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.'"
introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues
not to mention new flavors of DRM and many new proprietary protocols and formats.
The largest prime factor of my UID is 263267.
*cofff* Ubuntu 8.10 *cofff*
Indeed. It's as bloated and slow as hell compared to 7.10. The analogy is quite good.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Did any of you readers actually expect MS to create a new OS in such a short (for MS) period of time, that wouldn't be a copy of it's predecessor?
I know you all think it, and I know you've all said it but here it goes: Vista is shit, even shit would be insulted when being compared to Vista, and what goes for Windows 7 (aka Vista SP "insert number") will be as shitty as Vista. This is natural, there's only so much one can create from shit.
I am the lawn!
ahh daa darr durr dahh durr..
Don't forgot restrictive DRM, tilt bits that cause massive system instability and prevent hardware upgrades without permission (re-authentication) from Microsoft.
Vista is significantly slower than XP. This is a fact and has been proven many times by many different people.
Are you on drugs?
"Some facts:
- 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."
I reproduce this over and over and over with customers. They have a 2 year old laptop that came with XP and the "upgrade to vista" we upgrade it and the COMPUTER IS IN FACT SLOWER. Why do you think the boards out there were flooded with these reports over the past couple of years. In order to make vista as fast as XP you gotta have a good video card, a good fast dualcore processor and a hunk of ram (2GB) Most laptops have crap level video cards so that vista ran like a dog. Every single Lattitude from 2006/2007 we did a vista reinstall to was in fact very slow compared to the XP install.
I know you work for the microsoft get the facts campaign but get real. Anyone that has touched Vista knows it needs a lot behind it to make it feel responsive.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
but only on slashdot. It's like goats.ex or something but funnier because of what it says about M$.
It's funny to see the current M$ party line as, "incompetent IT people are going to install Vista so get used to it." Is that the best lie they can come up with? Wow! Shovel another $300 million into the PR pit.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.