Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows

Performance Tests Show Early Windows 7 Build Beats Vista 534

Posted by timothy
from the room-for-improvement dept.
The Other A.N. Other writes "How does the latest build of Windows 7 stack up against Windows Vista? The answer seems to be very well if the benchmarks run by ZDNet are anything to go by. If Microsoft keeps up the good then Windows 7 should be head and shoulders better than Vista. 'What we have here is one set of data points for one particular system, but I think that the results are very promising. The fact that Windows 7 comes out on top in three out of four of these tests at this early stage is very promising indeed. The boot time and PCMark Vantage results are particularly good.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Performance Tests Show Early Windows 7 Build Beats Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:17PM (#26083421)

    Microsoft still has plenty of time to slow it down.

    • This just in... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Jimbob The Mighty (1282418) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:56PM (#26084001)
      Performance tests show that an abacus and a box of crayons beat Vista.

      (Apologies to Tycho and Gabe)

      • Re:This just in... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Hal_Porter (817932) on Friday December 12, 2008 @01:45AM (#26086813)

        Performance tests show that an abacus and a box of crayons beat Vista.

        (Apologies to Tycho and Gabe)

        But does this Abacus OS support industry standards like Win32, NTFS and DirectX 10?

    • by RudeIota (1131331) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:22PM (#26084353) Homepage
      This is honestly insightful, because the more they work on it, the more it will suffer from the heavy weight of feature creep. I hope their claim of 'modular' is still in the plans.
      • by gcnaddict (841664) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @10:00PM (#26085325)

        This is honestly insightful, because the more they work on it, the more it will suffer from the heavy weight of feature creep. I hope their claim of 'modular' is still in the plans.

        The entire mechanism for building the OS is based on it being modular. Also, 7 is already feature complete. Beta 1 is in escrow right now.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Is that big-ass taskbar a feature? How will that huge horse's ass look on a netbook?

          • by morgan_greywolf (835522) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @11:09PM (#26085895) Homepage Journal

            You just hit on one of the biggest points of why I keep saying that Microsoft is going down. Microsoft never counted on netbooks, just like they never counted on the Internet.

            • by i.of.the.storm (907783) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @11:37PM (#26086085) Homepage
              To be fair, neither did Apple, Dell, Lenovo, HP, etc. It was only when the EeePC became obviously popular that everyone decided to jump on the bandwagon, although Apple has yet to do so.
              • by Repossessed (1117929) on Friday December 12, 2008 @01:34AM (#26086767)

                Dell and HP both had netbooks long before the eee. The difference was that they charged more for them. (sometimes more than a full powered notebook), despite the bare minimum hardware. Netbooks as they are now are bad for business if you're a major player; less money from the systems, and not many more sold than if cheap netbooks had never entered the market.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by im_thatoneguy (819432)

              When did Microsoft "Never count on the internet"? 1995? I've got an anti-trust case that suggests microsoft was very very much counting on the internet. To the degree that they were willing to risk enormous lawsuits.

              I remember Microsoft being very optimistic about the internet. They just weren't pushing it very hard because it was a difficult sell. "Get on the internet and... browse usenet groups!" Sure we slashdotters saw the possibilities. But we see the possibilites in most things long before they

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                Microsoft never implemented Winsock 1.0. The first winsock implementations were from third parties, i.e., Trumpet Winsock. They got to the game late, that's why they ended up basing IE on Spyglass Mosaic -- poorly -- instead of rolling their own browser. Go into IE and do a Help | About. You'll find the following verbiage:

                Based on NCSA Mosaic. NCSA Mosaic(TM); was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Distributed under a licensing agreement with Spyglass, Inc.

        • by Jugalator (259273) on Friday December 12, 2008 @03:24AM (#26087253) Journal

          The entire mechanism for building the OS is based on it being modular.

