Slashdot Log In
Is Windows 7 Faster Or Just Smarter?
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Nov 10, 2008 11:42 AM
from the perception-is-reality dept.
from the perception-is-reality dept.
Barence writes "The Windows 7 unveiling garnered largely positive coverage, with many hands-on testers praising it for being faster than Vista. But is it actually? To find out, this blogger ran a suite of benchmarks to see just how much quicker Windows 7 really is — and the results weren't quite what he expected. 'The actual performance gap between Vista and Windows 7 is ... nada. Absolutely nothing. Our Office benchmarks and video encoding tests complete in precisely the same time regardless of which OS is installed. [...] It's tempting to see this as a bit of a con. They've sped up the front end so it feels like you're getting more done, but in terms of real productivity it's no better than Vista."
Related Stories
[+]
Hands-On With Windows 7's New Features 662 comments
Barence writes "Microsoft has released the first pre-beta code of Windows 7, and PC Pro has a series of in-depth, hands-on examinations of all the new features. The revamped user interface has clearly gleaned more than a little inspiration from the Mac OS X Dock, but it goes further than the Apple concept with 'jumplists,' new gadgets and an updated system tray. The much-vaunted multi-touch controls were there to play with, and it seemed to work well. Networking has been given the full treatment, with new features HomeGroup and Libraries. Windows 7 debuts a new feature called Device Stage that has the potential to be unbelievably handy ... or a complete disaster. Finally, several new features could make PCs easier to manage and secure for IT departments, such as BitLocker To Go and Branch Cache." All in all, these features together lead some people to the conclusion that Windows 7 will "suck less than Vista" — that last link from reader ThinSkin, who also points to a related sampling of screenshots from the current iteration of Windows 7.
[+]
Ubuntu Wipes Windows 7 In Benchmarks 781 comments
twitter writes "Recent and controversial benchmarks for Windows 7 leave an important question unanswered: 'Is it faster than GNU/Linux?' Here, at last, is a benchmark that pits Ubuntu, Vista and Windows 7 against each other on the same modern hardware. From install time to GUI efficiency, Ubuntu beats Windows and is often twice as fast. Where Windows 7 is competitive, the difference is something the average user would not notice. The average GNU/Linux user is now getting better absolute performance from their computer as well as better value than the average Windows user."
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.
Trick Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Is Windows 7 Faster Or Just Smarter?
I don't like either of those options, how about "just more of the same Microsoft software?"
I understand the article points out that they went with simply a "more responsive interface" paradigm (Web 2.0/AJAX, anyone?) and probably didn't really fix any serious problems. But at the same time this headline reeks of either marketing or hilarious lawyer type questions. Examples:
Worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't define "faster" to include the response time of the interface.
But most users DO include the interface response time in their opinion of which is "faster".
I think Microsoft made a big mistake with the "fade in" menus. Just turning them off gives the user the impression that you've made their machine "faster". Even though email works at the same speed as before. As does Word. As do their games.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
But most users DO include the interface response time in their opinion of which is "faster"
Indeed, and that's a pet peeve I have with Linux. I use Linux - a lot. Heavily on servers at work (but generally CLI only there), and then at home I have a Linux Mint desktop that I use in addition to my Mac and Windows systems.
I love the concept of OSS, and for someone who when they were growing up saw a compiler as something that cost hundreds of dollars, the whole concept of having such a nice development environment is just amazing.
That said, while actually going from point A to point B probably isn't any slower, the interface just makes the system feel draggy. All the little pauses and and graphical oddities when moving a window around just take their toll, but the actual OS is fine (as obvious when I try to do something like say, compress video or something, where the Linux system holds it's own quite nicely).
