[danacon]

I know sometimes I wonder if they even have any techs that even do any of the testing or just writers that think they are techs.

[danacon]

Its all about the media and the downward hype they put on things to get people to read, then those that never even tried the OS complain about something they know nothing about, and on and on it goes. media media media

[chevrolet1994]

While there is a SMALL increase in Windows 7 RC1 over Vista Ultimate, me thinks that W7 RC1 and Vista Home Premium would be about equal.

[danacon]

I agree Mac should boot up faster they know all the hardware that will and can be used on there OS and it is a heck of alot less than MS has to make sure works and such, Mac is great dont get me wrong but like you said to compare is like apples to grass.

[danacon]

I would hope MAc is superior and faster than any windows, First well the Virus thing why would a Virus writer write a virus that can infect the small number of mac's compared to PC's running windows, they wouldnt. If you switched every PC user and MAc user's wel I garantee there would be way more viruses for macs than PC's its a number game.

Faster and more stable well I would hope so Windows is made for millions of peicies of hardware where the Mac OS maker usually knows what hardware is gonna be used and can take the time and make different drivers and such for each piece of hardware where windows has to make generic drivers if the hardware manifacture didnt make the drivers and keep there products software up to date.

[orangemetal]

Tom's Hardware did a benchmarking on Vista vs. Windows XP and on
professional design applications like 3DstudioMax, Catia, Maya, and
Solidworks Vista was between 12 - 20x slower than Windows XP. The
opinion and initial testing by special effects studios, design firms,
and engineering groups is critical. If they find in testing that a new
OS is 12x slower at running applications that are essential to design -
then they miss their deadlines and lose money. If Windows7 were faster
than Windows XP at running Maya or Solidworks - then I would upgrade.

Since the most recent tests show that Windows 7 is only 1% faster than an already slow Vista at running engineering applications I will not upgrade at this time, as upgrading to "slower" is really just a productivity killer.



winxp vs. vista http://www.tomshardw...m/re...vs-vista,1531-7.html
Intel refuses to install Vista bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/et-tu-intel/

[orangemetal]

Do you have some recent tests for running Maya or Solidworks?

[Aaron11]

You're probably a Linux or Mac fanboy. I think Windows 7 is way better than Vista and, dare I say Mac OSX and XP. I've used Windows 7 and it does seem noticably faster than Vista.

[mikedgolf40505]

I know this puts me in a minority, but I have had two well equipped Vista machines. One Business and the other Home Premium and both have been very speedy and have had no problems.

[dennis121]

I have always had my doubts about these "Bench Mark" Tests, they seem to be very unleliable from one system to another. I have been using Windows Programs since 3.1 first came out and there has been plus sides and minus sides in each one from 3.1. I can see on my system a much improved speed and usage. It still has some flaws in Office 2007 in regard to not wanting to "stumble" when opening or changing a text. Sometimes it stalls for a moment. The Biggest problem I find is the IE8, I hate this version when it comes to checking my mail, it is VERY sluggush and crawls when going to, coming from, sending, or receiving mail. One click to go to send, and as much as 20 - 30 go by before it finishes, depending on the size and text. IE7 will leave this version in the dust. Even IE7 is not all that good, IE6 was the last most responsive version ever, too bad. But WIN 7 RC is still not ready as yet and hopefully they will tweek IE8 and get it running like IE6 was.

[DTNick]

jabberwolf said:

Stop flawed testing and use ofbBeta's for testing!

This is same tactics mactards always use to promote thier screwed up, non thinking, must conform, little word with no collaboration or real innovation!

Apple = packed rebellion = meaningless and useless to everyone.

I mention it's a release candidate toward the bottom of the article:

>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.

