Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista

Win7User512 said:

And software: like services that are running.

I have already mentioned that "keeping other things unchanged".

services are part of OS hence have same effect on both OSes viz, XP and Vista. services does not let you compare between XP and Vista. we need to test both OS as a complete package.

Hi djfirestorm,

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

No need to be rude to those who have a different experience.

Do you want to call me a noob?

djfirestorm said:

Not so for me. Windows 7 IS considerably faster. I never rely on benchmark programs because they are so dependent on how the user set up the computer. A properly configured OS...W7 is actually around 5% faster than XP...whereas Vista is about 30% slower than XP. So how would such a dramatic difference give a placebo effect when it actually is that much faster??? Your probably one of those guys that claims Vista is great, and to just give it time noob.haha Vista is what it is...a turtle with broken legs and no shell.

I've tested Vizduh on three computers here at home. Like most posters on these forums that would be very limited experience.
But I've also set up over fifty computers with Vista since it was originally released. I tweak and tune and do everything in my power to make every PC run at peak performance.
Right out of the box, V. is a hog. Several times the size of XP on the HD.
That makes backups more challenging.

If shutting down redundant services only improves performance 1%, then that's still a gain. If I only get 1% here and 1% there, then I've gained 2%.
By the time I get done setting up V. the way I do it, it runs a lot better than it did when I started. I'm not going to get into that quagmire of saying it's 10% or 12% or whatever.....suffice it to say, "It's better".
It looks better, it runs better and for my old customers, upgrading from XP or maybe even '98, it's acceptable.

Few PC makers are really up to speed, installing enough ram to adequately run Vista the way it should run. Almost daily, I take a customer to "Crucial.com" and we order a ram upgrade, right there on the spot.

Whenever someone (anyone) complains about V. or 7 running really slow, I question if their hardware has ever been optimized for that OS.
Many people (I know it's not all) are testing 7 on a PC that was built for XP. There's a huge difference in the system requirements of those two OS's.

I know it's an individual thing, but I find that Win-7 runs faster on my own PC than either XP or Vista. NO, I don't benchmark!

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?

The Doctor

Judging from own experience with windows 7 ( only started using it since build 7077 showed up ). I dunno, I've ran it til the RC came around ... Comparing to vista, I had to run over dozens of tweaks and had to make sure to fine tune it. So far, I've not adjusted anything to windows 7 due to not being ready to be used as a primary operating system ... But i can tell ya that this one is what vista should've been. Alright, Let's just say the numbers are " correct " ... But, The personal experience with it is far more different again. It runs more performant over a a longer time of using it, You're able to dive just that more deeper into features and options in the GUI, It's also been refreshed. However, A screw up is always possible at the last minute, And to be honest sometimes ... A third party application , Detects your OS to be windows NT 5.1 ( XP ). Then again, What do i know? So come what may ... Let's just hope that this thing will not run into the same problems as vista had.

I call BS. You can do all the canned benchmarks you want. The reality is that Vista on a netbook was a complete and utter joke. It was and is a massive resource hog and choked on the Atom processor with even 2GB of RAM. Dropping even the beta of Win 7 on a netbook was like night and day. And I'm sorry, but if anyone is claiming that Vista should have never been on a netbook to begin with...well then what? XP? An OS that Microsoft is doing its best to kill?
I can say on the dozen or so systems that I've setup with Vista, the biggest issue was simply boot. Yes getting to the login and logging in only took a minute or so, but that initial 5 minutes after login were painful for laptop users who didn't have a 7200 RPM drive, and even with it, it was bad. With all the TSRs that most people, and most OEMs, have loading on boot with whatever Vista was doing at login it simply saturated the bandwidth of a system. With Windows 7. The overall performance may not have changed much between Win 7 and Vista. But MS obviously listed to its customers and realized where people perceived speed. It wasn't via a freaking benchmark app. It was at boot, it was launching apps, it was shut down. This is where Win 7 kicks Vista square in the family jewels.

I know that Windows Seven is simply much faster than Vista no matter how hard you try to find something in 7 that is slower than Vista. Simply :

Vista < Seven > XP.

From experience, I've installed Vista on many computers. Two of my friends are running Vista 64. No problems (except maybe drivers problem from ATi... but obviously, not Vista's fault) and they both love it and they don't see it like a slow OS.

At home, I have a Vista x86 with the config below... I even think the boot of my Vista is slightely faster than Seven's. Or maybe equal. What though, there is one thing that I cannot stop saying WOW! is that when my PC get past the "Welcome" screen on Seven... everything is loaded under... what? 10sec? Wow... (My WEI : Vista : 5, Seven 4.8)

Also, I have also installed Vista on a laptop for work. No problems. It runs fast enough and has Aero. (WEI Score : 3.6).

I don't see why exactly people says that Vista is bloated and slow... I simply CANNOT see the difference between both sometimes. Even XP. *sigh*

My friend 1's config :
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
4GB of 1033MHz DDR2
320GB of Hard drive 7.2k RPM
ATi Radeon 4850 512MB
19" Acer 1440x900


My friend 2's config
Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz
4GB 800MHz DDR2
320GB of Hard Drive 10k RPM
ATi Radeon 4870
28" 1920x1200

My PC, check below

The laptop : It's a Toshiba Satellite Pro PSAG9C-01500Y except that there is a fingerprint reader...

I think you will find M$ decided they left it too long between XP and Vista.

They are now planning to release another o/s version every 3 years.

Win 8 by Xmas 2012 - with luck.

That is not because 7 is bad.

It is the product life cycle/business model which generates the most profit for M$.