Skip to navigation

PCPro-Computing in the Real World Printed from www.pcpro.co.uk

Register to receive our regular email newsletter at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/registration.

The newsletter contains links to our latest PC news, product reviews, features and how-to guides, plus special offers and competitions.

// Home / Blogs

Posted on November 10th, 2008 by Darien Graham-Smith

Windows 7: faster or just smarter?

If you’ve been following the PC Pro blogs, you’ll know that we recently received a preview build of Windows 7. Useful work has pretty much ground to a halt as we’ve all set about nuking our Vista installations and upgrading our work PCs to this unsupported pre-alpha OS.

And the net effect? Surprisingly little. At this stage of development, over a year from release, Windows 7 looks almost identical to Vista. There are some welcome new features, as already noted by our esteemed editor and deputy editor (see their blog posts here and here); but the high profile changes (such as the snazzy new taskbar that Barry Collins saw in California the other week) are yet to be plumbed in.

Tortoise and hare

Yet Windows 7 does already offer one compelling advantage over Vista: it’s fast. Both our senior pontificators were struck by how nimble Windows 7 feels after you’re used to its predecessor. As Tim Danton writes, “Vista was never this nippy. You press on an icon and it leaps into action. . . . I can’t remember using any new OS that was this quick.”

Now if that’s not cause for celebration, I don’t know what is. Vista has had us driving with the handbrake on for the past two years, but at long last Windows 7 is coming to set us free. Admittedly it’s not actually going to get here for another year, but at least salvation is in sight.

But it’s a funny thing, you know. Because I’ve been running a few benchmarks, just to find out exactly what sort of speed boost we’re talking about. And I can exclusively reveal that the actual performance gap between Vista and Windows 7 is… nada. Absolutely nothing. Our Office benchmarks and video encoding tests complete in precisely the same time regardless of which OS is installed.1

Perception is reality

It’s tempting to see this as a bit of a con. They’ve sped up the front end so it feels like you’re getting more done, but in terms of real productivity it’s no better than Vista.

But personally I think it’s an inspired move. Over the past few years, Microsoft has learnt the hard way the power of perception. Once the masses got hold of the idea that Vista was a lumbering step backwards, no Mojave Experiment could rescue its reputation.

Now, to borrow a phrase from Steve Ballmer, they’ve “woken up smarter.” They’ve recognised that perceptions of speed focus almost exclusively on interactive performance. Very few people notice or care whether a big mail-merge job takes thirty seconds or forty, but they sure as hell notice when they click a button and nothing seems to happen. That’s what wrecked Vista’s reputaton, not its disappointing benchmark scores; and that’s why we’re all hankering after Windows 7 despite its identical scores.

All the small things

Of course, it’s a disappointment to realise just how similar Microsoft’s new OS is, under the bonnet, to its current one – similar enough to explain why Windows 7 actually has an internal version number of 6.1. We all had high hopes of a lightweight “MinWin”, akin to what Apple is reportedly working on for OS X 10.6 (“Snow Leopard”).

But while this faster front-end seems like a superficial change, it makes a world of difference. As I’ve said before, there are plenty of things in Vista to like, but I find it impossible to enjoy them while the whole experience is weighed down by a sluggish interface. No longer. I can only echo Tim Danton’s conclusion: “Windows 7 is exactly what Vista should have been.”

Of course, it’s shameful that it’s taken so long to get here. It’s generally suspected that Vista was a rush release, but there’s no reason the improved window manager couldn’t have been dropped in via Windows Update once it was ready. Holding it back for Windows 7 is a real two fingers to users who paid for Vista, and I’m not sure it makes sense for Microsoft. The company surely realises what Vista is doing to its reputation, yet here it is giving Apple another year, on top of the two it’s already had, to thumb its nose and woo away potential customers.

All’s well that ends well

But ultimately I see Windows 7 much as I see the latest edition of Norton Internet Security. In both cases, previous versions acquired – with some justice – a reputation for terrible performance. In both cases, that’s now been fixed. We can kvetch all we want about how and when it should have been fixed, but the fact is that the battle is over. If you feel you were ripped off in the past, you can signal your displeasure by choosing a competing product now; but arguably it sends a clearer message to invest in a fixed product than to boycott it. Plus, this way you get the thing you really wanted, albeit late.

So when Windows 7 finally comes knocking next Christmas, I won’t be turning it away. Sure, there will be admonishments about how long it took to get here. And I’m sure it will bring new faults as well as benefits.

But deep down we’ll both know how much I’ve been looking forward to its arrival. And together, at long last, we’ll once and for all close the book on Vista.

Follow-up: Benchmarking Windows 7


1 On 2GB systems the tests took around 3:45 and 2:05 respectively, with a spread of around three seconds between runs due to unpredictable factors such as background services. When I repeated the test with memory reduced to 512MB, times increased to around 4:10 and 2:15 but remained identical between OS versions. For comparison, the PC Pro benchmarks complete around 22% more quickly on XP than on Vista, as detailed in my feature “Memory Laid Bare” (issue 169, p122).

Tags: , , ,

Posted in: Software, Windows 7

Permalink | Trackback

Follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

77 Responses to “ Windows 7: faster or just smarter? ”

  1. David Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Have you tried running it in a virtual machine? It was too unstable to use in Virtual PC, and although better in VMWare it still crashes regularly.

     
  2. David Fearon Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    I’ve been running it under Virtual PC 2007 and it’s been completely stable so far – see my post at http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2008/11/05/windows-7-better-than-vista-already

     
  3. David Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 2:24 pm

    Have you installed the virtual machine additions? When this was done, it bluescreened and on reboot went through a repair cycle which removed them again!

     
  4. David Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm

    I’ve been running under VMWare Server 2. It’s rock solid until you drag a window. Doesn’t matter what window, doesn’t matter how far you drag it, it locks instantly and has to be rebooted. To avoid this, I set up 7 without dragging any windows, then activated remote access. All the rest of my toying with it has been done via Remote Desktop and has worked like a charm.

     
  5. Geoff Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm

    But…, does it run Linux?

     
  6. Steve Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:12 pm

    This article seems kind of confused. Interactive performance of the OS itself, and application performance are totally orthogonal issues.

