[kaninelupus]

Have to admit to being a little perplexed by your results, though in my case the performance is a little skewed.
My Asus G2S came with Vista Ultimate x86.. was also a x86 XP user (have held off on going x64 till now because of a still lacklustre hardware support for 64-bit architecture). Having said that, substial testing shows Windows 7 x64 absolutely CREAMING XP x86.
Boot times super fast. Wireless connectivity within 5 seconds of login! Photoshop, Premiere, Acro Distiller (ie, PDF compilation) a hell of a lot faster - and this is on an installation using Vista-based drivers and a patched GPU driver. We really won't see Win7 run at its best till full driver support is available... as any REAL IT expert would actually know!!
The BIGGEST mistake MS will make is if it makes the x86 versions of Win7 available to OEM buyers. Retail editions should be available in both formats, but if Win7 is released as OEM in x86 (with the exception of basic editions for netbooks and bare-bones systems), then we will continue to see manufacturers continue to avoid making a complete move to x64 with one excuse or another, and as a result the continue hunt-and-peck method of tracking down x64 drivers - especially in the case of note book users. Furthermore, we'll continue to see x64 OS's weighed down by lack of x64 apps. I can't even make the full move to Firefox x64 because Adobe STILL hasn't release a 64-bit version of Flash Player for anything other than Linux... even though MS is into it's third x64 OS release. Till MS uses its clout to force the mainstreaming of a x64 architecture, we'll ALL be left lagging!!

[ksims64]

I'm shocked with your supposed benchmark results. I seriously question your results as well as motives. I've been using all the Win 7 betas and have found them, as well as the RC to be considerably faster tnan Vista and faster than XPP as well. I'm not sure where you retrieved your results, but, you need to revisit them.

The following results mirror my personal results:

www.engadget.com/2009/01/03/windows-7-build-7000-already-outperforming-vista-and-xp-in-real/

Recheck your benchmarks..... Please.......

Be honest with the public....

[drmsucks]

ksim - If you don't like the results of the benchmarking reported in the article, okay, say so. If your personal results differ from the results reported in the article, okay, say so.



BUT, if you are going to impugn the character of the author, you MUST back it up. Suggesting that the author has distorted the results of PCW's testing is a serious accusation. What facts do you have for questioning the author's "motives?" What facts do you have that indicate the author is being "dishonest" with the public?

[TechieXP]

Well I can think of a few.
Let's see:

Maybe so far to this date, this is the only writer who I have seen who claimed Windows 7 isn't faster than Vista.
How about this FACT --> It has been stated as fact Windows 7 will run on a netbook, while Vista cannot.
Most testings I have seen so far that involve testing against XP have show Windows performs equal or better than XP SP2 which is what was out when Windows 7 testing started.

As far as on PCW...how about all of those who have been using the beta and have said teh following:
Bootup and shutdowns were noticibly faster...file copying was substancially faster...rivaling XP. Windows 7 is faster than Vista even with Vista SP1 which was suppose to address many of the speed issues in Vista. It has been stated that software installs are faster as well.

Based on my personal tests I agree with much of it. Shutdowns and startps are faster and I have installed ALL of the same programs I used in Vista Ultimate x64 with the exception of one. Virtual CD v9 which worked fine in 705x but doesn't work in 7100. I didn't notice a hug difference in file copying...I did find Vista was slower than XP, but Windows 7 seems to take about the same time to copy huge files...software installs I haven't really timed. However Adobe CS4 shows how long it took to install all selected components based on what I chose...what took 21 mins in Vista x64, took only 17 in Windows 7.

Windows 7 kernel is smaller than Vista's which means it has to load faster...just like a smaller vehicle will get from 0-60 faster then a bigger vehicle even if the engine is twice as big.

And maybe the fact everyone here for teh most part has disagreed with the writers statemenst based on there own tests. Out of the mouth of 2 witnesses a fact is established. We already know MacWorld....ala PcWorld is biased against Windows...that is a FACT. They waste no time making bogus statements against Windows...yet seldom has anything bad to say about some of the other options I don't need to name.

Sure anyone can go online and google and find someone who agrees with this article...for every 1 that you find...I can find 100 that disagree. With so many being right that means the few have to be wrong...including this writer. And he didn't show any facts either. I don't see any graphs...I don't see wny photos of benchmarks...do you? So maybe before you as one of us to provide substancia proof to support the claims...you should also not be a hypocrite and be so quick to attack someone else without asking the same of the writer.