Hopefully Wayland will take off and help in that regard. Mac OS X has shown what a slick, responsive UI can do for a Unix-like backend. It just sucks that it's tied down to only a subset of available hardware.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm using Gnome with Metacity. The problem isn't the window manager itself though. That effects the general menu system and window decorations and such. For instance just opening/closing tabs in Firefox (an operation independent of your window manager) feels much slower in Linux because you hit close and there's a bit of "clunky" period for a fraction of a second where you see everything happen that you shouldn't. The tab lingers for a brief instant after pressing the button, then disappears, the tab listing blinks out for a split second and updates, and the window content blinks quickly and then updates again. In Windows or Mac the same operation is much more seamless. I hit close, and everything instantly appears right. While there probably isn't much appreciable time difference involved between the start and finish of the operation, there's a clunkiness that gives the appearance of a slower system.
BTW, I've used fast window managers before. My favorite used to be WindowMaker which I programmed in heavily. However, I've gotten past that phase. My computer is many times faster, and Windows and Mac give me a fairly responsive UI with all the menus and such of a modern system. Shaving off that functionality (which I do want) to supposedly regain performance that I'd already have with another platform isn't a viable option.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Tip for you: (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't use the eye-candy effects.
Then you'll have no effects which you've already stated are why modern UI's are all slow.
That's the thing - modern UI's AREN'T all slow.
It's not the effects - I generally keep those off anyways (why I'm using Metacity rather than Compiz/Fusion). Apple's OS X for example uses tons of effects and doesn't have the same slow feel to it. It's the smoothness and rendering that's an issue. When I do something on Windows or Mac, it either happens instantly, or there's a very smooth transition from one state to the other. On Linux it's often a bunch of blips where crazy things happen in that area and it all ends up correct at the end, but it had a klunkyness to it that created the perception of slowness.
For example, if I maximize a window: I consider it fine if the window either instantly appears at the new size (no effects), or does a smooth transition from one size to another (effects). What I don't like though is when I hit the maximize button, and I catch a brief glimpse of the window frame jump to the new size, after which the window background color expands to fill the window, and then the icons and other widgets all expand out to fill the new size of the frame.
All that stuff might occur in the same timeframe as a smooth effect would have (most LCD displays these days run at 60hz, so with 60 frames sent out to the display every second it's pretty easy to notice multiple frames doing odd things even if the actual time of the operation occurs very quickly), or on a no effects system it might have just delayed that long before updating. On the Linux system though, I'm subject to a constantly plethora of such displays.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't be too surprised about that - most people are much more concerned about the apparent UI responsiveness than whether they'll shave a few seconds off of a video encode. And given that most people see Vista as very slow and unresponsive, Microsoft would do well to change that perception unless they want to be known for the TWO biggest software disasters in the 21st century.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Insightful)
Having worked in marketing and well as puely technical roles it is clear as a bell what is going on here.
When new product uptake isn't up to projections the marketing dept. has a few options. One of the options in its arsenal is to "relaunch". Windows 7 is clearly a "relaunch" of Vista. With all the development time and Money put into Vista don't think for a second that they can develop yet another code base in a fraction of the time. It is the same product with a different name.
Relaunches are used when there is a perceived problem in the marketplace and the engineering dept.says the product is sound.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Interesting)
Can you give some examples of OS X being "slow" and unable to be turned off? Windows aggravates me to no end, but I can't think of any graphics "gimmicks" in OS X then get in the way (or at least that I still have enabled)
And yes Macs cost more and are of higher quality than bargain bin PCs. This has nothing to do with the article or the quality of the OS. If you had a real point you just killed it by trolling.
Parent
Re:Worse than that. (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. I doubt that the CPU or GPU are of differing quality. Except, of course, that the Mac has a much faster CPU than the eMachine, which is also where some of that cost comes in.
Uhh. NO. While Apple's case designs are *much* better than most third party cases that are available, they still use Seagate/Maxtor HDD's (just going by some G3/G4/G5's I've had my hands into), and standard off the shelf RAM, even off the shelf CD-ROM's.
Continuing...
