Slashdot Log In
32bit Win7 Vs. Vista Vs. XP
Posted by
kdawson
on Sat Jan 03, 2009 08:21 PM
from the getting-a-feel-for-it dept.
from the getting-a-feel-for-it dept.
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested the latest Win7 build against XP and Vista and came to a surprising conclusion: Win7 performs better than the other 2 OSs in the vast majority of the 23 tasks tested. Even installation. 'Rather than publish a series of benchmark results for the three operating systems (something which Microsoft frowns upon for beta builds, not to mention the fact that the final numbers only really matter for the release candidate and RTM builds), I've decided to put Windows 7, Vista and XP head-to-head in a series of real-world tests...'" This review shows only a 1-2-3 ranking for each test, so there's no sense of the quantitative level of improvement.
Related Stories
Submission: Windows 32bit comparisson: Win7 vs Vista vs XP. by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.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.
I question the results. (Score:4, Informative)
Take results with a grain of salt. He ranks Vista as better than XP on the AMD machine and as nearly equal on the Pentium machine.
Of course, the AMD machine has 4 GB of RAM and the Pentium machine has 1 GB, so that could have something to do with it.
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Interesting)
that just sounds like a fisherman tale....
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Informative)
Unless you need the proprietary ATI or nVidia drivers, one reboot at the end of installation and it's done. And, if you do need to download those drivers, that's only one more reboot. Two at most, and you're done.
Not true, even if you use [gxk]dm, you should be able to "activate" the new driver (after updating xorg.conf) by killing the dm. It'll auto-restart and thus load nvidia.ko.
Of course, God only Smiles on you if you use startx.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Funny)
And they say Linux isn't ready for regular users.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Funny)
Of course it is, but the newbies have to suffer a reboot, only the elite get to keep their uptime even while updating graphics card drivers.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Informative)
That depends on which driver and how you install it in the first place. I use Fedora, so I can only use that for my example. If you use a different distro, YMMV. If you download the nVidia driver from the OEM site and install it, you will have to reinstall it every time you update the kernel, because of the way it works. Or, you can download kmod-nvidia and install that, because that gets updated whenever the kernel does. And, just in case there's a time gap, you can also install akmod-nvidia. That checks on boot to see if you have the latest kmod, and if it's out of date, builds another one on the fly.
So, the answer is, yes, you do have to rebuild/reinstall modules, but the process can, and often is, done either by the distro maintainers, or on the fly without any user intervention.
Parent
About rebuilds (Score:5, Informative)
Do you still have to rebuild/reinstall modules for Linux for each version of the kernel?
In addition to the other /.ers' reports :
- openSUSE : No, you don't. .ko into the current modules collection.
if you install the drivers from an RPM (which is one single click on a web-page away, thanks to their 1-click-install feature) everything is taken care of by the package manager.
if you install the drivers from an ATI/NVIDIA installer or something more esoteric that you compiled your self, the openSUSE kernel upgrade will attempt (successfully in all my occurence) to import automatically the previous
- Debian stable : no you don't.
Everything including the kernel version, etc. stays the same across version updates, except for patched bugs. The previous modules keep working because the situation is exactly the same as before.
Atleast you don't have to reinstall every driver in Windows each time you've ran Windows update...
The fact that their whole OS stays exactly the same and doesn't improve a bit over the course of 5 years may have something to play in this situation.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Informative)
It's possible that the people who compiled the test results rated the OS's from 1 to 3 with 3 being the best
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Informative)
But he could have benchmarked Vista and XP, then given an above/below rating for Windows 7.
And in fact, he HAS [zdnet.com] performed that test in the past and come to the conclusion that XP outperformed Vista.
The fact that his results are reversed this time must throw serious doubt on his credibility.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Informative)
The test you link to used SP2, while the new tests use SP3. XP SP2 and SP3 aren't the same thing. In fact, most benchmarks put Vista SP1 ahead of XP SP3 or at least within spitting distance of each other.