          I think the parent was talking of making it modular for the user. To cut feature creep a user doesn't want. At least the subject was avoiding the weight of feature creep, and building a modular OS isn't the way of doing this, if there's no way for the user to make us of the modularization.

        • by Tuna_Shooter (591794) on Friday December 12, 2008 @03:55AM (#26087381) Homepage Journal
          God I hope they bring the paperclip thing back :-)
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ilgaz (86384)

          You can see what MS understands from Modular lately.

          Just install .NET 3.5 SP1 to a clean windows installation and see what modularly got installed. We were calling Java bulky right?

          It installs .NET 2.0 SP1, .NET 3.0 SP1, add 3-5 security updates and still leaves .NET 1.0 unpatched so you head to windows update for another 1.1 update.

          Worse is, they do every trick on the book to hide the true space .NET occupies while poor Java naively reports a whopping (!) 130 MB. Also .NET also does things behind users bac

      • by andy_t_roo (912592) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @10:19PM (#26085471)

        modular as in $50 per module?

        would you like a firewall with that?

      • by theaveng (1243528) on Friday December 12, 2008 @06:15AM (#26087965)

        >>>>it will suffer from the heavy weight of feature creep

        Excellent point. I'm sure Vista started as a good OS (like XP), but it became so weighed down with extra features that it became slow as a dog. My brother has a PC identical to mine, but while my XP-PC runs nice and fast, his Vista PC runs like it has a floppy drive instead of a hard drive. Vista is crap.

        What I'm curious to know: How does Windows 7 compare to XP? Anybody can design an OS faster than Vista; but will it be faster than XP? If the answer is "no" I'm sticking with XP.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      i beleive that may not be as much of a joke as some think. don't most early MS Windows builds beat the last version with performance? it's adding all the legacy support that seems to slow things down (and add security holes).

      or have i got this wrong?

      secondly, it's not hard to beat vista on performance, no? esp with aero left on as the default on an OEM install.

      to me this doesn't read so much as "yay, our new stuff is getting better" as "hey guys, just hold on, our new stuff isn't the pure manure our last

    • by JustKidding (591117) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @10:10PM (#26085405)

      You mean on 3 of the 4 tests they did?

      I'm rather impressed they managed to perform even worse than Vista on the Cinebench test. If they keep this up, by the time Windows 7 comes out of beta, it won't run at all!

  • by jcr (53032) <.jcr. .at. .mac.com.> on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:17PM (#26083433) Journal

    Let's all give MS a pat on the back for clearing such a low bar.

    -jcr

  • Yay (Score:3, Funny)

    by alexborges (313924) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:18PM (#26083435)

    NT4 is faster than vista.

    So there.

  • First Post (Score:5, Funny)

    by EEBaum (520514) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:18PM (#26083443) Homepage
    First Post! But I posted it with Vista, so it may actually show up a bit later.
  • Windows ME-2 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:20PM (#26083459) Homepage

    It is sounding more and more like Vista really is the newest generation of Windows ME. People hated Windows ME. But Microsoft didn't shove it down anyone's throat so people danced around WinME without concern. But now, removing other alternatives aggressively, people are really getting annoyed with Vista. This is all good for Mac OS X adoption I suppose, but frankly, even though I am a Linux user, my professional life would be much better if Microsoft would either extend the availability of XP or get something better than Vista out the door soon.

    • by kwabbles (259554) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:49PM (#26083907)

      This is all good for Mac OS X adoption I suppose, but frankly, even though I am a Linux user, my professional life would be much better if Microsoft would either extend the availability of XP or get something better than Vista out the door soon.

      I'm running into the same problem. I've got so many customers that are running either specialty or legacy apps that simply will not run on Vista - or they run into stability issues with apps that are supported by Vista. Then, they basically shoot the messenger and make my life a living hell - since I really have no other alternative for them. When I could offer them XP, I could offer them a stable, working solution that they were happy with. Microsoft has stripped me of that option. I really don't see the light at the end of the tunnel with Windows 7, either. To me, it just looks like what the final release of Vista really should have been. Yes, it may be more stable and have better performance - but that doesn't help me when I need to go and install said specialty or legacy apps on it.

