[smax013]

Foxylady48180 said:

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

Maybe.

You could argue that changes could be made in the "official" version when it is release that would completely invalidate these tests, but then the article already addressed that:

"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."

[drmsucks]

I was going to reply to the illogical construct of your posts but the task is too daunting. Nonetheless, you state a "concern" for the "average joe" who does not tweak an OS but uses it "as it is." Then you state that your criticism of WorldBench 6 is that it "only measures performance on office, multimedia, and graphic tasks" and not more basic operations such as "processor load," "memory usage," etc.


Let me suggest that your "average joe" uses his computer 90% (<-yep, I made that number up) of the time for: "office, multimedia, and graphic tasks" - the very tasks that you claim that WorldBench 6 "only measures performance on." I would think, then, that on behalf of your "average joe" you would be ecstatic that PCW is talking his language. WorldBench 6 is INDEED the tool that the "average joe" can use to fairly compare two different systems because it evaluates a computer's performance on the very tasks that the "average joe" is most likely to perform. Esoteric performance data are likely to be of little value to your "average joe."



Further, your need to impugn Nick's journalistic integrity because he uses a Mac and because you have read "several" other articles written by him which you deem to be critical of MS is both laughable and bizarre. THIS article compares two MS products (MS is going to be both "winner" and "loser" here) based on a single test protocol. There are three possible outcomes based on the results of the testing: a) Win 7 is faster than Vista in all areas, b) Vista is faster than Win 7 in all areas, c) each OS is faster in certain parts of the test. The latter, ©, happened to be the outcome here and the author presented the results - with sufficient disclaimers and caveats regarding Win 7's status as an unfinished product that, in my opinion, his article had a great deal of credibility. As for a bias against MS, the only tested products were from MS; the author didn't ridiculously proclaim OSX the winner, only the immature responders on this forum did.



Finally, please don't use words that you don't know. In your first paragraph you use "inherit" and the correct word is inherent; in your second paragraph, you use "inherit" again and, if you meant inherent in that context, you're wrong.

[WinTard]

I frankly don't care about if people go to Windows 7 or not. I can honestly state that Windows 7 is much faster than XP on the same hardware !

[mikedgolf40505]

I have only posted once on this. However I do deeply respect Wintard's opinion. She is normally unbiased and very open minded about the Mac, Windows, and Linux issues. Myself being a Mac user in my own home but a PC user at work; she has taken my opinion on Mac with an open mind. Common journalistic ethics would dictate that you should be a user of the product that your are writing about instead of relying solely on tests that someone else ran. This is not a sports team report, you have access to Windows 7, and Vista. While I truly believe that you think you are not biased, the fact that you do not use "all" available operating systems and still write about them, suggests an unknowing bias. You should be writing for MacWorld. You seem to be very experienced and interested in OSX; that would be your niche. I am one of the only MacHeads on this site that will openly endorse Windows also. You are comparing two different things. Even though most of my Mac brethren love to put Steve Jobs on the throne of all that is cool; I believe that history will bear out that Bill Gates will be considered the most influential business person and innovator of the 20th century. It was Windows based machines that started and have maintained the PC revolution that started in the early to mid 90s. Yes PCs and Macs were around way before then; but they were not mainstream, must have, daily productivity appliances until somewhere around Windows 95. Windows based PCs made it affordable for the average working person to afford a computer. The internet and dot.com boom that has since materialized is due to Windows based PCs, period. While I love my MacBook Pro and my wife loves her MacBook Pro as well, and we would never switch back; I also realize that Windows based PCs can be some very good units, with lots of benefits that my Mac does not have.

[smax013]

mikedgolf40505 said:

Common journalistic ethics would dictate that you should be a user of the product that your are writing about instead of relying solely on tests that someone else ran. This is not a sports team report, you have access to Windows 7, and Vista. While I truly believe that you think you are not biased, the fact that you do not use "all" available operating systems and still write about them, suggests an unknowing bias.

To quote the author from a post that he did further back in the thread:

"Yes, I have used WIndows 7. I have it running on two machines, and I happen to like it."

Common courtsey would dictate that you should at least get your facts correct.

[mikedgolf40505]

He also states that he does not use it often. And does not use Vista. That is the point.

[WinTard]

smax013 said:

Common courtsey would dictate that you should at least get your facts correct.

