[WinTard]

Cask4221 said:

{Snipped}
SBut i haven't really given up yet on MS Windows...So go ahead and test the MS version to the max, and continue to print what you find, because I am relying on you guys to give me the real deal.

Yes, the real deal would include benchmarking the x64 (64-bit) version of Windows 7 with entirely 64-bit binaries as well...

And just for the heck of it, since you're PCWorld and have the appropriate resources, and pull to borrow (for testing purposes)... Why not test a high-end dual-socket 8 core system with 48GB RAM, to give us the PCWorld community a taste of how Windows 7 x64 performs at the high-end? Does it make any differences if compared with the same only equipped with 4GB RAM and a single CPU quad (entry level) like a Mac Pro 3GB and single CPU?

For instance:
>

And for that matter, could you also compare the x64 Windows 7 onto a Mac Pro entry level please?

In the meantime, I shall go to http://www.anandtech.com/ and http://www.tomshardware.com/ and http://slashdot.org/ (amongst others) to see what they have to say.

[halfozi]

I do agree with your results but when you start with CPU- Memory gadget then it takes few "seconds" till CPU usage drop to STABILE >5%.

So try shutting down with open application!!! (calculator or any other that do not require saving file).

W7 has changed boot sequence and priority at start time so it will look better for novice user. Please add comment on test condition such as network, anti virus. Boot is done when anti-virus has been updated or ??????

Suggestion : when CPU usage drop bellow 5% for 20 seconds.

Best regards,
XP fan

[ryanc]

I dont know, I put it on my main box at work. Moving from Windows Vista Enterprise to Win 7 RC1 and things are much much faster. I am running a HP dx2300 dual core 1.8 ghz with 4gb of ram and I have to say win7 is smoking and I love the new features. The only thing that hasn't worked was our corporate version of Trend Micro Anti-virus. Everything else is as solid as ice! As far as copying files from the network, the speeds on my tests are amazing! Copying nearly 10GB and hardly even seeing a flash of a progress bar!
I think win7 will shape up if the final release is as good as this RC is.

[smax013]

[quote name='WinTard']
>

Macslut said:

> It's NVIDIA not nVidia, or if you want a strict editorial style, use Nvidia.

Actually, it may be nvidia now, but it used to be nVidia... On the chips and logo.

http://images.google...F-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://www.google.co...n&start=10&sa=N
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:Qa9IbYiqiKwIxM:http://www.megagames.com/news/images/nvidia_logo.jpg

~~~~~~~~~~
The only constant is change.
~ Confucius

Based upon the logo, I would argue it should be nVIDIA...but then what do I know? ;)

[ClaudeD]

"Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Then Vista" Really! sarcastic remark. All one has to do is load this pig(lipstick and all) it's free. Slow your XP system down 50%. What a deal! It's Vista with new name.

[Boomshadow]

I find your comment interesting, ClaudeD. I can form complete sentences with Windows 7 faster than you can form incomplete sentences with XP. I went from Vista to XP to 7 on my laptop, and I have no regrets. Don't assume just because 7 looks a little like Vista that it performs the same way.

[NYSkater]

Nice post.



Anyone can argue opinions or statistics. When argue against facts, you're only revealing a bias.

[NYSkater]

Hi Luche.

Great to see you holding your guns on the message board.

I tried to send this privately, but your mailbox is full. I hope you don't mind my expressing my thoughts in a public forum. You most certainly respond to my query in a private email.

I've been preoccupied with work and personal things, so I haven't been around much lately.

There was something that was bugging me about your for some time and, tonight, for whatever reason, I knew what it was.

I want to know if the photograph you have online is you or an avatar. Don't ask me why. I might not know right away or for some time.

Regardless, your words continue to be an ongoing pleasure for me.

All my best wishes,

Stephen

[Nanchatte]

@ rmb7 SnTholiday flatrock19

I agree with all of you:

flatrock said two very astute things I wish I'd said:

> XP does work fine on 32-bit systems. ... Microsoft has continued to support it is because Vista didn't run well on lower end systems. If Windows 7 runs well, then XP will get phased out ...

This one's worthy of a pundit.

[quote]... a year from now, the Intel Atom isn't going away any time soon ... There is still a market for 32 bit systems.
[/quote]

he also spots what I keep trying to point out to the resident WinTard

[quote]I didn't actually even compare Windows 7 to Windows XP in my post. I said that on a higher end system you wouldn't notice a significant performance increase switching from Vista to either of the other two. This is because the additional overhead of running Vista becomes negligible as performance increases.
[/quote]

Exactly. My 1GB 2.8C P4 w/ RAID was fine but slowed when multitasking a lot quicker than XP did due to the 500MB or so overhead.

SnTholiday stated:

[quote]I'm sorry but I just don't see the speed improvements in Windows 7 either. People just like to bash Vista. Vista Home Premium x64 with at least 4GB of memory performs just as well as Windows 7 Ultimate x64.
[/quote]

I was a Vista basher (blog entries and all)... But once I added all the patches and another 2GB or RAM, Vista flew, outpacing XP for daily stuff with superfetch etc. (although as I've said, CPU intensive stuff did take a hit).

So, when I moved over to Windows 7 on my souped up P4 w/ 3GB of RAM, the overhead becomes almost insignificant and the two perform quite similarly... I'd even be willing to stick my neck out and say that performance of Office 2003 on Win 7 is inferior to that of Office 2003 on Vista.

rmb7 chimed in with

[quote]My computer. ... 2.6GHz Pentium C 2 GB ram, 500 GB nvidia 8400 GS gfx card. It will run vista but you can't run more then 3 programs without it being slow(on a clean install). When I used the W7 beta I could run 7 programs with no problem and faster then xp as well. Then after my w7 beta got cluttered with a ton of programs I installed it still ran 7 programs with no problem at all.
[/quote]

Very interesting, I'm surprised your system slowed down with 2GB and just three apps on Vista. Although I went from 1GB to 3. 1GB definitely suffered, but 3GB was fine. I ran Illustrator, NI Labview 8.5 and a number of instances each of IE7, Firefox, Word and Excel regularly without much ado although in 3GB.

rmb7 finished with:

>Theses tests in this article were from computers which were optimized or made for vista so of coarse you wont see much diff in w7 with them!

I really think it is as flatrock19 pointed out. Low end systems will really have a space to breath with the extra memory headroom.

[ABC123]

I think this benchmark is a joke. No Vista SP2? Windows 7 isn't that much faster than Vista...

[TechieXP]

BS...everyone has raved about how much Windows 7 is faster over Vista. Even with SP1 Vista is still a bit slow unless you have top notched hardware. And a sheet with a bunch of colored lines don't mean nothing. The understanding is teh smaller the number the faster. But everyone may have a different experience. Its going to depend on what softwares you install...what utilities you may be running...how well ur drive is defragged...so much more. Benchmarks don't mean much because they push system to limits most will never use.

If Windows 7 can run on netbooks and Vista can't then Windows 7 performance is different.

[WinTard]

Hello Stephen,

Oh, it is an avatar. The day I joined these PCWorld forums, on Jan 16th 2009, this young Canadian student had the distinction of being officially invited to President Obama's innauguration, and since I love smiles, first and foremost, that is the feature I look for in people, she became the 'perfect' avatar. But no it isn't a picture of me at all. Just an avatar which I think is appropriate to my online alter-ego or nom-de-plume? :)

Likewise, I am so happy that we're friends, you have helped me grow to become a better person. Thank you so much. I sincerely wish you the best.

