Slashdot Log In
Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista
Posted by
kdawson
on Tue Nov 11, 2008 05:23 AM
from the second-verse-same-as-the-first dept.
from the second-verse-same-as-the-first dept.
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy examines Windows 7 from the kernel up, subjecting the 'pre-beta' to a battery of benchmarks to find any signs that the OS will be faster, more responsive, and less resource-intensive than the bloated Vista, as Microsoft suggests. Identical thread counts at the kernel level suggest to Kennedy that Windows 7 is a 'minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite.' Memory footprint for the kernel proved eerily similar to that of Vista as well. 'In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities,' Kennedy writes, before discussing the results of a nine-way workload test scenario he performed on Windows 7 — the same scenario that showed Vista was 40 percent slower than Windows XP. 'In a nutshell, Windows 7 M3 is a virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance,' Kennedy concludes. 'In other words, Microsoft's follow-up to its most unpopular OS release since Windows Me threatens to deliver zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Sheer genius (Score:5, Funny)
not only is it a dupe, but the original article is still on the front page. Way to go.
Re:Sheer genius (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The article is worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sheer genius (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Sheer genius (Score:5, Funny)
Proof yet again that in addition to kdawson not "editing" Slashdot, he/she/it doesn't even read it.
Honestly, how would you replace him/her/it with a shell script that performed that badly? You'd have to write it in FORTRAN, blindfolded, while tripping on mescaline.
Parent
Perfect (Score:5, Funny)
Windows 7 is just a rehash of a just released OS, and this article is a rehash of a just released article. There's so much synchronicity, Sting is singing in the background.
Re:Perfect (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Windows is, well, Windows? (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly is this article trying to prove?
Microsoft themselves have said that Windows 7 will ship will the same underlying infrastructure as Windows Vista. They also said that Windows Vista was the biggest kernel rewrite since Windows 2000.
The interesting thing about a lot of Vista's bloat is that it isn't kernel level. We know this since we can compare Windows 2003 and Vista. Windows 2003 has almost identical program startup times to Windows XP/2000.
I do think that Windows 7 is going in a disappointing direction in general. They seem to be playing right into what I like to call the "Apple Trap." Instead of doing what Microsoft do best which is to produce a workhorse they instead try and play the designer, and want to make a work of art.
Not windows 7 but.. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
I have to agree with you here, mostly. Most of the tests make very little sense, and expecting W7 to be a rewrite is just stupid. Watching some of the W7-related PDC 2008 videos, I never got the impression that improving performance was their major priority, except perhaps for some tweaks for netbooks. Instead, most of the focus appears to be on other areas such as improved usability and power consumption. Not to mention that the M3 is a pre-beta build.
However, the OS can certainly have a significant impact on something like video encoding: differences in the scheduler or system calls/APIs can do that. Here's a somewhat outdated Vista vs XP [tomshardware.com] benchmark. The xvid and h.264 encoders are around 20% slower in Vista, and the impact is similar in some other cases, such as with WinRAR or UT2004. Differences of just a few percent can usually be ignored, but I find these significant. If somewhere between the release of Vista and W7 the maximum differences are lowered to around 5% compared to XP, whether with a service pack, new drivers or optimizations, I'd consider that good enough and possibly switch. After all, going from Win98 to XP also caused a drop in framerates, but was well worth it.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Why are there so many of these pseudo-science-voodoo style reviews/benchmarks floating around? They're not touching on any real or user-meaningful metrics for performance, usability, compatibility, or anything else.
Getting near-identical performance on a pre-beta OS is damn near a miracle, as most people who've been this befeore can attest.
SPTD refuses to run on anything that's a beta, it's well known, nothing new, and isn't a compatibility issue. Why is someone expecting a ring-0 SCSI emulation driver to work on Windows 7 as soon as any developer builds are out the door, anyway?
Inherent multi-core scalability, DWM/Aero, WDDM, Resource Monitor, Explorer, and the kernel have all received pretty major upgrades.
Does anyone remember NT4 to Win2K differences? XP to Vista was like that. Win2K to XP differences were fairly minor, but incremental, and very useful, and everyone loves them now...called WinXP 'the worst OS ever', and 'another WinME', on day one (and before), too. Windows 7 more represents Win2K to XP, but isn't shying away from meaningful changes.