And what does Apple have to do with this discussion? :s

[DTNick]

technicalhitman said:

Nick,


Your article is obviously flawed in several ways. First, you're obviously biased to the Mac, so you lack the objectivity to present a unbiased and concise article on Windows 7. You're using a Mac in your daily use when you should be using a non-Apple made Windows PC to truely get the net effect of what Windows 7 is all about. We need a real and objective PC user to really tell us how Windows performs. As a Mac user, you're going to be biased against Windows. Sorry to tell the truth, but you're biased. You can't truely be fair to Microsoft or to Windows.

I didn't perform the tests. I just reported them. What platform I use is irrelevant.

Another thing: I like WIndows 7. A lot. I think it's Microsoft's best offering to date.

Quote

The sum gained from Windows 7 is more than any benchmark could test. Its something that millions of testers have come to the conclusion of based upon their experiences. Keep writing these biased articles and we'll expose them as frauds.

Yes. We address this in the article:

"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."

[danacon]

Well what is faster?
When a new Os comes out, what every 3-5 years from MS.. It should run faster? Yes but on newer technology and PC parts, not old parts,
Think about it if everyone wants a new OS to run on everything we all ready have, like whats the point, will be going backwards? There has to be some line drawn to weed out the old and bring in he new, If every new OS ran everything only enthusest would continue to beef up there system, and part makers would develop slower and slower... A new OS brings in New Technology sure old technology should be supported but to what end? Support it, but don't make it so all the part makers slow down on making and investing on newer and faster technology because no one needs to buy it... or the average person only needs. With a New OS in most cases should come new hardware upgrades. i mean if your not updating every 3-5 years why would you expect a new operating system to run on ur old out of date computer? I sure don't, even though they usually do somewhat with a few cheap tweaks and upgrades... And im not rich nor like updating every year... I mean Windows 7 running on a 800mhz system tested and shown it could be done sure it strained it but , p3 800mhz that was what 8 years ago? We should all want to move on because new investments new parts more people buying them make it all cheaper and allow the industries to have price wars and faster development. If you don't use windows why dog it, who cares...

[danacon]

[mikedgolf40505,|~43948]

your right Vista wasnt as bad as people made it out to be it was the media, sure at the first release it did have some speed issues but they were all fixed pretty fast, most companys wait to install a OS until sp1 comes out so most bugs are weeded out... Vista was fine for those that used it with the right hardware and windows 7 is even better.... so far at least. Long as the media doesnt pick it apart it shouldnt be a blood bath lol. like I said i'm seeing a 3fold increase in some things im doing even booting and shutting down is way faster so far, but sho knows we have the RC and it could still get bloated with more stuff. I think the only problem with MS is they have so many dreams they want to shove everything into one package so everyone can get what they need out of it... linus and mac do not do that so much packing everything into the OS I mean...

Plus to compare linux Mac and a PC would be like comparing a dog to a car to a plane........

[technicalhitman]

Smax,

First of all, I"ve read several of Nick's articles and they all seem to slam Microsoft and Windows each and every time. I've not heard this guy once give compliments to where a Microsoft product or where Windows excells in specific features. He says "he checks his preferences at the door." As a third party reading his materials, I simply just don't buy it. His articles show a clear bias against Microsoft which calls into question the journalistic integrity of the pieces he writes. If you don't believe me, go read several other of his articles on the subject of Windows 7 and or Vista and you'll clearly see a clear and inherit bias. Thats not fair to readers out there because they are going to take everything he says a face value when I believe he exaggerates or isn't giving the subject his complete and utter objectivity. Obviously, I'm not the only questioning his bias. There are many readers on this forum that agree that Nick isn't objective. Its not for the writer to determine the bias but the readers to determine. WE are the customers. I guess thats why PC World lost my magazine subscription.

Second, I've test several windows machines using a simple stopwatch to determine in real world performance how much time elapses. I'm not using special configurations or anything fancy. Pretty much the same setup that the average users will use with Windows Vista and or Windows 7. My concerns are for the average joe who doesn't make those inherit changes. Tweaks and stuff are nice, but the vast majority of folks are going to go with Windows 7 as it is. By testing several different Windows Vista and Windows 7 machines, I was able to determine via stopwatch how fast times are. Very simple, not very scientific but credible at best. Anyone can do it using the same scientific methods taught in school.