Alas, I can only count six open-minded and intellectual Apple users that I can call friends here at PCWorld and mikedgolf40505 is certainly one of them. We have grown to learn from each other and trust each other. I is because of people like him, that I still have an interest in the PCWorld Community. Otherwise, if it were just to bash each other, I'd be gone in a minute, because who has the time to lose? I am here to learn, and share my little knowledge, first and foremost, and to have interesting, positive discussions with other users that are sincere, have a conscience, and behave with integrity and civility.

I personally find it is you smax013 that lack common courtesy. You nit-pick at every occasion onto irrelevant trivialities. And I feel that I am entitled to my opinion. This is not a personal attack towards you, just an observation on my part which is being publicly communicated. I have no such issues with any other moderators here... Sorry, but that is the way I perceive it.

[smax013]

mikedgolf40505 said:

He also states that he does not use it often. And does not use Vista. That is the point.

I am curious...where does he state that he does not use it often or that he does not use Vista? I seemed to have missed that in any of his posts or the article itself.

[TechieXP]

I agree. But what do you expect...it is Mac World...and since Macs are PC's too.............

[waldojim]

WinTard said:

I frankly don't care about if people go to Windows 7 or not. I can honestly state that Windows 7 is much faster than XP on the same hardware !

That statement is a bit misleading... I would never try to load Windows 7 on my AMD 700 with 256MB of ram, but XP would run ok. Not great mind you, but useable. Windows 7 does not look to be light enough for that.

[WinTard]

[quote name='waldojim']

>

WinTard said:

I frankly don't care about if people go to Windows 7 or not. I can honestly state that Windows 7 is much faster than XP on the same hardware !
That statement is a bit misleading... I would never try to load Windows 7 on my AMD 700 with 256MB of ram, but XP would run ok. Not great mind you, but useable. Windows 7 does not look to be light enough for that.

I appreciate what you are saying, but who would want to load Windows 7 onto a (no offense) dinosaur? I've stated since day one, for older 32-bit systems, people DO NOT NEED Windows 7.

However, specifically my 2008 Dell Latitude D830, that came preloaded with XP-SP2 (now SP3) with an Intel Core2 Duo (64-bit) CPU, yet with the x86 version of Windows XP (32-bit) is (by the seat of my pants feelings) at least 2.2 ~ 2.5X faster while running under Windows 7 x64.

Period. That's it. That's all. No more. No less.

So my statement is not only true and accurate, but also precise and the reality as it is. B-)

[Nanchatte]

Firstly

I've followed this discussion cum flame war for a couple of days since my last post and a theme is emerging. The attacks centre on various claims which were never made in the article:

Quote

The article uses a benchmark suite which isn't 64bit compatible.

So what? Did the article pretend that it was? No.
And more to the point there are crows of people, especially in a recession THAT STILL USE 32BIT PCs. (Like me).

They were the ones that were burned by VISTA. THEY are the ones who will potentially like W7.
As I mentioned, my opinion of vista was tainted by my first bad experience with the then one week old OS. But coming back to it on the same HW (P4 2.8C GHz, 1GB RAM 160GB intel RAID) over two years later with SP1 & a ton of patches and despite owning a 2007 C2D iMac w/ 4GB RAM, I found the system responsive, stable and much more usable than I remembered.

Quote

The article didn't mention any of the UI/OS tweaks that make this system faster/more useable etc.

No, it didn't. It stated clearly that it was a limited benchmark of certain aspects.

Quote

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

IMHO the more information out there the better with the obvious Caveat Lector disclaimer!

There is nothing "wrong" with the article and saying so just makes it clear that the reader had already formulated a set of conditional responses before starting to read the article.

Quote

Didn't compare Windows 7 with the Mac, Ubuntu, OS/2, CP/M.

Yeah, right. RTFT: Speed Test: Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista
Do you see any other OSs listed?

Quote

Title of the article is non-comital. Like a weather report saying it may or may not rain.

Sister, that's what practically every bloomin' forecast does ever, especially in Blighty.
Explain what "40% chance of Rain!" means.

What this article states is that Windows 7 may not be much faster than Vista... Oh, hang on a minute... isn't that the title.

The Mac is better/perfect/gorgeous/sexy/writes my presentations for me. in fact, I'm going to be calling my next child one of Steve, Jobs or iPod.

Grow up. I have six Macs. They crash, they burn. The only difference is the colour of the Screen of Death. Grey vs. Blue. (although not one of my 10 or so machines Mac/Win/Vista has BSoD'd (or GSoD'd) in recent memory).

