Posted on 05/07/2009 8:03:40 PM PDT by Gomez
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
I just received a used Thinkpad A30. I think the CPU is 1 Ghz and 256 megs of RAM. What flavor of Linux would you suggest I install?
Question: When you download the RC are you downloading an iso file to burn to a DVD or what?
Burn to DVD to install, or as I did hook the ISO file up to a virtual machine as the attached CD and install from there.
In Windows 2000, I can right click on a directory, scroll to search, and then search on a bunch of different parameters which narrow things down and let me find exactly what I want [which is typically in a hidden "System" file].
In Vista, I have to go to the search entry thingamabob, enter my search term, wait half a day while Vista searches both all file names and ALL FILE CONTENTS, then I have to scroll all the way to the bottom of that set of results to get to "Advanced Search", with which I can finally perform the kind of search [to include searching hidden "System" files] that was available to me seamlessly in Windows 2000.
The Windows Vista user experience is so awful it's as though it was designed by a committee of baboons to be used by a customer base of orangutans.
I just checked my times because I thought mine was pretty fast. Mine boots from the bios to a sign-on in 18 sec, and from password to usable screen in 20 more, maybe less if I wasn't counting the wireless card connecting.
My motherboard burned out last month and I had a choice. Buy a new box that would most likely have Vista or rebuild the one I had. Since I had a new 350GB SATA HD, and all the other hardware was still in good shape, I went for buying a new mobo, CPU and RAM. I reinstalled the XP SP3 I had and I'm very happy with the results. I'm not seeing Vista or W7 in my future.
UAC can be disabled in Vista, can it not be disabled in this RC? And how does it disable the UI? And what do you mean by "seeing through the lipstick?" Enquiring minds need to know......
I believe he's invoking the "You can put lipstick on a pig..." saying.
However, sometimes I just want to find a file, not search contents, or it's in a folder that you don't want to search. I don't have Vista installed to try this, but I know on Win7 you can type filename:xxxxxx, where xxxxxxx is a value within the name of the file for which you are searching. This will restrict the search to the file name, and not the contents. It looks for the string anywhere in the file name, not an exact match. There may be a way to do th exact match, but I have to do some research to see. There are other prefixes you can use other than "filename:", like "size:" or "Date modified:". Looks like a neat, semi-documented feature.
Another option, and one that I am sure works on Vista, XP, Win7, etc. - go to a CMD prompt, change to the directory under which you want to search, and type
DIR /S /B file_to_search_forThis is even faster than the previous method, and it can do exact filename matches.
It probably can, but that's not the point. Why even include it as a security feature if it sucks so much everybody turns it off?
And how does it disable the UI?
Whole screen dims, waiting for you to click something in the box to get it back.
And what do you mean by "seeing through the lipstick?"
Much of it is the same UI with a different paint job. There are some dialogs I recognize from back in the NT days, just with prettier colors that you could pretty much achieve with XP using a theme utility. This is especially true for many administrative utilities, with the main pleasant exception of the reworked Performance Monitor.
It probably can, but that's not the point. Why even include it as a security feature if it sucks so much everybody turns it off?
Because then you can blame it on the users when the OS gets owned by a trojan.
"Hey, we built a secure system, its not our fault the user chooses to drive without seatbelts..."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.