I built my own PCs for a long time, but finally got fed up with low quality, buggy components. I don't have spare RAM, mobos, and PSUs lying around to troubleshoot crappy hardware to figure out which piece is bad or incompatible with some other random cheap crappy piece. I still buy PC desktops, but my last several computers have been barebones kits from Dell and Shuttle. When I buy RAM it's always from a reputable company, as I've had as many unusable sticks of Kingston and the like as have actually worked.
It is not the "PC's" fault that you purchased bottom-barrel crap components. Know what Apple uses for motherboards? Slightly modified Intel parts (again, going from what I've seen in some newer machines that went to surplus at my place of work because of how expensive they'd have been to repair). I've never purchased motherboards (even some bottom-barrel priced boards), memory sticks from various companies (though I've settled on G.Skill lately), or other parts that were "buggy". Yes, I've had an occasional DOA part, but that's what warranties are for. Just going by your own words, I'd say you are one of those "Yea, I can be a PC-Tech here for (insert company), because I built my own machine at home!" people I see all over the place. The kind of person that knows *just* enough to assemble a machine, but not enough to make sure all the parts your ordering/spec'ing for a machine will actually work together. This isn't the fault of the aftermarket parts producers -- it's yours.
And to suggest that they're the "same thing" as an $200-$400 eMachines or Dell is a complete farce.
Actually, they *are* basically the same thing. Like I said, you get an awesome Apple designed case, but the parts inside are basically off the shelf PC parts. Hell, I bought an Intel 975xbx2 mainboard that, with pcefi, worked perfectly under OSX 10.4 and 10.5 with vanilla kernel/kexts/etc (of course I did have to keep the couple modifications needed to bypass checks for the silly Apple ROM's, etc).
Having re-read what I typed, it sounds an awful lot like I'm harping on YOU instead of your argument, however, that's not my intention. I'm just really tired of seeing "Nu-uh! Apple uses much higher quality parts than you'll find in a PC, that's why they're better/more expensive!" arguments. If there were any truth to it, I'd be quiet on the subject (or even blast the "pc makers" for the same), however, it's just not true. Now, maybe when you get to the $200 Bargain Basement E-Machine, maybe (though even still, many of the parts *are* the same).
I think the major bits making Apple machines as expensive as they can be are the case designs and the modifications made to the mainboards (it doesn't help that Apple charges ridiculous prices for RAM/HDD upgrades). If Apple pushed the kinds of volume that, say, HP or Dell did, they might get some better volume discounts on the custom parts...
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Funny)
Well, that's just deceptive. Amtrak provides neither!
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Funny)
"If I were to tell you the fact that Windows 7 developers dine on human flesh at their desks to start each day anew, how would you react?"
"That explains everything!"
Parent
Even More Importantly... (Score:5, Funny)
I understand the article points out that they went with simply a "more responsive interface" paradigm (Web 2.0/AJAX, anyone?) and probably didn't really fix any serious problems.
I can't believe that no one here has made the obvious connection yet: Microsoft is copying yet another Mac OS feature: *TEH SNAPPY* [google.com]!!!
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Funny)
Yes or no, has Steve Balmer stopped beating his wife?
Yes, I asked her last night -- he stopped around mid-June.
Please, it's a simple yes or no question. We don't need details or explanations, if the witness would just stick to the facts we could move forward.
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Funny)
Yes or no, has Steve Balmer stopped beating his wife?
Yes, I asked her last night -- he stopped around mid-June.
Please, it's a simple yes or no question. We don't need details or explanations, if the witness would just stick to the facts we could move forward.
