Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 Benchmarks Show Little Improvement On Vista

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.'"

8 of 369 comments (clear)

  1. Re:What? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have to agree with you here, mostly. Most of the tests make very little sense, and expecting W7 to be a rewrite is just stupid. Watching some of the W7-related PDC 2008 videos, I never got the impression that improving performance was their major priority, except perhaps for some tweaks for netbooks. Instead, most of the focus appears to be on other areas such as improved usability and power consumption. Not to mention that the M3 is a pre-beta build.

    However, the OS can certainly have a significant impact on something like video encoding: differences in the scheduler or system calls/APIs can do that. Here's a somewhat outdated Vista vs XP benchmark. The xvid and h.264 encoders are around 20% slower in Vista, and the impact is similar in some other cases, such as with WinRAR or UT2004. Differences of just a few percent can usually be ignored, but I find these significant. If somewhere between the release of Vista and W7 the maximum differences are lowered to around 5% compared to XP, whether with a service pack, new drivers or optimizations, I'd consider that good enough and possibly switch. After all, going from Win98 to XP also caused a drop in framerates, but was well worth it.

  2. Re:MinKern anyone? by Toreo+asesino · · Score: 4, Informative

    This explains nicely - http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1707

    Short answer: mostly.

    --
    throw new NoSignatureException();
  3. Re:Goodness me, what FUD by Mascot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Vista is barely slower than XP on hardware bought within the last 2 years. It was fairly slower on RTM for many reasons, but vastly improved drivers & some colossal patches have put that to bed now.

    When did this event occur? Last I tested Vista performance on this machine was with Crysis. That would be close to a year after Vista release. I got half the FPS compared to in XP. Half.

    Apart from DX10 there is nothing in Vista that interests me that can't already be gotten for XP via third party applications. So far there aren't exactly a huge amount of DX10-only games, and unless the performance issue mentioned above has indeed been sorted it would be a moot point either way.

  4. Re:so? by sveard · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've used XP (feels like I've used it forever), Vista (even longer), and Ubuntu (since 6.04).

    In Ubuntu I rarely had any hardware problems. Ubuntu 8.10 recognizes all hardware without ANY problem. In Windows (same hardware!), I have to install at least 5 different hardware drivers. Mind you that this was not on cheap or obscure hardware.

    The way I see the hardware issue is: a fresh Windows installation needs half a dozen drivers to be installed manually by the user. Finding drivers is usually pretty easy, especially for newer hardware. In Linux, you have two scenarios:
    1. It Just Works (TM).
    2. You have driver issues: in this case, you're better of having problems with older hardware that is more likely to be supported by some third party driver.
    Office software: OpenOffice.org? It fits my needs (but I do not use it in a professional context so YMMV)
    Games: agreed, this is Windows turf.
    General acceptance: someday... (one can hope)

  5. Re:Isn't this kind of the point? by makomk · · Score: 3, Informative

    The trouble is, if you read TFA, there are still compatibility issues with drivers and software designed for Vista. They'll probably be fixed, but it isn't a good sign.

  6. Re:so? by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 3, Informative

    Shouldn't you use LaTeX for writing your dissertation anyway?
    Word always gave up on me on large documents with a lot of content.

  7. Perspective by DrYak · · Score: 3, Informative

    General acceptance: someday... (one can hope)

    Well, as with several other stuff, it's just a matter of perspective.

    If by general acceptance, you specifically restrict to PC compatible computers. Yes, there aren't many Linux installation around (well except if you work in a Linux-oriented shop, like research, academics, etc.) Just, like Intel has a quasi-monopoly on CPUs for these machines.

    But if you extend your definition to the more broad concept of linux being executed on an electronic device, the situation is completely different : you'll suddenly realise that the Penguin is already everywhere.
    Just take DSL routers : there's currently one in almost each house here around. Linksys, D-Link, Netgear, ... most brands of routers run Linux.
    In several european country, DSL ISPs are even bundling own-branded "{name_of_ISP}-Box" routers for VoIP / IPTV and Internet running embed Linux.

    Yes currently Mac OS X and Linux only account for less than 30% of the market share, leaving more than 70% Windows Box. But the 100% total of those are connected to the net using boxes which 99.9% of the time run Linux.

    Same goes for lots of the Media box connected to your TV set. Unless you built your own Windows Media Center HTPC, chances are, you bought a ready-to-use box.
    In the USA, that is most likely a TiVo. Which runs Linux. Here in Europe, you probably bought from MediaMarkt one of those countless dead-cheap miniITX-based "add your own harddisk" noname asian box. Which most probably runs Linux too.

    Same in an enterprise : the desktops will be probably running XP. The servers could be running Server 2003. But the routers, the cheap RAID/NAT box, the noname small network-to-printer bridges, and lots of other small electronic gizmo are running some form of embed linux.

    On the desktop, Linux is facing strong competition from Windows and Mac OS X. On the other hand, in the embed market Linux is only facing what is basically a big mess of hundreds of small ad-hoc firmwares, with no clear leader, and that lot of manufacturer are dumping in favor of Linux, simply because it offers them a much better, more coherent and easier to maintain platform to work with.
    Currently if you want to build some network-enabled gadget, either you re-invent the wheel and built your own solution. Or you just slap Linux with some micro server on it.

    Trolls are still waiting for "the year of the Linux Desktop". They just missed that "the year of the Linux gizmo" has already happened long before.

    If you look at electronics at a whole, Linux is suddenly a much stronger leader.

    Just as, if you look at electronics at a whole, the battle for CPU dominance has long ago been lost to ARM & MIPS.
    (with a bunch of PICs occupying a significant place for an even broader definition of electronics)

    --

    Beside....

    Finding drivers is usually pretty easy, especially for newer hardware. In Linux, you have two scenarios:
    1. It Just Works (TM).
    2. You have driver issues: in this case, you're better of having problems with older hardware that is more likely to be supported by some third party driver.

    And in lots of distribution, its just a matter of adding a new repository with additional drivers.

    With some distro like openSUSE, that's basically just clicking on a ".ymp" link at the end of the explanation page on their wiki, and everything (adding the repository, installing the packages, etc.) is handled automagically.
    That's it. Info page -> Click -> Installed.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  8. Re:What? by Dude+McDude · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't know about launching apps, but boot time is supposedly faster in 7: http://lifehacker.com/5082336/windows-7-vista-and-xp-bootup-benchmarks-updated