      I am basically at a crossroads where I have to take a lot of clients into a completely new system, with completely new applications. And let me tell you - after what Microsoft's done, I'm not about to set them up with another Microsoft solution that railroads them into situations like this again. As long as I'm having to redo entire enterprises, I might as well roll out open source solutions or Macs.

      • by erroneus (253617) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:20PM (#26084309) Homepage

        Buy volume licenses of Windows Vista. You will have downgrade rights to legally put WindowsXP on machines that need it. Another part of the problem you may encounter is the lack of device drivers for WindowsXP made available by the computer's maker/seller. I had a problem like this once but was able to get around the problem by downloading drivers for a very similar machine that did have WindowsXP support. But we cannot depend on this to always work. The doors on XP are being forcibly shut... and it is a very unpleasant situation for IT professionals everywhere.

      • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:34PM (#26084505)

        As long as I'm having to redo entire enterprises, I might as well roll out open source solutions or Macs.

        Right because Apple's so good about offering support for anything legacy? Give me a break.

        OSS at least is a decent option, but honestly, Vista is FAR FAR FAR more compatible with legacy windows than anything else on the market. So unless you plan to rewrite and/or find substitutes for practically everything, Vista is probably the best solution.

        If you are truly in a situation where a switch to OSS actually makes sense, then you don't actually have all these legacy compatibility requirements you mentioned.

        OSS makes sense if you need generic email/web/office or you need a 'terminal' for citrix/web apps/hosted apps/whatever (which does describe a LOT of people) but it rarely really makes sense in a situation where there are a lot of custom Windows apps knocking around, or where you need to use 3rd party apps that are windows only.

        Try and find some contact lens design/lab control software that runs on Macs or Linux and integrates into both your accounting system and controls your lens lathe.

        Try to run a cellular service center, where you need to run all those 3rd party phone-flash/reflash/updater tools, the latest software from blackberry (blackberry desktop) and microsoft (activesync), where support for mac lags behind windows, and support for linux is a joke. While in the back you've got someone running battery diagnostic software from Maccor or Cadex.

        Try to find mac/linux software designed to run an optometrists office. Nevermined the total lack of OSX / Linux patient management systems, you also have to contend with the fact that all the instruments (topographers, perimeters, etc) run windows systems, often with integration features into windows patient management system.

        And lets be honest, the companies that need generic terminals or basic office apps - those really AREN'T the ones having trouble with Vista. Its the manufacturers, the service centers, the doctors, etc, and as much as their is migration pain with Vista -- switching to OSX or Linux would make a masochist cringe in fear.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Uberbah (647458)

          Right because Apple's so good about offering support for anything legacy? Give me a break.

          Uh...yeah. They are. You can run Leopard just fine on a 6 year old Mac just fine...why don't you try doing the same with Vista and a 6 year old PC, and get back to us.

          Vista is FAR FAR FAR more compatible with legacy windows than anything else on the market.

          Except XP, of course.

          Try to find mac/linux software designed to run an optometrists office.

          Macs and Linux also have applications that only run on those operating s

          • by RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647) on Friday December 12, 2008 @04:00AM (#26087411)

            Uh...yeah. They are. You can run Leopard just fine on a 6 year old Mac just fine...why don't you try doing the same with Vista and a 6 year old PC, and get back to us.

            Apple fanboys piss me off because they make shit up.

            The typical 6-year old Mac:

            500-700MHz PowerPC G3 or G4 processor
            256MB SDR Memory
            ATI Rage or Radeon 7500 graphics

            Leopard WILL NOT INSTALL on a system with a G3 processor or a G4 clocked at less than 867MHz. That rules out Apple's ENTIRE 2002 lineup except for some Power Macintosh G4 models and the PowerBook G4 released in November.