Let's take ReadyBoost, for instance. It was introduced in Vista with a great deal of hype...which was mostly disappointing for limitations. In this release, they've enhanced it, enabled dedicating a USB flash drive to ReadyBoost specifically, allowing the use of -multiple- USB drives, allowed the use of ExFAT, allowed the use of slower drives (particularly with FAT16/ExFAT). A lot of the claimed "Windows 7 boots faster"...can already be experienced with a pair of sludge-cheap $5 2GB usb keys used in tandem with ReadyBoost. Everything seriously launches oodles faster, but Windows 7 tends to launch and boot significantly faster than Vista with a single 2GB ReadyBoost key.
Windows 7's kernel received a few meaningful enhancements, like some heap error correction. DWM takes advantage of DirectX 10.1 class hardware, has little overhead or compatibility issues now. Sound drivers have sampling rate enforced more sanely to prevent needless resampling issues. Filesystem operations tend to scale far better with more than one CPU (finally).
Aside from the pre-beta "unfinished UI" issues, I'd be happy to use the PDC build every day to replace Vista completely in a heartbeat for full-time everyday use.
I'm tired of the bloody nit-picking. We're at least 7 months away from Windows 7 RTM, can't the so-called bloggers find something more useful to do than claim imaginary faults with an OS not even close to being out yet and stir up yet more drama and controversy?
I'm just as tired of people doing it with various aspects/versions of Linux/BSD/Solaris/wine.
Slashdot, frankly, should know a bit better. A article like that isn't news, it's a troll.
I think the bottom line is that the majority of the focus on Windows 7 has been usability, with a fair amount on performance/functionality, with a very small subset focusing on 'eye candy'.
SuperBar isn't flashy. It focuses almost exclusively on UI functionality, doesn't look any different really than regular taskbar. There are a few new 'user visible' Aero features (like the 'Shake' thing?), but the real bulk of changes have been under the hood, with a surprising number of applications and utilities getting improved.
The article's kind of fear mongering is simply assinine.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If MS did something like Apple adopting an open standard (OpenCL) and putting an ultra modern, accessible, documented multi core SDK like "Grand Central", there would be huge changes to CPU bound video encoding process.
Of course, they will go with ultra-mega-patched archaic libraries without putting anything new and accessible and watch Quicktime X doing amazing things on h264 encoding process which may lead to amazing things (it is open to developers). I bet they are still wondering how come OS X makes top
At least it is not slower (Score:5, Insightful)
*cofff* Ubuntu 8.10 *cofff*
Skipping this as well? (Score:5, Insightful)
So we're skipping this one as well?
Isn't this kind of the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Isn't this kind of the point? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Not a major re-write? (Score:3, Interesting)
Goodness me, what FUD (Score:5, Interesting)
Some facts:
- Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now.
- Vista in fact speeds up some operations over XP by pre-caching commonly used stuff. This uses more memory, and is often confused for being "bloated" by actually using the memory that you blessed your computer with being able to use, for what in fact it was designed for - speed increase.
- Windows 7 is taking Vista and putting it on a diet while not fundamentally changing the architecture. If it works on Vista it'll work on W7. That's a stated design goal.
Thus, for performance: Expect Windows 7 to be more responsive to user-input, work on lower-ended machines, start up quicker, etc. Don't expect: CPU intensive apps (games for example) to suddenly speed up 50%; memory intensive apps to use any less memory. They won't - Windows 7 is an operating system, not an overclockers kit.
So, in other words.... (Score:5, Funny)
If it works on Vista it'll work on W7.
So, in essence, Windows 7 represents a significant name change from Vista.
Parent
Re:So, in other words.... (Score:5, Insightful)
If W7 can do the compatibility part right here, it's a good thing, not a reason to look down on it for not being different enough. How typical of Slashdot -- would you honestly ever be able to use the same logic about your favorite OS?
Parent
Re:Goodness me, what FUD (Score:5, Informative)
Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now.
When did this event occur? Last I tested Vista performance on this machine was with Crysis. That would be close to a year after Vista release. I got half the FPS compared to in XP. Half.
Apart from DX10 there is nothing in Vista that interests me that can't already be gotten for XP via third party applications. So far there aren't exactly a huge amount of DX10-only games, and unless the performance issue mentioned above has indeed been sorted it would be a moot point either way.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you comparing Vista to XP, DX9 to DX10, or your graphics card's Vista drivers to its XP drivers?