On Tom's Hardware they show tests with graphs and facts that you can view testing different builds of Windows 7. It is a very reputable site amongst 1000's...many of which that are more reutabe then PCWorld...RCWorld gets a rep bec they sell a magazine...certainly doesn't mean the information is rreliable or factual.

[MikeLevine]

TechieXP,
I agree that many low-end configurations that cannot run Vista may be able to run Windows 7.

I've also read a number of articles that marginalize Windows 7.

But I don't read minds or suppose that I know the motivation of anyone who has written or who will write about Windows 7 performance. There are many sides to every story.

I've used Windows 7 Beta and RC (X64 & X32) and while many comparisons with XP show Windows 7 dominating in terms of performance and capability, the ones I pay attention to use verifyable, evidence based measures. The others which comprise of subjective evaluations I also read but take their conclusions with a grain of salt.

Thank you for your contributions to this lively discussion.

[drmsucks]

Techie - ksim impugned the motivation of the author suggesting that he was lying about the test results or otherwise distorted them for some unspecified reason. Accusing a writer for a tech magazine of distorting test results is a serious charge. My post merely pointed out that such alllegations are serious and he needed to back them up if he has facts. This is not a debate about whether or not Win 7 is "better," "faster," etc, but, rather, about the integrity of the author and/or PCW. Your bias against PCW is obvious, and, also, unsubstantiated. Positing your opinion regarding PCW's bias against Windows does not somehow make it fact any more than ksim's unsupported allegations of impropriety.

[WinTard]

Without raising a tempest in a teacup, it is fair for members in an online public discussion forum to question the impartiality of various authors. Period. PCWorld has shown through the ineptitude of many flame-bait article titles, interested in generating controversy over informing the public via factual and informative articles. This is by no means a blanket statement, but is nonetheless a possible perception by certain members, me included. I find a particularly predominant bias in many technically weak PCWorld articles slanted against Microsoft for whatever reasons. Fairness dictates that informed users would stand up to correct such disinformation. That is fair and isn't prejudice whereas the article bias is prejudice when incorrectly reporting 'facts'.

My own observations from experience are that Windows 7 is far superior to XP or Vista. As is reported by many other PCWorld community members as well...

Just reporting a diverging opinion from the article's implication is the right thing to do IMHO. The simple fact the title contains "MAY NOT" exonerates the author officially from unprofessional journalistic bias, but then again it may rain tomorrow, or it may not. How useful is that statement if I were a meteorologist?