            So, no, Leopard won't even run install on most 6-year-old Macs (iMac, eMac, iBook, most PowerBook G4s) and many 5-year-old Macs. Let alone run 'well'.

            Oh, and Snow Leopard? It won't even work with PowerPC Macs, which includes EVERY Mac made before 2006. Bought a Mac in November 2005? Leopard is the last version of Mac OS X you'll ever be able to run with your current hardware.

            Oh, by the way. I typed this on an EEE PC 900HA. It has 1GB of DDR2 and a 1.6GHz Atom. And it runs Vista fine. Even Aero glass.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by kwabbles (259554)

          Right because Apple's so good about offering support for anything legacy? Give me a break.

          Like I said, since I'd have to be installing all new applications anyway, they'd hardly be legacy. Macs are not a one-solution-fits-all system, I know that. However, there are some of my customers that would be able to run Macs - as there is software for them that would suffice as a replacement for what they currently have. There are other customers which wouldn't be able to run it at all. A lot of my customers are

        • by MeNeXT (200840) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @11:20PM (#26085965)

          OK first thing first legacy is not 3 year old software. Legacy used to mean over 10 years.

          Second I don't need the new and improved quickbooks which supports less that the old and "legacy" Quickbooks of 2007. The fact of the matter is that most software that we are discussing is not even 10 years old. Everyone is heading into this software as a service that they forgot that most people don't really care. They just want their business to run.

          I don't care about apple or ms or any hair brained company that thinks it will make money off products that don't even work or lock in the users to a one size fits all solution. There are solutions out there that do not require this lock in even on windows and mac. It is a choice that we make to buy into this fad. People don't want the "new" ACCPAC at $15,000 they are willing to pay for the old reliable one that only cost them $1,500. They want a Quickbooks that doesn't loose features over time, ie multicurrency. They don't care about the newfangled DRM that slows down the network because they are viewing the company marketing material or a tutorial.

          Lets be honest, my optometrist does not need windows to run his office. I wonder why HP started to support linux on the desktop? Could it be that that people like me no longer buy equipment that is not supported by linux even if we intend to run windows on them. When you spend hundreds of thousands on equipment and you study what you buy and do not even consider suppliers that do not support linux it starts to hurt. Not you but them. The fact of the matter is if you are running an office and you need someone soooo bad that there are no other options it means you have done a poor job as an IT professional. Phone/flash/sync/update, why? why would I ever need such sh!t? I need standards and access and I have Linux support, Mac support, FreeBSD support and Windows support. Give me any Mac and almost any phone and I can sync more in just minutes out of the box than I would be able to with an off the shelf windows box.

          STOP these stupid lies. If you don't know how just say it. Any Mac of the shelf has at least bluetooth and WiFi, iCal, Address book. Thats a lot more than any Windows box that's off the shelf. Use some standards and some common sense and you have your own cloud computing and you don't even need a fixed IP and you can make it as secure as you choose. Activesync????? Does it support Mac, Linux, FreeBSD? Can it sync the whole OS? The whole disk? I have clients where there whole systems are synced over the net and could go live on their backup by a change of a DNS entry, and this solution is over 10 years old, and we don't even care what OS it runs. It's called standards. /rant

          I'm not here to teach or preach but if you open your mind you will see that the only obstacle is this proprietary lock in that most people get themselves into.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by niteice (793961)

          Right because Apple's so good about offering support for anything legacy? Give me a break.

          I'm typing this from OS X Lepoard on my 12" PowerBook G4.

      • by DrBuzzo (913503) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @09:25PM (#26084999) Homepage
        This is all good for Mac OS X adoption I suppose, but frankly, even though I am a Linux user, my professional life would be much better if Microsoft would either extend the availability of XP or get something better than Vista out the door soon. Yeah, sure, but you have to realize not all of us would even have a job if there were not operating systems as crappy as Vista. Maybe you should stop and consider the fact that Vista is the reason that PC techs have plenty of work in these hard times. Well, XP gives plenty of business too.