I'm not a big fan of Adrian, but he does hardware pretty seriously and lays out all his testing method well enough for you to duplicate it.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Insightful)
My major problem with these test results is that he ranked them 1, 2, and 3. He should have put in the actual amount of time these tests took so we could see how much big of a difference it is. 1, 2, 3 tells me nothing. The difference between 1 and 2 could be 0.01% or 5000%.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Informative)
i've found out that generally speaking ZDNet articles are total bullshit, with no relevance to the real world.
This article and your example is just one example of that.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Informative)
Take results with a grain of salt. He ranks Vista as better than XP on the AMD machine and as nearly equal on the Pentium machine
Sadly, as much as the SlashDot world not like to believe, this is accurate.
If you have 1GB of RAM even on old hardware, Vista is as fast as XP, as the extra RAM offsets the Vista features overhead and Superfetch and other tricks of Vista help make up performance gains.
With 2GB of RAM, Vista will be faster, even if you have a 800mzh PIII and a 1998 ATI video card.
Vista or should we say the NT kernel in Vista is not slow or bloated, it is the extra features that Vista is doing that consumes RAM that offsets its performance gains over XP. (Search Engine, etc.)
The CPU cycles for the Vista features are light, it is all about RAM. Just like with virtually every Windows and known OS update in history, they want more RAM for the features they add.
- Even for Leopard to perform as fast as Tiger you need 1GB of RAM, which is funny considering Apple was making fun of Vista for the exact same reason.
Here is how it works:
512MB RAM - XP > Vista
1GB RAM - XP = Vista
1.5GB+ RAM - Vista > XP
Windows7 so far is showing that even on 512MB is faster than XP in many cases, which is the result of the event based service manager, that unloads processes/services when not needed and saves RAM.
An example on a running test system with 3Ghz P4 and 1GB RAM:
Vista 41% - OS Consumed RAM
Win7 20% - OS Consumed RAM
See how that might help the Vista RAM overhead and put Win7 back in line with XP?
PS And on this test system Vista is faster than XP - even in gaming with a Geforce 5600 video card.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here are some benchmarks right over at tomshardware [tomshardware.com] that show that the "SlashDot world" in this case is accurate (amazing!).
This was on a system with 2 GB of RAM, so according to you Vista should have been faster, but it wasn't. So your idea that it's the RAM that's the problem is bollocks.
Anecdotally, a colleague of mine was complaing her brand new lenovo thinkpad with Vista was slow compared to her imac -- she was kind of amazed that the they had the same processor and memory.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Interesting)
Beyond that, I have yet to see any conclusive benchmarks posted by the defenders of Vista on this thread showing any proof that Vista is faster than XP, just empty assertions. What I do see is a bunch of Microsoft fanboys comforting themselves that their favorite brand released an OS that has turned out to be a flop.
Let me qualify my positions here though. I have Vista installed on an old hard drive on a brand new PC -- my own conclusion is that Vista is not as bad as everyone makes out, but you all need to stop pretending that Vista is fast. It isn't. It's not terribly slow on nice hardware, and it looks very nice and it has some nice features, e.g., the DX10 features on new games, but it's not fast.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Insightful)
Scheduler in Vista also performs worse than on XP (so MS had to resort to such hacks: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx [technet.com] [technet.com] ).
Saying this with the link you provide pretty much discredits anything you continue to say.
You have no idea what you are talking about...
Here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp [extremetech.com]
Make sure you read the PCMark, then click Next to go to the Gaming Page. Vista outperforms XP in every test. (The only test it is a couple of points behind is the synthetic 3DMark.)
And this is SP3 - the fastest XP compared to Vista.
So go on again about how horrible the scheduler is in Vista, I am guessing you don't even know what a scheduler does and especially I know you don't know how it works in NT.
If you want to put your hands over your ears and eyes and keep screaming, "Vista is slower", try clicking your heels together too, it is as likely to make it true and take you to Kansas.