Everyone has the right to their own opinions, but spinning useless articles void of real information isn't one of them IMHO...

~~~~~~~~~~~
Always stand up for what you think is right.
~ Unknown Source.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

[TechieXP]

You would be correct. So lets pick at the flaws. One of the systems that was used in the test was a over-clock system at 3.7Ghz and 4GB of ram. Now look at the graphs. Do you think a system that us running at 3.7Ghz would only have marginal performance against a 2.4Ghz system. My home system that I built is also a 2.4 system...however I have quadcores. 4 CPU's offer no benefit in tests that are based on 'installing software'. However running them would be a different story.

Photosop is a memory intensive application, not cpu intensive. While you are working on a photo the cpu's will be virtually idle until you actually run some type of routine. The test was using workbench which was a software that appears to be designed by PCW.

He sjowed graphs...take a look at them and look at the systems they ran the test on. There is no way...a system running at 3.7Ghz would onlu have a marginal speed different over a system that is a full ghz slower. There is just no way.

Microsoft Office is not a system intensive software and will run about the same on virtually any system. So that part I can agree with. So opening and closing those programs will have no noticable difference.

But how about test that actually will show difference. Like the Nero test was a good one...it was real world and is a software that benefits from enhanced OS features. Look at how different and faster Nero was on 7 vs Vista. And Nero 7 was released for Vista which means ot probably had no patches to take advantage of Windows 7. Other better test would have been ripping music or similar.

Windows 7 uses a smaller memory foorprint than Vista this freeing up more ram for intensive programs. Which will make them faster. I personally noticed Windows 7 use less cpu as well. typical in Vista before SP1 Vista was using 40% of the cpu withput any applications running. After SP1 that number droped to about 30% usage. Windows 7 however in my case on a fresh clean install is only using 10 - 20 cpu...basically that is XP like perfromance. Granted after install appz this will change...

Also even if you take into consideration the variance in systems. The average system right now will ahve a 2.0Ghz cpu with at least 2GB of ram. On average most system before that new features 1.5Ghz dualcore cpu's....

If the OS is using less resources than more is avail for the applications, which means they run faster. These tests say the speeds are no more than 5% overall....there is no way possible. How are others running similar tests on similar systems (as far as specs) getting better numbers?

Again there are so many varable to consider...hardware setup...actual appz a person uses...how recent the drivers are...etc...
Most other tests show about a 10% gain in many instances or more. The probelm with benchmarks is they aren't real world. Howeber 3DMark for example pushes systems to limits that exceed actual usage and they showed better numbers of Vista in may respects.

I recommend anyone who reads this article to just take it with a grain of sail as results will vary. We all know PCW rep when it comes to anything MSFT. Just because it is typed, doesn't means it fact. And it doesn't mean it will apply to your case specific. However to date, PCW is teh only site I visted that said that 7 offered marginal performance gain over Vista. Pther sites like ZDNET, tests done using 3DMark and others show there is much improvement.

[drmsucks]

Without raising a tempest in a teacup, it is fair for members in an
online public discussion forum to question the impartiality of various
authors. Period. No - not without stating a factual case for the alleged bias.




Fairness dictates that informed users would stand up to correct such disinformation. Only with facts.







My own observations from experience are that Windows 7 is far superior to XP or Vista. This is a fair observation that does not impugn the integrity of the author or PCW; understand, my postion isn't that the test results, or the conclusions therefrom, are "right" about the merits of Win 7 v. "you name it OS," but, rather, that a differing opinion is just that - a differing opinion. It is not grounds for accusing the author or PCW of bias.





Just reporting a diverging opinion from the article's implication is the right thing to do IMHO. Agreed. The caveat is that it is a differing opinion. A statement of fact that differs from the results of the benchmarks, or from the conclusions from the benchmark results (like your statement immediately above), are also fair. It is not fair, however, to suggest (without supporting facts) that the author or PCW purposely distorted the benchmarks or reported them inaccurately.





Everyone has the right to their own opinions... Agreed. They do not, however, have the right to falsely impugn the integrity of a person or institution because they have a different opinion.

[drmsucks]

Techie - Sounds like a well reasoned rebuttal to the methodology and conclusions of the article.

[ZzyzxExit]

I posted the first comment on this issue waqy back on May 6th. Since that time I have dumped my Vista (SP1) partition and am using Windows 7 as my primary OS. Pure and simple, it boots faster, runs faster, copies faster and shuts down faster than XP or Vista (SP1).