        You know how often I see an OSX machine with a problem? Almost never and when it does have one it's always something like a head crash on the hard drive or a bad power supply or something like that.

        Software problems with OSX? I have seen one and it was not even a problem with the OS, but rather it was a problem with third party software computability.

        All things considered, doing support work is pretty descent to pay and it's relatively easy since much of the time is doing stuff like running reinstalls which means you can do something else to make money at the same time, just hitting the "OK" every time the thing asks for something. It's a great side gig for extra cash from some contract support customers.

        You realize how much harder I'd have to work and how much less work I'd have without windows? I'd have to actually do hard programing to make as much.

        Microsoft's crappy software is keeping the support booming in otherwise crappy economic times. Thank you Microsoft! I love your crappy products all the way to the bank!
    • Re:Windows ME-2 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by UnknowingFool (672806) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:57PM (#26084013)
      The problem for Microsoft isn't just that there are more alternatives to Windows in general. The problem is that unlike ME, there are no Windows alternatives to Vista. Businesses had Win 2K. Consumers could stick with 98. Both would only have to wait a year for XP. This time Microsoft offered no other option. Vista or else. That's why they are trying furiously to get Win7 out.
    • Re:Windows ME-2 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by vux984 (928602) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:05PM (#26084141)

      It is sounding more and more like Vista really is the newest generation of Windows ME.

      Only to people who wish that were true. Its not.

      People hated Windows ME. But Microsoft didn't shove it down anyone's throat so people danced around WinME without concern.

      WinME was for home consumers not businesses. Businesses never had to deal with ME.

      Honestly it really wouldn't have mattered what Vista was. Unless it was fully compatible with 2k/xp they were going to reject it. And if MS had kept it more compatible, they would not have been able to move forwards on things like security. Vista's not perfect, don't get me wrong, but even if vista was simply XP with the ability to run as administrator finally "turned off", businesses would have thrown the same fit they are throwing.

      So Vista is slower on the same hardware? Big deal, every OS is. Win98 RAN well with 64MB of RAM, and took a couple hundred megabytes of disk. Try doing that with XP.

      So Vista is isn't compatible with a lot of hardware, and buggy drivers abound. That's not new. Think back to XP, again, there was tons of low rent 'consumer oriented' hardware that only had win9x drivers.

      The only reason there wasn't the same massive backlash to XP that there was to Vista is that BUSINESSES weren't *really* affected by XP. XP used the same drivers as 2k, so most of the hardware support businesses needed was already in place and mature. XP was little more than a minor update to 2k.

      And even then, tons of companies vowed they'd never upgrade, and blasted everything from the color scheme, the deeper integration of windows media player, and the licensing issues (including "windows product activation").

      Vista is stable, performs well on hardware its compatible with, is genuinely more secure than previous versions, features a number of real UI improvements. (The new start menu for example), and its desktop compisiting engine is far more modern, catching it up with OSX and Linux (Compiz).

      It has its flaws too.. of course, but overall it is actually a decent step forward. It just has the misfortune of being a painful one for users with a lot of legacy dependencies, while simultaneously breaking new ground on the driver front so its has to suffer while it waits for hardware vendors getting drivers to maturity or for users to toss the old hardware.

      The next version of Windows is just going to be a more refined version of Vista... but its acceptance will be much higher because the hardware driver issues will have matured, and a lot of the 'legacy dependencies' will have aged into obsolescent non-issues.

      Microsoft's strategy is really little more than wait until Vista forces the market to accept the changes, and then launch it all over again with a new name and few tweaks... but because the market will have already mostly accommodated Vista, 7 will be a 'smooth transition'. Its that simple. And its a good strategy, because people are =that= stupid.