    Further, what were your benchmarks measuring? If what your looking at was CPU, memory, or I/O bound the only thing your going to be measuring is the hardware. Finding meaningful macrobenchmarks for comparing OS performance can be quite tricky…

     
  7. Anthony Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:16 pm

    The performance of Office 2007, Media player 11 on Windows XP is the same on vista and the same on Windows 7. You’re testing means jack crap about nothing.

     
  8. Mark Guzman Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm

    It seems like your benchmarking app performance in the loaded OS, probably with all of the same perf settings that vista has on.

    So in effect your not testing the OS.

    I run Vista and Windows 7 in a vm on a macbook. Given the same amount ram (1Gb) and disk space (40Gb), Vista boots much slower and performs much more slowly. Frankly it makes the machine crawl.

    Windows 7 on the other hand, has now replaced WinXP as my vm os of choice. The UI is much faster.

    This is very much not an issue of perception.

     
  9. Bob Almond Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:20 pm

    If all you say is true, then it’s kind of disappointing that this will be ‘the next edition of the WinOS’, which will therefore likely cost us £50 – £60, rather than a service pack, which wouldn’t. If the current trend in reviews continues – Win7 is performance improvements, rather than features – then it is galling to have to pay up for ‘what Vista ought to have been.’

     
  10. DavidH Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:22 pm

    I think that what has been forgotten is that the largest problem with Vista wasn’t performance, it was the incompatability with existing hardware and the lack of drivers. There are still older devices that either will not work with Vista or which lose features when used with Vista. Personally, I think that a lot of hardware vendors did this deliberately to push sales of newer products not realizing (or not caring about) the backlash that this would have on Vista. This is the largest reason why I would not reccomend Vista to anyone unless they are buying new hardware.

    The biggest problem with Vista in the enterprise are the layers that Microsoft added to the UI to get to commonly used interfaces. One example of this are the network settings. In XP, you can get to the network settings with a right-click. It’s 3 to 4 layers down in Vista.

     
  11. Mike Kenyon Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    I take exception to this. Obviously, if the video encoding tests were written well, there will be little speedup. But if a window environment “feels” faster, you actually DO get more done. There is less frustration in waiting, and you can generally multi-task much easier.

    Recently Mandriva has been working on a faster boot procedure, which preloads your configuration as you’re typing your password, and has lots of other fast features… But that doesn’t actually speed up Linux, in terms of encoding video. It just makes it “feel” faster.

     
  12. death_box Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:38 pm

    All I want to know is how it handles file transfers. Vista is the worst OS I have encountered so far when it comes to moving big files. I have had jobs where I needed to copy 220 gigs, and vista took somewhere around 8-9 hours to transfer to USB Hard Drive. The same task in XP only took 2.5 – 4 hours depending on which system I was using. (The vista machine was way beefier.) The solution? Dual boot with linux. I only use windows with work, because a lot of the applications only work on there. Other than that, I actually despise windows. I used to be a windows person too! Vista = Fail.

     
  13. Jonathan Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm

    I have to disagree with you, the way you punish a company for screwing up is to buy a competing product, not stick with them like a sheep or a dog begging for table scraps.

    Microsoft has proven completely unwilling to sacrifice marketing and timing for customer satisfaction and that is precisely because people keep buying it. Let them flounder for a release or two, they will clean up their act. Once they actually have a superior product buy it. Show the market your dollars go to the one who cares about YOU and they will start caring about you.

     
  14. Odin Q Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm

    I got lucky, and my hardware worked with Vista (eventually). The transparent windows look nice, and that, in essence, is the improvement over xp. For a while, I’ve been considering a switch to Mac, despite the price premium and the slight learning curve. I’d hoped Windows 7 would give me a reason to stick with MS, because I’ve got a lot invested in software. Probably, I’ll switch to Mac, with a dual boot to Windows as I gradually switch my software over . There seems to be no real reason for loyalty in the new OS, especially since they’re clearly holding back Vista improvements in order to coerce me. It’s not like this coercive strategy is a new one for Microsoft, but it’s feeling like the last straw. They ruined Word in the latest version, but we basically have no choice, if we’re to exchange files with others in a monopolized market. As far as the OS goes, the intelligent choice is becoming clearer. I’ll have this Vista machine for a while more, but it’s likely to be my last Windows computer. I’ll be cranky with Apple, I’m sure, but I’m on the verge of admitting that my Mac-centric friends have a lot less OS-related problems than I do.

     
  15. sniperdoc Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:49 pm

    By no means should Vista users have to pay for Windows 7.

    And who only pays 70 pounds for an os???? In the US we’re paying ~255 Pounds for Vista Ultimate…??? so 70 pounds..?? wha…

     
  16. Jeff Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm

    “Very few people notice or care whether a big mail-merge job takes thirty seconds or forty”

    Except of course the opinion formers that were also first to shout ‘foul’ regarding Vista. The same people that killed that OS in the marketplace. It’s too late for Microsoft in my household, they currently only have a tenuous foothold because Media Centre is so good.

    I hope Windows 7 is good too, because it’s a bit churlish just to *want* an OS to fail; but because of the threats from the cloud and linux I think Redmond need to diversify………quickly.

    I think they’re doomed basically. Next.

     
  17. TheTruth Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 6:01 pm

    “We all had high hopes of a lightweight ?MinWin?, akin to what Apple is reportedly working on for OS X 10.6 (?Snow Leopard?).”

    MinWin __IS__ Vista/Win7. There is no freaking difference. Microsoft can get their internal build down to 25 megs by just weaking XML config files used by the build machine.

    ITS NOT A SEPERATE FREAKING PRODUCT. Its just a build with options turned off. And you cant do anything with it, because the major subsystems are missing. This was just to prove NT is modular at the build level.

    Author has no clue about operating systems. If we wanted a ‘regular’ opinion I would ask my plumber what he thinks about Win7. What a waste of readers time. Hire some freaking experts PcPro..

     
  18. DoesVistaReallySuck? Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 6:16 pm

    I am using Vista for over 2 years now (I am one of the earliest adopters). To be honest, I had never a single problem with Vista

    What is slow? On my machine, everything comes up fast. I think people need to know how to use a computer

     
  19. Charity Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 6:17 pm

    70 pounds is about $110 by current exchange rate. Vista Basic upgrade can be found for about $100. Since they currently have Vista, they are obviously talking about the upgrade price, not the full version of the OS that you load from scratch.

     
  20. Alsee Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 6:38 pm

    The logic of this article completely eludes me.

