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.
After they add the DRM and Malware tools that don't phone home!
Rick B.
I understand that it may be recommended, but why do you think it is certified? Do you have a link to certified Kaspersky software for Win7?
Vista _IS_ slower.
It can pull some tricks, but at the end of the day it IS slow.
For example, its audio stack is just HORRIBLE. Some functions work more than 100 _times_ slower than on XP ('protected' audio path and all that...).
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 ).
Filesystem performance (which already is more than 10 _times_ slower than on Linux) in Vista is also hit because of overhead of transactional NTFS and more complex stack.
That's all objective and measurable.
I'm ragging on people who expect Win7 beta to be bullet-proof then mention Kubuntu in the same post. If you want me to take you seriously, don't advertise a Linux distro while critiquing Windows. You like Linux, I get it. You could have been impartial in your observations that Microsoft doesn't have their act together, yet you chose to troll. Well, it worked. You caught me. I regret feeding you and humbly ask forgiveness from the /. community.
some claim Vista and 7.0 are so bloated that OpenGEM on an 8 bit 8088 Laptop using CGA can beat them both. OpenGEM vs. Windows Vista even on an 8088 laptop it beats a modern system running Vista.
Sometimes less is more, the less the OS has in features the faster it runs. Like the TinyXP version that had the core of XP ran faster than Windows XP with full features. It is also why WindowsPE boot disks are so popular, they can run a version of Windows faster than the real version.
If you take any Windows version and strip it down to it's core, minus IE, minus Media Player, minus a lot of annoying features that most people don't need, you get a much faster OS.
Some people have to use 4Gigs of RAM just to get Vista running fast enough to matter. 4 freaking gigs of RAM, that is because of how bloated Vista really is, and all Microsoft and hardware makers are doing is forcing us to buy all new hardware and software every three years or so. Notice that Vista didn't run a lot of legacy Windows programs and a lot of those were development tools and business applications.
Forcing people to upgrade every three years is ridiculous, most people don't need that many features they just need a PC than runs to surf the Internet, do some word processing and email, and maybe play a few games or something else. Windows XP does that good enough, we shouldn't have to be forced to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7.0 because most of us don't need those features.
It is like when the Macintosh came out, nobody needs special effects like zooming windows and other things, AmigaDOS/Workbench lacked those and ran faster and then someone wrote a shareware program called MacGag that did every special effect a Macintosh did on an Amiga.
When I use Windows XP I turn off all special effects and use the classic interface just to get a faster system. I don't need bloated crap features that I hardly ever use. Most of what I need is the core of Windows XP.
Instead of adding new features, Microsoft should be fixing the broken security model of Windows and make blue screens of death a thing of the past by properly error checking the OS and having code that recovers from situations that cause BSODs. The Amiga had a program called GOMF or Guru Out of My Face, that error trapped AmigaDOS/Workbench so we never saw the Guru error red screen of death anymore. So I know it is possible, but no, Microsoft would rather keep adding new features to the OS instead of making them optional or available via add-ons like Windows Plus Packs or something.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Heh, 4/5 for funny 1/5 for originality.
How the fuck is Control Panel harder to get to change to basic? Open Control Panel. See the words "Classic View" on the left? Click on it and guess what you get? Classic view. Fucking bullshitting retard wanker. Go back to watching tellytubbies you fucking bullshitting noob.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
A separate scheduler class for time-critical processes is OK. Deliberately slowing down parts of system to make sure that your scheduler has lower latency is absolutely NOT OK.
Linus would have crucified anyone who proposed such a hack for the mainline Linux kernel.
I write drivers - it's kinda hard to test them on without a second computer. VMWare on my notebook works just fine with Windows XP - audio works perfectly with a pretty big safety margin of latency to spare. And Vista doesn't work well on the same hardware, despite its multimedia scheduler.