      • Re:Windows ME-2 (Score:4, Informative)

        by pcolaman (1208838) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:33PM (#26084493)
        Let's not forget that MS provided RC versions of Vista to manufacturers well in advance of it's commercial release, and yet most of them could not get reasonable drivers for hardware that was made before Vista in time for the launch. IIRC, the launch was even pushed back due to a lack of a good driver base.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        if vista was simply XP with the ability to run as administrator finally "turned off"

        I'm not a Microsoft fanboi, and, in fact, I don't "do" Windows, but I gather that the issue isn't so much people running all the time as administrator, but programs that won't run unless you do. And, from all I've heard, Microsoft is doing what it can to get software developers to correct their cranial-rectal insertions and stop writing programs that way.

    • Re:Windows ME-2 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Luscious868 (679143) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:11PM (#26084201)

      Agreed. The consulting business that I work for has an IT services side that I fill in on from time to time if they are short staffed. Most of my clients on the consulting side of the business and most of the small businesses that we provide completely or partially outsourced IT services for that believed they'd need new PC's in the next couple of years (who didn't have volume licenses for XP) have already purchased them so they could downgrade to XP. These are mostly non-tech savvy people here who have either heard bad things about Vista from others or who have some first hand experience with it on a home PC that they purchased and they wanted to be sure to buy new systems while they could still get XP. We have a neutral policy when it comes to Vista so they haven't been doing this at our behest.

      In fact, I can count on two hands the number of times I've encountered a client who has one or more machines on-site running Vista. It's amazing to me how few clients we have that have even a single Vista machine and it's amazing to me what a bad rap Vista has with the non-tech savvy crowd.

      I don't particularly like Vista and on my box at work I've stuck with XP but I don't absolutely hate the thing either. Perhaps that's because I have limited experience with it but if they replaced my box at work with new PC (and I wasn't given the choice to go with a Mac ... I switched at home in 2006) and the box came with Vista pre-installed I probably wouldn't wipe it and re-install XP unless the box was a total POS and I needed to downgrade for performance reasons. I think the Vista to Windows Millenium comparison takes things a bit too far. Millenium was a complete and total POS that was clearly less stable than Windows 98 even on new hardware that came with the OS pre-installed. I've found that Vista, from the admittedly limited experience that I have with it, isn't that bad when it comes pre-installed on new hardware but Microsoft clearly screwed the pouch with it and I think that Apple is benefiting a little bit. We've had higher ups at a few of our clients opt for Macs in the last six or seven months who have asked us to setup Boot Camp or a VM product to run their Windows apps and if you would have told me we'd be seeing that a year ago I would have laughed in your face.

  • by Slur (61510) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:20PM (#26083473) Homepage Journal

    Could this be the version of Windows that will finally get me to switch? Stay tuned!

  • Don't Worry (Score:5, Funny)

    by bky1701 (979071) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:23PM (#26083521) Homepage
    By the time they release it, they'll have fixed this bug.
  • Under the fancy hood (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anthony_Cargile (1336739) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:23PM (#26083525) Homepage
    From my tests, not all Vista drivers were 100% compatible with 6.1 (I refuse to call it "7"). I tested some "Vista certified" graphics drivers, and they were real edgy in the latest (leaked) Vista beta. I wonder if the new !backwardscompatible DirectX has anything to do with it, or if Microsoft plans on doing the same to the new WDM.

    Then again, it was a beta, and other than that most of my personal kernel code ran fine. Maybe the big-time driver overlords just need more time to catch up with 6.1.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TOGSolid (1412915)
      For a second there I was about ready to hollar at you about it being beta. Thank fully I read the entire post before I hit reply.

      Sadly, most people will try out a leaked version, see a driver doesn't work and instantly rage against Microsoft (though that behavior is pretty much the norm for any beta program). Yes, I know, the company's reputation at this point, but hell, at least keep the torches and pitchforks in the shed until the final build is released into the wild.
  • by Locke2005 (849178) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:24PM (#26083535)
    It will be about as difficult for Windows 7 to be a better OS than Vista as it is for Obama to be a better president than Bush!
  • Wouldn't it have been a lot more fun for the author to do the benchmarks on an Intel 915 chipset? We all know that Intel 915 was claimed to be Vista certified, so if Windows 7 is indeed faster, shouldn't it work as well.

