Slashdot Mirror
Is Windows 7 Faster Or Just Smarter?
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."
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:
My work here is dung.
Can I play mp3 *and* copy files on Windows 7 ? I have old Quad-Core system only.
839*929
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.
To quote the pointy haired boss "Work smarter not harder".
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.
The Long Now Foundation
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I dunno about most of you, but I do consider a nippier interface to be an improvement in productivity. For the vast majority of Windows users, the thing they want to see improved is those moments lost "when they click a button and nothing seems to happen", as the article author puts it. That is time that has been taken from me. If I get those moments back, and the performance of the trivial CPU tasks involved in actually reading and writing files are kept the same, then yes, my productivity has improved.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
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.
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. 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, 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.
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.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
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.
NO SIG
Oh... we know what happens. Scroll down to the bit about SimCity.
You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
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.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
The reason Windows 7 is getting good reviews is because Microsoft is bribing reviewers with free high-end laptops. If a software company handed you a $2,000 computer, wouldn't you have a few nice things to say about the operating system preloaded on it?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
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*!!!
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.
Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
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.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
I have been using Windows 7 for 6 days. I hated vista after the second day of using it (in beta) Gave it another shot a month after it came out (still hated it), tried after sp1 (still hated it). So when I went to try Win 7 I was really hoping I wasn't going to hate it, and I didn't ... for about 3 maybe 3.5 days. It was so much faster, full motion thumbnails in the taskbar even if the app was a movie or 3d game (imagine browsing around the intarwebs with WoW in the background and not worrying to check back to the window every 30 seconds to make sure you haven't died.
Then it happened. It would often lag while there wasn't anything really running, the hard drive would chug non stop as if it was defraging (doesn't stop unless you restart). Media center wouldn't work with my 360 (wtf MS?).
I was often left wondering what in the world my computer was doing and why it wasn't doing only the things I wanted it to do.
Finally about 30 minutes ago it happened. I rebooted after installing andlinux and I got a black screen of no boot death.
I'll be going back to a custom iso of Winxp SP3 thank you very much.