Slashdot Mirror


Windows 7 RTM Reviewed & Benchmarked

An anonymous reader writes "The code is final, and CNet has reviewed the final version of Windows 7, with benchmarks to support the case that it's not only the fastest version of Windows to shut down, but also looks like 'the operating system that both Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for.' The review continues: 'By fixing most of the perceived and real problems in Vista, Microsoft has laid the groundwork for the future of where Windows will go. Windows 7 presents a stable platform that can compete comfortably with OS X, while reassuring the world that Microsoft can still turn out a strong, useful operating system.'"

18 of 792 comments (clear)

  1. Fast way to shut down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Pull the plug!

    Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.

    7 might be better than vista. but i still dont believe it's the fastest ever or any of their other bs.

    This isn't news. it's an ad.

    1. Re:Fast way to shut down! by kamikaez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You might like to actually test it, people have been telling good things about Windows 7, and the interface and updates do look quite nice.

      You missed the point! CNet and PC World seems to be very much just reproducing Microsoft's marketing material, just like they did when Vista came out.
      And the benchmarks doesn't prove anything, if you ignore shutdown time, it looks to be slower overall then xp AND Vista..

      And since Vista came out, both Linux and OS X have improved tremendously when it comes to performance and boot times.
      Is Snow Leopard mentioned anywhere or compared to earlier OS X versions + all the Windows versions? NO..

      Sincerely yours,
      Vista 64bit user

      --
      This is a signature..
    2. Re:Fast way to shut down! by mdwh2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This isn't news. it's an ad.

      Wait - a review of the finished latest release of the most dominant OS on the planet, from the biggest software company in the world, isn't news? Yet the daily stories we get of every possible random rumour about the Iphone and the "[do mundane activity] On Your Iphone!" stories we get aren't advertising?

  2. Great goals by icebike · · Score: 5, Insightful

    > fastest version of Windows to shut down,

    Was that ever a problem? start shut down, and turn out the lights, It will be down when you come back in the morning.

    How about boot up time?

    --
    Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    1. Re:Great goals by 0123456 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > fastest version of Windows to shut down,

      Was that ever a problem? start shut down, and turn out the lights, It will be down when you come back in the morning.

      If only...

      Far more likely it will be sitting there saying 'StupidTaskbarApp.exe did not shut down. Press 'OK' to close this application' or some similar shit.

      One of the reasons I hate Windows so much is that I can't even rely on the piece of crap OS to shut down if I tell it to shut down and then walk away. It literally expects me to sit there for up to five minutes while it 'saves my settings' and stops all the processes to ensure the bloody thing turns itself off.

    2. Re:Great goals by bertok · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One of the reasons I hate Windows so much is that I can't even rely on the piece of crap OS to shut down if I tell it to shut down and then walk away. It literally expects me to sit there for up to five minutes while it 'saves my settings' and stops all the processes to ensure the bloody thing turns itself off.

      Sounds like you hate computers in general and have likely chosen the wrong profession.

      Why is his requirement unrealistic? I'm a computer professional, I love computers, and I fully agree with the original poster. Why should I wait and watch what should be an automatic, guaranteed to succeed operation? No user-mode application should ever be able to interrupt a critical kernel-mode operation like 'shutdown'. Not ever. There are several use cases where a timely, user-intervention-free shutdown is critical to the correct functioning of an operating system. It's an operation that must always succeed, or the OS is broken.

      Have you ever done a remote reboot and had the machine not come back up, because the OS hung during shutdown, for whatever reason? I have, many times, and it's not fun. If you're not working on a server with an integrated management board, but a PC or a beige-box server in a remote lights-out environment, you're basically out of options if that happens.

      What if it's a shutdown triggered by a UPS? The server now has just a couple of minutes to shut down cleanly. If it just sits there waiting for the user, it won't be a clean shutdown when it finally loses power, not to mention that it's wasting precious battery power when it doesn't have to.

      Laptops and batteries come to mind also. I've once put a laptop into its bag, only to realize 10 minutes later from the hideous burning smell that the OS hadn't really shut off, it had just turned the screen black.