As for the claims that application response times on the Mac are "faster"... Well, as a happy Mac user since 2005, I can safely say I haven't found this.
Firstly, apps are different (Office 2008 v 2007 etc) making the comparison subjective and secondly my C2D iMac w/ 4GB RAM takes longer to boot than my P4 with Windows 7. And as I've stated before Office 2003 on Vista was supremely fast at opening, nothing can beat instantaneous by a meaningful margin.

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.

I've taken issue with ZDNet's PRO WINDOWS bias in the past, YMMV. But I still read them to get a different opinion.

Surround yourself with people who have entirely the same opinions as you and it's no longer an open, informative discussion discussion, but a cult indoctrination.

Finally:

The article never claimed it was definitive, which some people here have been bleating on about.

As a user considering W7 on his aging PC, this article is useful. It tells me:

DON'T SET YOUR EXPECTATIONS TOO HIGH and you'll most likely be very satisfied with Windows 7 after the mixed bag of Vista.

[Nanchatte]

And now a couple of points that stood out from the detritus like little beacons of hope.

>drmsucks wrote:
>Let me suggest that your "average joe" uses his computer 90% (<-yep, I made that number up) of the time for: "office, multimedia, and graphic tasks" - the very tasks that you claim that WorldBench 6 "only measures performance on." I would think, then, that on behalf of your "average joe" you would be ecstatic that PCW is talking his language. WorldBench 6 is INDEED the tool that the "average joe" can use to fairly compare two different systems because it evaluates a computer's performance on the very tasks that the "average joe" is most likely to perform. Esoteric performance data are likely to be of little value to your "average joe."

Added to the fact it's tested on a 32 bit PC which a lot of people called Joe still appear to be using gives us a nice contrast to the usual "dream on" Quad CPU 32GB RAM capable 15k RAID tests used to "remove the limiting factors of the hardware" from the equations!

Thank you. Someone who Got The Point (TM) of the article.

>mikedgolf40505 wrote:
>Common journalistic ethics would dictate that you should be a user of the product that your are writing about instead of relying solely on tests that someone else ran.
I think you were the first person to pick this up, and in principle, it's probably true for a full and definitive review one cannot rely on 3rd party stats.

However, numbers are numbers and unless there was some massaging by either the tester or the writer, they remain valid as a numerical snapshot of the performance, regardless of any (if any) surrounding verbiage.

Quote

I am one of the only MacHeads on this site that will openly endorse Windows also.

speak for yourself ;-)

[WinTard]

So much hatred, so much negativitism.

So Vista was ill received. So what?

I paid $205 for my Vista Ultimate x64 OEM. Have ZERO problems with it on a Quad-Core 8GB RAM. It is quick enough, rock stable, never crashes (after SP1) only crashed once prior to that... So?

Yet Windows 7 is different and way faster. And it is free for 18 months starting Jan 2009 till June 2010. So?

So people, get on with it. Stop bitching, moaning, and whining. If you don't like it, fine. Go Linux, OS X, whatever.

Those interested in something that works better, test out the new Windows 7, for free!

But Windows 7 shines in 64-bit mode. For those who intend to remain with whatever 32-bit. Don't even read anything about Windows 7. And please, don't prejudice, and bitch about it, without even trying it...