I stopped reading PC Word years ago as I detected a bias towards Microsoft. Microsoft deserves a lot of finger pointing for garbage product releases in the past, but they sure have made up for it with Windows 7.

Of the many people I know who have installed Windows 7 on a variaty of machine configurations, not one has said anything buy great things about the OS. There is only one real benchmarke and that is the end user who is either satisfied or unsatisfied. And now months later the verdict is in from the masses, Windows 7 is a winner.

[TechieXP]

I agree. The problem with benchmarks is they are not real world and perfromence may vary...GREATLY. However...based on tests I have seen with several builds, they all show significant performance with XP like perfromance.

Some have said Vista can't get XP like performance. I beg to differ. Again it is based on a users knowledge and what appz they do run.
Not to make to may assumption, MSFT Office is an application more people will have. However Office had never been a system intensive application. It would probably take 100 instaces of Word to even come close to what Photoshop uses and that is just on a guess.

But anyone can make some reasonable assumptions. From what I have read I have found the following. Windows 7 takes lesser drive space. What I have found is Windows 7 performs a file cleanup after install and it appears Vista did not. Some report gaining several gigs of spaces back. On a huge drive that shouldn't be an issue anyways.

However, Windows 7 had a slightly quicker install time...in my case Windows 7 build 7100 installed in 19 mins vs 27 for Vista RTM...I have acheived 22 minutes with Vista SP1. Windows 7 on a fresh install based on my system was using less ram. Vista RTM was using 502MB of ram with no appz installed. WIndows 7? 400MB. MSFT has also combined several services that once ran by themselves...the services list is shorter which helps use less ram. Which means for those who have integrated graphics or discreet solutions could run Aero with less issues compared to Vista.

Using PS or Autodesk in a test blows be away, because for one those are expensive software and they aren't used by a strong majority. They are mostly used by professionals...unless you get a hacked copy on some torrent somewhere. I don't see anyone pay $500 for simple photo editing. Usually Photoshop LE or similar is plenty for most users...most just want to resze and get rid of red-eye...

My biggest problem with the test was one system was an OC'd 3.7Ghz...in 3 test it show'd marginal speed over lesser spec'd systems. That simply doesn't look right. To compare? Look at this test - http://www.fastestla.../index.php?pageid=compare&car1=DodgeRamSRT-10&car2=458aa0d73610e

If the truck is Vista, and the car is Windows 7...then that would mean I may as well stick with Vista and the SLK provided no huge benefit over the RAM...which only cost 1/2 as much. Which means I may as well stick with Vista.

At present I am using build 7100 of Windows 7 as my everyday OS. I miss Vista sometimes. But I switched mostly because I like the look of 7 over Vista..which is why I switched from XP to Vista. & is certainly leaner and cleaner and teh fact MSFT has already remove crap I don't use and push it to Windows Live Essentials...7 is worth its weight in gold.

As far as Vista, i feel its cost over XP provided only a marginal benefit. Windows 7 being built on the same kernel as Vista means you probably shouldn't expect much. However if you look back a bit, and compare Windows XP to Windows 2000...XP didn't offer a huge benefit over Windows 2000 either...it simply had better compatibility with 9x. 7 basically is to Vista what Xp was too 2000. However for thos eplanning to upgrade...7 will still have the same problems if you're trying to use outdated hardware which is what happen with Vista users. If those people didn't learn anything last tme...they will all be on here saying how much 7 sucks and its just Vista with a new look...like I have seen some say already.

Even tho I miss Vista...I'm not going backwards after moving forward. & surely offers more than XP and it does offer benefits over Vista even @ SP2 level. Every test I have seen shows 7 performs better and appz perform better bec they have access to more resources bec teh OS is using less resources. Unless you're using a system that was designed for XP, I don't think any1 should be disappoint in Windows 7...accept teh writer of this article :-p

[DataCabbitKSW]

In all honesty, I have run my own benchmark tests between Windows XP x86 and Windows 7 RC x64. Yes this is a bit unfair due to it being different bit-depths on the same system, but otherwise all the hardware is the same. OS installed and patched till current (no more reccommended patches or SP available) and given latest WHQL certified drivers for the OS.
Running PCMark and 3Dmark '06 (since the newer versions don't run well or at all in XP and require DirectX 10+) I got remarkably similar results between the two OS. Sometimes Windows 7 was higher, sometimes Windows XP was higher. Mind you these are synthetic tests.
Just USING the systems Windows 7 feels snappier and more responsive. It supported much more of my hardware out of the box without having to hunt for drivers (my WiFi excepted). I'm in the middle of testing network throughput speeds between the two OS, as well as HD to HD transfers and HDtach speeds between the two.
