SuperSite Blog

Gizmodo did some testing and came to the same conclusions: gizmodo.com/.../windows-7-release-candidate-1-vs-vista-first-benchmarks

And then this:

gizmodo.com/.../why-windows-7-is-snappier-than-vista

"Oh yes, they also reduced the memory footprint, but anybody running Windows 7 already noticed this. So yes, Windows 7 really is more responsive, even if run-of-the-mill benchmarks can't exactly measure how that is."

There's really more to the speed of an OS than what benchmarks can show. A lot of work seems to have been done so that the UI is much more responsive, even if it's not necessarily faster. This is quite valuable in its own right.

My real world useage patterns tell me it's not much if any faster then Vista SP2 once booted up and running.  Now my systems aren't memory starved and have fast disc subsystems which is probably why.  If I pulled 2GB of ram I'd probably see different results.  Windows 7 of course boots a little faster that I can confirm

I rarely trust anything that comes from PCWorld to be objective since they obviously wish that they were MacWorld.

Here is the problem with those benchmarks and a good thing for MS.

My first experience with Vista was beta 2/RC/early 2007.  It was a pig, had compatibility problems, SUPER slow copy speeds, just did weird *** whenever.  I gave up personally around October of 2007.  Hardware was slower overall back then as well.  On top of that you have vendor crap installed on consumer PC's.  A lot of people were turned off early on.

I have no doubt Vista has gotten better.  Apps/hardware more compatible and hardware faster.  Vista SP2 is probably a pretty good OS today in 2009.  MS has tweaked the heck out of it to make 7 and make it faster.  They have stripped out stuff and I am sure the did little things like speed up the graphics animation of some Aero junk to make it seam faster.

My point is a person running a benchmark, is going to use Vista SP2 or whatever is the latest and greatest to compare to 7 and not get much.  A consumer is going to use their bad memory of Vista two years ago and compare it to 7 and get night and day difference.

Also a benchmark does not compare some stuff.  Vista early one would do some weird crap just sitting there.  I would get huge pauses of like 30 seconds just using IE7 to the point of almost reaching for the power button.  That kind of junk cant be benchmarked and from what I have seen so far that has been cleaned up in 7.

This just goes to show what I've been telling a lot of people..

CURRENT Vista performance(not launch) is actually good.   Most people's impressions of Vista stem from the launch fiasco and not what's out in the real world now.

However the UI components of Vista and how they are organized is still poor imo.   Windows 7 is the fix for that one.

The article lost all credibility with this line at the bottom:

"PC World is an InfoWorld affiliate."

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking … Windows 7 edition? «  Windows 7 Help - Tutorials, News, Software & More!

I find it very surprising that Gizmodo actually handled this better than PC World. PC World's article is pure flamebait.

Wae, for me it was this line:

"Get the analysis and insights that only Randall C. Kennedy can provide on Windows tech... "

"On top of that you have vendor crap installed on consumer PC's."

I have a service that fixes that.  I take a consumer system, say HP or Acer or whatever, and do a clean install using the proper recovery system, and then remove all of the extra junk, update Adobe Reader, Flash, and Java to the latest versions, install the latest Windows updates including Windows Live Essentials to make Windows shine as far as software+services go, install the OneCare trial and let the customer know that they can still purchase it, etc., and the customer is ALWAYS happy with the results.

Oh, and I've tested the program "PC Decrapifier" and it does a really poor job.  I do everything manually.  It takes more time, but it also provides a cleaner uninstall of programs.

@shark

Randall C. Kennedy?  Ha!  That moron is back?

@shark, matty:

PC World was the same company that claimed that the MacBook was the fastest Windows Vista laptop even though they had tested the quad-core packin' Eurocom laptop nearly a month earlier, and then tried to cover it up.

I installed it on a Dell Vostro A90 (Mini 9). $250, 1GB RAM, 16 GB SSD, 1.6 GHZ Atom. It runs just fine. For light web browsing, email, word processing, it works very well. You can't have a bunch of tabs open, while transcoding video, but you would not expect to do that on an old notebook either. Video play back from movies on my Home Server was surprisingly smooth.  

