Slashdot Mirror
32bit Win7 Vs. Vista Vs. XP
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes tested the latest Win7 build against XP and Vista and came to a surprising conclusion: Win7 performs better than the other 2 OSs in the vast majority of the 23 tasks tested. Even installation. 'Rather than publish a series of benchmark results for the three operating systems (something which Microsoft frowns upon for beta builds, not to mention the fact that the final numbers only really matter for the release candidate and RTM builds), I've decided to put Windows 7, Vista and XP head-to-head in a series of real-world tests...'" This review shows only a 1-2-3 ranking for each test, so there's no sense of the quantitative level of improvement.
Linux can handle 32-bit applications on 64-bit OSes. Surely MS can do the same?
Of course they can, and do. Vista x64 runs 32 bit apps just fine.
Unfortunately MS doesn't have the source for all the devices out there, and can't just recompile all of those to be 64-bit, and the 3rd party vendors that can do it, would rather not spend the effort -- hell, they kicked and screamed and did a half-assed job of updating their drivers to work with Vista in 32 bit (the main source of most real Vista woe).
1) Netbooks. The Atom processors in most netbooks are 32-bit only. Also consider any other embedded scenario where 64-bit CPUs are not available, practical, or where 64-bit addressing is not necessary.
2) Upgrades. Windows does not support upgrading from a 32-bit OS to a 64-bit OS (you have to choose the "clean install" option). If you want to sell upgrade discs to the vast majority of current customers, you need to sell 32-bit copies.
It isn't useless. It isn't "subjective" since it's based on actual objective measurements. It conveys the indication that Windows 7 has *broad* performance improvements.
It has been suggested that exact numbers were not given due to the beta's EULA clause that prohibits benchmarking against the pre-release build.
If he tested all 3 OSes on the exact same hardware configuration and compared those results, then the tests results are valid.
My major problem with these test results is that he ranked them 1, 2, and 3. He should have put in the actual amount of time these tests took so we could see how much big of a difference it is. 1, 2, 3 tells me nothing. The difference between 1 and 2 could be 0.01% or 5000%.
64bit x86 gives you 4 times the general purpose register space and twice as many vector registers, which is a huge benefit for an architecture that's so lacking in register space.
He tested things like moving files around, compression, decompression... This is all good and fine, but it's probably not the thing that most people "feel" when they use a computer. What I would like to know is how snappy or sluggish does the operating system "feel" when using it for every-day tasks? Does everything halt while the hard drive cranks away when you click a menu? Do the GUI animations help use the computer or do they simply slow you down? That's the sort of thing that matters to most users. How often do you really have to move 100 MB or 2.5 GB of files around?
Installing kernel level software that isn't certified for the OS you are using isn't the smartest thing in the world to do.
You can dance all you want, but the truth is we have no evidence that they even performed testing since there are no numbers. That's not subjective, it's called an editorial/not factual.
If there are numbers out there, other people can compare and go "hey, that isn't what I got using the exact same setup as you tested with", etc.
The eula literally says "NO BENCHMARKING ALLOWED" so this means that this guy isn't even allowed to benchmark. It doesn't say "no posting of a benchmark", it says no benchmarking period. Therefore, he hasn't even done benchmarking. See how this works?
The general feeling around here is that no-one WANTS to believe it is even possible that Windows 7 doesn't suck. Because if that were true, that would sort of devalue everything done to improve Linux the last few years. (because if Windows 7 is fast and stable and lets you play games, that doesn't leave any room for Linux on the desktop)
It could actually be that Microsoft got it right. It may be that the core of Vista is not as terrible as we all think it is. I've seen posts discussing how Vista uses a completely refactored kernel, with more layers of abstraction and cleaning up of many of the quirks of win32.
Then, on top of this decent foundation, they overloaded it with poorly thought out gimmicks in an attempt to compete with Apple. In addition, some of their rewrites introduced new bugs, such as the networking problems where Vista machines are unable to talk to shared file servers.
It's possible that Windows 7 succeeded. If they fixed the bugs, and ripped out some of the bloated, inefficient Vista code then you might have a decent OS after. Microsoft might be a monopoly, but if they sat on their heels for too long, eventually (it might take 10 years) alternatives would overtake them.
There are some good TechNet articles at Microsoft that would give you specific answers of what happens on Vistax64 with regard to 32bit memory allocation. (The SDK/DDKs will also give you some answers.)
Also check out interviews with NT engineers at channel9.msdn.com.
As for you questions regarding the compiler, yes. If you compile your application for 64bit, optimizations like you describe are handled unless you disable them in the compiler.
However, the things I was talking about in reference to Vistax64 is that running 32bit code on the 64bit OS, gives the OS the ability to make decisions like this on the fly for upper level system RAM (not CPU level optimizations/etc). So on Vista x64, and running your 32bit code, it will execute faster on Vista x64 because the OS is running faster, but also if you are using large chunks of RAM, the 32bit application will get additional boosts by combining 32bit memory chunks into one read/write of 64bit space.
Once you get what you need on what Windows x64 is doing, head over to AMD and read about CPU specific optimizations that happen in the register and cache levels of the CPUs when executing 32bit code.
Even if you stick to 32bit development, your applications get benefits of Vista x64.
---
Side Note for others:
Anyone here that installs Windows for gaming, if you have 2GB of RAM, grab the 64bit version of Vista, you will easily get 15% more performance out of your games over Vista x32 and XP.