My questions about worldbench are the same criticism of many out there. WorldBench only measures performance on office, multimedia, and graphic tasks. It doesn't really get to the heart of the computer's performance. It doesn't tackle processor load. It doesn't do memory usage. It doesn't measure the hard drive internactions. It doesn't show any performance issues with networking. It doesn't cover internal file copy operations. Nor does it cover the boot up, shutdown, or analyse the processes run in Windows. Therefore just narrowing the focus on office, multimedia, and graphics is just a small fraction of the entire computer's capabilities that in the end it really doesnn't tell us anything useful. Nor can you use WorldBench to test on operating systems outside of Windows. So how can we get a real analysis versus OS-X, any flavor of Linux, or any other operating system out there?

Its not that hard to go and check out other forums to reach the same conclusion. The guys at ZDNet are a lot more objective and are a heck of alot more professional. It time that PC World and its Editors really evaluate and change the coverage and the tone of Windows coverage here because its becoming increasingly anti-Microsoft and anti-Windows.

[NYSkater]

Mike, that's part of the confusion and part of the problem. Many Vista users report a good experience, while many more are nonplussed.



Too many different machines that claimed to be (but weren't) Vista-compatible. Too many driver issues. Too many consumers given unrealistic expectations.



That's only one reason why Microsoft's CEO and others in upper management disclosed that they made majore mistakes with Vista.

[smax013]

technicalhitman said:

Smax,


First of all, I"ve read several of Nick's articles and they all seem to slam Microsoft and Windows each and every time. I've not heard this guy once give compliments to where a Microsoft product or where Windows excells in specific features. He says "he checks his preferences at the door." As a third party reading his materials, I simply just don't buy it. His articles show a clear bias against Microsoft which calls into question the journalistic integrity of the pieces he writes. If you don't believe me, go read several other of his articles on the subject of Windows 7 and or Vista and you'll clearly see a clear and inherit bias. Thats not fair to readers out there because they are going to take everything he says a face value when I believe he exaggerates or isn't giving the subject his complete and utter objectivity. Obviously, I'm not the only questioning his bias. There are many readers on this forum that agree that Nick isn't objective. Its not for the writer to determine the bias but the readers to determine. WE are the customers. I guess thats why PC World lost my magazine subscription.

And I am sure that your aren't biased at all and your bias doesn't affect your view of how much an author may or may not be biased.

When I read THIS article (this is the one we are discussing...not other articles that the author may have written in the past...offering up past articles suggest that YOU are the one bringing in a bias by assuming that what was written in a past article has anything to do with this article), I see little slamming of anything. I see an objective report of what some specific testing showed.

Quote

Second, I've test several windows machines using a simple stopwatch to determine in real world performance how much time elapses. I'm not using special configurations or anything fancy. Pretty much the same setup that the average users will use with Windows Vista and or Windows 7. My concerns are for the average joe who doesn't make those inherit changes. Tweaks and stuff are nice, but the vast majority of folks are going to go with Windows 7 as it is. By testing several different Windows Vista and Windows 7 machines, I was able to determine via stopwatch how fast times are. Very simple, not very scientific but credible at best. Anyone can do it using the same scientific methods taught in school.


My questions about worldbench are the same criticism of many out there. WorldBench only measures performance on office, multimedia, and graphic tasks. It doesn't really get to the heart of the computer's performance. It doesn't tackle processor load. It doesn't do memory usage. It doesn't measure the hard drive internactions. It doesn't show any performance issues with networking. It doesn't cover internal file copy operations. Nor does it cover the boot up, shutdown, or analyse the processes run in Windows. Therefore just narrowing the focus on office, multimedia, and graphics is just a small fraction of the entire computer's capabilities that in the end it really doesnn't tell us anything useful. Nor can you use WorldBench to test on operating systems outside of Windows. So how can we get a real analysis versus OS-X, any flavor of Linux, or any other operating system out there?

