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.'"
Microsoft still has plenty of time to slow it down.
Let's all give MS a pat on the back for clearing such a low bar.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
NT4 is faster than vista.
So there.
NO SIG
First Post! But I posted it with Vista, so it may actually show up a bit later.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
This test will pitch Windows 7 build 6956 32-bit against Windows Vista RTM 32-bit and Windows Vista SP1 32-bit.
...and this proves what exactly? That tan turds will slide out your ass quicker than brown turds will?
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.
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?
Could this be the version of Windows that will finally get me to switch? Stay tuned!
-- thinkyhead software and media
Another shameless public masturbation bought to you by Microsoft.
By the time they release it, they'll have fixed this bug.
Great Intellect...
From my tests, not all Vista drivers were 100% compatible with 6.1 (I refuse to call it "7"). I tested some "Vista certified" graphics drivers, and they were real edgy in the latest (leaked) Vista beta. I wonder if the new !backwardscompatible DirectX has anything to do with it, or if Microsoft plans on doing the same to the new WDM.
Then again, it was a beta, and other than that most of my personal kernel code ran fine. Maybe the big-time driver overlords just need more time to catch up with 6.1.
fully embeds DRM in it, then it will be dog slow.
Remove the DRM from Vista nd it is damn fast.
Yes, I've done it.
of course, at My work i have access to the neceSsary tools.
It will be about as difficult for Windows 7 to be a better OS than Vista as it is for Obama to be a better president than Bush!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Wouldn't it have been a lot more fun for the author to do the benchmarks on an Intel 915 chipset? We all know that Intel 915 was claimed to be Vista certified, so if Windows 7 is indeed faster, shouldn't it work as well.
And wouldn't a great benchmark be "UAC dialog boxes per hour" instead?
I am surprised he was able to publish the benchmarks, usually there are a lot of license restriction on what you can do with pre release code. Perhaps in this case, since it was favorable to 7, maybe he got permission.
It will be slowed down so folks don't tangle the keys.
Things are improving. Or at least, the rate at which they're going to hell is decreasing.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
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.
...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.
I've been running it x64 for a few weeks and the reports are true. Even when you turn on the aero services and attempt to run it in the more bloated desktop vista config, it is faster.
Just like 2003 ran faster than XP. XP later got 2003's new heap manager, etc, in SP3.
I'd bet Windows 7 performs like 2008 server.
This were actually another Mojave experiment prank, played on ZDnet?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
The tablet has a 1.3 PIII & 512 of ram.
http://geekpi.com/?p=38#more-38
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
WASTE OF BITS AND GAY NIGGERS from
Exactly! Why compare to Vista, which ranks slightly above Windows ME and slightly below Windows 3.1 for DOS? "Extra, extra! The new system we're making is better than the previous one --we think! But we're still running tests to make sure."
Good job, Microsoft! Or were you referring to Ubuntu 15.04, a.k.a. Vociferous Vista?
404555974007725459910684486621289147856453481154 in hex is "You sank my Battleship?"
[GPG key in journal]
People still defragment hard drives? NTFS isn't resistant to fragmentation?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Make something that just utterly and outright reeks, so whatever comes next is deemed so much better, no matter whether it's really better than what you had before the stinker.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, this definitely sounds like it happened.
The interesting thing about Windows 7 is that it'll be released surprisingly hot on the heels of Vista. From a consumer perspective I'm sure they're hoping to encourage a lot of people to upgrade from Vista. However, corporate users are likely to postpone upgrades until Win 7 is available. It's like the Osbourne Effect, except in software, "Hey, look! The super-cool new model is just on the horizon, so don't buy our current stuff!" If MS blows their timeline, they're going to end up with a horrendous drop in revenue over the short term. Ah, well. Ubuntu should be rolling out Lofty Lemur for me by then, anyway.
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.
come up with a 7failure tag and apply it? I mean, Win7 has 0 market share, so why not? Fuckin retards...
comparing to that dog OS X.
Vista runs exactly the same as XP with the exception of the desktop being quite a bit smoother with Aero turned on. Games run with a frame or two per second between Vista and XP.
Can't really say how it compares to OS X since no one but Blizzard puts out games for the overpriced niche platform Apple for some reason still bothers to make.
Vista SP1 is consistently slower than Vista, so expect the final Windows 7 will be slower than "early-stage" as well.