The Vista is slower myths need to stop and the idiocy behind them is really getting annoying.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is you just don't understand what the audio system in Vista does. It is by far the most advanced personal computer audio system available on any platform. Which is the reason that it needs a more consistent stream of data. Because adjusting the timing to the computer's various speakers so that the audio arrives at your head at the same time rather than leaves the speakers at the same time isn't free.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Interesting)
True. I wasn't exactly clear. I'm talking OS audio subsystem for delivering audio from apps to the hardware. Not apps.
Right. Zero latency. Talk about lies. It establishes callbacks in the apps, writing into shared memory segments which are then mixed and delivered to the standard linux audio device. Yeah. Zero latency as long as you stay ahead of the playback. Just like pretty much every sound system since the days of the original Soundblaster Pro using DMA. Where's the signal processing layer in there? Oh, it's third party. Where's the channel synchronization? Can't find it. And awesome how it punts sample rate changes back to the apps. And it uses floats as the sample format? Talk about a really bad design decision. I mean you get three of four apps going in hi definition audio (96/24/7.1) and you're going to be seeing twenty or thirty percent of your system going down the shit hole just to do sample format conversions. And what is the upside? Nothing. For every 32 bits of sample data you get 24 bits of mantissa and a useless exponent. And shockingly enough it's all software. Where's that hardware acceleration you're so fond of?
And what happens under load and the realtime scheduler can't quite keep up? Ah, I see, you get drop outs. What happens on Vista? Nothing, they hook into the scheduler to guarantee that their audio paths get time on the CPU.
It's not a matter of delaying individual streams. It's a matter of delaying individual channels from the same stream. So that your rear speakers sitting against the far wall behind you play just a bit earlier.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Informative)
"Right. Zero latency. Talk about lies. It establishes callbacks in the apps, writing into shared memory segments which are then mixed and delivered to the standard linux audio device."
That's pretty much all I want from my audio system. Just give me a precise control over my audio stack and then you can build anything on top of it.
XP does exactly this - there's a fast, efficient, hardware-friendly kernel streaming layer.
Vista on the other hand forces you to use inferior-quality stack because MS couldn't figure out how to do protected audio path with kernel filters.
"Yeah. Zero latency as long as you stay ahead of the playback. Just like pretty much every sound system since the days of the original Soundblaster Pro using DMA."
DirectShow is famous for its imprecise timing control due to KMixer ;) My previous employer made a lot of $$$$$$ by making time-correcting kernel streaming filters.
"Where's the signal processing layer in there? Oh, it's third party. Where's the channel synchronization? Can't find it."
Everything is third-party. JACK only gives you a microsecond-precise information about audio system. You can do the rest yourself.
"And shockingly enough it's all software. Where's that hardware acceleration you're so fond of?"
It's possible to have hardware filters in JACK. The problem is that hardware filters are not that useful for professional-type audio systems. Look at OpenAL/EAX for hardware acceleration of spatial sound and other goodies.
BTW, OpenAL Creative Drivers even work on Vista by bypassing all its audio stack.
And.... SURPRISE! Windows Vista uses 32-bit floats as internal audio sample format ( http://blogs.msdn.com/larryosterman/archive/2007/04/03/volume-in-windows-vista-part-1-what-is-volume.aspx [msdn.com] )!
"And what happens under load and the realtime scheduler can't quite keep up? Ah, I see, you get drop outs. What happens on Vista? Nothing, they hook into the scheduler to guarantee that their audio paths get time on the CPU."
Newsflash: if Vista scheduler can't quite keep up - you'll get sound drop-outs (I _do_ get them when I test my audio app on VMWare). There's no way around it. Realtime scheduler guarantees that your audio stack will get the highest priority, just like in Vista.
"It's not a matter of delaying individual streams. It's a matter of delaying individual channels from the same stream. So that your rear speakers sitting against the far wall behind you play just a bit earlier."
That doesn't matter. It's still not hard to do using kernel streaming.