      Your reasoning sounds like the excuse of a lazy developer. Why can't applications be written in such a way that they can be shut down quickly and reliably without user intervention? This has been standard for database systems for decades, but GUI application developers are only now catching up. Firefox can now recover almost all of its 'state' after even a crash, which is a good start, but why do trivial applications like text editors ask stupid questions like "Would you like to save this file?" and HANG the machine during shutdown? Is it so hard to respond to a "machine shutdown" event by serializing the application state to a temporary file, and then restoring it when the user runs the app again next boot?

  3. Hardware by rampant+mac · · Score: 5, Insightful

    FTFA: "Importantly, it won't require the hardware upgrades that Vista demanded, partially because the hardware has caught up"

    Yes, but how does it do on my old hardware that struggled with Vista in the first place? I know Mac OS 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3 > 10.4 gave me better performance on the same hardware. It wasn't until I moved to Leopard that I REALLY noticed my PowerBook 1Ghz PPC chip was at it's limit.

    --
    I like big butts and I cannot lie.
  4. 16GB? by reub2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What in a OS could be taking up 16GB for a minimal install?

  5. Re:The competition is OSX by hairyfeet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Uh huh...and pull this leg, it plays jingle bells! Seriously, how many times have you had to go CLI in the past month? The past week? Hell most Mac and Windows users don't even know there IS a CLI interface, and they sure as hell don't want to be using it!

    Look, I'll be the first to admit that Linux rocks on servers. It is rock solid, secure, a real tank of an OS. But we are talking Windows 7 here, which is most definitely NOT targeted at servers. It is targeted at home users. Home users, I might add, who often can't even find their way around control panel without someone holding their hand. Windows is quite good at that BTW. But Linux? You better be bestest friends with Mr. CLI if you want to play in that sandbox. It seems like every time there is an update something breaks and requires CLI. Sound broke? Ooops..CLI. Monitor isn't showing the right resolution? CLI baby. Which you can understand as the big money being spent on Linux is by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and it is all going to server support. And server admins live and die CLI and hate GUIs, as they just suck precious resources.

    I know this will get me modded to hell, and I don't care. Being a fanboy is one thing, being delusional is another. I can make an example that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Linux isn't ready for home users. Ready? Remove Bash. That's right, no Bash, no Korn, no Bourne, no shells of ANY kind. Do that with a fresh install and see if it will run six months, with allowing updates, without any access to CLI. But I bet not a single Linux user would dare to do that. Because they know without CLI they are boned. But Windows home users will NEVER use CLI. Let me repeat that: Windows home users will NEVER EVER use CLI. In fact most power users don't care for it either. They don't like it, don't want it, and if you make them use CLI you might as well say "please have someone go install Windows for you" because that is EXACTLY what will happen. I truly hope that a day comes when you can actually remove CLI from Linux and still have a usable machine, but I won't hold my breath.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  6. Re:The competition is OSX by linuxrocks123 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Remove Bash. That's right, no Bash, no Korn, no Bourne, no shells of ANY kind. Do that with a fresh install and see if it will run six months, with allowing updates, without any access to CLI."

    That's an absurd thing to say and betrays your ignorance here. The shell is an integral part of a Unix system. If you remove /bin/sh, the system will not even boot. Any Unix system will be this way, including OS X, because this specific interpreted language is part of what makes Unix Unix.

    As far as not using the shell for day-to-day tasks, you can do that with Linux now. Ubuntu has all those point-and-click controls you love, and you're free to use them instead of the shell if you like. You'll get things done more slowly, because GUI configs suck, but that's your choice.

    What may make you believe it's impossible to go without using a shell in Linux is the fact that Linux people tend to suggest typing shell commands when people ask how to fix problems on a forum. This is because the shell is the best, fastest way to fix problems in Linux, even when other options are available, and we won't suggest an inferior solution unless pressed for it.

    --
    vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
  7. Re:The competition is OSX by NoobixCube · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it's less about superiority of the shell when I suggest a solution. Saying "Open the terminal and type..." is a lot easier than "See that thing there? Click on that, and then in the menu find..."

    --
    Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
  8. Re:The competition is OSX by smash · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Linux has no stable, standard GUI application development platform for a start. Yes, KDE and gnome both exist, but no they're not "standard" and the API is still changing and breaking backwards compatibility regularly.