When Windows7 is thrust upon the end users as the default OS
for new PC's, it will most likely not yet be supported by the
tens of thousands of 3rd party apps.
Vista was pushed out and the only real apps on the market were
a wet version of MS OFFICE2007.
I don't look forward to the new PC's arriving to my office, with
a new unsopported OS. Going on a hunch that Microsoft will
take the opportunity to remove more legacy support, I can
assume that more of our proprietary 3rd party apps will not
work on Windows7,
Our building automation (environmental controls software), our
gas pump management software, or hydro metering subsystem,
and dozens of other apps are doomed on Windows7 as they
currently are with Windows Vista.
Read between the lines that we are still on WinXP and Win2000pro.
MACs are appearing in the office, and people really like them.
XP runs well on them to boot (via vmware fusion).
Microsofts big challenge is going to be convincing the worlds
3rd party developers to embrace this new OS. And to do it
without threats or forcefully pulling support agreements, etc.
MS's typical business practices are their legacy.
Windows7 is akin to GM tossing a hybrid engine into a CHEVY Tahoe. It is still Vista under the hood, with a new skin on the
outside.
Good luck.
And please remember to extend the life of XP for another 5 years. Thanks.
(Apologies to Tycho and Gabe)
Two years ago, much the same was being said about Vista. It was powerful, it was redesigned with wonderful new features. About the only hones thing that was said about Vista was that it would not work with much of the hardware that currently in use. This is why people stayed with XP. MS claims that it has many more device drivers, and if the shipping OS is faster, that will help also. But given history, I must wait to see the proof in the pudding.
In any case, I would much rather see MS support standards, rather than micromanage hardware. I mean, is it not a bit ridiculous that I have to download a new driver package everytime I use a different USB drive?
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
But way to go staying on top of teh 'Microsoft red herrings' for the rest of us!
The article just means Microsoft released Vista way too soon. It was half baked and needed to beat on it some more. Apple held up the release of OS X Leopard and put in the quality.
A friend of mine bought a brand new HP system recently. It came with Vista 64-bit. None of his engineering software runs on it and his software costs thousands of dollars. He was hoping to get a faster machine to do his job and naively assumed Vista would just run his software. After spending a couple days fighting with Vista, he is now trying to return the system and get his money back.
How goes those fixes for the laughably poor performing Mach message queues in the shitty OS X kernel.
Guess Apple has just giving up trying to make OS X competitive with Linux and Windows kernel.
This page contains all the test results (including XP test) instead of spreading it to 6 pages. It does not have the specification of the system used or a brief description of each test though.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
The title is so funy.... ROFL xD
"Obsolete Microkernel Dooms Mac OS X to Lag Linux in Performance"
http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6105
I am shocked that the primary Slashdot Mac Troll pretends ignorance of the well known and laughably bad OS X performance compared to Linux and Windows...
Here is the crux. Vista didn't provide enough reason to switch, and the interface was so poorly designed it aggravated users. Every screenshot I've seen on Windows 7 looks just like Vista. 7 will have multi-touch support, but I don't have a touchscreen.
Until I see a reason to switch (ie serious advantages over XP) why would I?
I run openSUSE 11.1 and Windows x64 and I'm happy with both.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
And yet.... there is still time for both(W7 and Obama) to fail miserably before they even start. :-)
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. :)
The article you link is an opinion piece, which cites no actual examples of performance issues on Mac OS X.
Care to try again?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
...is how long it takes for the first security hole to be found...
Which douchebag is going around tagging every story about software with the ubuntu tag? What does a comparison between 2 versions of Windows have anything to do with any other OS? Shuttleworth, is that you?
Maybe people will figure out that throwing random tags around isn't the best idea when they go to do a search for stories tagged "ubuntu" and get presented with a load of crap that has nothing to do with Ubuntu.
This is honestly insightful, because the more they work on it, the more it will suffer from the heavy weight of feature creep. I hope their claim of 'modular' is still in the plans.
Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
I think that microsoft could rescue vista by releasing Windows 7 as "Vista Service Pack 4", to keep with Windows' tradition of offering a stable product around service pack 2 or 3. That way, they could attract users to their product, and not force people to switch OS's again. But how do you make money like that?
Those are minimal speedups! Have a look at the graphs, don't waste time on the text of the article, and see for yourselves.
I am quite shocked that people give props to MS for... basically NOTHING.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
and....was written in 2002.