Farmer Joe decided his injuries from the accident were serious enough to take the trucking company (responsible for the accident) to court. In court, the trucking company's fancy lawyer was questioning farmer Joe. "Didn't you say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine'?" said the lawyer. Farmer Joe responded, "Well, I'll tell you what happened. I had just loaded my favorite mule Bessie into the......." "I didn't ask for any details," the lawyer interrupted, "just answer the question. Did you not say, at the scene of the accident, 'I'm fine!'" Farmer Joe said, "Well, I had just got Bessie into the trailer and I was driving down the road..." The lawyer interrupted again and said, "Judge, I am trying to establish the fact that, at the scene of the accident, this man told the Highway Patrolman on the scene that he was just fine. Now several weeks after the accident he is trying to sue my client. I believe he is a fraud. Please tell him to simply answer the question."
By this time the Judge was fairly interested in Farmer Joe's answer and said to the lawyer, "I'd like to hear what he has to say about his favorite mule Bessie." Joe thanked the Judge and proceeded, "Well, as I was saying, I had just loaded Bessie, my favorite mule, into the trailer and was driving her down the highway when this huge semi-truck and trailer ran the stop sign and smacked my truck right in the side. I was thrown into one ditch and Bessie was thrown into the other. I was hurting real bad and didn't want to move. However, I could hear ole Bessie moaning and groaning. I knew she was in terrible shape just by her groans. Shortly after the accident a Highway Patrolman came on the scene. He could hear Bessie moaning and groaning so he went over to her. After he looked at her he took out his gun and shot her between the eyes. Then the Patrolman came across the road with his gun in his hand and looked at me. He said, "Your mule was in such bad shape I had to shoot her - how are you feeling?"
I'd give the attribution but I forgot where I found this. Apologies to the author, wherever you are.
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anybody else remember when the greatest thing in Windows was After Dark, with it's screensaver of flying toasters? what we really need now is a repeat of that, but with chairs instead.
Parent
Re:Trick Question (Score:5, Funny)
Mu.
Parent
Mp3 Locking? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Mp3 Locking? (Score:5, Funny)
Depends, that capability will only work in 5 different versions of Windows 7:
Windows 7: Super Extreme Edition
Windows 7: Slightly Extreme Edition
Windows 7: Spectacular Edition
Windows 7: Excellence Edition
Windows 7: Better Than Average Edition
Parent
Re:Mp3 Locking? (Score:5, Insightful)
So ... the Better than Average Edition is the basic edition, right?
It's like the popcorn sizes in the movies. Now they're called large, extra large and super size. Funny enough, they're just the same size the old small, medium and large sizes. Only the price changed.
Parent
Re:Mp3 Locking? (Score:5, Funny)
"I don't want to start a holy war here
what is the deal with you Windows fanatics?
You're off to a bad start.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work.
I hope you are calling Firefox "Netscape" out of habit. I really don't want to know what you are doing using the actual Netscape browser.
I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Windows 7 box over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems."
It's shiny. And it's not Vista (at least in name).
Parent
Productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
The productivity would actually increase if the front end speed increased since it would allow the user to interact faster etc. The other tests such as encoding etc are really CPU and application dependent and not very much OS dependent, so it's not really a fair test.
Re:Productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what I was thinking - For most Windows users, the user is a major bottle-neck. By simply responding more quickly to them and allowing them some time to react (even if the system isn't fully ready to react to their next input), you can certainly improve performance. While there are a lot of users that do care about encoding time and Office benchmarks, most users just want IE and Outlook to let them start typing quickly so that they can forward on the latest news regarding Bill Gates paying people for testing their new e-mail system or letting their voice be heard by voting on "Am I Hot or Not?"
Parent
Re:Productivity (Score:4, Insightful)
The productivity would actually increase if the front end speed increased since it would allow the user to interact faster etc. The other tests such as encoding etc are really CPU and application dependent and not very much OS dependent, so it's not really a fair test.
Umm encoding is not all CPU and application dependent. Maybe you forgot what an OS does. It schedules when a program executes, where it is located in memory etc. So if Vista puts a program in different places in memory rather then linear or it has a different caching model then windows 7, the execution time will be different. Also if vista does not let the program execute as much as windows 7 the execution time will be different.