    You say that XP is 22% faster than Vista… Vista is a pig.
    You report that Win7 is exactly the same speed as Vista… Win7 is the exact same pig.
    You explain that Win7 has cosmetic changes, the appearance of better speed… it is lipstick.
    Ok, sure, I like lipstick on a lady. Sure, lipstick is swell. But you are saying Win7 is lipstick on a pig.

    And then for some inexplicable reason the conclusion of your article is that this is the pig we have all been eagerly waiting for, that we should kiss the pig because it finally has lipstick painted on. Huh?

    It seems to me that the proper conclusion to your article would be that both Vista and Win7 are downgrades from XP. That for Windows, stick with XP. That for anyone considering Mac or Linux vs Windows, the choice is XP vs Mac or Linux.

    For me personally, I’m not looking to jump into the Mac world. Linux intrigues me, but I’m not quite ready to jump that way either, I dunno, maybe in the future. I am not happy with the direction Microsoft has taken Vista, both performance-wise and (as a programmer) what I see as an ugly and hostile shift in the technology under the hood. Vista is a pig and Win7 is lipstick on a pig, your article says to me that I should stick with XP. Maybe “Windows 8″ will be good, but if Microsoft continues sinking with their operating systems then I’m increasingly going to have to look at jumping ship.

    Jeez, Microsoft has definitely dig themselves into a really bad hole when we wind up talking about how Windows 8 might be good.

     
  21. muck Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 7:16 pm

    What is everyone moaning about. The people that use Linux do not have to moan as they don’t have to buy it. The Apple users won’t be buying it so quit moaning. Those that hate Vista and are not willing to give Win 7 a go then stick with XP and shut up. As for the rest… this blog applies to you. And please remember that this is a pre beta product which means it’s a long way from finished. Oh and it’s getting rave reviews all over the net which is quite a big thing for Microsoft at the moment

     
  22. WeirdWindows Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Hi, I’ve had a thought, MS released .Net Framework 3.5 SP recently. They said that they had made WPF more responsive and able to load WPF apps up to 50% faster. Now, I’m not saying that the Windows 7 desktop or Vista’s is written in .Net or anything, just that the lessons learned may have been baked into the Windows 7 desktop, that may be why it seems faster.

    As for office benchmarks, I’ll give you a benchmark. At work, I had to take a text file of 89,000 odd comma delimited numbers and replace the commas with a manual line break because I wanted to import them into a database for de-duping. I used MS Word 2007 to do this.
    Yes, I know I could have written a program or a script to do it but I was being lazy.

    On a 32Bit Vista PC with 4GB of ram and a dual core 2.3Ghz Intel Core2 processor, Word 2007 took over five minutes to do this it then showed a message box telling me how many replacements were made. Clicking on this then made Word 2007 busy again for another couple of minutes. I had no way of doing anything with Word while this happened.

    Total time ~10 minutes.

    At home, I thought I’d try the same thing on my home PC:
    32Bit Windows XP (SP3) with 2GB ram and a single core Intel 3Ghz (Prescott) processor (HT enabled). Using 90,000 numbers I set Word 2000 to work.

    Total time 30 SECONDS, this includes having the animated cat looking under the carpet. Also, when I got the message box telling me how many replacements had been made. I clicked on OK and could INSTANTLY start using Word again.

    I have no idea what was the culprit here, but it is interesting.

     
  23. Rory Hall-Walker Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 9:06 pm

    Looks good =)

     
  24. Jesse Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 9:10 pm

    For about a year after windows vista came out I refused to upgrade. Everyone talking about how slow it is, how much of a pig it is. . . So I refused to upgrade. Eventually I was at a point of wanting to re-install windows so I thought, SP1 is out let me give it a try. I am almost completely happy with Vista. Sure there is the occasional hiccup or slowdown, but nothing that bothers me much. Sure I could use some linux distro and have a trim fast OS that does nothing. Personally I will take the occasional hesitation (and I do mean occasional, not regular) for all the nice things that the OS does. I will never go back to XP. If Windows 7 is everything that Vista should be, then I am looking forward to it.

     
  25. rob enderle Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 9:14 pm

    Lipstick on a pig?

    Hmmmmm……

     
  26. Henry Wertz Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    If the benchmark is… “CPU, memory, or I/O bound the only thing your going to be measuring is the hardware”
    Well, you’d think so wouldn’t you. But if the OS doesn’t get out of the way and let your benchmark run, then there are (sometimes large) differences in the benchmarks. Vista (and apparently Windows 7 too) can and do drag down benchmark scores. If they leave in the apparent window manager improvements, AND actually improve the underlying OS, then it could be much faster than it is.

     
  27. Christopher Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 10:26 pm

    The problem with this article is that it automatically assumes that Vista was a ‘rush release’ and ‘is slow’ at the beginning. I’ve got news for the people writing these articles: I’m running it on a 5 year old HP Media Center computer, X300 Video card, 2.5 GB’s of memory, and a 3.0Ghz Pentium 4 Processor…. it is fast, for everything INCLUDING gaming.

    I’m really wondering if some of the problems that editors are seeing is that they are not defragmenting after the installation, are not doing the necessary downloading of updated drivers, etc. that I do after EVERY installation of any operating system.

     
  28. Christopher Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 10:36 pm

    And on another point: benchmarks? Give me a break. Between two different OS’s with so much changed between them as XP and Vista….. the simulated benchmarks aren’t worth jack, to be blunt and honest.
    I’ve tested two machines running Vista and XP, everything else the same….. the Vista machine is faster in almost everything, INCLUDING gaming.

     
  29. mrblah Says:
    November 10th, 2008 at 11:05 pm

    Have they fixed the excessive number of memory page faults, specifically hard faults, vista is TERRIBLE, with 2+ gigs of free memory my machine insists on swapping everything out and hard page faulting

    disabling the swap, and prefetch make a noticeable speed improvement

     
  30. Aegis of Storms Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 1:25 am

    ok all the bickering aside here is a little real easy to understand, even for other folks like me stats for you all. On a Asus M2n-VM DVI Mainboard, with an AMD Athalon x2 5600+, and 2GB Corsair Dominator Memory, an Older Nvidia 6800 GS Video, Sound Blaster Audigy SE, a Lite-On 20x DVD writer, and 2 identical WD 250 GB SATA II HDD’s,
    Windows XP Professional ( with all drivers loaded, and regularly defragmented ) took 27 Secs to boot and come to full use. ( oh and BTW in Operation for 3 Years.)
    Vista Home Premium ( New install, all Updated Drivers loaded, defragmented ) took 48 Secs to boot and come to full use.