I have not tried this with Vista, so I have no point of reference for comparison. But my experience with Vista on other hardware leads me to believe that it would not be so useable.

"I have a service that fixes that.  I take a consumer system, say HP or Acer or whatever, and do a clean install using the proper recovery system, and then remove all of the extra junk, update Adobe Reader, Flash, and Java to the latest versions, install the latest Windows updates including Windows Live Essentials to make Windows shine as far as software+services go, install the OneCare trial and let the customer know that they can still purchase it, etc., and the customer is ALWAYS happy with the results."

That's called the "Waethorn Tax".

"That's called the "Waethorn Tax"."

Still cheaper than the Apple Tax.

@losta:  Are you Andy Ihnatko?  Cuz regardless of where you are online, you are a colossal waste of bandwidth.

Waethorn

"PC World is an InfoWorld affiliate."

I wonder if they'll follow Infoworld's lead and launch a "Save Windows Vista" campaign next in an attempt to get hits?

@"losta":

You should honestly look up the definition for the word "tax".

Two things:

A) I haven't felt that Vista was sluggish.

B) Why is it required that a new operating system should run on old (>2 yrs) equipment? When my old computer was too slow to run Windows 95, I upgraded. Same with XP, except with XP we saw a slew of peripherals getting dumped because companies like HP wouldn't write updated drivers for perfectly good legacy printers. At least hardware upgrades in the WIndows don't break our banks.

@mike:

quick question: Do you know if there is going to be a Morro beta at all, or are they just getting data from testers of FCS in Stirling to apply to Morro?

slim

"My first experience with Vista was beta 2/RC/early 2007."

So you base your "experience" with a beta that you got around to trying after the released product was already on the market?

"I gave up personally around October of 2007.  "

The beta finally timed out?

That's like saying, "I played with OS X 10.0 for a while when it was in beta so you should consider me an expert on Leopard" or "I tried Slackware a little back in 1995 so I know Linux".

Waethorn,

Re: Morro. No idea what the beta plans are. I'm waiting for an invite code but haven't heard anything yet.

It's a "release candidate" and is already benching faster (if only in small percentages) than a service-packed/tweaked Vista.  Is there a problem here?

i agree Macw I mean PC World is a joke of a Magazine. I stopped reading when they offed their best writers a while ago. Frankly benchmarks are frequently so artificial its hard to know if they're relevant to end users. I'm running 7 on some older core duo and ULV machines that didn't run Vista too well and it fairly flys, I'm not sure its faster than XP but I don't care I can only stand XP for so long, and I have to use it on y desktop at work.

@mike.  I was in a pilot at my company, 200 or so people in IT, and another 100 or so key users in different non IT departments. The pilot took us from Beta2 up through Jan 07 before it ended and we went back to XP.  I was not supporting it just using it to do my job, and reporting my findings to the project manager.

I then purchased a new Dell laptop for home that came with Vista in Feb 07 and used it up until the first "performance update" ....

www.microsoft.com/.../details.aspx

In October of that year I went back to XP because of performance problems (network copy and ZERO batter life were my major gripes).   I had even did a clean install of Vista on the Dell, to dump all the crap that came with it.

I had about 18 months on Vista in some fashion.  My wife lasted only about 90 days before she went to OS X.

So I guess your WRONG, then again you usually are, SSDD.

Like I said I am sure Vista has probably improved much since 10/07 as I remember there were 1 -2 more of those performance updates (during this time MS was saying no SP's) then SP1 and probably more updates to include SP2.  But of course you would not point out that I was being objective, it would not fit into your stream of Bull SHiiiiite.

How about this:

"Every time I've used Windows 7, it's been noticably, nay, remarkably, faster than Vista!"

  - Matt Sharpe, UK

Performance testing complete. 'nuff said.

"So I guess your [sic] WRONG, then again you usually are, SSDD."