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.
then they should have waited. Vista always seemed a bit premature.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
And Apple has done nothing to bring OS X up to the same performance level as Linux and Windows since then. They tried to ignore the problem, then deny it, then downplay it, and they ended up just pretending it doesn't exist.
What Windows users need is a decent OS offering backwards compatibility and some real improvements over XP that will justify its adoption.
Seriously, other than some improvements over a badly coded interface that got its butt kicked by Compiz, and besides the pervasive use of DRM and other techniques to block its usage or spy over the user, what else can 7 offer?
This proves once again what a piece of crap Vista is.
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!
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!
I seriously doubt any OS can outperform Vista. I mean, really guys, come on.
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."
I wonder if the inimitable Stephen Fry would like to test it. Then they'll know they are making progress.
Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anything that can reduce Mr Fry to describing anything as "cunting" and give up in despair ("I can't put up with this sort of arse") must be far beyond terrible. :D
Aw, bless.
"Three eyes are better than one" -- Lieutenant Columbo
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is Adrian Kingsley-Hughes we're talking about. He's a Microsoft fanboi and probably on Microsoft's payroll.
The only question I got is when are we going to get some real benchmarks and not marketing dribble reposted by this douchebag.
Windows 7 did better only on boot time. The other tests don't show much, if the author had taken a more probabilistic approach I think we'd see that neither t-test or z-test would be conclusive with a good confidence. If we take into account that what slows down the boot time is the several services, it may mean that window 7 just doesn't have all the services yet. Trully weak results here.
Shill, again.
It is the SAME, extended code base.
NONE of the Cr.. has been re-witten, it si easy to pay for puff, but, at last, after many fired CIOs enterprises test.
Work on better chairs!
Go ahead and link to follow up independent performance tests that show Apple was able to fix the absurd performance problems their kernel has...
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?
This is great! I love my DRM to be nice and speedy!
Stop feeding the troll.
But it's fun!
Ok, I'll stop. He's not a very good troll, anyhow.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
That's great and all, but I need a version of Windows that doesn't poop on itself when it tries to do two things at once, before I upgrade my PC from XP Pro.
Ok, at first glance it looks good. It won 75% of the tests right? Looking over the pretty charts, its not so great:
1. Boot time: Windows 7 is slightly better (by 10 seconds "woo") and WTF on Vista SP1 being slower than Vista RTM? (I thought it was suppose to offer huge performance gains?)
2. Passmark Test: Only slightly beats out Vista (and again, SP1 is slower?)
3. PCmark: 500 points higher than Vista(s) (about a 10% gain, not bad.)
4. Cinebench10: 500 points worse. and *again* Vista RTM is faster than SP1.
so it seem to balance out. and at the current rate is Microsoft going to keep slowing down Vista with each service pack to make the jump to 7 seem even more promising? "Looks its 700% Faster than Vista SP3!" (and about the same as Vista RTM, and would have been slower then the 'evil' XP that we had to kill off...)
I'll wait till 7 RTMs before I make my final call, but after all the games they played with Vista, it had better make serious strides in usability ...
Nope. Your claim, your burden of proof. It's up to you to show that any "absurd performance problems" exist in the Mac OS X Kernel, not for me to prove a negative.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Microsoft is the only company I know that can get its customers to pay for a downgrade.
It doesn't matter how fast or slow it is. Whatever Windows 7 is, like Vista, people will have to accept it, because MS will make sure no one has any choice.
I really don't see what all the complaining has been about. I have never had any problems with Vista At All. Not One. It runs just as fast as XP did, crashes less, is more secure. etc........
Will I like the fact that 7 is fater, heck yes, but don't jump on the 'hate Vista' bandwagon just to be on it.
And yes I know this will be unpopular and flamed, so go ahead-flame away
Still like Linux better
What's really surprising is that it's only faster in 3 out of 4 tests. When you're competing with Vista, the bar's about as low as it can technically go. Heck, they could be 90% as slow as Vista and it would STILL look good.
Since when did Vista become a point of reference? Why don't they compare it to XP, so we can see how dog-slow it really is?
Wrists killing you? Not in 2 weeks. Learn Dvorak.
No, Microsoft dug themselves into a hole by taking five years to upgrade XP.
Had they stuck to their usual 2-3 year product cycle, XP wouldn't have become entrenched to the point of irreplaceable.
