Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Hard Drive and SSD Performance Analyzed
bigwophh writes "Despite the fact that Windows 7 is based on many of the same core elements as Vista, Microsoft claims it is a different sort of animal and that it should be looked at in a fresh, new light, especially in terms of performance. With that in mind, this article looks at how various types of disks perform under Windows 7, both the traditional platter-based variety and newer solid state disks. Disk performance between Vista and Win7 is compared using a hard drive and an SSD. SSD performance with and without TRIM enabled is tested. Application performance is also tested on a variety of drives. Looking at the performance data, it seems MS has succeeded in improving Windows 7 disk performance, particularly with regard to solid state drives."
This information is irrelevant to many of us; for a frame of reference, how does HD performance on 7 compare with XP?
This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7. Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35% improvement in read performance and up to a 23% boost in write performance
About as much after as Vista was slower than XP. Perhaps a very marginal improvement. At most a third faster reading, and a quarter faster writing than the most hated OS of the millenium so far.
Those who like to bash Microsoft at every turn will have to find some new reasons to hate on Windows 7, as low, machine-halting performance won't likely be a factor when Win7 comes into the mix.
Nope. Same old reason to hate them. They set back operating systems on the majority of the world's PCs by half a decade.
We should be jeering not cheering.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Phoronix has some Linux 2.6.30 Kernel Benchmarks, some on SSD. Not surprisingly they forgot to include comparison with Windows 7, as that HotHardware article forgot to include comparison with Linux. Are they both biased?
Anyhow, SSD is the future.
Of course Windows 7 will seem like a completely different OS if you look at it in a "new light" as MS says. OTOH, if you look at it the same way, admitting that Microsoft hasn't changed its customs and see the same bullshit as in 95 - Vista, you can't argue with them, because they can just reply "but it's different this time, just look at it with new eyes." Of course you can't compare it to anything if you try to forget what you've saw before.
I've seen bugs that have been around since Windows 95 in Internet Explorer (since 4.4 until 8.1, there's a limit of 32 <style> tags per page and MS still insists that its only a 4.4 - 6 without saying anything about 7 and that the limit is 31) and in Windows Explorer (when you try to minimize and focus applications, in certain conditions they won't listen. They have changed the way the UI looks, the kernel and added some drivers. Otherwise, I see absolutely no point in trying to analyze Windows 7's performance or compare it to previous versions of Windows. If you look at the bugs, you'll see that there have been bugs around in Windows sincefor 15 years and nobody touched them. I have given them the benefit of the doubt and installed Windows 7 RC1, hoping for a change in attitude from MS, but now I don't want to see anything about Windows again because the only change MS ever made was in the UI.
Please stop "analyzing" what Windows 7 can do and go after what's more important: what Windows 7 really is.
And in benchmarks linux beats windows in, you'll have the windows crowd screaming murder because windows 7 isn't finished yet.
fuck getting in the middle of that gun fight....
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Going from XP to 7 Beta1 (and now RC), am I the only one who feels that the improved performance issues of Windows 7 may actually work? I installed a copy of the RC on my laptop, and it worked beyond what I expected. The Laptop was "powerful" enough for Vista, and it couldn't even compare to the performance my laptop was giving me currently.
I installed the Beta on my desktop, and only had one issue that isn't worth the words to complain about.
I know Vista may have been a flop to some people, but this just seems like a repeat of about 8-10 years ago. When ME came out, users found it abyssmal. But the solution seemed to be to go from 98SE to XP, and everyone was content.
This just seems like repeated history to me, as everyone jumps the XP ship for 7, because Vista is still taking water.
P.S. It's rather late here, apologies in advance. I'm probably rambling by now.
"I'm a well-wisher, in that I don't wish you any specific harm."
you're
fixed
Lol you're an idiot.
I believe that in order to have a more global picture about ssd disks performance, the comparison must be made in all OS available today, Windows flavors, Linux flavors, Unix flavors, Mac OS, Solaris and others that I maybe forget.
Until the skies turn blue...
Until the air of freedom strikes us...
I'd like to see some impartial figures to see how disk subsystem performance (regular and raided) compares with FreeBSD. You can even use FreeBSD 2.2.1 if you want.
And them again under heavy load. Not just "oooh, lets try a million database reads".
I'll wait. I use windows. I'm used to it.
Need Mercedes parts ?
The large problem with Windows XP and SSD's is that Windows XP does not properly handle SSDs similar to how Windows Vista does not. You have to go in and manually disable these things to fix performance and increase longevity while it is handled automatically in Windows 7. You cannot expect end users to "tweak" their systems to properly handle these drives, so the real world benefit of paring Windows 7 and an SSD is there that beats out both Vista and XP.
Only on Slashdot could an inaccurate post be modded "Informative" simply because it "bigs up" Linux.
You've quoted the marketing fluff from the article about what Microsoft says TRIM support in Windows 7 will achieve. Do you think that this is a demonstration that you understand TRIM?
I'd refer you to the link higher up the thread. Now it's a hell of a long article, but at least it explains what TRIM is. It allows blocks to be invalidated on the drive directly. Without waiting for them to be overwritten. Note that this explanation is two short sentences and explains *exactly* what TRIM is. Your quote is a marketing attempt to explain what TRIM will achieve.
So the noop scheduler would be the correct choice for a drive that supports TRIM, as the GP claimed. Although the scheduler itself will still need direct support for sending TRIM commands to the storage.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
I always get a great laugh about boot times and how intense all the benchmarks are. I certainly don't care if it takes 15 seconds, or 30 seconds. What I do care about is that it does what I want. I maybe reboot my PC once every 2 weeks or so.