From other users (on a different board though, mind you) I have seen HDTach results come back almost exactly the same. So throughput should theoretically be the same. However with Windows 7's memory and caching architecture being dramatically better, I imagine real-world usage will show 7 to be the winner. Once I have done further testing with transfers and network throughput, I can comment on those speeds, but so far it looks similar, to sometimes faster in WIndows 7. To comment on the note made by Shreen up above, yes when I run installers that use the Windows built-in install features, I get massive CPU usage. This has to do with the MS Installer service, as it runs massive checks whenever you install anything using it. I will agree that the current MSI builds could use some work, but they have been like that since early Vista. Better support and debugging capability, better logging of installs, and subsequently easier to clean-up after bad programs are the benefits. The downfall is it is notoriously intensive.
When I finish all my tests, I can post up all of the numbers, the software used and the paramaters used for testing. Timing, data sizes, etc. They are all synthetic benchmarks, regardless of how designed or implemented, so real life usage will vary. However, after at least five iterations in each test to get stable data, using set runs of the same things, I imagine would have something that is repeatable by others.
My subjective analysis: Windows 7 is a better OS. It is on par in speed, and sometimes faster, with few exceptions. It works with far more equipment, and is massively tuneable without massive effort. I'm looking forward to new machines that will be designed around the newer features capable under Windows 7.
If you are specifically having problems with 7, voice your concern on specific features or issues over on the Microsoft technet forums. They are listening, and if they see a chorus to the effect of "This doesn't work" or "This should work better, like this: xxxxx", they will likely respond in turn and tell you how to get it to work or work how you want, or take it under consideration to add as a feature. The official Windows 7 RC Support Forum located here http://tinyurl.com/9fhdl5

[TechieXP]

The test was Vista vs 7.

XP running on a better system would mean it would perform just as good as a newer OS. XP has less hardware demands vs 7 or Vista. And I would expect the numbers to be similat because MSFT is trying to acheieve XP like performce from an update kernel.

I am actually suprised XP didn't win overall. Since the OS requires less power, that leaves far more resources avail too applications. As it should be. Vista was eating power and not leaving much for appz...which mean you need to add resouces...usually having 4GB of ram and a dedictaed GPU that had at least 128MB of ram was sufficient to get good performance.

Based on some test I dod...x64 provides marginal benefits. Unless you use appz that can make use of the extensions, the OS from what I can tell really doesn't make a huge use of it. Based on my usage...Vista Ultimate x64 didn't work any faster than x32. The biggest benefit is really memory addressing...if you ahve more than 4GB you simply need a 64bit OS to address the extra ram. More ram is a benefit within itself...but a 32Bit OS can't use more than 4GB of ram...

I am willing to bet..XP XP3 x32 or x64 with 2GB of ram will perform just as good as Windows Vista or 7 with 4GB of ram.
At teh very least...your test says Windows 7 runs as fast as XP does...which means it would certainly be faster than Vista. And it would be a noticeable diffrence...unlike what the writer of the article said.

[ClemSnide]

"With the correct hardware," certainly. Throw a ton of RAM and a superfast processor at ANYthing and it'll perform well. Personally I'd like to see how the Apple ][ does with a 3.2 GHz processor and 16 GB!



The thing is, most of us are less than willing to spend several thousand dollars on a computer. The cheap PCs that are advertised, usually mentioning how expensive Macs are, just don't have the power to run Vista, let alone Windows 7. I've had two Windows systems so far, an XP-based one with an AMD Athlon 2100 processor and another with a much better graphics card and an Athlon 3000. (Memory speed identical, HD speed better in the new SATA-based system over the old IDE-based system.) I had XP Home x32 on the former and Vista Home Premium x64 on the latter. Yes, drivers are up to date.



The Vista system takes ten minutes to restore network access after any form of sleep, including just shutting off the display. (Fix: Turn off the display manually,k the way I did with my Apple ][.) Applications constantly get into a "not responding" state, even the Task Manager; I had some crashes under XP, but not nearly the number under Vista. (Fix: Use my Macs while the Windows box reboots.)



I stopped being a Mac evangelist years ago, but Vista has started to make me one again. If I could get a cheap copy of 64-bit XP I'd upgrade from Vista in a flash. What I've learned is that Microsoft needs lots of time, and lots of reasons, to fix their products, so I'm not plunking down another C-note for Windows 7 any time soon.

[orangemetal]

From my perspective the only reason to upgrade an OS is to gain an improvement in speed, security, and reliability. When Vista released, Tom's hardware did a test on Vista vs. XP for the professional applications I use the most for content creation, special effects, rendering, engineering and CAD, etc.

http://www.tomshardw...ews/xp-vs-vista,1531-6.html

In these tests and benchmarks for Maya, Solidworks, Catia, etc. Vista was 10 - 20x slower than XP.