(hint: it's a mix of all 3, but the last will make by far the most difference in a graphically-bound game)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This might interest you then - http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/vista-service-p.html [wired.com]
Not 100% correct (Score:5, Interesting)
"Don't expect: CPU intensive apps (games for example) to suddenly speed up 50%;"
Indeed , 50% is absurd. But they might speed up 5% or so depending on whether the process schedular and memory management have had a rewrite. For a machine with a lot of processes running and an app using a lot of memory those page and cache miss percentage can make a noticable difference as well as how intellgently the OS swaps in and out processes of varying priorities.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Besides, they're testing a version of Windows 7 that is not even a beta drop. As such, it has yet to get its full code optimization, and by the time Windows 7 finally ships at the retail level expect substantial performance increases.
Goodness me, what a Vista apologist (Score:5, Interesting)
I recently tried Vista (for the second time) because so many monkeys like you keep telling us Vista is much, much better now.
What a bunch of hooey. Vista still makes my (pretty nice) laptop run like a dog. From slow video, to audio stuttering, to far too much hard drive thrashing, to disappointing program startup times...hell, sometimes I can't even track my mouse across the screen without it pausing half way while Vista does God knows what.
And yes, my laptop is "Vista compatible", and yes, I had all the correct drivers installed for my hardware.
I went back to XP (again) and the performance is so much improved, it's like getting a new computer.
Sorry, buddy, but Vista still sucks, despite your claims otherwise. And if Windows 7 is more of the same, I'm going to have to tell Microsoft, "Thanks, but no thanks."
Parent
Re:Performance (Score:4, Interesting)
What happens if you install thousands of software titles, remove them, install tens of drivers/updates, remove them, install huge suites like MS Office, update them...
If I saw "Snow Leopard is 2x faster than Leopard", I wouldn't buy it too. The beta (pre beta) lacks something. Actual, real life usage. Nobody is mad enough to use a pre-beta OS as their main OS. I got MS Virtual PC 7 here with bare bones XP SP3 installed. Trust me, that junk boots faster than your core Duo/Quad real PC because it is very heavily maintained, almost nothing installed, nothing in registry etc.
What matters is, does it care about how many apps installed, removed, running or not? In Apple's sense, there are some real big, explainable architectural reasons why a Adobe Suite CS4 installed Mac is not different from a cleanly installed Mac. MS just says "we optimised this, we optimised that" without huge underlying changes which will really cost them for a while. Like moving from a single user OS to a Unix OS which runs Mach kernel with a real weird filesystem.
Parent
Please just stop... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please just stop following every step of "Windows 7" which will probably not be out for years, despite anything Microsoft says.
The only thing those reports generate is the hype Microsofts wants around their unreleased OS to keep up hope in people dissatisfied by Vista. Yeah, this time it's all going to be better...sure.
Windows 7 is not special and it's not worth reporting every tidbit unless there's actually a product or a set-in-stone feature list.
What are you guys testing anyway? (Score:5, Insightful)
The current release isn't a release candidate. It's not a beta. It's a PRE-beta. Microsoft have about at least 10 more months until they call Windows 7 done.
Steven Sinofsky specifically said in his PDC 2008 keynote: "please don't consider this build suitable for benchmarks", but does anyone listen? Nah, let's run the benchmarks! :)
Why are OSes expected to do more faster? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, this has bothered me for over a decade.
What makes anyone think that the next release of an OS is going to be faster? It's not going to be. I don't care who developed it, either, whether it be the giant of Redmond, the hipster of Cupertino, or a bunch of unwashed shut-ins writing lines of code in their moms' basements. Every iteration of an OS is actually going to be slower, and that is just a consequence of it doing more.
The only real question, then, is if the balance between the added functionality and the slowdown is coming down enough on the functionality side to stop people from getting pissed off. For XP, the balance was nice. For Vista, it's not. For Tiger, it was. For Leopard, I guess it's not for some people (but it is for me). Linux doesn't do anything regardless of distro or update, so it's kind of hard to talk about.
The point of the story is this: I don't actually care if something doesn't run that fast, because I'll probably replace my hardware before that OS runs its course, and it'll work great on the next kit. All I really care about is if it runs well enough to enjoy the added benefits of that extra code.
