Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista 369
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.'"
Typical FUD against Microsoft (Score:2, Insightful)
"zero measurable performance benefits"
Yes, because things like improved startup time, increased battery life etc are not measurable right?
"Windows 7 is a 'minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite"
And when did Microsoft claim otherwise? The whole point of Windows 7 has been that its built on the Vista SP1 (Server 2008) codebase and they are NOT trying to change too much. Which brings us neatly to...
"introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues"
Read above. They didn't change any of the basics so that there would be no incompatibilities (like those caused by a new driver model).
Of course, these articles purposely ignore all the UI and usability improvements the very same mags covered earlier, which make a very visible difference in daily use.
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.
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.
What? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Sheer genius (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
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.
Re:Not windows 7 but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Goodness me, what FUD (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:Goodness me, what FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
This might interest you then - http://blog.wired.com/games/2008/03/vista-service-p.html [wired.com]
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.
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the document cares which software you use. So maybe you might use a certain program for serious composition, but never for composure. I hope your dissertation isn't for an English class.
Composure = state of mind.
Composition = the act/result of composing.( root - composite)
Besides which, investing hours in learning Word and then trying OOorg is hardly fair. Why would you waste your time by learning one program then using another ? Try doing it the other way around in future.
Re:so? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:so? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's funny; I though the article was about the operating system and not the market that was created around it. In terms of "support", Linux is far better than Windows. It's the support of the environment of the OS that's the problem. Linux supports gaming. Only the games hardly "support Linux". Devices are very well supported on Linux. Windows does hardly support any device at all out-of-the-box. It's the drivers that you get on the friggin CDs (where do I get a USB CD drive these days?) or downloadable from a website that add the support. Office software (I suppose the only office software you know of is Microsoft's office) all support nearly any OS including Windows. If you consider all office software, support is quite nicely spread.
Who cares if it's slower? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who cares if it's a few percent slower?
Computers are getting faster MUCH MUCH more quickly than operating systems are getting slower. I did a degree in computer science 10 years ago using a computer which had less RAM and Mhz than my *phone* does now! I was running Windows 98, which is much slower than Vista, but guess what - my Vista machine is still about 16 times faster than my old Windows 98 machine and it has 32 times more memory. I'm certainly not complaining.
I don't really see why it's a problem if any given operating system is 3 or 4% slower than the previous version. Do you really want to go back to using Windows 3.1 just because it's slightly faster? I sure as hell don't.
Re:so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Serious composition on Word? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a joke or what? Come back at the later stages of composition, when you have some real experience.
In case you want to listen, I'll tell you what'll happen. Word featureset becomes absolutely irrelevant after all its bugs start appearing and bitting you. Open Office, while less featurefull is functional, so you'll experience the same productivity from the beggining to the end of the composition.
Anyway, both are bad. If you really care about your productivity, you should learn some good document editing software, like LaTeX, for example.
Re:Goodness me, what FUD (Score:1, Insightful)
"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."
Yeah, I just love it... how Vista tries to "think" it knows everything about me, what I'll run, how I'll run it, when I'll run it, what phase Jupiter is from the Earth at any given point in time, and all that crap... and just loads crap I have no intention of running. Oh! And can't forget the constant grinding of the hard drive as it loads this crap to RAM, minutes after it's been logged in.
Why does Vista not seem to know that I want it to just leave my fucking memory alone, load the bare essentials, because I'll be filling it up ON MY OWN in just two minutes with extremely high-res astronomical TIFF images? Instead it starts filling the memory with shit I have no intention of doing anything with for the time being, only to be overwritten almost immediately. Extra hard drive grinding for NOTHING. And that's just one example.
Okay, Windows (under the right cercumstances--ie, a dirty, bloated, malware- and shovelware-infested install) has had that problem for an eternity now, but this is a relatively clean install I'm talking about. Plus, any time you mention Vista's grinding hard drive these days, the reply is always "SuperFetch" or whatever the fuck it is. Kind of like any time you mention memory leaks or bloat to Mozilla, their response is usually "It's the extensions!"
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.).
Re:It may boot faster thanks to another photocopy (Score:1, Insightful)
yeah and as a bootcamp user I really wish it fetched network time on boot. Can Apple 'xerox' that from another OS?
Was that comment too subtle?
Linux vindicates free markets. (Score:2, Insightful)
I wish I could be as unpopular as Vista. I think they have sold at least 10 billion dollars worth of them over the last two years.
I bet KDE wishes they could be as successful as Vista. What's the conversion rate between KDE 3 users and KDE 4 users? I'd bet that less of a percentage of KDE users have converted to KDE 4 than XP users have converted to Vista.
But... that's really the whole point of Linux, isn't it.
I bet Perl wishes they could be as successful as Vista. How's Perl 6 doing these days?
You could look at those and other examples of floundering FOSS projects and say that Linux has failed but you would be as wrong as can be. The great irony, of course is that the for all of its "socialist" trappings, Linux has more of the traits of a healthy free market eco-system than Vista does. Vista succeeds because its conversions are forced on one hand, but its a mono-culture and the entire thing either sinks or swim depending upon how much the mono-culture is accepted. Linux is made up of thousands of tiny pieces, and so, even if Perl 6 or KDE flounder, then, there's plenty of other people willing to take up the slack in other projects. Linux is like a free market economy because the whole system doesn't fail - just pieces of it, and that creative floundering and risk taking that it encourages drives its innovation. On the other hand, Vista has all the trappings of a socialist project - Microsoft leaders are writing blog articles suggesting that Microsoft has too much of an individual culture, everyone has to play as a team, and they really can't turn loose any of the individual Vista teams to pursue their own audiences because there is an artificial brake of Microsoft corporate hierarchy, politicized and fief building, all pushing developers down.
Re:Time for Microsoft to [Start] over (Score:3, Insightful)
Lots of people didn't switch from MacOS Classic to OS X because it didn't run their old apps well. Many of these people ended up on Windows, and a few on other platforms. OS X did well, because it was a minority OS and so osmotic pressure in the userbase meant there was a large potential market for people switching from other operating systems. A lot more people who use OS X now never used classic MacOS than did (just compare the before and after market share figures).
Microsoft does not have this option. The main reason people use Windows is because it runs their software. If you have the choice between staying with XP, going to some MS OS that doesn't run your old software, or switching to some other OS, then most people will stay with XP until it's EOL'd and then switch either to the new MS OS or to some other OS (possibly ReactOS if they're still wanting to use XP software in 2014). They would need to offer some very compelling features to make people stay with Windows.
Re:so? (Score:2, Insightful)
The article is worthless (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Perspective (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, I love linux, and use it a lot. I also really like Windows for the most part as well. I don't like MS' politics, I don't care for UAC and Defender soaking my resources either. But windows does have a consistent set of APIs to program against, and with abstraction layers like
I really don't care too much what I run on my desktop, my main apps at home are Thunderbird, Firefox, X-Chat, and Pidgin. They run on everything (for the most part). All my work is done in VMs, so as long as the OS runs VMWare, I'm fine. In fact, I moved my main apps onto a nettop, so I wouldn't have to sync my mail profile anymore... works well.