    And wouldn't a great benchmark be "UAC dialog boxes per hour" instead?

    I am surprised he was able to publish the benchmarks, usually there are a lot of license restriction on what you can do with pre release code. Perhaps in this case, since it was favorable to 7, maybe he got permission.

    • by tomhudson (43916)

      Wouldn't it have been a lot more fun for the author to do the benchmarks on an Intel 915 chipset?

      I have a better idea - benchmark it against DOS 5.0/Win3.1. That old POS will certainly score points for booting faster, if it boots at all. And points for lower ram usage, and quicker shutdown as well. Heck, you can probably boot it off a CD quicker than Win7 can boot of a hard drive.

  • by rolfwind (528248) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:29PM (#26083595)

    and not shipping it. Vista was going to be the greatest thing since sliced bread and now it's only been 2 years since Vista. Typical to keep people to consider alternatives. With Vista, they set the bar so low, that almost any inevitable improvement in performance gets hailed. Who cares, wake me up when it's the final product and not just some build in the middle of product development cycle.

    I think Microsoft will eventually be undone by their long development times unless Windows 7 starts becoming the trend rather than a frantic exception to counter the Vista stigma. Ubuntu and OS X is certainly improving much faster due to relatively short development cycles.

  • by Darundal (891860) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:29PM (#26083607) Journal
    ...from non-final versions of Windows. The early publicly released betas of Vista performed better for me than the later RCs and the finished product, so I have a hard time getting excited about Windows 7 performing great in an early release.
  • by grasshoppa (657393) <skennedy@tpno-c[ ]rg ['o.o' in gap]> on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:33PM (#26083667) Homepage

    This were actually another Mojave experiment prank, played on ZDnet?

  • Older Hardware (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MrSteve007 (1000823) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:33PM (#26083671)
    It also seems to work quite well on older hardware. I've installed Win 7 Build 6081 on a 7 year old tablet I have around the office (a toshiba 3500).

    The tablet has a 1.3 PIII & 512 of ram.

    http://geekpi.com/?p=38#more-38 [geekpi.com]

  • Poor methodology (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:35PM (#26083683)

    Boot time and synthetic benchmarks are poor indicators of an operating system's performance and usability. It'd be like me comparing the zero to sixty time as the sole metric to judge a vehicle's fitness for use by, say, a college student. Perhaps Miles per Gallon might be better? Or even the number of cup holders? I'll believe Windows 7 is an improvement when it passes the Mom Test... Which is to say, we sit our mothers down at a computer and ask them "Is this better than XP?" But not your mother of course, because she's crazy. ;)

  • by whoever57 (658626) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @07:38PM (#26083727) Journal
    He comments:

    No optimizations were carried out other than to process idle tasks and defrag the hard drive between each test.

    People still defragment hard drives? NTFS isn't resistant to fragmentation?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bruce Cran (743059)
      NTFS is supposed to be more resistant to fragmentation than FAT, and I'm not sure it actively needs defragmented. However people have become so used to it from previous versions of Windows that it's something Microsoft have to provide - there was even an outcry over the fact that Vista's defrag utility didn't provide a detailed progress dialog to let people see how much improvement was being made.
    • by forkazoo (138186) <(wrosecrans) (at) (gmail.com)> on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:51PM (#26084689) Homepage

      People still defragment hard drives? NTFS isn't resistant to fragmentation?

      For light use, with certain types of workloads, it is really not a big deal. It's certainly not as bad as FAT16 under Windows 95 was. 7200 RPM drives are now common, so seek times are less of an issue than they were with the 5400/4200 RPM drives of yore. NTFS is inherently a better file system than FAT16/32 ever was. And, the specific NTFS implementation in Windows has been carefully tuned by tons of experts over the years such that Windows Vista's NTFS implementation is lightyears ahead of NT4's.