    Now I do like the added features,and how my little bit of gaming looks better, but everything I do, is slower in Vista PERIOD !, and also ties up my processor more ! also Uses nearly 10 % more of my system RAM.
    I have used every flipping tweak, and performance boosting utility out there at least once, and dumped them.
    So how real world can U get ? Oh also my HDD activity is also much higher under Vista.

     
  31. meneame.net Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 2:04 am

    Benchmarks de Windows 7: ¿Es más rápido que Vista? No, en absoluto (ING)…

    PC Pro ha probado objetivamente la velocidad de Windows 7 con Vista como punto de referencia. más rápido lo que realmente es. Respuesta? No, en absoluto. En la comparación de Office y las pruebas de codificación de vídeo, son exactamente iguales. …

     
  32. Vague Boy Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 2:09 am

    I see the Mac fan boys are having a spat because it looks as if Windows 7 won’t be quite the whipping boy that Vista was.

    First it was appearing “too early” (despite all the tedious bitching about Vista taking too long to appear), now the speed tests are OBVIOUSLY being done incorrectly because everyone KNOWS that Windows is slow and blue screens all the time.

    I think I’m going to enjoy the next 18 months.

     
  33. benmully Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 3:45 am

    Looks like Windows 7 is to Window Via like Windows ME was to 98. A giant patch released as a new OS!

     
  34. Col Tree Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 5:16 am

    responsiveness – re – performance
    We can always improve responsiveness by giving priority to interface tasks instead of background tasks ( in Linux anyway ). Maybe for Windows 8 or 9 MS will sneak *nix into the mix ( like everyone else has done ). Then they could really stop Linux.

     
  35. lebetin Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 7:27 am

    i will not buy this crap to my business (600+ employers) ;)
    i am not yet buy vista because still waiting win7 but if it
    is like this i never buy it…
    Before we moved use openoffice because microsoft
    politic is horrible and robbery…. next step i think is
    linux because my employers like openoffice allready ;)

     
  36. Timothy Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 8:06 am

    Lets see this is a UK website that is against Microsoft and the only website that is saying that Windows 7 isn’t as fast as EVERYONE ElSE WHO HAS THE NEWER BUILDS HAS SAID.

    Sorry for yelling, but some people here are stupid. All you have to look at is that they are improving fundamentals to really understand what they are doing.

    I hate when people have an agenda and are spreading lies to push their agenda.

    DO THE RESEARCH YOURSELF. DO NOT TAKE THIS MORON’S WORD FOR IT.

     
  37. proforma Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am

    I have tried the 8.10 version of Ubuntu and I have tried to boot it off the CD and try Linux yet again and see what happens.

    The multitasking performance in linux is horrible. Yes, it loads slow because it is on a DVD drive and loading and that is fine. However when I try to play a MP3 from my hard drive in any player in linux it skips all the time.

    You should be able to load from the DVD drive and also load a song from the hard drive and keep it running without skipping.

    Linux is BS, it is only getting hype at all because there isn’t any quality competition other than the Macintosh and it’s free.

    Free software can be a great thing, but software that is more advanced like an OS really lacks quality when you get it free.

    I mean I love Open Office 3.0 and that is what I am using because it is free, but lets be honest, it can’t hold a candle to Microsoft Office 2007. It’s not even close.

    Free software is nice because it is free, but a lot of the times the quality is not there at all and honestly after lockups on my desktop with linux and features of linux that should be a lot better are actually worse.

    Ubuntu is great for a toy OS that doesn’t have serious multitaking issues and has window repainting issues just like windows xp and you have to install an update just to play an mp3 and the entire OS just freezes up quite a bit means that there is a lot of work to do even in 2008 to make Linux anywhere near as nice as the Mac or Windows 7.

    Like the old saying goes “You get what you pay for” and this has never been more true.

     
  38. TimoGunt Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 9:02 am

    lebetin. You haven’t tried Vista because it’s crap and you haven’t tried Win 7 because it’s crap? How the hell would you know? Stick to XP, it’s fine but stop moaning about something you know nothing about. Windows has had a rocky road this past year losing nearly 2% market share but it’s on it’s way up now. The past four months have seen it’s market share increase with OS X declining very very slightly. Linux however has dropped considerably down to 0.7%. There are 2 runners I’m afraid Linux chaps and that’s Windows and OS X. I hope that OS X wins so that we can all moan about how that black screens when we try to connect a printer

     
  39. pixelame.net Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 9:35 am

    Reviews de Windows 7…

    De vez en cuando salen algunas reviews de la beta de windows… en esta dicen que el rendimiento es exactamente el mismo, pero es más interactivo……

     
  40. Philip Storry Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    It’s good to see basic user interface feedback issues finally being addressed by Microsoft.

    But this is hardly new. I switched away from Windows XP for these kinds of reasons.

    Here’s a quick test:
    1. Take a blank Windows XP install.
    2. Install an antivirus/firewall suite.
    3. Install an Office suite (any office suite – Microsoft Office, WordPerfect, OpenOffice, StarOffice – it won’t matter).
    4. Now install iTunes.
    5. Replace the Windows graphics driver with the latest and greatest from your video card manufacturer.
    6. Install the manufacturer’s printer driver for a modern printer.
    7. Install the drivers and free software for a compact digital camera.
    8. Install any game from the current top 10 chart.

    That seems like a fair “typical install”, right? And the hard disk’s probably still mostly empty…

    Now do a clean boot. The moment you see the Start button, click on it.
    How quickly does the Start Menu appear?
    And if you navigate to the Program Files menu, does the menu appear and populate quickly?

    The answers will likely be “no it doesn’t appear quickly”, and “the Program Files menu appears glacially”.

    Worse, after a couple more things have been installed, you may find that it takes several attempts to get the Programs menu to display – because all the system tray applications loading in the background keep momentarily stealing focus as they their icons into the system tray, which collapses the Start Menu and you’ll have to click on Start again.
    (Or logos appearing on startup, and so forth, which is even more annoying!)

    And of course, as a machine grows older, more crud has been installed, so more is loaded at startup, and it just gets worse and worse.

    It can take ten seconds to get the Programs Menu opened on an older machine. Even on high end hardware. a few installs later it’s still not usable.