Hmmm. Interesting. One other person who posts here makes that mistake.

In any case, I think the PCWorld article is a little misleading. First of all, they don't say whether they're using the RTM version of Vista or the one with the latest service pack. If they are indeed using the RTM version, then I think the article is right. Microsoft does have a problem. If it's the latest version, big deal, Vista is a good OS right now.

"It's a "release candidate" and is already benching faster (if only in small percentages) than a service-packed/tweaked Vista.  Is there a problem here?"

The only problem is with critics that would deflate this.  So far, I don't know of too many people that don't find it better than Windows Vista, even if some of the improvements are incremental.  Most reviewers (Kennedy notwithstanding) still say that it "feels snappier" even if it's due to animation speed changes or UI tweaks.

The consensus is still that it's better than Windows Vista.  It is based on Windows Vista though, so that says something.  If it were totally new, the result would be completely different, but nobody knows what that result might be for sure, whether good or bad.

I will go on to say that having the same driver model as a baseline was the right decision.  If it were changed again, we'd have a major problem with hardware partners all over again.  Windows Me had the same issue as Windows Vista - partners weren't ready with proper drivers for it, so the user experience wasn't great and reliability was compromised.  There were fewer upgraders for those operating systems as a result.

Windows 7 runs like a top ... period. I'm impressed.

slim

So, which is it?

You started in "early 2007" and gave up in "October of 2007" (No more than 10 months even allowing "early" as January 1 and October as Halloween)

or

"I had about 18 months on Vista"

And, really, you were in an early pilot at your company on expired beta code after the product released? Or, wait, in version 2 you said you were in the pilot but it ended in Jan 07 but your experience with Vista started in Early 07.

At least make up one story and stick to it.

Pingback from  Windows 7 Blog » The magic of wishful thinking … Windows 7 edition?

Pingback from  Computers ! » The magic of wishful thinking ??? Windows 7 edition?

"makegalos" said:

You started in "early 2007" and gave up in "October of 2007" (No more than 10 months even allowing "early" as January 1 and October as Halloween)

I look at slimshadys post and see:

- The pilot took us from Beta2 up through Jan 07

- In October of that year (2007) I went back to XP

Beta 2 started when? Early-mid 2006?

I'd say from Beta 2 to October 2007 is about 18 months.

You should learn to read before you shoot someone down "mikegalos".

"In October of that year I went back to XP because of performance problems (network copy and ZERO batter life were my major gripes).  "

Has battery life improved with Windows 7? The battery life on my laptop was terrible with Vista.

Personally, I think Windows 7 is faster than Vista. And thats from a 3 year old laptop.

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking ??? Windows 7 edition? | Windows Seven 7

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking ??? Windows 7 edition? | Windows Seven 7

@waethorn

"You should honestly look up the definition for the word "tax"."

And so should the people who use the phrase Apple "tax" for the same reasons.

ON the topic,  I find Win 7 RC1 works fine under VMWare with a Macbook Pro. Runs as fast, possibly faster than XP. Whatever I think of Win7, I'd much rather use that when I must use Windows than the butt ugly XP.

I find it hard to believe that MS hasn't been able to optimize the OS for Windows 7.  Vista introduced major new graphics code that I'm sure they have been able to improve.  It took Apple a couple of years to get their version of the same thing optimized (still doing it, most likely)

Pingback from  4sysops -   Windows 7 Upgrade Advisor - Sysinternals updates - Windows 7 performance - Server 2008 R2 survival guide - Server Core guide

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking … Windows 7 edition? - SuperSite Blog - Windows 7 Latest News

"And so should the people who use the phrase Apple "tax" for the same reasons."

When you're paying a fee on top of a product, that's a tax.

Apple charges a premium on hardware and software that other companies have commoditized, so yes, it is a tax of sorts.  You are paying for their brand to be on it.

What I'm doing is providing a service to customers that have "saved" on buying bigger name brands.  There is a difference between a tax and a service.  When you buy an Apple, you have to pay the premium.  You don't when you buy a name brand.  So you can't have some sort of "negative tax" on another name brand.

