Slashdot Mirror


Performance Tests Show Early Windows 7 Build Beats Vista

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.'"

26 of 534 comments (clear)

  1. Windows ME-2 by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Windows ME-2 by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Windows ME-2 by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. Dead Herring by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Indeed. I think the question isn't how it compares to Vista but how it compares to XP. Anything else is simply following the Microsoft's red herring.

    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:Dead Herring by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There you go (Mike Nash is the corporate vice president of Microsoft).

      "So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties."

      Maybe the fact that the most recent Windows 7 preview (the one from PDC2008) is build 6.1.6936 can also give a clue :)

  3. Microsoft has a history of promising the world by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Under the fancy hood by TOGSolid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  5. I don't care about benchmarks... by Darundal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  6. Poor methodology by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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. ;)

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
  7. Shoot the messenger. by kwabbles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Just disrupt the deflector shield with a tachyon burst.
    1. Re:Shoot the messenger. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  8. This just in... by Jimbob+The+Mighty · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Performance tests show that an abacus and a box of crayons beat Vista.

    (Apologies to Tycho and Gabe)

  9. MS is in a lose-lose situation on Slashdot. by CannonballHead · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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. :)

  10. Re:Don't worry, it's not done yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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 stuff was".

    replies welcome.

  11. Re:At Least They Didn't Stoop To... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't ever dare compare the OS X operating system to windows or even Linux with WINE in terms of gaming ever again

    What nonsense. Name one game that runs well with WINE or Crossover on Linux that doesn't run under WINE or Crossover on OS X. Name one commercial game available for Linux but not OS X. You might be able to find the odd open source Linux game (Frozen Bubble 2 comes to mind) that hasn't been ported to Mac, but they are pretty rare.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  12. Re:Obsolete Microkernel Dooms Mac OS X to Lag Linu by jcr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apple has done nothing to bring OS X up to the same performance level as Linux and Windows since then.

    Do you know the difference between supporting a claim and merely repeating it?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  13. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  14. Re:The good old days by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is what passes for insightful on Slashdot these days? Seriously mods, this guy thinks Microsoft made Vista that way on purpose as some sort of genius grand plan!

    Heh, not quite. Vista isn't the success Microsoft hoped for. From microsofts point of view, Vista has been a dismal marketing failure, possibly even a commercial failure - they pushed too much change all at once, and the market dug in its heels.

    However, when all is said and done Vista isn't really a technical failure, and so Windows 7 isn't going in a new technical direction. So windows 7 is just going to address the market failure, which it will be able to do, since the failure of Vista was too much change too fast. Windows 7 isn't going to have much change, and is just going to build on Vista which will have already 'broken the new ground', so the strategy for 7 will likely succeed.

    He says Vista isn't ME-2, but provides no reason -- except opinion -- for it. This would never have been modded-up in my day!

    Vista isn't ME-2 because:

    1) ME was the last of its code base and it died off; its successor was a completely different code base.
    2) Vista is the first of its code base, and its successor will be little more than a refinement of it.

    That pretty much makes Vista the opposite of ME.

  15. Re:Congratulations! by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Insightful

    On the subject of low bars. Has anyone got any idea why there even exists a 32bit version of windows 7. IMHO vistas biggest failure was putting out a 32 bit version of an operating system that barely gets by with the 3gig limit that 32bit OS's can support.

    And they want to do it again? C'mon microsoft. Learn one lessone and one alone from Apple. A little pain for a big gain. Kill off 32bit and legacy APIs and make a truly kick ass clean 64 bit operating system.

    It'll be a hell of a long time before 128bit starts the cycle again.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  16. Re:Obsolete Microkernel Dooms Mac OS X to Lag Linu by Aranykai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Stop feeding the troll. There are people in this world who will spew bullshit till they are blue in the face if it will get them some attention.

    Anyone who's opinion matters knows he's full of bullshit.

    --
    If sharing a song makes you a pirate, what do I have to share to be a ninja?
  17. Re:Parent is actually insightful. by andy_t_roo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    modular as in $50 per module?

    would you like a firewall with that?

  18. Re:Parent is actually insightful. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Parent is actually insightful. by i.of.the.storm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    All your base are belong to Wii.
  20. Re:At Least They Didn't Stoop To... by iJusten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Name one commercial game available for Linux but not OS X.

    Sacred. Serious Sam and its sequel. Return to Castle Wolfenstein. Jagged Alliance 2.

    You should never say "name one", as there's usually at least few around (and Wikipedia has handy-dandy Category: Linux Games. To be fair, though, I suppose the above list is like 80% of all games that fill your criteria.

    --
    Chronologically late.
  21. Re:Parent is actually insightful. by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  22. Re:Congratulations! by jsoderba · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As usual, Slashdot users are oblivious to the existence of a world beyond computer science classes and small web development shops.

    There is a lot of niche hardware out there that will never have 64-bit drivers. Many of the users of such hardware, such as big industrial and R&D companies, are very important customers for MS.

    MS also want to bring as many users of old hardware as they can up to the NT 6 kernel so they can reduce NT 5 support costs.