    And the worst part? Most OEMs now ship PCs with tonnes of toolbars and free trials, all of which slow Windows down from the very start of its lifetime. It starts slow, and only gets worse.

    Contrast this with Linux and Apple OS X, both of which respond on a similar test far faster. Not necessarily because they are faster, but just because they’ve made it a priority to have a clean interface with less distractions starting up at boot/logon.

    Apple Macs don’t come with tonnes of crud installed, and they have strong human interface guidelines that recommend against the kinds of bloat that makes a Windows printer driver occupy 40Mb, or a Windows sound card driver an 80Mb download.

    Linux distributions have active maintainers who avoid pointless system tray applications, and if they had complaints about any startup icons slowing things down then they’d probably do something like lower the CPU priority when loading, or better, find the cause of the problem and re-write it.

    But Microsoft has hundreds of 3rd party software and hardware vendors who believe that slow, bloated and annoying software/drivers “differentiate their products”. They have partners who believe that someone who bought their product needs – no, wants! – yet another system tray icon, if only to remind them that they bought something.

    Windows 7 may well have removed some of the interface lag, but it won’t bring me back to Windows. Because the whole Windows ecosystem is sick, and without Microsoft doing an Apple and stomping on people who abuse the computer user (perhaps by removing Windows Compatible logos?), the average freshly installed machine after six months to a year is still going to be slow and getting slower.

    Of course, if a new Windows 7 machine bought on release day still gets acceptable timings one year and many software installations (but the same Windows install) afterwards, then I’ll happily stand corrected.

    But would anyone here put money on me being corrected?

    And isn’t it sad that so few (if any) would?
    :-(

     
  41. technogeist Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 2:13 pm

    Blindingly Obvious since Vista RC2:
    Stop giving your money to Microsoft.

    Falling sales, it’s the only measurement they really understand.

    They obviously don’t understand their customers needs (corporate or otherwise). With a pig-headed attitude like IBM in the 80s, they’re overdue for a bloody nose, let’s give them one and stop endorsing their products.

    The road ahead is covered with moss.

     
  42. Bjornar Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 2:27 pm

    Of all the negative comments I see, I don’t recognize the things people write about Linux. Firstly, Linux is not the entire operating system, it’s only the Kernel that actually is Linux. Secondly, there are a wide array of distributions that are running on the Linux kernel out there, some are more friendly for the Desktop than others.

    Some while ago, I tried Vista for 6 months on a spanking new HP laptop with 2,5 Ghz dualcore processors, 3 gigabytes of RAM, and about 160 gig of hard drive. After 2 weeks of tweaking, it was still a slow and unstable system. File operations to USB was a complete nightmare, and to write an email or open a webbrowser required supercomputing power. I disabled all the fancy animations and it still was slower than XP. Now, don’t get me wrong, I loved the user interface and look and feel of Vista, although the occational annoyance.

    Then, as I changed jobs I got a new laptop also from HP with exactly the same specifications, just with XP instead. Things ran up to 10 times faster, and with much much more stability. But as everyone knows, as time goes along even XP will take 20+ minutes to boot, and VMWare or VirtualPC is a nightmare to use. Then, i got a problem because McAffee didn’t like my Checkpoint VPN client, it crashed with bluescreens every 10 minutes. I figured “why do I need a firewall and antivirus on my system in order to work”? So, finally I threw XP out and installed Ubuntu-LTS 8.04.

    Ubuntu 8.04 is a long-term-support version that is a fairly stable system. It takes about 10 seconds to boot, it autodetected all my hardware (which Vista didn’t), I am able to use MP3, etc with auto-download of codecs, free of virus – no antivirus or local firewall neccessary since I’m always behind NAT, and I run everything as a user without any priviledges. I don’t waste CPU on services intended to stop services that I cant control on windows (ever tried stopping those 76 svchost.exe processes that open up arbitrary ports on your PC?)
    What is more fun is I have all my desktop effects, 3d-cube with Compiz and glass-effects, fire-close window, etc etc.
    My CD burner is free and open source, it works perfectly without fsck’ing up the CD while I move my 3d desktop around, or start a virtual PC… it’s true multitasking. I use VirtualBox from SUN and it’s… so sexy…..
    Now I run XP on VirtualBox in a tiny window and if i press Right CTRL+L i get SEAMLESS windows, meaning I can run Outlook on my Linux without noticing windows is even there….

     
  43. John Cockroft Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 2:58 pm

    As usually happens in these cases, objectivity goes out of the window and it ends up being a slanging match between those who like Windows and who will defend it to the hilt (no matter what faults it has) and those who prefer something else such as Apple OS/X or Linux.

    I use both Windows (XP and Vista) and Linux (Red Hat and Ubuntu) every day and have developed on both operating systems for years (even down to writing device drivers level). I have a small amount of experience of OS/X (both as an end user and developer) but do not feel I am qualified to comment about its performance.

    My take on the operating systems is this:

    Microsoft Windows XP (SP3)

    Pros:

    * Very well supported both in terms of software and hardware
    * Runs fairly quickly on modern hardware
    * Familiar to most people who use a computer
    * Generally easy to find your way around and to administer
    * Pretty cheap if/when you can still get hold of it
    * Both payware and freeware available

    Cons:

    * Somewhat dated/long-in-the-tooth (and soon to be unsupported no doubt)
    * Needs lots of service packs/patches/add-ons to be a useful O/S
    * Very insecure and easily infected by worms/viruses (even with a scanner)
    * Prone to lock-ups and blue-screen-of-death especially whilst using multimedia applications
    * Very little software bundled with the O/S (although this may be no bad thing)

    Microsoft Vista (SP1)

    Pros:

    * Modern (if somewhat confusing) user interface
    * Somewhat higher safety to viruses/worms
    * Somewhat more stable than XP
    * Both payware and freeware available
    * Compatible with *many* Windows XP applications

    Cons:

    * Learning curve when moving from XP to Vista (and Office 2003 to 2007 etc)
    * Expensive (especially for high end editions)
    * Very demanding both in processor power and memory usage
    * Hardware support nowhere near as extensive as XP
    * Sluggish even on fairly high specification hardware
    * Need to navigate through many layers of UI before getting to settings
    * Security depends on user making decisions (all the time) on what is safe
    * Still needs virus scanners and other add-ons to be properly usable

    Linux (in particular Ubuntu 8.04 or 8.10 64 bit)

    Pros:

    * Inexpensive (free is many cases although you can pay for support)
    * Running in 64 bit is a “no brainer”
    * Much more secure than Vista or XP (although small numbers of Linux worms do exist)
    * Very stable (although I have generated kernel panics – usually when writing drivers!)
    * Usuable straight away (without adding any software even from the live CD)
    * Vast amounts of *quality* free software available

    Cons:

    * “It’s not Windows!” *sigh*
    * Learning curve when moving from XP to Linux (and Office 2003 to OpenOffice etc)
    * Windows user’s favourite software does not run on Linux (try CrossOver Office)
    * Hardware support not as extensive as XP (although *better* than Vista)
    * Need unsupported “Medibuntu” software to play MP3, DVDs etc
    * Some formatting problems moving between Office 2007 and OpenOffice
    * Can’t run the offline version of BBC iPlayer

    I will freely admit to being biased towards Linux.

