster than even XP ever was.
The external drives are able to write/read at 20MB/second considering that they are USB 2.0 and i have four peripherals dangling out of same USB rack.
Internal drives are faster by about 15-20% than XP.

Re:Unconvincing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28136509)

stop clicking on every 14_yr_old_girl.jpg.exe you see and you won't be having that problem.

Re:Unconvincing (1)

TuaAmin13 (1359435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136827)

I agree.

With that kind of performance you're definitely "doing it wrong." I've got similar specs, but without the crazy hard drives (I'm running a single 7200.10 250GB Seagate drive) and notice no performance issues. I'm running McAfee Corp. Ed. antivirus, have 4 VMs running with F@H along with a GPU F@H (for the times I'm just surfing online) and still notice no slowdown.

Incomplete half-nerds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28136699)

You bunch of idiots.

Theres not a damn thing wrong with Vista, especially when compared to anything else.

Stop trying to run it on hardware you bought in the late 90's...

When will you fools stop perpetuating such ridiculous exaggerations? I thought this was news for nerds. It's news for superficial idiots who have an incomplete understanding of just about everything.

I'll be the first to admit that I may not be a good person on the inside. With that said, I hope you people die. You won't but I will hope for it every moment I can. It's because of this mob mentality that our scientific progress is so retarded.

Vista is not slow! (1)

indre1 (1422435) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136715)

Vista myth #426:

Windows Vista was, and still is, perceived as a slow operating system in the minds of most power users.

Only power users that consider Vista to be slow are the ones who use XP cause they've never used Vista.

Does Linux support TRIM? (1)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#28136925)

Does Linux support TRIM?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?