Is it just me, or am I the only person that didn't understand the usage of "edgy" in the parent? Did it enter mid-life, shave its head bald and hang out in hipster bars? That kind of edgy?
Wrists killing you? Not in 2 weeks. Learn Dvorak.
That would require people to have an open mind, which we know isn't the case.
Yea, that's not a bug, that's a feature.
I'd be happy if the thing worked, but performance is less important than freedom. Many say that Windows 7 is a clone of Vista with that somehow manages to break compatibility. People running Vista should be pissed that whatever improvements there are are not being released as a service pack to them - it's not like M$ would lose significant sales by rewarding the faithful few burnt by Vista. Still, it could work perfectly and not be good enough because of DRM and other customer hostile tech inherent to non free software. The best hardware in the world, perfectly driven, is useless when you want to record American Gladiators and the damn software says you can't.
XP and Vista are the end of Windows. Both added bloat and anti-features that dragged down progressively more capable hardware and neither did anything about security issues that truly destroy performance. Competing free software based software kicks it's ass in all the important ways.
Don't bother flaming me for telling you this. If you can't see what I do by now, you will be one of the nine or ten percent of users that move onto Vista or it's repainted twin. I'm happy for you, really I am, but you won't be. You can tell me about it later when you've really gotten your hands on it and used it. The rest of the world is moving on to free software for better stability, ease of use, vendor support and security than ever.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
That's right you stupid fucking piece of shit. The OS X kernel remains a complete joke.
What so we know of Win 7's lineage? Is it a revamp of the Vista codebase?
I don't see how it'd be possible for Microsoft to have cleaned up all of Vista's problems in less than 2 years.
I may be wrong, but I bet that they built Windows 7 on top of one of the XP service packs. How else could it possibly perform and be as usable as XP?
Seriously, if I were a betting man, I'd wager that they abandoned Vista entirely...
Huh?
Don't worry, by the time they finish "upgrading" XP, Vista 7 will be teh fastest. Do you really think upgrades are going to be kind to the OS they have tried to kill for the last two years? Move to free software before your systems all crap out and you will be happier.
This has been going on forever, but Vista's failure ends it. You're talking to a guy who fell for the Win98 trick but not the XP trick. Every OS upgrade from M$ since 95 has been a bigger joke than the last. They beat better stuff from IBM and Apple with OEM and retail strong arming, but Vista is putting them all out of business.
I am a name troll of Westlake. Visit my homepage to learn why.
Anonymous Coward
Curiously, they do expect people to do as they say. I've seen a lot of these demands. Whey I did not comply, they modbombed me to oblivion.
Ultimately they want Slashdot and free software to just go away, so they can get back to their little Windows monopoly and great big piles of coke. The goal of the Slog is for M$ to remain the "center of the computing world." This has obviously failed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
...of Windows on the desktop!
Oh hang on, I can install drivers without recompiling the kernel and games can run without having to spend days trying to get some weird wine that requires the dlls from another operating system before they will run. Nope, still some way to go before it becomes a state of the art desktop machine like that Leenux.
That's right you stupid fucking piece of shit.
Spewing childish insults is hardly a convincing technical argument.
The OS X kernel remains a complete joke.
Is that what your friends on the playground are telling you?
Maybe someday you might grow up and acquire the technical skills to judge it for yourself.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
> Whey I did not comply, they modbombed me to oblivion.
Can you please provide evidence that you were asked by Microsoft to do something,
and evidence that they modbombed you to oblivion? I'd be very interested in
seeing that, and I'm sure many people here would.
Can you please also comment on all your other accounts, which
also seem to have been "modbombed". Did they suffer the same fate?
> Ultimately they want Slashdot and free software to just go away
You seem to use the word "hate" there a lot. I don't see a direct relationship
between what you claim those people are doing and "hating" free software, Slashdot
or even you.
> great big piles of coke
I'm sorry?
User is a known troll that maintains multiple sockpuppet accounts
You are a name troll of whom again? And why does your homepage link to a comment by the guy that does this?
everyone has already expressed how underwhelmed and disinterested we all are.
I wonder what Microsoft will change in licensing or some other "Feature" that will make it so that it won't get redily adopted... I personally have more of an issue with the changes to Office in the 2007 version. (This is forced upon me at work). I actually use Vista in my personal environment and find it reasonably workable...