    * It just works
    * It’s very fast (although 8.10 is somewhat slower than 8.04 – Red Hat/CentOS is faster)
    * Doesn’t get infected by viruses
    * The equivilent of my (legal) Linux systems on Windows (in payware) would cost £1000’s
    * I swap documents with Windows users all the time without problems

    Development tools are not as good under Linux as Windows (although Eclipse is excellent and getting better and uses much less memory than Visual Studio 2008)

    At the end of the day – Windows fans will stick with Windows (no matter what the experience) and Linux fans will stick with Linux. The really interesting set of users are those who experience both Linux and Windows and get to choose.

    Competition is good for the software industry and perversely good for Microsoft in the long run. I would like to see Linux (desktop) market penetration of perhaps 20-30% (from the 1-2% – yes *really*!) that it is at the moment and perhaps the same for OS/X. That would force good interoperability and users would actually have a choice as to what to use again.

     
  44. hAl Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 3:49 pm

    Is that the benchmark that test scripted MS Office commands at a pace that a normal user could never do so that performancewise insignificant GUI animations lasting a few tenths of a second that are actually designed for a better user experiende affect the speed of the benchmark in a big way ?

     
  45. technogeist Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm

    John Cockroft
    With virtualisation, there’s no need to have Windows as the base OS.
    Running XP/Win2K on XEN or VirtualBox is preferable to all the nightmares that MSFT products throw in your face on a regular basis.

    I just can’t bring myself to recommend Apple, as they’re no better (in my view).

     
  46. muck Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 7:07 pm

    hmm I would like to agree with you about Linux being at 1-2% but I can’t find any evidence of it. In fact this graph shows this sudden nose dive that Linux had just had recently. It’s more like 0.7% share
    http://img396.imageshack.us/my.php?image=osmarketshareoct08xr4.png

     
  47. //me// Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 2:56 am

    We had a similar experience with our Vista rollout. We got many complaints that Vista took longer to logon than our previous Windows XP image. When we timed it Vista was logging in 30 to 40 second faster. The reason for the complaint, under XP during logon you had some very basic status messages about what it was doing during logon. Vista just has that little blue circle. We enabled verbose status messages and all of a sudden users think Vista is lighting fast at logon because that status messages change from one thing to another fairly quickly.

    Same thing when we got complaints that the desktop was sluggish. When we compared applications loading and response times, speeds where the same. The new UI on Vista though makes it feel that it is slower or not as responsive.

    This post though should not be considered as saying Vista is better or equal to XP. Our Vista deployment had to be delayed until we upgraded one of our sites PCs, which exceeded all specs for Vista but ran horribly slow because of the hard drive and memory speeds. There is no question that Vista not only needs more resources in the terms of quantity but also in quality. This among many other problems.

     
  48. technogeist Says:
    November 12th, 2008 at 11:48 am

    It’s hard to measure real figures for Linux, as there aren’t any sales but for a few distros.
    Figures based on the OSs that web site visitors have, is also likely to be skewed in favour of the platform of choice. Linux users tend to use linux-centric sites, which lowers the figures recorded on more mainstream sites catering for Mac OS-X and Windows.

    The figures MSFT quote about Vista take-up are a work of fiction. It’s well known that the only way consumers could get a fresh copy of XP was to accept Vista at the same time.
    I do wonder if their figures are based on in-use ‘oem + retail + pirated’ copies.

     
  49. Richard Melville Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 11:39 am

    Because the MS Windows OS is a monolithic OS it would have to be re-written from the ground up In order for end-users to see a greatly improved system. This is what Apple did when they threw out OS 9 and took FreeBSD in order to create OS X — they are incompatible with each other. A monolithic OS can only be tweaked. Even if Microsoft wanted to radically change Windows they cannot — it would be impossible. On this basis I find it distinctly odd that “experts” continually wait in anticipation for the new release from Microsoft only to be disappointed when it is received.

    If Vista was a rushed release then I would like to know what time scale constitutes a long and considered release.

    I think that it has already been said (the XP GUI appearing well in advance of all the final processes), but Microsoft has always tried to fool people into thinking that its OS was really booting faster than it actually was. This is not something that it has just caught on to.

     
  50. technogeist Says:
    November 13th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

    MS Windows is only monolithic due to the dependency on the Explorer shell and the way microsoft wraps too much functionality into their DLLs which further compound the cross-dependencies. The Windows kernel is very tiny (a microkernel), and it’s actually linux that has a monolithic kernel.
    Linux has had better and, dare I say it, more thought put into how it is organised. But those ideals were adopted long before Linux, from the Unix camp.
    My perception of MSFT is that they just don’t have the attention span to actually keep their projects on the right track long enough, before interference from senior management put them on another counter-productive track. Maybe it will be different with Gates out of the picture.

     
  51. Richard Melville Says:
    November 14th, 2008 at 10:16 am

    A kernel is not an operating system in the true sense of the word. Yes, it is possible to boot to just a Linux kernel, but so what? There is very little that you can then do with the result. That is why we have the GNU/Linux OS, which is completely modular, as are all the Unices.

    All the MS Windows OSs are completely monolithic. For example, if Microsoft wished to remove Internet Explorer from the OS I doubt that they would be able to achieve that as it is so intertwined within the OS. On the other hand, the traditional Unix method of just having one tool doing one job, with the benefit of being able to pipe tools together to perform complex tasks, produces modularity and scalability.