Oh, and if you think you're going to turn this around and say that I charge that on new systems that I sell, then you haven't compared my prices to the competition either.

"Is Windows 7 really appreciably faster than its predecessor?"

In my personal experience, yes. I've installed RC on a number of test machines, my production machine, most of my family's machines, and a couple of my notebooks. I've also done some limited lab deployments to ~60 or so desktops.

It feels faster and more stable than Vista on every single one. Maybe benchmarks wouldn't prove it. But from a user perspective, if it feels faster isn't that what counts. Everyone using these machines say it feels more responsive.

I will say this, too. I installed it on an HP Pavilion dv1000 notebook (boosted to 512MB RAM, otherwise stock). Vista would never even allow the install because it didn't support the video drivers. Win7 installed just fine and it runs great - on par with WinXP, which the notebook came with.

Waethorn wrote: You are paying for their brand (Apple) to be on it."

Another possibility is that people are paying for another brand NOT to be on it.

RunTimeError (appropriate)

Here's how it works... When the comment is that the poster told two different and contradictory stories in two separate posts then you really need to read BOTH posts before announcing to the world that you can't find the problem. Claiming there's no contradiction in only one of the posts just makes you look silly. (In the British English sense)

was paul drunk when he wrote this? likely.

"I find it hard to believe that MS hasn't been able to optimize the OS for Windows 7."

Oh, but they have.  On low-end hardware it's very noticeable.  On high-end hardware, the benchmarks aren't as clear-cut.

FYI:  On Atom hardware, graphics acceleration is vastly improved.  I've seen some low-end Atom systems (1.0GHz-1.33GHz Z-series) and mouse movement is actually kinda slow in Vista.  It's much better in Windows 7, and it's not just because of the less-agressive disk cache which frees up more RAM for applications.

I recently saw the GMA 500 in action on Windows 7 RC too.  It supports DX10.1, and Microsoft now has official Windows 7 drivers that support Aero on 7 (the Vista drivers don't).  I was disappointed by the performance, even though transition animations are somewhat smoother than in Windows Vista.  It still isn't up to par IMO, but you can't really expect much from it either, since Sony packs it in a <1" thick [don't call it a] netbook.  I was hoping the performance would be at least as good as a GMA 950, which is a DX9 part, but it wasn't, even if it supports newer graphics API's and technologies.

Intel failed on the GMA 500.  I think they should officially open the entire Atom platform up to NVIDIA and maybe even ATI, which has better GPU's than Intel for less cost, although they have to work on their energy efficiency.

The Ion platform is still not great though, because the cooling system required is still an obstacle.  You won't see mid-style netbooks with an Ion any time soon.  NVIDIA should just license x86-64 and start work on their own SoC CnGPU.  I'd like to see a system the size of netbook/MID taking advantage of CUDA on Windows 7.

"Another possibility is that people are paying for another brand NOT to be on it."

Comme ci, comme ça.  The tax is paid to Apple.

"Has battery life improved with Windows 7? The battery life on my laptop was terrible with Vista."

I actually got excellent battery life in Vista for some reason. On my Dell M4300 notebook, XP got 4-5 hours of battery life, while Vista x64 SP1 got 6-7 hours. I haven't been able to explain it to this day.

I was looking at a blog post in the uk,

www.pcpro.co.uk/.../windows-7-gdi-performance-the-big-trade-off

Its quite relevant to this post

"Its quite relevant to this post"

Nothing comes up.

@waethorn

"There is a difference between a tax and a service.  When you buy an Apple, you have to pay the premium."

But you don't have to buy Apple if you choose not to. A tax is involuntary, whereas a purchase is voluntary.

People choose your service, so it isn't a tax. Agreed. People choose to buy Macs, which is also not a tax.

A "cost" is different than a tax. Macs costs whatever they cost in a free market. Anti-spyware, crapware removal, and all the other "services" required if you choose (and that's the keyword, choice, as is often pointed out by the denizens of this echo chamber) to use Windows.

