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’m a Mack but my husband is a PC.....
He has no desire to try Windows 7, he is real happy with Vista...
Vista is crap.
God, I hope Windows 7 isn’t just a repackaged Vista.
(I haven’t tested it yet)
“That answers that question.”
I've mentioned this before, but I'll repeat it because it is so remarkable. I have a 3 year old Dell that I just put Ubuntu 9.04 on with the new ext4 filesystem. It now boots from the bios to a sign-on in 15 sec, and from password to usable screen in another 10. I'm amazed.
I’ll stick with my Kubuntu....
It is however Much much lower on resource usage.
So netbooks that barely crawl in tortured agony under Vista function fine with windows Seven,
Expect it to take over from Windows ME, err Vista fairly quickly.
Have you seen this? Make sure you click on the “close to play” and not the “click here” area as that will take you to advertisers.
“I can’t remember MS ever releasing an OS that was faster and/or less resource hungry than its predecessor. “
Windows XP is faster than Winows 2000. There were serious enhancements to the kernel in XP over 2000.
Ext4 doesn’t seem all that much faster for reads. But sequential writes are impressively fast.
http://www.linuxinsight.com/first_benchmarks_of_the_ext4_file_system.html
Speedboot can make quite a difference, but it is unfortunately disabled on my laptop for some reason. Many users report similar. Machines that can use it see an improvement of say 7 seconds out of 20 (around 30%).
I always hear complaints about Vista, but it works great on my computer.
It appears these tests were run without the multiple or the humongous, all-encompassing-bloatware antmalware programs running that the typical windows user installs to somewhat protect a system. Expect significantly slower benchmarks in the real world.
It runs great on much less hardware than Vista requires. It launches apps faster, starts and shuts down way faster then even XP did. It's better with power management. My laptop docking/undocking issues are gone finally. It isn't prone to those weird freezes (with the little spinning icon) that I get with Vista. It's rock solid and uses the existing Vista drivers just fine. The UI is improved, and there are lots of little improvements too numerous to recount here.
I listened to people who said "I don't see any big changes, why should I upgrade?". Then these people tried it, and they all, without exception, love it.
People like to bash Microsoft, but Microsoft is just an organization made up of regular people. The engineers, once unencumbered from the bad management that led to Vista, worked very very hard to create a great product. Instead of cutting things down that you haven't even tried, why don't you give it a try and see for yourself? The Release Candidate is a free download and you can use it for free until June 2010.
I agree.
With the exception of the Loony Toons default color scheme, I think XP is better than 2K in every way. ...and I REALLY liked 2K.
I don’t expect speed increases from operating systems but from hardware and drivers.
I just overclocked an XP box from 3GHz to 4GHz CPU speed tonight. Wow. What do you know. It’s “snappier”.
A newer hard drive with a lower access time and double the cache. Hey. It’s “snappier”.
I then put three of those hard drives in a Raid 0 and more than tripled my throughput. Hey. It’s “snappier”.
Computer tech writers are in permanent cranial/rectal inversion mode.
Nice!!! I'm considering a move to Linux myself. I haven't been doing any PC gaming since getting my PS3 last year, now there's really no reason for me to even run Windows.
My husband found when he installed Vista on an old machine it did not work very well but when he bought a new computer with Vista already installed, it has been problem free.
I still like my Mac better but I do like Vista when I use his machine.....
"Search" - all by itself - ruins the entire Vista experience.
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.