Convince me !

Dzomlija · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt said:

I don't use the built in compression features (besides NTFS compression) if I can help it, because the performance and lack of features is horrific. I've already found that out by messing around with archives. I immediately installed 7-zip and WinRAR and now much happier. So, I think my test is valid (no doubt most people will be using these same tools).

LOL, neither do I. I use WinZip 11.2.

I just feel that an accurate benchmark comparing Windows XP to Windows 7 should be performed using the built-in tools and features, as far as can be done.

The one area that cannot be tested using built-in features is video encodiing to DivX, as Windows XP does not support DivX at all without the aid of 3rd-party codecs, and Windows 7 only supports DivX playback OOB.

I don't have any accurate benchmark results to give, and I have no intention of tarnishing my rig by installing XP on it for the sake of a benchmark test.

But since you appear to have both XP and Windows 7 on your machine, try this: Download and install Handbrake to both XP and Windows 7, then convert the same video file to xVid using the same settings. Chances are high that the conversion on Windows 7 will go much quicker. My record so far is a 02:15:00 movie converting in 00:57:00, using 2-pass encoding. I haven't used XP on any of my own machines for nearly 3 years, so the best I can do is say that I remember doing similar tasks in about 8 hours!

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

I will try it.

Is this program multicore aware and does it use its own built-in codecs? I hope it tells how long it took once finished.

Dzomlija · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt said:

I will try it.

Is this program multicore aware and does it use its own built-in codecs? I hope it tells how long it took once finished.

I usually look at the ETA times, but it doesn't log it output. And yes: It IS multicore aware

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

Dzomlija said:

but it doesn't log it output.

Shoot, then I don't think I can expect to get any reliable results. The ETA started at like 47 minutes, but then it goes up and down (it depends on the framerate). And I didn't start my stopwatch when I started encoding 20 minutes ago.

EDIT - scratch that. I can go by the file creation and last modified dates to see how long each one took. Will report back when it's done :)

DJG · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt said:

EDIT - scratch that. I can go by the file creation and last modified dates to see how long each one took. Will report back when it's done :)

That's how I time my image backups :).

BTW, what are your system specs, so we can reference them vs. benchmarks?

ten · 17 Jun 2009

I've done some benchmarks of my own. I'll let the images speak for themselves.

Microsoft Office 2007 full install
XP............................................................Windows 7

sup3rsprt · 17 Jun 2009

I did a DVD to AVI conversion on a HP Pentium dual core laptop with 1GB RAM and a 120GB hard drive.

It took 57 minutes on both XP and Win7.

These results do not surprise me, as a video conversion is a CPU test after all. If CPU was slower in Win7 operating system, I would be very worried.

However my test does illustrate that there are virtually no multicore improvements for Win7 in this case.

OK, enough benchmarks for me today

DJG · 17 Jun 2009

sup3rsprt, thanks for the info!

I will say that in your experiences with 32 vs. 64 bit, your results make sense because you only have 1GB of memory. I would actually expect 64-bit to be a bit slower. But with 4GB or more memory you will encounter very different results.

As always, one needs to tailor things to one's specific situation. Everybody's digital metabolism is different! There are no absolutes in this business, other than absolute crazyness as in my case

...

DJ

Shak 10 · 17 Jun 2009

rehael said:

Hi everyone, and let's not waste any time, I'm an avid & Fanatical Win XP 4 Life dude !
Vista home,pren,ultimate,hack,slash,jedi was all fail.
they gave us a huge RAM sucker with a candy skin and a few pre-available widgets and other obnoxious gadgets separated over a dozen packages.

And now we have a new challenger, Win Seven ! but i'm also specktical.

I'm gonna get a new HP G60t soon (P8900 2.4Ghz,4GO Ram), and the first thing i might do if i'm not tempted to test win 7 is to kill vista for a good ol' clean xp that works with everything and eats only a little ram
So tell me guys, how would this win 7 Beat a 64 Bit XP !?

Shouldn't be a matter of convincing, Windows seven is the future XP is the past. Vista was not a bad OS it's the second most used os in the world and had good sales = not a failure it improved on XP in a lot of ways. Seven is a better and a safer OS than XP already to work on and its only in escrow now. If you feel your happy with what u got then stay with it, but if you wanna sample Seven i guarrante u wont be dissapointed.

DJG · 17 Jun 2009

Shak 10 said:

Shouldn't be a matter of convincing, Windows seven is the future XP is the past. Vista was not a bad OS and had good sales = not a failure it improved on XP in a lot of ways. Seven is a better and a safer OS than XP already to work and its only in escrow now. If you feel your happy with what u got then stay with it, but if you wanna sample Seven i guarrante u wont be dissapointed.

+1
I migrated from XP x64 to the Windows 7 beta and have not looked back, other than to grin. I still have my XP image from February and it's in my external backup set, but I can't even think about going back.