I believe the phrase is "Pay your money and take your choice."

I don't call what you do a tax; it is a service needed by people who've made a bad choice----to use Windows.

Thats odd...works on all my machines, but i live in the uk. Might be blocking outside ip's although I dont see any reason why. If the main site, www.pcpro.co.uk doesnt work then I dont know.

I agree that over all W7 works like a charm, with some expected bugginess, including but not exculsive to the difficulty so many people are having with 7 not waking from sleep, especially on laptops.

Real world test or not, good news is good news. I'll take it. You guys know how I hate bad news...and criticism ;)

Ahh Mike your such a ignorant little man.  In my first post I said...

"My first experience with Vista was beta 2/RC/early 2007"  and then I said " I gave up personally around October of 2007."

In my second post I went into detail, not enough for you I guess.  

My company was part of a MS TAP program so we were testing Vista, Exchange 2007, sharepoint 2007 and Office 2007 at the time.  

www.microsoft.com/.../SuccessDetails.aspx

I was part of that testing/pilot from Beta 2 (May 2006?? cant remember/dont care) through various releases, RC's I guess and then some almost gold/gold code in November 2006 and final code in December 2006.  The pilot ended in Jan 07 for our purposes when the product shipped to the world.  The group running the pilot decided against Vista for whatever reasons at the time. Pretty tough to understand I guess????

I then kept using Vista personally outside of work on my new Dell laptop until October of 2007 or around then, when I finally got fed up with its continued network problems and horrible battery life.  IMHO in fall of 2007 Vista was junk, and not worth my time.  That MS link is bs as we NEVER went to Vista, still have not.  We had serious problems with Exchange 2007 as well but forged ahead after SP1 came out.  We also decided to not participate in other TAP programs because we did not have the bandwidth to do so.

Windows 7 is night and day better.  Its Vista fixed finally, since we know the core of its Vista + fixes.

Mike your lame *** bait a switch/subject changing tactics  are getting really old.

"A tax is involuntary"

I'll let the IRS know you feel that way.

"it is a service needed by people who've made a bad choice----to use Windows."

You're wrong.  The bad choice they made was to choose another brand from mine.

Still, they enjoy their computer after I'm finished with it, and they didn't have to pay Apple's exorbitant (and they are!) prices for that.

"the difficulty so many people are having with 7 not waking from sleep"

Some Windows Vista drivers for stuff like ACPI firmware extensions don't work properly on Windows 7.  ACPI and chipset drivers have to be written properly to support power management.

"You guys know how I hate bad news"

You would make a bad oncologist.

@slim:

I'm calling your bluff.

I personally know someone that works in an office west of Toronto and says you're full of sh*t.  He uses Windows Vista on a daily basis.

slime

So now you're putting the contradictions into one post to make it easier to see that you can't keep your story straight?

In just that post you said your "first experience with Vista"  was in early 2007 and not more than a few sentences later you claim you were using it as part of this "pilot" from May 2006.

I'm pretty sure that May 2006 was before "early 2007" even in your world. Perhaps you were in the pilot without actually having any experiences with the product somehow and thus didn't get your "first experience" during those eight months?

It's really amazing when somebody can't even keep their story straight for more than a few sentences at a time.

Here's a helpful hint, if you aren't able to keep your stories straight, stick with the truth if only because it's easier to remember.

Wae

Actually, there's a Case Study on how Enterprise upgraded their intranet to SharePoint 2007, their email to Exchange 2007 and their client OS to Windows Vista available at www.microsoft.com/.../casestudy.aspx

I think that proves that your bluff calling was quite correct.

I can give you phone numbers of people if you want?  The corporate office is in the town I live in.  

Anything outside of that town is nothing but a rental branch or a small admin office supporting rental branches.  So your Toronto connection is full of *** plain and simple.  We use Terminal servers/wyse thin clients in all branches, in fact we have the largest terminal server farm in the US.  The terminal servers were upgraded to 2008 last year.  in 2008 we went to office 2007, we use Sharepoint 2007 for our corporate Intranet which has mostly replace our file servers.