~~~~~~~~~~
Work and play are words used to describe the same thing under differing conditions.
~ Mark Twain, 1835-1910, American Writer and Humorist

Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old.
~ Frank Lloyd Wright, 1867-1959, American Architect

[drmsucks]

Congrats, Nick, your results match my own subjective opinions of Win 7 Beta and Win 7 RC1 v. Vista Home Premium, SP1. I've been amazed for months at the reports that Win 7 is dramatically faster than Vista - it just ain't so on my machine. And, while most of the reports talked about the increase in speed in very subjective terms, most concluded by saying that Win 7 was definitely faster in startup and shutdown.
Well, again, not significantly for me. I have an "old" system (ASUS A8N-E motherboard, Athlon 64 4800+, 4 GB DDR RAM) and coming from a cold boot to usable desktop off my old 36 GB Raptor, Vista takes 41 seconds and Win 7 takes 40 seconds. Not worth the hype. As for shutdown - I don't much care; I click, turn the monitor off and leave.
Win 7, for me, is a re-packaged Vista and ought to be SP2 for free; not a "new" OS. Thanks for providing some objective numbers!

[RickGershman]

To those commenters who feel the need to rip into this article's author and call him every name in the book: what the hell is wrong with you?

It's one thing if you don't agree with his interpretations or dispute the test's real-world relevance. That's fine and perfectly worth discussion. But it's pathetic to see so many immature commenters talk smack about someone they don't know and accuse him of bias without any hard evidence to support their charges.

It sure is easy to insult and degrade someone you don't know from the safety of the internet, isn't it? Easy--and cowardly.

[Nanchatte]

Rick,

[quote]To those commenters who feel the need to rip into this article's author
[/quote]

To use an El Regism mutated from a (Fake) Steve Jobsism, they are called commentards, not commenters ;-)

[insightdriver]

As I read these posts I wish there was a way I could put big labels over some of them. One would be "IDIOT," another would be, "IRRELEVANT," and another would be,"ATTACK of NO VALUE."
Some folks blow me away by actually talking civilly and adding something to to think about. On my machine, I dual boot Vista SP1 32 bit, and W7 RC1 64 bit. I can't compare the two, fairly, since they are different enough to invalidate the comparison. In science you test by changing one variable to see what the difference is. I prefer the way W7 works, as far as interface is concerned. In that way it is an improvement over Vista.

[DoDoMan1]

Mike = If the only way you can messure the diffrence is with a machine what diffrence dose it make any why all the bother about speed your paid by the hour not the job.

[jabberwolf]

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.

[jabberwolf]

but you can give him punch, make him think he's important, make him think he has a real job, make him think he has an intelligent opinion... and whalla,,, you get him to tell 5 others they can be this way too.

Is it real? No mactards, it's whats called a cult!

Pretend you are talking to a scientologist when talking with a mactard, it makes more sense.

[lewac]

the benchmark is probably correct. and was a virus checker running on those tests? probably not. btw we don't see ubuntu 9.04 up there. hmmn... we wonder why not?