Windows 7

[Mid]

from the blogworld .................

from the scores given below it looks as if 7 will be worth the upgrade where as vista wasn't .................


Windows 7 beta 1 performance - How does the OS compare to Vista and XP?
January 1st, 2009
Posted by Adrian Kingsley-Hughes [at] 2:59 pm

How does Windows 7 beta 1 compare to Vista and XP in terms of performance? That’s a question that’s been hitting my inbox regularly over the past few weeks. Let’s see if we can’t answer it!

Important note: Before I go any further I feel I need to make a point, and make it clear. The build I’m testing of Windows 7 (build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400) is a beta build, and as a rule beta builds are usually more geared towards stability than performance. That said, the performance of this build should give us a clue as to how the OS is coming along.

Rather than publish a series of benchmark results for the three operating systems (something which Microsoft frowns upon for beta builds, not to mention the fact that the final numbers only really matter for the release candidate and RTM builds), I’ve decided to put Windows 7, Vista and XP head-to-head in a series of real-world tests to find out which OS comes out top.

The tests


There are 23 tests in all, most of which are self explanatory:

1. Install OS - Time it takes to install the OS
2. Boot up - Average boot time to usable desktop
3. Shut down - Average shut down time
4. Move 100MB files - Move 100MB of JPEG files from one hard drive to another
5. Move 2.5GB files - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from one hard drive to another
6. Network transfer 100MB files - Move 100MB of JPEG files from test machine to NAS device
7. Network transfer 2.5GB files - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from test machine to NAS device
8. Move 100MB files under load - Move 100MB of JPEG files from one hard drive to another while ripping DVD to .ISO file
9. Move 2.5GB files under load - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from one hard drive to another while ripping DVD to .ISO file
10. Network transfer 100MB files under load - Move 100MB of JPEG files from test machine to NAS device while ripping DVD to .ISO file
11. Network transfer 2.5GB files under load - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from test machine to NAS device while ripping DVD to .ISO file
12. Compress 100MB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
13. Compress 1GB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
14. Extract 100MB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
15. Extract 1GB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
16. Install Office 2007 - Ultimate version, from DVD
17. Open 10 page Word doc - Text only
18. Open 100 page Word doc - Text and images only
19. Open simple Excel doc - Basic formatting
20. Open complex Excel doc - Including formula and charts
21. Burn DVD - Win 7 beta 1 .ISO to disc using CDBurnerXP
22. Open 10 page PDF - Text only, using latest Adobe Reader 8
23. Open 100 page PDF - Text and images, using latest Adobe Reader 8

These series of tests will pitch Windows 7 build 7000 32-bit against Windows Vista SP1 32-bit and Windows XP SP3 32-bit. The scoring for each of the tests is simple. The winning OS scores 1, the runner up 2 and the loser scores a 3. The scores are added up and the OS with the lowest score at the end wins.

The test systems


I’ve used two desktop systems as the test machines:

• An AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz system fitted with an ATI Radeon 3850 and 4GB of RAM
• An Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 2.2GHz fitted with an NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS and 1GB of RAM

The results


Here are the results of the tests for the two systems:






Conclusion

The bottom line is that the more I use Windows 7 the more I like it. Sure, we’re looking at a beta build here and not the final code, so things could change between now and release (although realistically final code ends up being faster than beta code). Also I still have some nagging issues relating to the interface, and some concerns that the UAC changes will break applications and other code, especially installers, but overall Windows 7 beta 1 is a robust, solid bit of code.

Sure, Windows 7 is not XP, and never will be (thankfully). And if you’re put off by things such as activation and DRM, then Windows isn’t the OS for you (good news is there are others to choose from). But if you’re looking for a solid OS then Windows 7 seems ready to deliver just that - a fast, reliable, relatively easy to use platform for your hardware and software.

blogs.zdnet.com


roll on 7

.

[jandajoy]

If XP aint broke........... why change it?


Sorry I'm IT challenged.

[Mid]

new hardware will be exponentially more powerful , software needs to keep evolving

xp , good as it is ain't perfect .

[jandajoy]

Fair enough, but for the general population simplicity, reliability, and security are far more important than an extra millisecond off the load up or whatever.

[Thetyim]

new hardware will be exponentially more powerful

Agreed
So why does he compare 32bit OS aren't all new machines 64bit ?

[Redrum]

My opinion on these so-called upgrades.

MacComedy - Bill Gates gets shot on South Park

[Mid]

So why does he compare 32bit OS aren't all new machines 64bit ?

no real idea , isn't there a scarcity of true 64bit programs ?

[Mid]

Fair enough, but for the general population simplicity, reliability, and security are far more important than an extra millisecond off the load up or whatever.

absolutely ,

thing is those milliseconds are gold plus when you start pushing the machine , aka heavy browsing , multi tasking , and gaming for eg .

that's to say the OS's ability to generate them .

[DaffyDuck]

My opinion on these so-called upgrades.

MacComedy - Bill Gates gets shot on South Park

Still a long ways to go before they even come close to Leopard ...

[melvbot]

The Betas flying around on torrent sites for anyone who wants it, its supposed to be fairly stable. Dual boot should keep things safe.

[PlanK]

So why does he compare 32bit OS aren't all new machines 64bit ?

no real idea , isn't there a scarcity of true 64bit programs ?

There is, and there's even some programs that flat out won't work on 64 bit. But I'll imagine they'll all have to catch up one day, or get left behind. I triple boot XP 32 & 64 bit with Ubuntu so I don't miss out. Going a little too far maybe, but if there are the same issues when Windows 7 is released with some software not working, I might have to quadruple boot!

[Thetyim]

Why are all the torrents about 2.5GB ?
How much HD does it take when installed

XP is only 700MB

[watterinja]

MS WinBlow$ reached its zenith some years ago. We have been hearing the same marketing pitch for the past number of years about the next waza-wizoo OS offering from MS. Each has turned out to be an utter failure - especially in terms of backward compatibility.

[lom]

MS WinBlow$ reached its zenith some years ago.

Link, proof?

Each has turned out to be an utter failure - especially in terms of backward compatibility.

I find it hard to understand that an OS that has > 90% of the market can be an utter failure.
You don't have to like MS Windows but you need to understand it's worldwide importance for home and office computing.

[melvbot]

Why are all the torrents about 2.5GB ?
How much HD does it take when installed

A quick search says 6-7gb for the install.

A longer search says anywhere up to 10gb.

[PlanK]

Hard drive space is cheap and plentiful, more importantly how much memory is it going to use?

[melvbot]

If youve got a gig of memory it should run it, obviously the more the better. No real hard confirmed figures but nerds are reporting 250mb static. Only way would be to try it for yourself.

[lom]

Hardware (RAM, CPU, Harddisk) is cheap.
If you need the functions in Win7 then simply give it what it needs.

[TizMe]

And likewise if you dont, then stick with XP. (or linux)

[EmperorTud]

The Betas flying around on torrent sites for anyone who wants it, its supposed to be fairly stable. Dual boot should keep things safe.

The build 7000 x86 repack is the one to grab.