Okay, so I probably deserve a troll mod on this, but for chrissakes why do we still see submissions referencing articles by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes on /.?
Even *Adrian* can't figure out whether he's a Microsoft apologist or an MS shill, which is presumably why he flips back and forth between the two modes.
I know, I know. I don't have to read them - who reads TFA on /. anyway? But it's like this grim fascination which, once it's been presented to me, I can't resist; out of body, I watch myself, horror struck as I click through to TFA, start twitching when I see it's AK-H, screaming gibberish and invective until I run out of lickspittle ...
And to top it all off, he's got a hyphenated surname, pretentious ginga that he is.
[17] Leary, T., White, C., Wood, P. R., Bhabha, W. D., and Wirth, N. Lambda calculus considered harmful. In Proceedings
ATI/AMD and nVidia come out with thier bloated display drivers, that should slow it down some..
No decent shell? It's not a *real* O/S.
If I can't have grep, xargs, awk, sed, etc. in my operating system, then it is but a toy.
And Window is... make no mistake... simply a toy.
I need to see a comparison with a non-crippled version of Windows. Vista is a non-OS....
It's not hard to make it faster than vista...
Where are the benchmarks comparing it to XP, Ubuntu and OSX?
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
"If Microsoft keeps up the good then Windows 7 should be head and shoulders better than Vista."
Nice, after that they'll only have to tackle the arms, hands, torso(s?), legs and feet.
Maybe there are still some spare parts lying around from other OSs.
I also hear that cat shit smells less bad than dog shit. Feh.
MS just need to collect money every three years. They upgrade the OS telling people they get new and shiny technology. The truth is that there is no real compelling reason to upgrade from 2000 to XP to Vista. No real gain. They just throw new "functionalities "which only annoy the user, but which real intentions is either piss them off into migrating (cancelling support for legacy applications) or create new benifits "for them" instead for the user (DRMzation). I think instead of waiting for Windows 7 or migrating to OSX, I will just wait for Google OS ;-)
Linux been second option (Kubuntu)
I believe that this Slashdot crowd has LLS... much the same as LMS. You have Little Linux Syndrome... much like Little Man Syndrome. Linux works great for server stuff, but for a desktop... about as many apps full blown apps run natively in Linux as in Windows 3.11. I tired of hearing your ungrounded Linux claims while blasting Microsoft for everything they do. Secondly... I don't see Linux desktop stuff implementing all the advanced policy control that Windows does in an enterprise situation and yet you continue to pretend to be making a direct comparison between Windows and Linux. Linux has strong points, so does Windows. Sadly in an enterprise situation, Linux still stinks as a desktop for application support and true enterprise management capabilities. Sorry guys and gals :)
If I will have to buy an antivirus for it I wouldn't buy windows 7. MS might need windows 7 I may not need this.
MS lost me when they came out with VISTA. Before Vista you had to have MS product to work and play in the electronic world.
Yah performance was an issue with VISTA. But so many more things are wrong. Performance in the case of a successor to Windows is actually a bit of a 3rd tier issue.
- Blatant lies when it came to VISTA capable
- DRM infection to the point where my own videos were crippled in rez and sound
- UAC nag from hell. Essentially made the Windows experience equate to cat sitting on the key board demanding my attention CONSTANTLY. And as such rendered my time on the computer less productive.
- Next to nothing when it came to 64 bit drivers
- Still very few safety and repair products run under 64 bit. At launch there was NOTHING for 32 or 64 bit.
- File operations over network painfully slow.
Vista was a marketing nightmare. As a result the competition has gained advantage on so many fronts. This is a good thing.
- Linux is actually usable by the common man. Thank you Conical. Ubuntu and all of the new Debian variants are really rather good.
- Apple leveraging on the success of the iPod product line came out with some killer product specifically in the lap top range. A laptop that fits into an envelope is a killer product.
- Open Office matured and is now easier to use than MS Office. ( I'm speaking from the perspective of bloat )
- Firefox/Mozila showed the world that you can create a browser that works really really well. This soon followed by all the webKit browsers, Safari / Chrome.
- Sigma systems created a chip that is used in most PVR's and media players. So no longer do you need a PC to play computer files. AKA MS media center is now swiftly becoming an expensive after thought.
- Google has done amazing things with the browser. maps / gmail / docs etc. Basically this opened the door for the onslaught of micro sub $500 PC's.
