That Windows 7 faster than Vista thing?

Potemkin · 04-30-2009, 02:44 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5233098/windows-7...rst-benchmarksWindows 7 Release Candidate 1 vs. Vista: First Benchmarks

By matt buchanan, 7:25 PM on Wed Apr 29 2009, 58,383 views (Edit post, Set to draft, Slurp) Copy this whole post to another site
Slurp cancel

select site advertising consumerist deadspin defamer fleshbot gay fleshbot gawker gizmodo idolator io9 jalopnik jezebel kotaku lifehacker valleywag artists gawkershop

Windows 7 Release Candidate 1. That's as close to fully baked as it gets, so we're finally comfortable pitting it against Vista for some good ol' fashion benchmarking. Windows 7 feels snappier. Is it?
We used 32-bit versions of both Vista and Windows 7 on the same machine for testing: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM (but really 3GB available cause of the 32-bit issue), 256MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT. We tested 32-bit because that's the official RC1 disc we were sent. We'll be doing a follow up with 64-bit, don't worry.

The first series of tests are the "everyday" ones—stuff you'd run into sorta daily, where taking less time is more better. Vista punked 7 out twice here, shutting down a bit faster applying a filter to a 16.6MB (9764x3720 pixel) photo in Adobe Photoshop CS4 with more haste. When we played Left 4 Dead using the recommend settings, Vista also seemed to deliver ever-so-slightly better performance, more consistently keeping the frame rate near 30 frames per second, though you'd have to be watching the FPS numbers rise and fall to really tell the difference between the two in gameplay. But you should keep in mind Nvidia's Windows 7 drivers are still in beta, and haven't been updated since March, while fresh Vista drivers came out a couple weeks ago, and drivers make huge differences with gaming performance.

This second series is pulled from PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage—more traditional benchmarks, designed for Windows Vista. Here, Windows 7 came out ahead, only losing to Vista on a single test in 3DMark.
The overall takeaway sounds like a mixed message: Windows 7 RC1 consistently beat Vista in raw benchmarks by a small margin, and lagged slightly behind Vista in some very real world measures. What's really interesting is that in regular usage, Windows 7 still feels faster and more responsive than Vista, even though the objective numbers say otherwise. It's more than just a simple "hey it's not Vista" placebo effect: It points to a slicker, refined user experience that makes you feel like the OS responds more hastily or smoothly to your whims. And that's what really matters, more than the numbers.

Oric · 05-01-2009, 12:48 AM

who needs new windows ? XP is good enough (after 8 years)... If I need a new operating system, there are good linux distros as well.

Sysiphus · 05-01-2009, 02:38 AM

xp is the only one i have like for many years.

penguinzee · 05-01-2009, 08:48 AM

I'd be curious to see Windows 7 compared to XP in those speed tests-Vista is a notorious resources hog and was a turtle compared to XP...

Franc (penguinzee)

jason · 05-01-2009, 09:08 AM

The question is, why windows at all? There is no innovation with microsoft.

The only thing I can think of right now is directx support for video games - but then again, there are plenty of consoles available if you want games.

A minor second would be access to software like photoshop, but that can be replaced with the likes of GIMP (and gimp has an interface add on that looks like photoshop). Alternatively, you can use photoshop with WINE.

Yes, I know, it's not as simple as hitting install and being done - but for the average user, they just need an email client (thunderbird/evolution/web based), and a browser (firefox). They would notice no difference between linux and windows.

Potemkin · 05-01-2009, 11:15 AM

Yes, I like the Ubuntu distro but we have to be realistic.

We can work through the issues on installation and learning a new way of doing things. Add in all the different hardware from very old to very new and you see the problem.

But, the average noob can't work those issues unless they have a strong installed base of assistance. I had my time with the Windows world when everyone was coming to PCs. I don't want to have to go through it with Linux distros.

jason · 05-01-2009, 11:23 AM

I would say you will most usually encounter issues if you are on very new hardware (unsupported wireless network cards, video cards, etc). Older and current stuff tends to work out of the box.

the install process is just as easy as windows.

In fact, new hardware even on windows has the same issue. It was a nightmare to install my hardware raid card on vista.

afljafa · 05-10-2009, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jason

The question is, why windows at all? There is no innovation with microsoft.

The only thing I can think of right now is directx support for video games - but then again, there are plenty of consoles available if you want games.

A minor second would be access to software like photoshop, but that can be replaced with the likes of GIMP (and gimp has an interface add on that looks like photoshop). Alternatively, you can use photoshop with WINE.

Yes, I know, it's not as simple as hitting install and being done - but for the average user, they just need an email client (thunderbird/evolution/web based), and a browser (firefox). They would notice no difference between linux and windows.

Until they plug in their usb camera and find that the os has no idea what's been plugged in or their scanner which is not supported in sane and will never work or their usb printer that has such poor support under cups that they have to pay for third party software to get a reasonable print.