I can distinctly remember that nice '3d-room' settings on my Creative Audigy 2 back in 2003. All in hardware.
Parent
The devil is in the details (Score:4, Funny)
Explain to me why this rates a +3 "Informative" mod when the poster tells us absolutely nothing more about his system, his applications, or how he uses his machine.
Parent
Re:The devil is in the details (Score:5, Informative)
How about this.
HP DV9825NR
1.83 GHz T5550 Intel
4GB DDR-800
320GB SATA
512MB GeForce 8600M GS
RealTek HD Audio
I had to hack drivers to get the video card to be seen under XP.
Used for audio production, I made a quick multi-tracked setup using CoolEdit under both Vista and XP, then tested mixdown/encoding from .WAV to MP3.
XP beat Vista - 13 seconds in XP vs 28 seconds in Vista, for the same minute and a half of music.
For gaming, even with my hacked driver to get the video card recognized, playing Fallout 3 in Vista at 1280x720, medium details, gives me an average of 32 FPS. In XP, same detail settings and resolution, I average 40, following the same path, same difficulty. In XP I also lose the stuttering issue in Fallout 3 that Vista users seem to be getting, which seems to be caused by the audio subsystem, as turning audio acceleration to Basic stops about 90% of the crashes, and fixes several noise loop issues.
So, Vista SUCKS. My laptop is dual-booted with it and XP, and I only use the Vista partition for internet stuff, webcam, skype audio chat, etc. Games and any WORK gets done in XP.
I want to try 7 on this laptop.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:5, Funny)
Take results with a grain of salt
Salt is forbidden by the EULA......and my doctor.
Parent
Re:I question the results. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
I agree. Nobody is selling 32-bit processors anymore.
Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?
Of course they can, and do. Vista x64 runs 32 bit apps just fine.
Unfortunately MS doesn't have the source for all the devices out there, and can't just recompile all of those to be 64-bit, and the 3rd party vendors that can do it, would rather not spend the effort -- hell, they kicked and screamed and did a half-assed job of updating their drivers to work with Vista in 32 bit (the main source of most real Vista woe).
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree. Nobody is selling 32-bit processors anymore.
Intel's Atom processor is 32-bit.
Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?
It's the proprietary drivers that make it hard for MS to do the same. In Linux the vast majority of drivers are maintained in source, so this isn't as much of a problem.
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless...
Unless you have more than 3.5 GB of RAM
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless you have more than 3.5 GB of RAM
Unless you allocate more than 3.5 GB per process.
PAE has gotten around the 4 gig limit a long time ago.
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
Despite supporting PAE, Vista-32 still limits addressable physical memory to 4 GB (Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]). PAE will also run into problems at 64 GB, whereas 64-bit machines shouldn't reach another addressing limitation until they hit 16 EB.
Transitioning to 64-bit is a better solution in the long term.
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:4, Insightful)
64bit x86 gives you 4 times the general purpose register space and twice as many vector registers, which is a huge benefit for an architecture that's so lacking in register space.
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:4, Interesting)
And in practice extra x86-64 registers are not that great improvement because modern CPUs got very good at pipelining and data prefetching.
Good point. However, those extra registers may matter quite a bit more for something like the 64-bit Atom processors, which deliberately forgo most speculative features that mitigate register pressure. It would be interesting to see whether it's a better use of silicon to make an out-of-order processor or a 64-bit in-order processor when you're operating under the power constraints of the Atom. The current existence of 64-bit in-order Atom processors suggests that the performance per watt impact of 64-bit is better than out-of-order execution. I suspect this is because 64-bit takes less silicon than OOE, in a similar manner to how useful a good implementation of simultaneous multithreading can be.
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:5, Informative)
lol. you've drunk the kool-aid, 32bit or 64bit is essentially meaningless
There is kool-aid, but you need to check you own cup.