Parent
Re:Productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
This is very true, but a slow UI is what most people will complain about. If someone fires up handbrake, sees two passes of h264 encoding with 30min+ remaining per pass (and that's what I see on my 8-core/10GB system, so most people will be looking at 2-4x that), they'll put that down to it being a slow application. If they go to click a menu item in Handbrake and there's a perceptible delay, they'll blame the OS.
Is either bit of blame entirely fair or correctly placed? Nope. But that won't stop 99% of computer users.
Parent
Re:Productivity (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree. I would like to see the same tests run on XP and see how much of an improvement it offers. I would imagine some, but not a whole lot.
I installed a leaked copy of Windows 7 on a test box and the UI is definately more responsive...not a huge difference but noticable. The dwm.exe (Dreaded Windows Manager, is what I call it) for the UI uses a hell of a lot less memory than it did before. But aside from that, some minor dialog box changes, it just seems like Vista to me. Which is fine, I haven't had any real issues with Vista in the last year now that stable hardware drivers exist for pretty much everything. Granted I don't try to run it on crap systems with less than 2GB of RAM, either. Although my 7 test box only has 1GB of RAM.
I'm waiting for a version with the new taskbar to come out, to see if it's actually worth a squat or not. Oh, they did put the fancy ribbon UI on paint, wordpad, etc. Updated calculator, too. I guess they figured it was time to update them since they remained pretty much the same since 3.1....
Parent
The front end is what's wrong with Vista anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
If they've sped up the front end consistently, then I would be very happy.
My primary complaint with Vista is how long UI operations take. Opening windows, dragging them around, launching applications etc. all seem to take place in something approximating geologic time.
Once I have a high-performance app open (say a game), the game itself runs pretty quickly. It's the getting there that's a problem.
Parent
Smarter not harder (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I'll stick with Homer Simpson's motto: "If something is hard to do, then it is not worth doing." Which is my rule regarding installing new Microsoft Operating Systems.
Just to throw out one more gem; "If it isn't broken it doesn't have enough features yet." Which seems to be Microsoft's golden rule.
Re:Smarter not harder (Score:4, Interesting)
Try installing Ubuntu or OpenSuSE sometime. I'll admit the Windows Vista installer is pretty good, but if and ONLY if your system has one hard drive installed. If you have multiple hard drives it'll barf until you disconnect the others. The problem is it only wants to see one possible install target on one interface. I've seen this on multiple systems and the first time I ran into it I thought I did something wrong until I queried google and found many other folks had run into the same issue.
Nothing particularly unusual. Ran into this on the Asus P5Q3 Deluxe WiFi (ICH10 and Silicon Image), P5B Deluxe WiFi (ICH8R and Marvell), and the Foxconn 945P7AA-8EKRS2 (ICH7R and ITE).
Ubuntu, Centos, OpenSuSE, Win2k3, and heck, even Windows XP doesn't have this problem of choking when multiple mass storage devices are installed on multiple interfaces. Only Vista.
Parent
Bad benchmarks for productivity. (Score:5, Insightful)
Video encoding is a terrible metric for "productivity" since it's something the computer can do on it's on while you go get tea. It's pretty much CPU and memory bound. The underlying OS shouldn't be doing anything but getting out of the way.
But UI "tricks" are an improvement. If find it easier to start your video encoder, or can do other resource-light things while the video encoder is running at a small cost to the actual encoding speed, then you're making better use of your meat co-processor. Which really is a "productivity" gain.
Re:Bad benchmarks for productivity. (Score:5, Insightful)
In which case, as long as it can do it in real time, you haven't got any problems. Making it faster isn't going to help because the bottleneck is the outside world.
Parent
Perhaps this alpha releases uses Vistas kernel? (Score:4, Interesting)
I was under the impression that W7 would have a modified kernel , but if it is nothing more than the Vista kernel warmed over with the same core libraries then nothing much will change so I guess no surprise there.