      That said, it can still be extremely beneficial to defragment. If you consistently run your drive nearly full, with a high turnover rate for your files, things can become quite badly fragmented. And, depending on what you are doing, that came mean a horrible performance hit. Start a big application with tons of plugins that has to read over a thousand files to start, and the difference can be amazingly noticeable. Try to play a video with a reasonably large buffer, and you may never see the fragmentation issues be bad enough to make the video skip.

      So, yes, NTFS is resistant to bad fragmentation. No, it isn't immune.

      And, yes, referencing 4200 RPM hard drives is a bit extreme. I know a lot of people were still using FAT by the time that 7200 RPM drives were common. OTOH, they should have known better. In the 21st century, the only justification for FAT was either as a filesystem of last resort for data interchange because so many things could read it, or for running legacy systems where performance wasn't a significant issue.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by afidel (530433)
      I only use defrag on the box that builds the code for our ERP system because it can significantly reduce build times. On the other ~150 servers there isn't any real performance gain to be had because they are either not I/O bound or like Oracle they have their own way of dealing with scattered I/O.
  • Make something that just utterly and outright reeks, so whatever comes next is deemed so much better, no matter whether it's really better than what you had before the stinker.

  • The interesting thing about Windows 7 is that it'll be released surprisingly hot on the heels of Vista. From a consumer perspective I'm sure they're hoping to encourage a lot of people to upgrade from Vista. However, corporate users are likely to postpone upgrades until Win 7 is available. It's like the Osbourne Effect, except in software, "Hey, look! The super-cool new model is just on the horizon, so don't buy our current stuff!" If MS blows their timeline, they're going to end up with a horrendous drop i
  • by CannonballHead (842625) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:17PM (#26084259)

    Early Windows 7 build shows performance ups and automatically they are viewed as stupid tests, anything can beat Vista, etc.

    Oh well. Even if it beat Linux or OS X or every other OS on the planet at speed, the naysayers would still say that it doesn't matter because it's unstable, or too easily compromised, etc.

    Basically, if you want to find fault, you will, and can. Unless you find fault with Linux, then you are obviously flamebait and don't know what you are talking about. :)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      None of what you said invalidates the arguments against the the conclusions in TFA. In fact it could have come out the opposite with TFA claiming that Win7 is slower than Vista, and aside from a number of horrid jokes much of Slashdot would be making similar arguments to what they are now. MS still has plenty of time to work on and optimize it, etc. MS has gotten itself in lose-lose situations with Slashdot before (eg: IE8 compatibility stuff), but here it's just that there isn't much that can be seriousl
  • by billybob_jcv (967047) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @08:20PM (#26084307)
    ...is how long it takes for the first security hole to be found...
  • by Zombie Ryushu (803103) on Thursday December 11, 2008 @11:04PM (#26085853)

    It doesn't matter how fast or slow it is. Whatever Windows 7 is, like Vista, people will have to accept it, because MS will make sure no one has any choice.

  • Error code? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Shotgun (30919) on Friday December 12, 2008 @10:24AM (#26089725)

    How will it perform after they add back the error checking code?

    IBM and Microsoft had a competition to build the fastest implementation of the HPFS file system for OS/2. They brought the two implementation into a room and ran some benchmarks. Microsoft won, and their implementation went into OS/2. IBM engineers then had to go into the code and add the error checking that the MS guys left out...at which point it was much slower than the IBM codeline.

    I wouldn't trust these 'benchmarks' for squat.

  • Even Better If... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Friday December 12, 2008 @11:46AM (#26091025)
    And it would be even better if Microsoft got all of the DRM crap out W7 that never belonged in the operating system in the first place!

FORTRAN is for pipe stress freaks and crystallography weenies.

Working...