If you are referring to the Apple marketing machine, they ya, 32bit and 64bit are not much different, just larger memory addressing. (Of course OS X is still a 32bit OS could be the reason they like to create this mis-perception.)
On a real 64bit OS, there are 64bit registers and tons of other tricks and optimizations that happen, let alone full 64bit drivers that can shove data to devices oh like Video cards much faster.
If you look at Vista x64 it performs 15% faster than Vista x32 if you have 2GB of RAM.
This includes not only the OS's operation, but even 32bit applications running on the OS.
You see when you have a 64bit memory addressing and can optimize for this in the memory manager you no longer have FS and pagefile lookkup tables for extended amounts of RAM.
You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.
And we could go on and on and on...
Understand yet?
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:4, Insightful)
There are some good TechNet articles at Microsoft that would give you specific answers of what happens on Vistax64 with regard to 32bit memory allocation. (The SDK/DDKs will also give you some answers.)
Also check out interviews with NT engineers at channel9.msdn.com.
As for you questions regarding the compiler, yes. If you compile your application for 64bit, optimizations like you describe are handled unless you disable them in the compiler.
However, the things I was talking about in reference to Vistax64 is that running 32bit code on the 64bit OS, gives the OS the ability to make decisions like this on the fly for upper level system RAM (not CPU level optimizations/etc). So on Vista x64, and running your 32bit code, it will execute faster on Vista x64 because the OS is running faster, but also if you are using large chunks of RAM, the 32bit application will get additional boosts by combining 32bit memory chunks into one read/write of 64bit space.
Once you get what you need on what Windows x64 is doing, head over to AMD and read about CPU specific optimizations that happen in the register and cache levels of the CPUs when executing 32bit code.
Even if you stick to 32bit development, your applications get benefits of Vista x64.
---
Side Note for others:
Anyone here that installs Windows for gaming, if you have 2GB of RAM, grab the 64bit version of Vista, you will easily get 15% more performance out of your games over Vista x32 and XP.
And if you play MMOs, your zone and load times in either version of Vista will make you never want to touch XP again as it is often a 10x to 20x difference due to SuperFetch.
Parent
Re:Still making 32 bit? (Score:4, Interesting)
What bothers me about Vista 64 is that Microsoft do not let you load unsigned drivers. Got a driver from a vendor that's not signed? You have to go through the trouble of signing it yourself and kicking your OS into test mode. The problem became worse with SP1 when MS made several known workarounds disappear.
I understand they're trying to work against root kits but I'd rather be able to easily install any drivers I choose on my own system then have Microsoft protecting me against myself and causing me all kinds of grief. I've also never been hit by a root kit and I would guess that regular viruses are just as problematic and more common for nearly everyone.
Parent
Re:Two reasons for this (Score:5, Insightful)
If they were halfway competent, they would port VirtualPC to Win7, include a modified copy of XP that will only run 1 program at a time, and include drivers to share the clipboard between the host and the guest. A little configuration magic so that launching the virtual machine also launches the application instead of a desktop, and virtually 100% all current software would not only work, but could be sandboxed by default. If they really wanted to do things right, they would include images for every version of Windows and MS-DOS ever released. This would not only improve security, clean up the API DRAMATICALLY and keep only one code base which would be fully 64-bit but it would also make Win7 by far the MOST backward compatible version of Windows ever released. Hell, they could make even make it XBox 1 compatible and let all of their partners re-release all of their XBox 1 games as "XBox Classic".
Of course, this would have the negative side effect of not letting them claim that backward compatibility was the reason for all of the crap in Windows.
Parent
Microsoft has a good version of Vista! (Score:4, Informative)
Their 64 bit version of Vista is actually the best consumer level OS they've done so far. It's the version that should become Windows 7. It's stable, fast (way faster than the 32 bit version on my machine), and its backwards compatible with almost every application that I've tried.
If they made the default install 64 bits, they'd actually be pushing forward an improvement in their consumer OS. As it is, we'll be living with Vista mk. II.