A few people in the field have computers running XP.  All users at corporate run XP on PC's or on VDI.  No one outside of the desktop deployment team might have Vista (for testing) and I think even they dont use it anymore.  Our CIO and a few other executives use OS X and TS into a XP VDI.  I dont give a rats @$$ what the paper says we DONT use Vista and anyone in Toronto does not know SHAT because all IT at corporate.  Maybe that person is delirious from washing cars in his white shirt and tie in the spring heat?

Mike here is the exact text from my first post...

"My first experience with Vista was beta 2/RC/early 2007.  It was a pig, had compatibility problems, SUPER slow copy speeds, just did weird *** whenever.  I gave up personally around October of 2007."

How effing stupid are you?  Maybe some ESL (English as a Second Language) classes???  My first experience was with Vista in the pilot.  It went from Beta 2 to Jan 07.  Should I type slower for you?  I then used it on my new home PC and STOPPED using it at work when the pilot closed down.  Brother you are dense, really dense.

From you link Mike, the only thing that "case study" says about Vista is this...

"As of November 2006, Enterprise has upgraded a cross-section of IT department users to Windows Vista".

Yep just like I said in my original post "My first experience with Vista was beta 2/RC/early 2007".  

So in November 2006 we were either using a RC or early version of the final code, and we were near the end of the pilot.  Final code was delivered to Enterprise Customers in December of 2006, a month before the public and non-Enterprise customers could get it.

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking &#8230; Windows 7 edition? - SuperSite Blog | Problems Resolved

What is so hard to follow about slim's story?

I just don't get it, Mike, and Wae, you need to go get some air or something.

@"slim":

The person that I know personally met Kennedy, the CIO, in 2000 down in Jersey for an IT seminar.

@mike:

This guy reeks of Lindy, who never posts on here anymore.

The Windows (and Microsoft tax) is much greater than that of Apple's. It's well known to anyone that runs Windows machines. Especially if you use it in business.

@robertsjoe:

www.tgdaily.com/.../140

Told ya so!

"benchmarks don't measure real world performance"

That's the line Microsoft always uses when their stuff is slower. Same thing they said in their recent web browser "tests". They didn't even include Safari which would make them look even slower.

@waethorn: Nothing will come of that. They are not evil. Unlike convicted monopolist, Microsoft. Don't forget that not only were they convicted by the DOJ, they also have been and are still being pursued by the EU.

@waethorn,

Once more, gently,

""A tax is involuntary"

I'll let the IRS know you feel that way."

A tax IS involuntary, but the IRS doesn't care so long as I pay. (And, with a nod to Mike....I really don't mind, since by global standards USA taxes are quite low, at least compared with any other country I would ever want to live in.)

The difference is clear from the little check box to designate $1 for election financing. THAT is not a tax, because I decide whether or not to pay it.

So, the phrase Apple "tax" is quite wrong, as is calling the price for spyware, crapware removal, the Win7 upgrade cost from the the abortive Vista, the ongoing "upgrade" prices for Microsoft Office 2010 November Edition Enterprise Ultimate Premium Media Package, etc, as "taxes".

I don't have to pay for those things; I choose to pay for the ones I decide I want, so none of them are taxes.

We can compare COSTS, but the use of the word tax is silly and everyone here realizes that.

Wae waves his threatening finger and says "I'll let the IRS know you feel that way" (re: "Taxes are involunatary")

Go ahead. Since when is a tax NOT involuntary? Do YOU have a choice of paying or not paying your PST, HST, GST, etc. in your beloved Canada?

Taxes are involuntary. Big news. The IRS doesn't care one bit that I "feel that way".

Now go back to your basement and play with your kitty, Wae.

Pingback from  The magic of wishful thinking &#8230; bWindows 7/b edition? - SuperSite Blog &laquo;  Windows 7 Live Info