Time for Microsoft to [Start] over (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's obsession with backward compatibility is killing it.
For home and gaming, they need to keep XP and disable it from being used in a business network... let that horse run as far as it can.
For business and other work, they need to write a brand new kernel and everything and start over learning from all previous mistakes and discarding backward compatibility... natively. Then build a VM compatibility layer with the intent that people will use it in the process of weaning themselves from Win32 and all that backward compatibility and supporting broken applications nonsense.
Been saying this for a long time and will keep saying it. I said this before Mac OS X was announced. Apple, it would seem, had the same idea and it is working VERY well for them. The compatibility VM sucked bad which actually prompted people to upgrade their apps even faster. And no one stopped using Apple over it. And no one stopped developing software for Apple computers over it. It was a burden on users and developers to make that change, but in the end it was the best move.
Microsoft is another story. When you are in control of everything, that is precisely what you stand to lose. But ultimately, I see things are coming to a head and Apple sees it too. No matter what Microsoft does, they will lose. They need to make plans to limit their loses and plan for the future -- not just two years of profit forecasting.
It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy (Score:5, Interesting)
The very interesting thing about OS X 10.5 (Leopard) boot process is: It does nothing in order. It is parallel booting, firing all OS startup stuff at once and expects to do their jobs. That happens thanks to launchd architecture which I have no clue why not adopted by Linux or *BSD.
Here is its presentation by the inventor of launchd
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1781045834610400422 [google.com]
(in 8:00")
That is one of underrated features/changes of Leopard. Now the term "photocopy" comes from this: They do something like launchd without using the underlying Unix logic and architecture. So, there is a huge chance that it won't be scaled. I have really lost count of how many kernel extensions, startup items, daemons running on my Leopard but it boots exactly same speed as it was cleanly installed for first time. Just like I really don't care about 1000+ .plist (pref) files on my user directory.
They named it "parallel booting" or something, some story about it on http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9119230&intsrc=hm_list [computerworld.com]
Re:so? (Score:4, Insightful)
"general" - is that another word for zero? - because I have yet to see a business running Vista, and I certainly don't think they are running Windows 7 - or probably ever will be.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Better device support, you say? [slashdot.org] And given the other three are not an attribute of Windows' quality, but instead it's popularity (especially given that OpenOffice is at least as good as MS Word), I'd say you DO need to continue.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
He said "better" not "more".
Quality not quantity, sadly.
I love Linux, it's good for work, good for application and data servers, but for me, there is a problem.
I am a gamer and I like trying out new hardware. Both of these always pose problems under Linux.
Good stable drivers take time, and require the support of hardware vendors.
Sadly, this means I still have to own and use a copy of Windows XP or give up on games and toys. Ain't gonna happen!
Parent
Re:so? (Score:4, Insightful)
I couldn't agree more.
Linux is a great O/S and makes wonderful servers but as a desktop it just doesn't have the software. I earn my living using Photoshop, Cubase, Sound Forge and CD Architect.
I really couldn't care less what O/S my desktop runs just as long as I can get my work done. Sadly the Linux equivalents don't yet cut the mustard so I too am stuck with XP.
Linux is a great operating system which is only missing professional desktop applications.
Parent
Re:so? (Score:5, Funny)
Linux is like the Mooncup [today.com]: a nice idea, but messy and not for the squeamish. In fact, Linux can be likened to a Mooncup-using redhaired hippie girlfriend who lives in a house in the country she built herself from twigs and has very strong ideas on how everything should be and has all her original body hair. The sex is fantastic, but only if she thinks the astrological conditions are perfect. And the house has a hand-dug latrine, so she's propped a toilet bowl on top and thinks that's "user friendliness."
Windows, however, is like a nice normal bottle-blonde girlfriend who has a proper office job and dresses cleanly from Primark and has a sweet smile and lives in a proper bedsit and knows everyone and how to act normally and is accepted in society. She gets headaches a lot and fits of rage where she smashes everything and there's an odd smell of decaying human flesh coming from the drains and the toilet backs up every now and then filling the entire block with sewage and bits of bodies, but this is entirely normal and nothing to worry about.
Parent
Re:so? (Score:5, Interesting)
(especially given that OpenOffice is at least as good as MS Word)
Afraid I've got to interject here. I'm in the early stages of writing a dissertation, and OOo3 Writer just does not have the same feature set as even Word 2003 (which I'm using for it, under wine) for serious document composure.