http://www.pcworld.c...y.html?id=10230
Now Vista Ultimate sells for $75.95...
>

Is something less than $200 worth all this bitching? I don't think so. But that is JMHO.

~~~~~~~~~~
If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude. Don't complain.
~ Maya Angelou !http://wintard.freehost10.com/image/ospricevista.jpg|thumbnail=true!

[TechieXP]

The problem with benchmarks is they are doing real world testing. Benchmarks usually push the hardware o limits we won't use...and the appz are just simply loading and unloading...and giving you and idea how fast it might be based on your hardware. The problem with that is benchmarking is purely generic stats and they don't apply...PERIOD. Example...when it comes to video gaes...the benchmarks are usually based on placing the game on highsettings. It isn't taking into consideration what could also be running in the background that could slow the game down. Like for example...since most games are not CPU intensive, but ram and GPU intensive the tests aren't going to adjust properly. Because when you run the test...in many cases nothing else is running. However in real world...while I am playing a game...the CPU is usually a bit idle in my case especially with 4 cores...many programs like defraggers and anti-virus work typically when the PC is idle. The idling is based on how busy your CPU is....in my case at least 2 cpu's are always hovering around 90% idle. Also when it comes to games...most people don't know how to change the settings. So then what? What about the office appz? Some people are power users...but the MAJORITY are not. Most use Word for simple things like letters and resumes...what about Excel? The difference is a power user vs a ameteur...the power user may be looking at a document that is connected to a SQL database which means it will use more resources vs someone who is simply viewing a reciept or invoice done in Excel. What about other stuff like networking. For those who don't know, any application that requires network connectivity, these use more resources. If you look in your task manager you will see lots of instances of SVCHOST.EXE. This is how Windows handles application that need constant internet or intranet connectivity. But these aren;t the only signs...many appz do internet coinnectivity using their executable. All of this is taxing your own system. There is no way a software can tell you how fast YOUR computer is going to be unless you run it on YOUR own computer.

Now to this article. Everyone to this date with only a few exceptions have said Windows 7 is much faster then Vista. In my case the first thing I compared is the memory footprint on a fresh install. Windows by default will use more ram for itself if you have more avail. If you have less then Windows will scale down. I installed Vista pre-SP1 and it is using 511MB of ram on a new install...vs Windows 7 which was using just over 400MB. I then installed Vista Ultimate on a Pentium III 1GHz w/512MB of ram. After the install Vista was using 270MB od ram and Windows 7 was using about 200MB. In cases where you have less ram, Windows create a larger swap file. Which will create more lag...which will also effect system resources. The speed of your drive makes a difference...how big the drives cache is also makes a different...no 2 system are every alike accept when they are first bought. However I even tested that. I took two identical brand new laptop that had all that exact same programs installed..and benchmarked the both and they still weren't exact...but of course the gap was huge...

The test simply proves the writers case...it isn't telling you what you can expect. There are so many issues surrounding these test that are way more then comparing apples and oranges. You can't generalize how a person uses a PC. Even if I wiped my syste and installed Windows fresh and ran this test with only those appz...my test scores would be better or worse....they won't ever be the same...even if I used the exact same machine.

It makes the test nothing more then a Mac fan who wants to scare people away from MSFT's new product. Again its more media BS.
The only good thing benechmarks are for is to weed out possibly bottlenecks of your own system...

This article just shows what lengths people will go through to get you not to use a product, but only choose theirs. In this case the only alternative to Windows would be OSX as they are the 2 that are ost similar. So if they can convince anyone not to use Windows then the only other OS they can run too is OSX.

OSX is not better than Windows...and that isn't an opinion...its a fact. Macs had there chance at success by being first to the market. The market didn't like them then and they don't now. Mac sales as a fact have only increased because of 3 reason...reason 1...Macs went x86..and they run Windows...so now you have another expensive pc to do along with ThinkPad, Vaio and others expensive computers...2. Ipod...3. iphone. Until 2006 Mac sales hovered around 5 million units per year...and it remain in that number from the beginning until 2006. Dell on average manage to sell 15 millions PC almost every quarter...HUGE DIFFERENCE. And I doubt Apple is the largest seller of computers abouve $1000...because more businesses use Windows based laptops way more than Macs. And HP and Dell both have a large market outside the USA...Apple does not. Windows has a worldwide pentration...OSX does not. Windows support more hardware and ore software...OSX without Windows does not.

It simply comes down to making a choice of which works better. And just to show how stupid this article is...Someof the progras in this test don't even run on a Mac natively which means you can even accurately pit it against a Mac for a fare comparision. Even in Office application...the Mac version don't do what the PC version does...so that would be another test that would fail because you can't evenly compare.