     
  52. technogeist Says:
    November 14th, 2008 at 2:05 pm

    ‘Kernel’ is not an operating system? Oh, really.

    Q. Apart from the command interpreter, and taking into account the hardware advances of the past 20yrs. what services is the kernel providing that DOS wasn’t back then?

    Answer: It’s the services for glueing the system components together. Everything else *should be* replaceable that is built on top of this layer.
    Yes the kernel isn’t much use by itself, but the point I was making is that the Linux kernel isn’t a microkernel. It’s monolithic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel
    (please don’t presume that I’ve just wiki’d to get the facts. ;) )

    On the one hand I like microkernel-based systems, like OS-X and Windows. But on the other hand MSFT has f**ked up big time, which is why I choose to use linux. It’s an imperfect world, and I’m always on the lookout for OS nirvana. Ubuntu Studio and Fedora do a stirling job at the moment. :)

     
  53. Richard Melville Says:
    November 15th, 2008 at 10:23 am

    Yeah, thanks technogeist, but as my day job is developing small, embedded Linux-based operating systems I don’t think that I need any instruction from you on what constitutes an OS.

    Clearly, you are someone that devours huge quantities of Wikipedia pages and then disgorges them to other people’s irritation.

     
  54. technogeist Says:
    November 15th, 2008 at 1:38 pm

    ‘Clearly, you are someone that devours huge quantities of Wikipedia pages…’
    Nope.

    I actually read printed books, and lots of ‘em.
    Wikipedia has it uses. It’s not yet possible to transmit book pages with a copyright.

    I suppose the problem lies in ‘what’ you believe an operating system should provide.

    If, you believe that it should provide just enough services to enable you carry out simple file management and scheduling, with a sophisticated job-processing daemon. With no other UI except for a simple command shell. Then we agree.

    If, you think that an operating system should provide (beyond the basic windowing and management tools) irrelevant gimmicks like gee-wiz graphics, tooltips, and in-your-face dialog boxes then I’d have to disagree. Those extra things should be optional components that have to be deliberately enabled/added by the end-user.

    Sorry to have caused you irritation. There’s no need to get upset.

     
  55. Richard Melville Says:
    November 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am

    de rien

     
  56. Moogler Says:
    November 17th, 2008 at 6:48 am

    ok…..
    ive been running windows 7 for a couple of days now on my Asus F8sn …..
    nice clean install …. etc ….

    now to the real juicy stuff …. it is faster than vista … boots faster …
    the wpi windows performance index has a higher rating …
    and there is no driver problems yet ….. to make this even better
    on installation the wireless drivers and sound card drivers were auto installed …
    this didnt happen with vista…..
    plus any drivers windows found necessary were added to the auto update…
    this is a very useful feature esp for the everyday user as … well they are ignorant of driver and other necessary items ….

    we also have it installed on various other spec machines ….
    an old p4 with 512mb of ram …
    a mac mini ….
    and an atom embedded board…

    all booting and running well …. ok they dont have the aero settings but they are performing …. we wouldnt have dared install vista on a p4 … but it seems to run windows 7 relatively smoothly … and remember its only 512mb of ram ……

    will benchmark it for gamin in the coming days …

    but im alot more optimistic about it than was of vista ,….

     
  57. Nick Says:
    November 17th, 2008 at 5:32 pm

    Windows 7 is no better than Vista. It makes the same stupid mistakes, still buries simple things ten layers down and still makes life difficult.

    It is a clumsy, bloated OS. In many ways it appears Microsoft are just lumping all their hopes on confusing you so much with where your files are (by enforcing a moras of folders you have no control over) and this nonsense libraries thing, obviously to force a subscription for their cloud idea.

    If you want to know where to start look at Windows 2000, rip out internet explorer and media player and try again. Windows 7 is a waste of development – well, as a vehicle for the press it’s wonderful, but for real people it’s like cleaning the bathroom when you’re roof’s blown off.

     
  58. Nick Says:
    November 17th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

    technogeist, I agree entirely. An OS is a coat hanger, it should never have pretensions to being the coat.

     
  59. Jack Says:
    November 17th, 2008 at 6:09 pm

    40gb mp3 player…

    Six Apart started a working group in February 2006 to improve the Trackback protocol with the goal to eventually have it approved as…

     
  60. technogeist Says:
    November 17th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    Nick,
    Not so much a coat, as a jacket for an immersion heater. :p

     
  61. technogeist Says:
    November 18th, 2008 at 11:12 pm

    Perhaps a slight alteration to the coat hanger analogy.

    I’d like to think of it as more like a carousel for holding shirt ties. Each tie being a system component, self contained and replaceable.

     
  62. Eric Says:
    November 24th, 2008 at 2:07 pm

    Force Windows Xp Repair Install…

    The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August…

     
  63. Pants Says:
    December 20th, 2008 at 9:31 am

    Look, everytime a new OS comes out from Microsoft you really have to bitch and moan just for the sake of it. Or its mainly Linux turds oh opps thats nerds that like to use there big mouths over there tiny balls. I will allways see linux users as small ginger twats with spots.
    So shut the fuck up all of you, no matter what sooner or later you will be using windows 7 on your pc regardless of how much you hate it or not. So quit moaning.

     
  64. jimbo2008 Says:
    January 6th, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    What a stupid test that is installing those programs, firstly i would never in a million years install itunes on any of my systems, it’s slow and a load of junk and no i’m not a fan of apple but i won’t argue there ipod devices themselves are a slick bit of kit. There are other ways to get media onto ipods such as winamp and enableing disc access (i suspect).

    And as another pointer ANY descent application generally ask’s you if you want it to start up with windows, if you don’t have the brains to tell it not to or have the sense to ask google how to disable apps starting up and finding something like msconfig.msc or removing it from the registry, ive never heard of such a perthetic benchmark as the one suggested.

    blame the vendors and your own stupidity for applications turning on with the pc not MS even better stay away from a computer let alone a forum.

     
  65. Q Says:
    January 14th, 2009 at 5:41 am

    have been using vista 64bit for a whole year now and no problems…dont get lag, dont get sluggishness etc…perhaps all those that r complaining about vista are those that just dont have the tech high enough to run it (or are too poor to afford a decent system)…i have 12 gig DDR3 and an i7 and no problems..runs brillianty….ever tried running Adobe photoshop on a 64bit vista platform? It bloody flies compared to xp.!!!..windows 7 is for noobs who are trying to run vista with a system akin to a year 2000 system.