I use Linux and have done for years, as my only OS, and I've used and support OOo and have done for years. I can't comment on the other portions of either office suite, because I've never put them to serious work. But, having spent a few hours really teaching myself Word 2003, then trying to see where the same functionality was in Writer, it became apparent that some of it just wasn't there.
It's a shame, but until OOo Writer gets (for example) something akin to Outline mode, it's just not able to match Word for advanced features. That said, OOo is very solid software, and will get there with regards to said features sooner or later I'm sure. Some may even say I'm using the wrong tool for the job.
Parent
Re:so? (Score:5, Funny)
In my generation, people used TeX and troff and thanked their lucky stars that they didn't have to type their PhD dissertations on a type-writer.
My honors project report was submitted in long-hand.
Parent
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:so? (Score:5, Funny)
And our numeral system didn't even have a 0. Damn you youngins and your fancy numbers.
Parent
Re:so? (Score:4, Informative)
Shouldn't you use LaTeX for writing your dissertation anyway?
Word always gave up on me on large documents with a lot of content.
Parent
Re:so? (Score:5, Informative)
I've used XP (feels like I've used it forever), Vista (even longer), and Ubuntu (since 6.04).
In Ubuntu I rarely had any hardware problems. Ubuntu 8.10 recognizes all hardware without ANY problem. In Windows (same hardware!), I have to install at least 5 different hardware drivers. Mind you that this was not on cheap or obscure hardware.
The way I see the hardware issue is: a fresh Windows installation needs half a dozen drivers to be installed manually by the user. Finding drivers is usually pretty easy, especially for newer hardware. In Linux, you have two scenarios:
1. It Just Works (TM).
2. You have driver issues: in this case, you're better of having problems with older hardware that is more likely to be supported by some third party driver.
Office software: OpenOffice.org? It fits my needs (but I do not use it in a professional context so YMMV)
Games: agreed, this is Windows turf.
General acceptance: someday... (one can hope)
Parent
Perspective (Score:4, Informative)
General acceptance: someday... (one can hope)
Well, as with several other stuff, it's just a matter of perspective.
If by general acceptance, you specifically restrict to PC compatible computers. Yes, there aren't many Linux installation around (well except if you work in a Linux-oriented shop, like research, academics, etc.) Just, like Intel has a quasi-monopoly on CPUs for these machines.
But if you extend your definition to the more broad concept of linux being executed on an electronic device, the situation is completely different : you'll suddenly realise that the Penguin is already everywhere. ... most brands of routers run Linux.
Just take DSL routers : there's currently one in almost each house here around. Linksys, D-Link, Netgear,
In several european country, DSL ISPs are even bundling own-branded "{name_of_ISP}-Box" routers for VoIP / IPTV and Internet running embed Linux.
Yes currently Mac OS X and Linux only account for less than 30% of the market share, leaving more than 70% Windows Box. But the 100% total of those are connected to the net using boxes which 99.9% of the time run Linux.
Same goes for lots of the Media box connected to your TV set. Unless you built your own Windows Media Center HTPC, chances are, you bought a ready-to-use box.
In the USA, that is most likely a TiVo. Which runs Linux. Here in Europe, you probably bought from MediaMarkt one of those countless dead-cheap miniITX-based "add your own harddisk" noname asian box. Which most probably runs Linux too.
Same in an enterprise : the desktops will be probably running XP. The servers could be running Server 2003. But the routers, the cheap RAID/NAT box, the noname small network-to-printer bridges, and lots of other small electronic gizmo are running some form of embed linux.
On the desktop, Linux is facing strong competition from Windows and Mac OS X. On the other hand, in the embed market Linux is only facing what is basically a big mess of hundreds of small ad-hoc firmwares, with no clear leader, and that lot of manufacturer are dumping in favor of Linux, simply because it offers them a much better, more coherent and easier to maintain platform to work with.
Currently if you want to build some network-enabled gadget, either you re-invent the wheel and built your own solution. Or you just slap Linux with some micro server on it.
Trolls are still waiting for "the year of the Linux Desktop". They just missed that "the year of the Linux gizmo" has already happened long before.
If you look at electronics at a whole, Linux is suddenly a much stronger leader.