    Go play with Cocoa / Xcode / Interface builder, and you'll get a bit of an idea as to why Linux is even now, still trying to catch up to NextSTEP 1991.

    This is why there is a lack of high quality applications.

    Don't get me wrong, Linux is great and I'm trying to get into OpenStep development myself (so i can do OS/X -> Free unix cross platform application development), but the state and lack of standardization on toolkits on Linux is quite apparent.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
  9. Re:The competition is OSX by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You have an operating system with buttons or icons you can click to fix any sort of problem you might ever encounter? Must be an insanely cluttered GUI then...

    Also I don't see how 'Open the control panel, click on the hardware icon, open the driver panel, click on the devices tab, find small icon with the plus sign before it that reads audio devices, expand it, find the audio card in the expanded list, which would probably be the one that doesn't have the word codec in it, see if it has an exclamation mark before it, right click it and pick properties, go to the resources tab, write down all the values in the list of ports/interrupts en post them here' would be easier than to say 'open the terminal application from the menu and first type 'dmesg' and copy paste the results here, then type 'lspci -v -v -v' and post this output here as well'

    Point is, the CLI is much more efficient for many, many tasks. Maybe not the common everyday ones, but that's what we have GUI apps for. Linux is no exception. If you have system problems or have to do crazy stuff to fix something at least in Linux you are able to do that through the CLI and to post instructions for other people to help them, even though they have no idea what they're actually typing. In Windows you're generally stuck unless you know a friend or relative you can offer a beer to fix it (which would be the guy I used to be for half of my family and friends until I finally ditched Windows for OS X and Linux. Now officialy "I know nothing about Windows PC's" anymore ;-)

  10. Re:The competition is OSX by FishWithAHammer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who cares if it's standard? It still doesn't require a command line in Windows.

    A good operating system is discoverable and user-centric. At the moment, the desktop environments available for Linux are somewhat discoverable (but the second you drop to the command line, you've thrown discoverability out the window) and process-centric* rather than user-centric. Windows is not perfect at either task (OS X is much better), but Linux is really, really bad at it.

    *: Process-centric operations don't focus on what the user wants to do, they focus on what the computer needs to do to accomplish the task. Frame everything around the user or you'll lose them.

    --
    "You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
  11. Slowest windows yet! by nobodyman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is this article a joke? I clearly see that vista beats Win7 in 3 out of 5 benchmarks, and XP beats Windows 7 in all but one (how can we forget the all-important "shutdown time" benchmark.

    Yet CNet is telling me that *this* is the version of Windows I've been waiting for?

  12. Re:This is why the tagging system sucks... by dumbo11 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A review points out the positives and negatives of a product. If a review is entirely positive, then people will immediately assume it's not real. In this case, accompanied with a lead-in that is clearly the product of a marketing department, it is entirely correct to call this astroturf.

  13. Re:The competition is OSX by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Try reinstalling that VAIO with a different Windows version, one that hasn't been customized by Sony, and then post your luck getting all the right hardware drivers and configuring the system. You're comparing a PREINSTALLED version that has all the kinks already worked out by some guy at Sony, to a MANUALLY installed operating system you have to configure yourself. It's like saying how much easier it is to just drive that new car you just bought from the dealer to buying the same car and then swapping the engine yourself.

    As a counter-example: I once bought an HP pavilion laptop with XP home on it (which I couldn't remove or have upgraded to another XP version by the way because HP tied the license to the machine and didn't offer anything but XP home). Because I needed to logon to a Windows domain, I upgraded to XP pro. After that, I didn't have 3D acceleration, the TV-out stopped working, no wifi until I installed drivers from directly from the card manufacturer and it took 4 months before HP finally released downloadable drivers for the ATI chip that was in it, the stock ones didn't recognize the card because HP screwed with the PCI ids, and the only way to get the machine to work fully was to do a full system recovery. Using the XP home recovery discs...

  14. Re:Start-bar aka Dock! by B1oodAnge1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The other problem with KDE is "everything" is named starting with a "K" which makes it harder to scan to find stuff quickly.

    This drives me absolutely batshit insane...

    --
    RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY