100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Speed Test: Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista Though Windows 7 edged out Vista in our lab tests, you may not notice much of a difference. Nick Mediati, PC World May 6, 2009 8:00 pm Improving performance is one of Microsoft's design goals with Windows 7, and many early reviewers (including ours) have said that the new OS seems peppier than Vista. But tests of the Windows 7 Release Candidate in our PC World Test Center found that while Windows 7 was slightly faster on our WorldBench 6 suite, the differences may be barely noticeable to users. We loaded the Windows 7 Release Candidate on three systems (two desktops and a laptop) and then ran our WorldBench 6 suite. Afterward we compared the results with the WorldBench 6 numbers from the same three systems running Windows Vista. Each PC was slightly faster when running Windows 7, but in no case was the overall improvement greater than 5 percent, our threshold for when a performance change is noticeable to the average user. The largest difference was 4 points--102 for Vista versus 106 for Windows 7 on an HP Pavillion a6710t desktop. Our other two test machines showed similarly minor performance improvements: A Maingear M4A79T Deluxe desktop improved by 1 point (from 138 on Vista to 139 on Windows 7), and a Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop improved by 2 points, from 97 on Vista to 99 on Windows 7. WorldBench 6 consists of a number of tests involving ten common applications, including Microsoft Office, Firefox, and Photoshop. On the individual tests, the benchmark results were generally within a few percentage points of each other. One notable exception, however, was Nero 7 Ultra Edition, where Windows 7 made significant improvements, ranging from a 12 percent speedup to a 26 percent speedup, depending on the PC we used in our tests. Although we have yet to confirm it, PC World Test Center Director Jeff Kuta notes that this difference may be due to updated hard-disk drivers in Windows 7. Any improvements to Windows 7's disk support will be more noticeable in an application like Nero, which uses the hard drive heavily. The test involving WinZip, another hard-drive-dependent task, also showed marked improvement under Windows 7. We also measured a noteworthy 7 percent speed increase in our Autodesk 3ds max 8.0 SP3 (DirectX) test on the HP Pavillion desktop, which had an nVidia GeForce 9300GE graphics board. nVidia's drivers appear to be better optimized for Windows 7 than Windows Vista. In contrast, however, each of the systems took slightly longer to perform the tests in Microsoft Office and Firefox when they were running the new operating system than when they were running Vista. Of course, it's important to remember that we performed these tests with the release candidate of Windows 7. Though the operating system's features likely won't change in the final version, Microsoft’s engineers may still find ways to tweak the code to improve performance. If these test results remain consistent with those for the final version of Windows 7, the news will likely be disappointing to many Windows users. One of the major complaints about Windows Vista was the fact that it was consistently slower than Windows XP. If Windows 7 doesn’t significantly improve that situation, it may fail to convince people to move away from Windows XP. That said, there may be other areas we didn't cover in our testing--such as startup times--where Windows 7 may outperform Windows Vista by a wider margin. The best way for you to get a feel for Windows 7's performance is to download the release candidate and take it for a test drive on your system. How We Test We used three PCs in our testing: a Maingear M4A79T Deluxe desktop, an HP Pavillion a6710t desktop, and a Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop. The powerful Maingear comes equipped with a 3.2GHz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition CPU overclocked to 3.71GHz, 4GB of memory, and dual ATI Radeon HD 4890 graphics processors. The Pavilion, a mainstream desktop, features a 2.6GHz dual-core Pentium E5300 with 3GB of memory and an nVidia GeForce 930GE graphics chip. Lastly, the Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop packs a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of memory, and an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3670 graphics card. On all three systems, we ran our WorldBench 6 benchmark suite on a clean installation of the 32-bit edition of Windows Vista Ultimate with SP1 and repeated the process with the Windows 7 Ultimate release candidate (again, the 32-bit version). We made both operating systems current with Windows Update, and we installed the most current hardware drivers available. http://www.pcworld.com/article/164485/speed_test_windows_7_may_not_be_much_faster_than_vista.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speed Test: Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista Though Windows 7 edged out Vista in our lab tests, you may not notice much of a difference. Nick Mediati, PC World May 6, 2009 8:00 pm Improving performance is one of Microsoft's design goals with Windows 7, and many early reviewers (including ours) have said that the new OS seems peppier than Vista. But tests of the Windows 7 Release Candidate in our PC World Test Center found that while Windows 7 was slightly faster on our WorldBench 6 suite, the differences may be barely noticeable to users. We loaded the Windows 7 Release Candidate on three systems (two desktops and a laptop) and then ran our WorldBench 6 suite. Afterward we compared the results with the WorldBench 6 numbers from the same three systems running Windows Vista. Each PC was slightly faster when running Windows 7, but in no case was the overall improvement greater than 5 percent, our threshold for when a performance change is noticeable to the average user. The largest difference was 4 points--102 for Vista versus 106 for Windows 7 on an HP Pavillion a6710t desktop. Our other two test machines showed similarly minor performance improvements: A Maingear M4A79T Deluxe desktop improved by 1 point (from 138 on Vista to 139 on Windows 7), and a Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop improved by 2 points, from 97 on Vista to 99 on Windows 7. WorldBench 6 consists of a number of tests involving ten common applications, including Microsoft Office, Firefox, and Photoshop. On the individual tests, the benchmark results were generally within a few percentage points of each other. One notable exception, however, was Nero 7 Ultra Edition, where Windows 7 made significant improvements, ranging from a 12 percent speedup to a 26 percent speedup, depending on the PC we used in our tests. Although we have yet to confirm it, PC World Test Center Director Jeff Kuta notes that this difference may be due to updated hard-disk drivers in Windows 7. Any improvements to Windows 7's disk support will be more noticeable in an application like Nero, which uses the hard drive heavily. The test involving WinZip, another hard-drive-dependent task, also showed marked improvement under Windows 7. We also measured a noteworthy 7 percent speed increase in our Autodesk 3ds max 8.0 SP3 (DirectX) test on the HP Pavillion desktop, which had an nVidia GeForce 9300GE graphics board. nVidia's drivers appear to be better optimized for Windows 7 than Windows Vista. In contrast, however, each of the systems took slightly longer to perform the tests in Microsoft Office and Firefox when they were running the new operating system than when they were running Vista. Of course, it's important to remember that we performed these tests with the release candidate of Windows 7. Though the operating system's features likely won't change in the final version, Microsoft’s engineers may still find ways to tweak the code to improve performance. If these test results remain consistent with those for the final version of Windows 7, the news will likely be disappointing to many Windows users. One of the major complaints about Windows Vista was the fact that it was consistently slower than Windows XP. If Windows 7 doesn’t significantly improve that situation, it may fail to convince people to move away from Windows XP. That said, there may be other areas we didn't cover in our testing--such as startup times--where Windows 7 may outperform Windows Vista by a wider margin. The best way for you to get a feel for Windows 7's performance is to download the release candidate and take it for a test drive on your system. How We Test We used three PCs in our testing: a Maingear M4A79T Deluxe desktop, an HP Pavillion a6710t desktop, and a Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop. The powerful Maingear comes equipped with a 3.2GHz AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition CPU overclocked to 3.71GHz, 4GB of memory, and dual ATI Radeon HD 4890 graphics processors. The Pavilion, a mainstream desktop, features a 2.6GHz dual-core Pentium E5300 with 3GB of memory and an nVidia GeForce 930GE graphics chip. Lastly, the Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop packs a 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4GB of memory, and an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3670 graphics card. On all three systems, we ran our WorldBench 6 benchmark suite on a clean installation of the 32-bit edition of Windows Vista Ultimate with SP1 and repeated the process with the Windows 7 Ultimate release candidate (again, the 32-bit version). We made both operating systems current with Windows Update, and we installed the most current hardware drivers available. http://www.pcworld.com/article/164485/speed_test_windows_7_may_not_be_much_faster_than_vista.html  thanx 4 telling me about that
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are any of the new versions faster? I find all of the new versions offer is doing the same things, in a different way! So that way you can re-learn where the command you're looking for is located and... use it! But the downside is that everyone has to pay for a new program that does basically the same thing. Am I wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are any of the new versions faster? I find all of the new versions offer is doing the same things, in a different way! So that way you can re-learn where the command you're looking for is located and... use it! But the downside is that everyone has to pay for a new program that does basically the same thing. Am I wrong? Yes, you're right. But this is a downside only for a knowledgeable user. For Micro$oft it equates to money and for wannabes it equates to "cool", "new" OS. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about this... (?)...
... Windows 7 is EXACTLY the same operating system as Vista... MINUs a majority of the screw-ups... as is the norm for Microsoft... introduce a bug-filled operating system... allow tech support and Windows Update to fix it in the field.... ... then re-write a very small portion of the code, and name it something else..... Same exact thing they did with Office '97, 2000, XP, 2003.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This a crock o shlt for m$ users because this is essentially not much more than a vista service pack. Except you have to pay for it. M$ screwed up vista, but instead of fixing their mistakes for those who purchased vista, they fix it and call it a new os and make those people pay to fix their fvck ups. I say M$--
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This a crock o shlt for m$ users because this is essentially not much more than a vista service pack. Except you have to pay for it. M$ screwed up vista, but instead of fixing their mistakes for those who purchased vista, they fix it and call it a new os and make those people pay to fix their fvck ups. I say M$-- Yep, that's Micro$oft. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about this... (?)... ... Windows 7 is EXACTLY the same operating system as Vista... MINUs a majority of the screw-ups... as is the norm for Microsoft... introduce a bug-filled operating system... allow tech support and Windows Update to fix it in the field.... ... then re-write a very small portion of the code, and name it something else..... Same exact thing they did with Office '97, 2000, XP, 2003.... Of all the "offices", only 2000 rocks. 97 isn't the real thing yet, and after 2000 it was all gay. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This a crock o shlt for m$ users because this is essentially not much more than a vista service pack. Except you have to pay for it. M$ screwed up vista, but instead of fixing their mistakes for those who purchased vista, they fix it and call it a new os and make those people pay to fix their fvck ups. I say M$-- This is exactly how Bill Gates has gotten to be the richest man in the world.... by selling buggy, screwed up software and marketing it in a way that people think they "just gotta have it"... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about this... (?)... ... Windows 7 is EXACTLY the same operating system as Vista... MINUs a majority of the screw-ups... as is the norm for Microsoft... introduce a bug-filled operating system... allow tech support and Windows Update to fix it in the field.... ... then re-write a very small portion of the code, and name it something else..... Same exact thing they did with Office '97, 2000, XP, 2003.... Of all the "offices", only 2000 rocks. 97 isn't the real thing yet, and after 2000 it was all gay. I use Open Office whenever possible. It may be an exact replica of M$ Office, but it's pretty damn close and works very well, besides it's free. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've built computers, troubleshot computers, and did
alot of tweaking, and all I can say is that windows 7 seems more stable. It may be a bit too soon to go 64 bit. Some stuff isn't compatible. I've been meaning to see if you can install a 32 bit os onto a virtual pc using microsofts virtual pc. I had dos and windows 3.1 on my wista machine as a virtual pc. Win 3.1 is 16 bit; so, it might work. But, the windows 7 compatibility wizard just blows me away. It didn't work to good in vista. But, now instead of having to select what kind of compatibility mode to run stuff in; with win 7, if there's a problem, it asks you if you want to reinstall stuff with windows recommended settings. Plus, more and more apps are quickly rushing to have a 64 bit thing. When vista came out with 64 bit, too many apps couldn't work with 64 bit. But, now software companies seem to be hurrying along to be more compliante with 64 bit os-es. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about this... (?)... ... Windows 7 is EXACTLY the same operating system as Vista... MINUs a majority of the screw-ups... as is the norm for Microsoft... introduce a bug-filled operating system... allow tech support and Windows Update to fix it in the field.... ... then re-write a very small portion of the code, and name it something else..... Same exact thing they did with Office '97, 2000, XP, 2003.... You're exactly right. win 95 tried to get rid of dos. Win 98 was mostly just a fixed version of win 95. Except they still didn't have the U.S.B. stuff working. So, win 98 S.E. was the fix for that. Win ME was just a marketing sceme. Win vista promised to build on the win xp promise. Win 7 will pretty much be what vista was supposed to be. BTW, if you've had automatic update on all this time; don't worry about upgrading. The only reason I upgrade is because I get tiered of having to sit through two hours of updating everytime I install a new drive. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
GRIFFIN_LIZZARD
on
Thu 08/06/09 08:26 AM
|
|
I sorta have to disagree on the win 7 not being faster than vista and here is why....
I use graphic intensive apps and rendering engines in my work, I have two identical systems running quad 2.66 cpu's with 8 gig ddr3 ram, one is running lightwave 9 on vista ultimate 64bit the other win 7 64 bit. I have a scene I render on the vista and win 7 machines as a benchmark. Exact same settings.. Vista does one frame in 36:33 win 7 does the same frame in 7:45 Adobe after effects, same effects both machines vista renders at 22 FPS win 7 renders 74 FPS Remember these have the same hardware.... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is not about speed it is about monitoring usage
but hey........... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
it is not about speed it is about monitoring usage but hey........... In my case speed matters, rendering a 10 minute animation at 30 FPS and each frame taking either 36 or 7 min leads to a lot of time. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sorta have to disagree on the win 7 not being faster than vista and here is why.... I use graphic intensive apps and rendering engines in my work, I have two identical systems running quad 2.66 cpu's with 8 gig ddr3 ram, one is running lightwave 9 on vista ultimate 64bit the other win 7 64 bit. I have a scene I render on the vista and win 7 machines as a benchmark. Exact same settings.. Vista does one frame in 36:33 win 7 does the same frame in 7:45 Adobe after effects, same effects both machines vista renders at 22 FPS win 7 renders 74 FPS Remember these have the same hardware.... Vista had a major bug with graphic rendering where it would reserve a lot more memory than it needed. Also 7 is a stripped down compared to Vista leaving it with a smaller memory footprint. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about this... (?)... ... Windows 7 is EXACTLY the same operating system as Vista... MINUs a majority of the screw-ups... as is the norm for Microsoft... introduce a bug-filled operating system... allow tech support and Windows Update to fix it in the field.... ... then re-write a very small portion of the code, and name it something else..... Same exact thing they did with Office '97, 2000, XP, 2003.... Of all the "offices", only 2000 rocks. 97 isn't the real thing yet, and after 2000 it was all gay. I use Open Office whenever possible. It may be an exact replica of M$ Office, but it's pretty damn close and works very well, besides it's free. Yep. me too, Open Office is just as good, I use it on my laptop.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to use open office. I just can't seem to find some excel features. But, if you guys say they are there.... I guess I'll look harder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I want to use open office. I just can't seem to find some excel features. But, if you guys say they are there.... I guess I'll look harder. It is free, so there is no cost to trying it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To tell you the truth, the other day I booted up winXP (another hard drive) and I was blown away by the speed, ever since using Vista for almost a year now.
WinXP felt like the new operating system compared to Vista (in speed). |
|
|
|
|
