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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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
People still defragment hard drives? NTFS isn't resistant to fragmentation?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
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.
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)
Thanks for stopping by to give us your views, Mr. Ballmer.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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. :)
...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.
Yeah, including such stellar titles as Wingnuts 2, Jeopardy Deluxe, Drop Point Alaska, a brand new Star Wars adventure titled Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy (/endsarcasm), etc. Don't ever dare compare the OS X operating system to windows or even Linux with WINE in terms of gaming ever again. There are some relevant games in that list, but most of those are years old. There's a reason why Mac geeks who also happened to be gamers rejoiced when Boot Camp came out. So they could finally play some good PC Games.
Don't ever dare compare the OS X operating system to windows or even Linux with WINE in terms of gaming ever again.
I'm curious.. Do you actually expect people to comply when you issue a demand like this?
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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
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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
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?
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 ...
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.
2) Vista is the first of its code base, and its successor will be little more than a refinement of it.
If we stick with your circular logic, ME would have been head and shoulders above Win98 and SE. So which is it? Do Microsoft products get better or worse as they mature?
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Umm, that's nearly two years old. Initially Vista performance was worse primarily because of crappy driver support, especially on the part of nVidia, which has been well documented. Benchmarks done a year after release found Vista and XP roughly equal, with Vista occasionally beating XP.
All your base are belong to Wii.
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...
post on Slashdot and aren't Twitter sock puppets?
No, I am not just making things up.
All your base are belong to Wii.
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.
Don't ever dare compare the OS X operating system to windows or even Linux with WINE in terms of gaming ever again.
You do realise that WINE is available for OSX? It's working pretty well so actually OSX has parity with Linux plus the advantage of quite a few native titles being available.
True. ME sucked. Vista blows.
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
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."
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.
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 ]