Now, this is a perfectly reasonable "criticism" of WorldBench. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that it does not show the full picture. But, it does not mean that the article is biased or is slamming anything. It means that maybe "your mileage might vary"...which is EXACTLY what the article says at the end.

Quote

Its not that hard to go and check out other forums to reach the same conclusion. The guys at ZDNet are a lot more objective and are a heck of alot more professional. It time that PC World and its Editors really evaluate and change the coverage and the tone of Windows coverage here because its becoming increasingly anti-Microsoft and anti-Windows.

Or maybe other sites are more "pro-Microsoft" and "pro-Windows" rather than being neutral. It is all a matter of perspective...and whether or not someone is biased is HIGHLY affected by your own biases. If you think that Windows is the greatest thing since sliced bread, then you are more likely to believe that ANYONE who dares offer any negative comments against Windows is anti-Windows...when in reality, it could be that they are the neutral ones and it was your pro-Windows stance that resulted in you believing they were biased.

Personally, I have nothing against Windows. In many ways, it does a lot of things rather well. But, like anything, it has it flaws and weaknesses. The same is true of the Mac OS. There are somethings that I can do a lot faster and easier in Windows than I can in the Mac OS...and for other things, it is the other way around. In the end, I prefer the Mac OS to Windows, but not by any significant margin. But, to many, me saying I prefer the Mac OS means that I am anti-Windows...but that is generally because of their bias, not mine...they see anyone who does not pick Windows over the Mac OS like they did as being biased.

Now, I certainly cannot say how much any of your bias (we are ALL biased in at least some small manner) may or may not enter into the equation. But, I can say that from my perspective, the article was rather unbiased and reporting on the factual results of the tests run (which the author did NOT run...the author is merely the "messenger", not the tester).

[WinTard]

I'm also sure you are not biased smax013! Or are you? And dtnick may not have performed these useless performance tests (in 32-bit no less) but he sure did give this article a silly name!

"It may or may not rain today..." How useful is that statement? Some people are such cowards and hypocrites, and they mean one thing, yet disguise it with a thin veil of disclaimers. It's so obvious.

~~~~~~~~~
A friend to all is a friend to none.
~ Aristotle

[Foxylady48180]

Biased or unbiased, publishing this article as it was writen, was a pretty dumb thing to do at this time.

[smax013]

WinTard said:

I'm also sure you are not biased smax013! Or are you? And dtnick may not have performed these useless performance tests (in 32-bit no less) but he sure did give this article a silly name!

It all depends on a person's perspective. You ask anyone if they believe themselves to be biased and they will likely say no..."I am the most neutral, center person there is". You then go ask 20 people who know that person and you will get some that feel that person is biased one way and some that feel that person is biased the other way...and some that think that person is not biased. Who is right?

I know that I have biases. I am biased toward the Mac OS...I have said I like it better. I try to not let that bias effect me. I can say that my bias towards the Mac OS has ZERO effect on how I read this article, however. That is because this article has NOTHING to do with the Mac OS.

As to bias between Vista vs. Windows 7, I would argue that I don't have much. I have very limited use of Vista (I still primarily use XP) and I have never used Windows 7 (yet...the ISO is sitting on my desktop until I have time to burn it to DVD and install it on a spare drive). If anything, I have a bias towards XP. So, when I read this article, I don't walk in liking Vista over Win 7 or vise versa.

Quote

"It may or may not rain today..." How useful is that statement? Some people are such cowards and hypocrites, and they mean one thing, yet disguise it with a thin veil of disclaimers. It's so obvious.

And I have said that the title of the article might be a little sensationalized. I will certainly agree that if you use the plain English language of it, it is not really useful. It is more the implication that is the sensationalized part (i.e. the implication is that Windows 7 is no improvement over Vista, which is at least a little bit of a stretch from the limited "view" the testing that was done provides).