Here is one thing I did find out based on my own testing. I took a Macbook I have here at work and I installed Windows 7 using bootcamp....I did a fresh install of OSX because it was a laptop we been having problems with. Windows 7 as a fresh install with no added appz was noticibly faster than OSX..ON THE SAME SYSTEM.

You also can't compare software installations, because Windows software installs differently vs Macs. In most cases Mac applications install faster. However...i used a stopwatch to time the install of Adobe Creative Suite CS4 on both on the same system. I made sure I could only install teh exact same features. As teh PC version comes with an X64 version of Photoshop and the Mac version doesn't. X64 support won't be native until Snow Leopard. Yet Windows has been x64 since 2002 with teh x64 version of XP. Who is behind who? Both OS's were at whatever default setting the OS has when you first install the software. OSX version was faster...but not by a huge margin. In a Mac software install is simple drag and drop...ine thing I certainly wish Windows was doing...so this is an advantage in many cases...not this one. In Windows the install too 22.7 minutes while on the make it took 18.4 minutes. In some benchmarks I read it took 25 minutes or more on a typical Windows system.

If anyone claims tests don't lie...well you must haven't taken many of them. Why do you think lie detector tests are not admissible in court?

What he should have said...your experience may vary. But from what I have gather based on Vista SP1 vs Windows 7...When I look at CPU usage and memory usage the margin in teh gap isnt huge...however the difference is that Windows 7 makes better usage of the same amount of resources. If you are expect Windows XP performance you will be disappointed. Windows XP is version 5.1 of Windows NT, while Windows 7 is build 6.1. The 2 won't ever be the same...period. XP was desihned to run on much slower hardware. When XP was released there was no dualcore...there was no ddr3 ram..there was no GPU with 512MB of ram...there was no 800mhz FSB....there was no USB 2.0...there was no Firewire 800.

It is obvious XP will run better on todays hardware...Just like Vista will run better on better hardware. And even with MSFT tweaking teh crap out of Windows 7...if you are trying to run Windows 7 on a system that is to old...you will get the same perfromance issues as Vista had. YOU STILL NEED BETTER HARDWARE. Windows 7 still has Aero Glass. Aero Glass still needs a dedicated graphics solution or a 'discreet' one. You still need at least 2GB of ram...though 4 is much better @ todays prices. Drivers should be easy to get because Vista driver will work in place of waiting for any Windows 7 driver that may ot be completed. And as with every later Windows release, the new CD will have drivers for most hardware produce before the release of the RTM. So any hardware you purchased before the release of 7 should be on the disk. However unigue hardwares like Multi-function printers typically are not there because they require more than a standard driver.

MSFT has released their tool for scanning your system to see which version of Windows 7 works best for YOUR system. USE IT. THis article simply shows how full of BULLCRAP some people are. When it comes to comparing products...you're suppose to give a fair even as possible evaluation of a comparable product. When you're done..then you can say in my opinion I would use a certain product bec this one has more upsides. Windows has way more upsides than downsides...and OSX is just the opposite.

One thing about Windows...no matter what brand of hardware you run it on...its still Windows whether that is good or bad.

[shreen2008]

Thanks for all the information.. I installed Windows 7 on my Intel Pentium D 2.66 Ghz, D101 GCC Motherboard, ATI Radeon 200 Express Chipset. What i find is it takes lot of CPU if i install an application. Also my processor doesn't support Hardware Virtualization which i checked with a tool, so i can't use Win XP Virtual Mode as suggested on some sites. I have problems with Xmarks sync also. Check this blog. for more info. http://www.beware-mi...ft.blogspot.com

[TechieXP]

That would be correct. The Pentium D was released before VT. Pentium D is actually 2 Pentium 4's on the same die. This is different from the Core family though similar.

But even though you don't have native VT doesn't mean you can do virtulization. You just have to install a 3rd party application. VirtualBox which is free works very well. Microsoft Virtual PC is also free and works very well. The best I have used is VMware, but it costs a bit.

[TechieXP]

I forgot you do have an option. if you're not using a brand name PC...Pentium D uses socket 775...which is the socket type the CPU sits in. If you have a motherbaord by Asus for example...you can use a Core family CPU in the same socket. With branded systems you may not be able to make that move...but you can find out.

[TechieXP]

I just looked up the MB you have. I wasn't thinking you placed it right there. It only support Pentium D and Pentium 4 w/hyperthreading. There are options of small boards like that, that do support socket 775 and use the Core 2 family of CPU's.

Here is a chart on which CPU feature VT - http://www.intel.com...ns.htm?iid=prodcore2duo+tabspec

[dshadowfox]

Your tests are enormously WRONG!!! i have an Acer Aspire with AMD Sempron 3600 2.0 Ghz, 1 GB RAM, Nvidia GeForce 7000M/nForce 610M & 80 GB HDD originally installed with Vista and processing seems forever! But now that I have installed Win 7 RC, my Aspire had a new life and is as shift more than ever! My HP Pavilion also is using the Win 7 Beta and is much better than its original Vista Home Premium.

You should try re-evaluating that Worldbench, you're missing out a great deal in here!