As is the way with MS , they update all the eye candy first to get the drooling masses interested , then they get down to the core stuff where it really matters later on - ie the exact opposite way round to the way it should be done.
Re:Perhaps this alpha releases uses Vistas kernel? (Score:5, Interesting)
they update all the eye candy first to get the drooling masses interested
Frankly, I don't believe the drooling masses exist. The only people I see pretending to be drooling over MS's second-rate eye candy are the pundits that they're bribing with cash and free equipment, and they really don't sound convincing.
-jcr
Parent
Re:Perhaps this alpha releases uses Vistas kernel? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lipstick on a pig aphorism comes to mind.
W7 is the Vista that Vista could have been. But that may be damning with faint praise.
The sheer obesity of Vista could easily have been improved upon. Somewhere, there is a coder army taking instructions from an idiot. They need to find that idiot and fire that person. Even Gates was better at direction.
Parent
And so, at the end of the article: (Score:4, Interesting)
FTA:
For comparison, the PC Pro benchmarks complete around 22% more quickly on XP than on Vista, as detailed in my feature "Memory Laid Bare" (issue 169, p122).
-sigh-
Wouldn't suppose they'll have an "LTS" version of XP, supporting it past the already-stated cutoff....
Okay, but that's still important (Score:5, Insightful)
I really wouldn't expect significantly different scores for something like an office suite or media encoding. Once the OS gives the process all the memory and CPU time it needs, that's basically it. Maybe for games where there could be significant differences in the DirectX flow, but not in general.
But as the article notes, throughput isn't everything. The "up front" speed and how long it takes for a button push to result in action is equally important if not more so. The responsiveness of applications is something an OS can have a significant impact on, and is probably the most important thing for making the computer -feel- fast, and thus giving a better user experience. Hell I've long considered responsiveness to be justification enough for dual-core processors even when a user isn't multi-tasking or running multi-threading apps. So if it's a good enough reason to get a whole second core, it's a good enough reason for an OS upgrade.
It does sound kinda cagey that they're making this one of the main reasons to get 7, rather than improving Vista. But whatever, it's all academic to me.
Productivity originates from the users perceptions (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm no fan of Windows. But improving UI responsiveness, does greatly improve user throughput when using a system - partly because the user can do what they need to do more quickly, but also because there are fewer jarring moments where you are brought out of the process of creation to have to wait on the computer to finish something. These small interruptions can add up to a big loss of focus over a day.
Re:Productivity originates from the users percepti (Score:5, Informative)
Unsurprisingly, the German magazine C't has just compared XP, Vista and the new one.
They came to a different conclusion - W7 is noticeably faster than Vista and roughly the same as XP.
They found no difference on laptop Battery life between Vista and W7 though.
When it comes down to C't and some blogger, sorry - I'll take C't. Those guys take independence very seriously.
Parent
Faster interface = improved productivity (Score:5, Insightful)
A Con! (Score:5, Insightful)
So let me get this straight: Windows 7 is only faster than Vista. It doesn't manage to also make third party programs written for Vista magically faster as well.
If it feels faster, you're getting more done (Score:5, Insightful)
They've sped up the front end so it feels like you're getting more done, but in terms of real productivity it's no better than Vista
I take exception to this. Obviously, if the video encoding tests were written well, there will be little speedup. But if a window environment "feels" faster, you actually DO get more done. There is less frustration in waiting, and you can generally multi-task much easier.
There was recently a discussion of a faster X server [slashdot.org]. Frankly, I get plenty done on the old "slow" X server, but if one feels faster, it will actually eliminate a lot of brainpower consumed by waiting on a context switch.
There was recently a discussion on a faster Linux boot-up [slashdot.org], which preloaded your configuration as you're typing your password, and had lots of other fast features... But that doesn't actually speed up Linux, in terms of encoding video. It just makes it "feel" faster.
