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.'"
It was done in an effort to illustrate the issue.
-Approved by the Office of Redundancy Redundant Department
So, they are essentially releasing Vista SP1 as "windos 7", right?
Given the development time, that shouldn't really come as a surprise to anyone. What did you expect? A total rewrite-from-scratch?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
-Approved by the Office of Redundancy Redundant Department
That one usually goes "...the department of redundancy department."
how a closed system like Windows gets truly benchmarked anyhow. its like having a car with a hood that doesnt open, but seems to go quite a bit faster than your old car.
Good people go to bed earlier.
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.
This is not a well informed viewpoint.
1) DirectX 10 is not interesting, has not been used interestingly. Like many other ill informed PC gamers you are still sitting around waiting for improvements to come from that well, but trust me, that well is dry - partly technologically, and partly circumstantially, but DX10 is nobody's answer to anything.
2) Vista performance HAS been significantly improved, and simply pretending it hasn't does not make Vista a worse operating system.
I don't know what the constant need to hate Vista is, or where it comes from, but it is irrational. It was bad, it is now better, most people have little reason to move from XP. That's the entire situation in a sentence. A constant outpouring of hatred changes nothing.