I'll bet the folks who work on the 64 bit version are scratching their heads wondering why they bother!
Re:Microsoft has a good version of Vista! (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
How does it "feel"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How does it "feel"? (Score:4, Informative)
How often do you really have to move 100 MB or 2.5 GB of files around?
A benchmark like this still probably matters though, as if it's fast on moving 100 MB (a size more easily measurable than 10 MB), it's likely faster at 10 MB too. And it's at these ranges it starts creeping into everyday use and the "feel" you're talking of.
Parent
It could be (Score:5, Insightful)
The general feeling around here is that no-one WANTS to believe it is even possible that Windows 7 doesn't suck. Because if that were true, that would sort of devalue everything done to improve Linux the last few years. (because if Windows 7 is fast and stable and lets you play games, that doesn't leave any room for Linux on the desktop)
It could actually be that Microsoft got it right. It may be that the core of Vista is not as terrible as we all think it is. I've seen posts discussing how Vista uses a completely refactored kernel, with more layers of abstraction and cleaning up of many of the quirks of win32.
Then, on top of this decent foundation, they overloaded it with poorly thought out gimmicks in an attempt to compete with Apple. In addition, some of their rewrites introduced new bugs, such as the networking problems where Vista machines are unable to talk to shared file servers.
It's possible that Windows 7 succeeded. If they fixed the bugs, and ripped out some of the bloated, inefficient Vista code then you might have a decent OS after. Microsoft might be a monopoly, but if they sat on their heels for too long, eventually (it might take 10 years) alternatives would overtake them.
Re:Completely useless (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't useless. It isn't "subjective" since it's based on actual objective measurements. It conveys the indication that Windows 7 has *broad* performance improvements.
It has been suggested that exact numbers were not given due to the beta's EULA clause that prohibits benchmarking against the pre-release build.
Parent
Re:Completely useless (Score:5, Insightful)
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
What the author did was within the bounds of the EULA since he didn't disclose the results (the numbers).
What really frustrates me though is that you would suggest that the author is LYING. What gives you the right to make such accusations? Are you working on some kind of historical precedent? Do you know the author personally? Has he lied before? Or are you just being a douche? I can completely understand if you want to see the raw data, so do I. But really, I thought Slashdot attracted a smarter caliber of readers who don't have to result to personal attacks. Apparently, I was wrong.
For the record though, the relative performances he gives us are a valuable indicator. Are you saying that a race scored based upon who crossed the finish line first instead of a stop watch is not a valid way to measure the performance of the athletes in it, because I can think of plenty of sports (even a few Olympic ones) that are scored this way. That makes no sense. Maybe next time, you should think before you post.
Parent
Re:win7 rocks (Score:4, Funny)
A friend showed me build 7000 for the first time a few minutes ago.
It blue screens in kl1.sys and reboots the whole system every time he tries to register the Kapersky AV it nagged him to install.
I'm showing him Kubuntu 9.04 alpha 2 now, but I haven't found a way to show him a crash.
Parent
Re:win7 rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:win7 rocks (Score:4, Informative)
So, you're saying that when Win7 nags you and clicking the nag opens up http://www.microsoft.com/windows/antivirus-partners/windows-7.aspx [microsoft.com], they're pointing you to uncertified software? BTW - I just went to his system and did the install again and didn't get any warning about installing uncertified software, so I'm guessing it's signed.
Are you guys actively testing Win7, or just ragging on people that don't report the bestus experience ever?
Parent
Re:win7 rocks (Score:5, Insightful)
As long as he reported the issues to MS, then it all seems like standard operating procedure for using test software running on a test OS.
Parent
Re:win7 performance (Score:4, Insightful)
"Win7 performs better than the other 2 OSs" In other words, it only crashes once a month, instead of once a week.
The article wasn't about Windows 2000 vs. 98 and 95.
Parent
Re:win7 performance (Score:4, Informative)
Who likes chairs anyway?
Steve Ballmer, that's who.
Parent