And if you play MMOs, your zone and load times in either version of Vista will make you never want to touch XP again as it is often a 10x to 20x difference due to SuperFetch.
"Win7 performs better than the other 2 OSs" In other words, it only crashes once a month, instead of once a week.
The article wasn't about Windows 2000 vs. 98 and 95.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
You may not disclose the results of any benchmark tests of the software to any third party without Microsoft's prior written approval.
What the author did was within the bounds of the EULA since he didn't disclose the results (the numbers).
What really frustrates me though is that you would suggest that the author is LYING. What gives you the right to make such accusations? Are you working on some kind of historical precedent? Do you know the author personally? Has he lied before? Or are you just being a douche? I can completely understand if you want to see the raw data, so do I. But really, I thought Slashdot attracted a smarter caliber of readers who don't have to result to personal attacks. Apparently, I was wrong.
For the record though, the relative performances he gives us are a valuable indicator. Are you saying that a race scored based upon who crossed the finish line first instead of a stop watch is not a valid way to measure the performance of the athletes in it, because I can think of plenty of sports (even a few Olympic ones) that are scored this way. That makes no sense. Maybe next time, you should think before you post.
Scheduler in Vista also performs worse than on XP (so MS had to resort to such hacks: http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2007/08/27/1833290.aspx [technet.com] ).
Saying this with the link you provide pretty much discredits anything you continue to say.
You have no idea what you are talking about...
Here:
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp
Make sure you read the PCMark, then click Next to go to the Gaming Page. Vista outperforms XP in every test. (The only test it is a couple of points behind is the synthetic 3DMark.)
And this is SP3 - the fastest XP compared to Vista.
So go on again about how horrible the scheduler is in Vista, I am guessing you don't even know what a scheduler does and especially I know you don't know how it works in NT.
If you want to put your hands over your ears and eyes and keep screaming, "Vista is slower", try clicking your heels together too, it is as likely to make it true and take you to Kansas.
The Vista is slower myths need to stop and the idiocy behind them is really getting annoying.
Windows is working with them to develop security software. So, what actually happened is your friend installed a Beta test of an OS, and then installed a technical preview beta of antivirus software and on his hardware something goes wrong.
As long as he reported the issues to MS, then it all seems like standard operating procedure for using test software running on a test OS.
1 (short ton / firkin) = 89.1432354 slugs / keg
No need to if your Windows DVD happen to have all drivers either I guess, or atleast not many times.
Do you still have to rebuild/reinstall modules for Linux for each version of the kernel? That's always awesome ..
Atleast you don't have to reinstall every driver in Windows each time you've ran Windows update ...
And before you moderate me flamebait, be sure to understand that it's NOT needed for all other oses.
The problem is you just don't understand what the audio system in Vista does. It is by far the most advanced personal computer audio system available on any platform. Which is the reason that it needs a more consistent stream of data. Because adjusting the timing to the computer's various speakers so that the audio arrives at your head at the same time rather than leaves the speakers at the same time isn't free.
full 64bit drivers that can shove data to devices oh like Video cards much faster
How do 64bit drivers speed up DMA?
This includes not only the OS's operation, but even 32bit applications running on the OS.
My understanding is that 32bit application would run slightly slower if the CPU was in 64bit mode. Presumably 15% would be the overall system performance, including legacy 32-bit applications?
You see when you have a 64bit memory addressing and can optimize for this in the memory manager you no longer have FS and pagefile lookkup tables for extended amounts of RAM.
What is a FS (filesystem?) lookup table?
You also can do like Vista x64 does and shove two 32bit memory writes into on 64bit address space, so when it can, you get double the read/write performance out of the memory chip because you are pulling two 32bit chunks in one read cycle.
By "64 bit address space" I presume you mean 64 bit register (you fit 2^32 32bit address spaces in a 64bit address space). But even in 32bit mode Intel CPUs can access 128bit registers via SSE. Anyway, this presumably has more to do with your compiler than your OS, so I don't know what Vista has to do with this.
Everything else being equal, 64bit software would run slower than 32 bit, because you need twice as many bits to represent a pointer. Essentially, unless you need an address space larger than 4GB, you are wasting 32bits on every pointer. This would waste memory, cache and memory bandwidth etc. The standard answer as to why 64bit software runs faster on Intel/AMD CPUs is that on these CPUs everything else is *not* equal.
The biggest bonus to running in 64bit mode on Intel/AMD chips is that since 64bit is essentially a whole new arch, we can throw out all the backward compatibility. In 64bit mode we actually have a decent number of registers. Also since 64bit code won't run on old processors anyway, there is no point in compiling code to be backward compatible with the old i586.
Understand yet?
Not really. Not any better than I understand this paper anyway :P. Could you give links explaining your claims above?
So what you're saying then, if I got this right, is that the best audio system on the planet is the one that you have to write yourself? Awesome.
Didn't say it was hard. Said no other OS is doing it. Your argument seems to be that it's possible to do something, therefore it's already been done. To go for the car analogy, you are saying that since you can melt a Honda Civic down and recycle the materials into some of the parts needed to custom build a super car, a Honda Civic is better than a Bentley Continental.
Show me another OS that, out of the box, has the same feature set that Vista has. Any linux distro. Any kernel. And I'll concede that Vista doesn't have the most advanced audio system. Until them blather on, but you're still wrong.