I have to say MS is going to have to pull out of there A$$ the killer product of the 21st century to save them from a slow painful demise. Lets face it, Microsoft just doesn't have that cool hip tag that Apple / Google / any kid on the street has or has had. A killer product Demands a degree of brand Nike Swoosh-stika coolness to get it off the ground.
So. Woop Dee Doo if Windows 7 is currently performing well. It's only got 1,000,000 other things to fix before it will succeed.
( Thank you all for listening / reading this old mans rant )
I heard they had announced the release of WinFS...
How will it perform after they add back the error checking code?
IBM and Microsoft had a competition to build the fastest implementation of the HPFS file system for OS/2. They brought the two implementation into a room and ran some benchmarks. Microsoft won, and their implementation went into OS/2. IBM engineers then had to go into the code and add the error checking that the MS guys left out...at which point it was much slower than the IBM codeline.
I wouldn't trust these 'benchmarks' for squat.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
And it would be even better if Microsoft got all of the DRM crap out W7 that never belonged in the operating system in the first place!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Well if we compare a very slow dinosaur against the speed of an elephant the elephant is FASTER. This does not mean that the ELEPHANT is fast only faster as the big, slow and waiting for extinction dinosaur. (hey I being nice with vista)
What are you talking about? I'm running Mac OS X 10.5 on 8 years old hardware just fine, and it works better than the OS which came with the box. (Given it was OS 9, that's also a very low bar to pass.) Admittedly 10.6 won't probably run on said G4's any more because Apple stops supporting PowerPC hardware, but for comparison try to run Vista (or even XP if you like) on 8 years old hardware and compare that to the performance of my Macs of the same age.
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
Oh yeah, Windows 7 is better than Vista, but is it better than Windows XP?
MS really needs to create/have a Windows Gamers Edition for Windows 7, or at least multiple profiles you can choose from at install (one being gamer). A profile that strips the OS down to bare bones game function. No backup, no syncs, no offline files, no unnecessary process outside of sound, video, internet, and the ability to install a game. It's the only reason why a lot of people are still committed to using Windows. If it wasn't for the gaming, I would be using Ubuntu for Internet and Media.
Maybe then the Gamers edition would be just the best preforming edition of Windows.... so make it the default edition, and if I need anything else, I'll add the service ala carte from my install disk/internet.
OSX dock can be anything from a couple of giant icon (get rid of all apps and maximize it) to a tiny barely readable row of icons taking up much less real-estate than the Windows taskbar, so calling it a "big ass dock" depends on how you customize it. Sure it defaults to big, but right click the divider on the dock (Control Click if you don't have a "real" mouse) and choose Preferences, then make it big or small, mess with effects, magnification, etc.
Incidentally, when I used NeXT Dock it was limited to square icons and was not resizable or scalable, but that was a while ago and I'm not sure what modern features are in later incarnations. In fact, it behaved like many other desktop managers in how it minimized, but it did have those cool animated icons and put everything in a box (as opposed to other Window Managers which usually ran them in a row along the left side of the desktop)
I can only assume Windows will be fairly flexible with their dock using hardware accelerated scaling and dock scaling based on options.
but will it be better than XP?
All that "grain of truth" turned into lie is more your style of arguing with people than mine. I like to talk about the subject at hand with careful documentation, rather than people. But when I do talk about people, I look through their posting history for obvious shilling and harassment. You like to harass me a lot, and I've seen you talking to yourself before.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
XP and Vista are the end of Windows. Both added bloat and anti-features that dragged down progressively more capable hardware and neither did anything about security issues that truly destroy performance.
Not exactly. Yes, for the average /. geek and corporate user who was having already an NT-based OS, going from the already sturdy Windows 2k to a Windows XP Pro which didn't bring anything new or interesting - this was a big disappointment.
*BUT* the story is completely different for average Joe-6-pack. For the average home user Windows XP Home with all its imperfection, was light-years ahead of the previous thing that the users where forced to endure on pre-installed home PC : Windows ME.
Windows XP met success despite being not that interesting, because WinXP Home saved lots of home users from the pains of WinME.
On the other hand, Vista doesn't have a single argument in its favour.
- Businesses don't like it and downgrade to WinXP Pro at the first opportunity.
- Home users aren't rushing to buy-/upgrade to- Vista because their current WinXP Home is pretty much good enough for them.
So in end, Vista is even a worse product than WinXP.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]