Windows 7 Performance

[MBrown]

I read CNET's review of Windows 7 and they ran some benchmarks. Most of the time its slower than XP and Vista. So what happened to all of the weight shedding and optimization?

Edit: Link to Review

 

[ViRGE]

Do you have a link to the review?

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Do you have a link to the review?

I think its this one link.

 

[BlueWeasel]

NM...Mem beat me to the link.

 

[ViRGE]

Humm, the only thing there's a notable difference in is what they're calling their "Microsoft Office Performance" benchmark. Without knowing what is it they're testing, I have no idea why they would be getting what they're getting.

 

[Mem]

I posted this before but you might find the gaming peformance interesting,Xbit's Vista and Win7 benchmarks.

 

[MBrown]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
Do you have a link to the review?

Sorry. Edited the OP.

 

[13Gigatons]

Your going to ruin the 7 hype with facts and figures.

 

[shabby]

Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Your going to ruin the 7 hype with facts and figures.

Facts... anyone can come up with those.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: MBrown
I read CNET's review of Windows 7 and they ran some benchmarks. Most of the time its slower than XP and Vista. So what happened to all of the weight shedding and optimization?

Edit: Link to Review

You say most of the time its slower than xp and vista. But i only see one instance that its significantly slower than xp (in some obscure office performance test). And i dont see any instance that vista is significantly faster, unless you consider 1.09s boot time out of 40+s, significant.

Im not trying to argue which is better. But you make a horrible conclusion based on your evidence. Also if you read the article they dont even make the same conclusion as you.

 

[soccerballtux]

Yeah it was all hype. I got excited too, but it is definitely slower than XP, and possibly slightly faster (2-3%) than Vista.
Basically, I didn't notice a difference between Vista and 7. It's still worth it for making more efficient use of my RAM (precaches tons of stuff).

 

[Modelworks]

The only one I see XP making a difference is office. I don't run MS office anyway, so don't care.
I just tried starting open office, it started in under 5 seconds, good enough for me.

 

[soccerballtux]

I found Vista/7 faster for opening open office the first time due to precaching.
Better than having yet another startup process (OpenOffice launcher or whatever).

 

[KeypoX]

say what you want about vista/7. All i know about performance is that once i went vista i couldnt go back to xp. I tried twice... thought would see improvements in games, but coudlnt bare it

I dont think going from 7 to vista would be as bad, but using vista on laptop that had win7 since beta. Is proving to be rather painful.

 

[Piuc2020]

I feel Windows 7/Vista to be much snappier when opening applications and in general usage, Windows XP still has an edge in pure gaming performance but I'm willing to sacrifice a few frames for all the productivity Windows 7 offers, not to mention the extra speed in general system usage.

 

[M0RPH]

I don't know why anyone is surprised that an 8 yr old XP runs faster than W7 on the same hardware. In that 8 years our computers have gotten MUCH more powerful and so features have been added to the OS to take advantage of that power. What you really should be comparing is the speed of XP on a typical computer of 2001 vs. the speed of W7 on a typical computer of 2009.

Now if you are satisfied with the features of the 8-yr old XP and want to run that on your current hardware, then go for it.

 

[dguy6789]

Vista and 7 do "feel" a lot faster than XP for one big reason, and that is super fetch. General system usage on Vista or 7(as long as you have plenty of ram) is as fast as if you were running much of the OS on a ram drive. XP can never compare to that. Here's an old video I made of opening and closing various windows on Vista on my computer: link