I like OSS, but I see lots of bad tags being made. Unfair comparisons are simply unfair comparisons. You can't hail a nice feature in one OS, and discount exactly the same feature on a different OS. Without being hypocritical, anyway.
A bit smarter would be welcome (Score:4, Insightful)
Improving the front end is overdue and welcome.
Under Windows 2000/XP (have not touched Vista yet) I have often wondered why the Windows Explorer takes ages to show a directory, even if the actual content at the displayed directory level is only a few dozen elements. Maybe it scans all subdirectories for whatever arcane reason?
I strongly suspect there is a lot that can be optimized there, and if Windows 7 finally got around to it, this would be a good thing.
Optimizing the UI is perfectly legtimate exercise (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course a snappy UI is a huge deal. Users spend a lot of time navigating before they actually run anything. And, keeping the UI snappy even when the CPU is under heavy load is an especially important user experience requirement.
There's nothing illegitimate or sneaky about optimizing the hardware to better serve the user.
I am NOT the kind of guy... (Score:4, Insightful)
That would cut MS any kind of slack. I hate their ugly guts (and boy, all guts are ugly, but theirs...: just imagine winnt's kernel code).
That being said, if the thing is faster in the iface, its a faster experience and that is that.
Those are seconds saved.
Its just stupid to hit them for doing something better, especially if you see what they are coming from: i mean, it cant be that hard to make something feel better than, for christ sakes, VISTA.
Where was the real improvement (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the problems with Vista was hardware upgrades. Every new cycle of Windows requires some hardware upgrades for the new version. Unfortunately for MS, the 5 year gap between XP and Vista hurt them. Combined with MS not defining the real requirements of Vista meant that most people trying to upgrade their 5 year old machine would end up in disaster.
These are MS recommended hardware for Vista Ultimate/Business:
Compared to XP Pro requirements:
Now both requirements are really inadequate to use the OS fully. The difference is with only 3 years between 98/XP, it was easy for users to upgrade their CPU, motherboards, video cards without much infrastructure changes. For the 98/XP upgrade it was only 3 years and most users only needed more RAM. If users did require hardware upgrades (CPU, video card), these were readily available. Need a faster Pentium/Athlon in 2001? Go down to BestBuy. The 5 year gap between XP and Vista meant that some hardware upgrades were not easy or even possible. Need a faster Pentium/Athlon in 2007? They don't make them anymore. Ebay is your only real source and even if you upgrade to the fastest one, your system will be slow.
Reviews of Windows 7 are biased (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Betas and RCs of Windows are ALWAYS faster (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Productivity. (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right. However, you're missing an important point: Hardware and software vendors implicitly collude to create a continuous captive market demand for their products.
Windows version "x" won't run acceptably on anything less than a 2GHz processor with 4GB RAM--time to upgrade your computer!
Video card "y" only has drivers available for Vista--time to upgrade your OS!
Support for application "z" has been dropped, and the new version requires more RAM and Windows 7--time to upgrade everything!!!
Honestly, find a modern computer which can run Windows 2000, and you'll have a blazing fast machine. XP isn't _much_ slower, and has the advantage of newer device support.
Strictly speaking, an OS shouldn't have "features" from the user's point of view. Gluing a GUI to the OS was arguably Microsoft's first act of truly evil genius. Same thing with the web browser. THESE ARE NOT OPERATING SYSTEM FUNCTIONS, but they help increase the hardware requirements (and the hardware requirement delta between versions), and hence sell hardware, which sells software, which sells...
In a just world, Microsoft would have taken the code base for Windows 2000, added support for 64-bit multicore processors, newer hardware and so forth, tweaked the UI a bit (XP has some clear advantages--and some clear disadvantages), and LEFT THE REST ALONE! Most of the serious code changes between versions have been for no reason except adding "features" (i.e. stupid crutches and applications), which slow things down.
But hey--it's all about marketing, sales, and profits. That's the reality of the industry.
*and maybe explicitly--who knows what goes on behind closed doors?
Parent