     
  66. Hyde Railt Says:
    January 19th, 2009 at 9:42 am

    I donot think Win7 is much different than Vista.I came across an posting stationg the same.
    http://techfreakindia.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-windows-7-faster-performance-of.html

     
  67. ครูเด็ด ดอท คอม | kruded dot com » Blog Archive » รีวิว Windows 7 Beta ตอนที่ 1 Says:
    January 25th, 2009 at 8:50 am

    [...] Vista โดยรีวิวของ PC Pro และ ZDNet (ข่าวเก่า) นั้นบอกว่า Windows 7 [...]

     
  68. Cliff Says:
    January 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pm

    Darien quotes Tim Danton as saying, “Vista was never this nippy. You press on an icon and it leaps into action. . . . I can?t remember using any new OS that was this quick.?

    Gosh, I guess neither of them has used a Mac. My Macbook is a year old, and it is still as snappy as when I bought it: I click on things and they instantly pop up. In contrast, everyone I know who gets a Windows machine first has to bog it down with anti-virus stuff running, but their machine seems to be polluted with all kinds of garbage over the first year of use to the point where it ends up running like a pig.

     
  69. Linda W Says:
    January 29th, 2009 at 3:29 am

    I take exception at your claim that your benchmarks run the same on “Any” OS — when you deliberately exclude XP.

    From what I glean in the content — XP is about 10-18% faster than Win7.

    Or comparatively, Win7 is about 11-22% slower.

    Applications *should* run about the same regardless of the OS — but that wasn’t the case — compare Win7 to WinXP-SP3. SP3 was faster than SP2 or SP1 — but comparable with WinXP(0). Win7 shows it’s done nothing for applications — only it’s own interface so, Win7 is still slowing down applications by about 15% overall…

     
  70. iDeeZign.CoM - iDea DeeZiGn : Web and Logo Designer by dynaz » Blog Archive » รีวิว Windows 7 Beta ตอนที่ 1 Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 6:52 am

    [...] Vista โดยรีวิวของ PC Pro และ ZDNet (ข่าวเก่า) นั้นบอกว่า Windows 7 [...]

     
  71. u64 Says:
    January 30th, 2009 at 11:37 am

    Microsoft has the resources to really build an ok Windows, but they
    keep choosing not to. For MS to have a chance it must release
    Windows2009, a Windows that doesnt suck. at. all. And use
    the good known security model from BSD and Linux to get rid
    of AntiVirus slow-ware.

    Ripping out junk from XP with nLite proves that underneath there’s
    almost something of value. And tweaking it properly reveal a
    good gaming platform.

     
  72. Paul Says:
    February 5th, 2009 at 12:49 am

    i’m more interested in what microsoft are doing about bugs errors and general stupidity in vista.. i mean .. it’s all neat and fun that the new windows will be faster, will have a new taskbar and a touch-screen option but what about problems like trying to play an mp3 playlist in winamp without selecting each mp3 and tinkering with the security settings to give full control to the ‘everyone’ group (and here i’m speaking for casual users who are not as adept at IT as some people , i mean this little issue with the mp3’s might have a solution in vista but i ca’n find it and if i can’t then there will be others) so all in all what will this new windows do about the small but frustrating problems.. like sound vanishing after a simple restart and then coming back like magic after the third restart??

     
  73. Mark Barnes Says:
    February 27th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    The problem is however, is that this is a beta release. Yes, it may not be fully optimised but then again it also free of all the bloat that will be eventually applied as it approaches it’s release date. I’m not talking about application bloat here but kernel level stuff where they add unecessary layers of well.. layers in an attempt to make the OS more of a managed code exercise. So yes, it looks all fancy on a projecter presentation where this layer does this and that other layer must talk to this layer to get this done but in reality we’ll just be shouting and screaming about how slow it is once its made available to the public as a finalised release.

    When will they ever learn – to me, XP was the crowning pinnacle of their operating systems and from what I can see they are still in a rapid nose down free fall heading towards a big crash.

     
  74. Windows 7: surprising benchmark results | PC Pro blog Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 4:19 pm

    [...] months ago I tried out the PC Pro benchmarks on an alpha version of Windows 7. And I was surprised to find that, despite the new OS feeling much more snappy than Vista, [...]

     
  75. Gavin H Says:
    June 25th, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    I sorry if I seem a little dis-hearted about Windows 7 but I feel that it really isnt going to sort out any of the issues people have with Vista like RAID drive problems and that.

    What I mean is that I have looked at the required specs for 7 and I just cant get over the fact that it requires more RAM and Graphics memory than basic Vista!!! What versions of Vista requires at least 128MB ram on the GPU! I get some many people saying to me XP is better and I dont agree!! I have spent hours maybe days configuring Vista and I doubt that u would find a better OS for computers for a while!

    So u havent got total system control!!! But the features or so much more than that, like backwards compatibility(that works) and some of the widest selection of changeable settings since….. Well ever!

    If any one say that u can compare Vista to XP then they need their head examied! The.y are totally different Though u could compare Vista to Windows 7! XP was great for home users and gamers but for engineers and businesses, then you need Vista and alot of time to configure the software and hardware (Which I have done and got it perfect)!!

    I just feel that Windows Vista is being attacked for no reason what so ever!!!

     
  76. Zaza Says:
    October 30th, 2009 at 8:04 pm

    what are we trying to save here.. the company sucks, the whole policy sucks, the only thing that’s working good for microsoft today is Microsoft Office. by the time Google finishes their Chrome OS, the vista people will get slaughtered! I’d like to indicate to Vista’s terrible performance in handling file transfers, because I think Vista is the worst OS I have encountered so far when it comes to moving big files. I have had some downloaded movies, in avi format where I needed to copy around 12 gigs of them, and vista took somewhere around 45min to 1 hour to transfer to external USB Hard Drive! I run a Duo 2 core platform, an intel 2.4Ghz each. if that’s not an ABORTION, then I wonder what is!

     
  77. Itzik Kaiser Says:
    March 6th, 2010 at 6:18 pm

    Windows 7 is faster and smarter.

     

Leave a Reply

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

* required fields

* Will not be published

Authors

Categories

Archives

advertisement

SEARCH
SIGN UP

Your email:

Your password:

remember me

advertisement


Hitwise Top 10 Website 2010