Just as, if you look at electronics at a whole, the battle for CPU dominance has long ago been lost to ARM & MIPS.
(with a bunch of PICs occupying a significant place for an even broader definition of electronics)
--
Beside....
Finding drivers is usually pretty easy, especially for newer hardware. In Linux, you have two scenarios:
1. It Just Works (TM).
2. You have driver issues: in this case, you're better of having problems with older hardware that is more likely to be supported by some third party driver.
And in lots of distribution, its just a matter of adding a new repository with additional drivers.
With some distro like openSUSE, that's basically just clicking on a ".ymp" link at the end of the explanation page on their wiki, and everything (adding the repository, installing the packages, etc.) is handled automagically.
That's it. Info page -> Click -> Installed.
Parent
Re:MinKern anyone? (Score:5, Informative)
This explains nicely - http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1707 [zdnet.com]
Short answer: mostly.
Parent
Re:No Surprises Here (Score:5, Interesting)
"Come on guys, its a pre-beta! ... did you really expect them to actually do any thing significant so far?"
Yes. I pulled some facts off the Wiki but I think they are pretty accurate.
Windows Vista RTM: November 8, 2006.
Microsoft stated in 2007 that it is "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe"
Release dates are supposed to be in the region of 2009 or 2010.
So, to me, that says that it's *at least* eighteen-months, two-years into development (or thereabouts). It's got another year to eighteen months to go. So, halfway through it's development process, we have *zip* that is actually useful to the average user (which is who it is supposedly aimed at) and nothing to entice business users. There are *no* performance improvements. None. Programmers don't magically add 50% performance after-the-fact, it's *design* that gives you performance.
Halfway through and we don't have a single groundbreaking feature. Nothing. Not even something to show off temporarily. Seriously, read through the Wiki page on "new features in Windows 7" and have a look at the features that are actually *HERE*, not the ones "promised"... remember, Windows Vista was going to have WinFS etc. It's completely embarassing. Instead of a "new operating system", we just have:
Vista, with no better performance, some unnecessary UI changes (purely to make gullible people pay to "retrain" on the new OS in my opinion), removal of lots of built-in applications, a "Health Centre", some claims about fantastic new features that this article proves aren't even in there yet (better performance, threading, etc.) or that only a handful of people in the world could get excited about.
What that tells me is that all these marvellous new features DO NOT EXIST in a reliable form. But I'd be showing them everywhere if they did just work, even only on one machine - I'd be booting it up in conferences, showing it in trade shows, making people WANT that feature that I haven't finished yet and which only works on 25% of machines while the programmers hack on it. But there's *nothing*.
Fortunately, I saw the Vista thing coming.
I had a job interview the other day where the main technically-literate person on the panel asked my opinion on Vista. Needless to say, I was wary of giving my reply in case it was interpreted as belligerent or dismissive, but the interviewer and I laughed and joked and told Vista anecdotes for about ten minutes *in the interview* once he realised that I shared his very-low opinion of the OS. (I got the job, by the way.) I'm pretty sure, at this point, that Windows 7 will be more of the same or worse. Promises, promises, promises and then sting the customer before they realise that they've bought a turkey and that actually it was only useful for the little sticker with the Product Key on it that lets you use its predecessor instead.
Parent
Re:No Surprises Here (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes good, efficient design is from the ground up but once you've got the underlying structure sorted, you then move onto features. Once all the features are in place, then you move onto optimisation. Optimisation and bug fixing are the final stages of development, after all, you can't optimise things which haven't been implemented yet can you? Often, yes, you do get magical performance boosts late into development (have a look at videogame development for the clearest examples of this). However Microsoft have never promised magical performance boosts. They've just said less bloat, more streamlining.
No new features? There's the improved wireless, the GUI which will now load and be smooth BEFORE graphics drivers are installed (I don't believe any desktop versions of windows have done that since before win95), the interface is hugely optimised, resulting in a much smoother experience from practically everyone who has done the beta. They've shown a version that will run comfortably on netbooks whilst still looking and feeling great (and the OS is SSD optimised). They improved the UAC so you can make it as invasive or as invisible as you wish. They've implemented Libraries, Homegroups, a 'Play To' feature that will let you play media on any connected PCs. They've updated all the basic applications (notepad etc.).
Parent