What I am looking for is an updated comparison of speed for these benchmarks and applications. Does anyone have a reference to an updated comparison review article?

Windows 7 professional 64-bit vs. Windows XP SP3 64-bit on equivalent hardware.

The machine I use now is a fairly basic Core-i7 machine 2.7GHz, 8-threads with 6GB of ram, 1TB drive, basic Nvidia 9400GT with 1GB of onboard memory, OS I am running now is WIndows XP-64bit which I bought for around $1300 a few months ago. Since I use engineering, rendering, graphics content creation software they all make use of the multiple threads and RAM so the benchmark tests need to utilize all of these resources.

Applications and benchmark list:

1) SpecViewperf9.03

2) Catia

3) EnSight

4) Lightscape

5) Maya

6) ProEngineer

7) Solidworks

8) UGS Teamcenter

9) UGS NX

10) Cinebench

If anyone has a link to these benchmarks for WIndows 7 Pro 64 please forward. Thanks.

[TechieXP]

I can't answer your request....but I can ask how can you compare an OS that was designed to run on a processor speed of only 233mhz and 64MB of ram to an OS designed to run on 1Ghz and 512Mb of ram. It is obvious n older OS would run so much better on newer hardware. If you took and older chvey and put todays parts into it...it would run btter wouldn't it?

Think of the advantages of todays hardware for an older OS. If you took one of Macs older OS's and run it on todays Intel Macs I bet they'd run better too. Du! Vista would seem slower if you caomred it to an OS that was built earlier that has less code. Windows Xp has about 40 million lines of code.

Look at this code range:

Year Operating System SLOC (Million)
1993 Windows NT 3.1 4-5[1]
1994 Windows NT 3.5 7-8[1]
1996 Windows NT 4.0 11-12[1]
2000 Windows 2000 more than 29[1]
2001 Windows XP 40[1]
2003 Windows Server 2003 50[1]


Windows Vista was built off Windows Server 2003. Which eans at teh very least Vista has 50 million lines of cose...I am betting Vista has closer to 60...while XP has only 40 million. XP starts faster...well duh...XP shuts down faster...well duh. I would expect such. Todays machines are 10x's more powerful and thus the OS can be made to us ore of that power...which means on a litely spec'd system Vista will probably show horrible numbers compared to an older OS.

If you are using a 2Ghz CPU and XP only requires 300mhz as recommended...look how much more power the system has for X to use. XP required 64MB of ram...or 128 to be better...while todays systems have 256 as a bare minimum...with 512MB being common and 1GB is out as well.

Plus look at types. XP used regular SDRAM...todays systems faster SDRAM...DDR2 moves data at double what SDRAM moved...DDR3 moves 3 times...DDR4 4x's...DDR5 is 5x's faster. When MSFT releases the next OS on the next best hardware platform...Vista will appear like XP when you run it on better stuff. Imagine running Vista on an 4 core system...try bench marking that against a dualcore or quadcore machine.

You're saying a new OS should be faster...well is XP faster than Windows 98SE? Nope....is Windows XP faster than Windows 2000...only marginal. If Vista faster than XP? Well..should Vista be faster than XP?

At present my boot time in Vista is dead even with Windows 7 on the same hardware with the same exact software installed. My system is a quadcore with 8GB of ram. My total boot time including the BIOS Post, the OS load and the login to dektop take about 46 secs...for either Vista or 7. XP takes 38 seconds on the same computer with all the same programs installed. * extra second to boot 15 million more lines of code is just fine to me. A new install of Vista with no appz, takes about 38 ses to boot on my PC. That would be equal to XP that has all appz install. If I remove all the appz from XP...it takes my PC less than 30 secs to boot.

My wakeup from sleep is about the same on XP and Vista and Windows 7. It takes 4 secs. And when I log in I can instantly get online. Some said they have to wait and additional time for networking to be avail. I guess that ,ust depend on what hardware. Bec I have IE set to load to my home page whe I log on. IE appears instantly with a blank window...and it shows my home age within 4 secs.

Appz that can use multiple cores have to be wriiten to take advance of those cores. If a software was designed to make use of 4 cores and not 8...then an 8 core system will only offer a marginal advantage...same with quad over dual...same with dual orver single. I know rendering uses both CPU and RAM as wel...but the GPU is where the workout is happening more. If you GPU wasn't sufficnet, then thos eprograms will put from other resources like the main CPU and system RAM. You're using a very good GPU which means there is no need for borrinwing from other hardware on a high level if at all.

But benchmarks vs actual usage...do you push your system to the same extremes as a benchmarking software would? And is your system fast or you just looking for it to be XP fast. Bec if you are looking for Vista or 7 to be XP fast you may be disappointed. 7 isn't going to be XP fast...but is is a hell of a lot faster then Vista. However some may or may not ntice a difference. In my case they appear to be the same....but my system is fast...what I do notice is the features in the UI itself are much faster in 7 vs Vista. But lauching appz...running appz and such appear to be very siilar...which for e is fast using either. But I didn't have speed issue in Vista. Actually I didn't have any issues.