Windows 7 Forums

Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: 7 faster than vista? - a tiny bit maybe

03 Oct 2009   #41
pparks1

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

AstaLaVista,

Please don't worry about Antman and my going back and forth. We have a mutual respect for one another. Antman was making a bit of a joke from his reply more or less saying that his machine has remained responsive after getting everything installed and running that he needed. And that is true for me as well...it's just that it did slow down over the course of getting everything installed.

Even though the reviews are subjective, the reason that I commented the way that I did was that everybody feel that Windows 7 is super fast. But compared to Vista on the same hardware, I think many would find it to be generally on par with Vista. A tad slower in some cases and a tad faster than others. The beauty is that Windows 7 is the newer system, has more features, runs better on older hardware and certainly is not a slower system overall. So many people compare Windows 7 to the initial release of Vista....and that really isn't much of a comparison. 7 isn't much of a radical change from Vista...so since the mfg's and such have had time to get good driver support and such...the initial rollout of 7 shouldn't be much of an issue....and likely a pleasant surprise for those expecting it to be a debacle.


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
03 Oct 2009   #42
Zahl

windows 8.1 Pro x64
 
 

Well, the two areas where 7 is consistently faster than Vista (on my PCs at least) is network and HDD transfers. It does not slowly drop off like it did with Vista SP2 and I get much higher throughput to begin with. With 7 transfers actually go faster over time. Consistent 90MB/s copying from one HD to another with Vista was unheard of. I'd consider myself to be lucky to see 50MB/s without it slowly dropping off. Gaming is about the same but for some reason 7 also feels faster on the desktop and overall. Also HDD activity is insanely lower; vista beat the crap out of my HDs even with 8GB ram. I'm guessing they've reworked the system restore/shadow copy services
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Oct 2009   #43
SquonkSC

Win7 Build 7600 x86
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Zahl View Post
Well, the two areas where 7 is consistently faster than Vista (on my PCs at least) is network and HDD transfers. It does not slowly drop off like it did with Vista SP2 and I get much higher throughput to begin with. With 7 transfers actually go faster over time. Consistent 90MB/s copying from one HD to another with Vista was unheard of. I'd consider myself to be lucky to see 50MB/s without it slowly dropping off. Gaming is about the same but for some reason 7 also feels faster on the desktop and overall. Also HDD activity is insanely lower; vista beat the crap out of my HDs even with 8GB ram. I'm guessing they've reworked the system restore/shadow copy services
Yep, I can concur the improved network and hdd throughput.
(it's something you can actually measure. )

And copying from USB sticks and external disks has dramatically improved.
Although it has improved on Vista to after several updates and SP's, it still lags behind significantly compared to W7.

.
OT, let's not make this the next dogfight thread please.
It seems to always happen when "which is better" shows up.

Let's remain either professional or descent, or rather both.

Greetz
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

03 Oct 2009   #44
Antman

 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by AstaLaVista View Post
Why is it so hard for some of us to accept a personal opinion or to easily disregard a statement made by someone else as wrong but comeback with a similar answer when is your turn to back it up?
...

I find this extremely funny, frustrating as well. I really couldn't care less as I have already stated in my previous post. I think that some of you need to chill out and leave life a little loose, because at the end of the day... it is a "Your Word Against Mine" sort of an argument
I have not yet found sufficient reason to afford your posts much reading time, but if you are going to call me out..

...which, by the way, you have weakly done. You quote my original challenge AND my acknowledgement that the challenge was sufficiently answered - and find some incongruity or lack of integrity. This is but one of the reasons I do not find much depth in your posts. They tend to lack comprehension of the matter at hand, as this one lacks understanding of what has even been said.

Pparks1 is one of very few members who would actually perform such a detailed analysis, as he has done before. This is my second attempt in this thread to entice him. The exercize can be done logically though, and Pparks1 has wisely chosen not to waste his time.

When less is demanded of the system, the more the system can give. When much is demanded of the system, the less the system has remaining to give.

Brown power and drive mechanics not considered, and transient configuration errors notwithstanding, it is nonsense to suggest that a machine with a given workload would perform any more or any less ably under the same load and conditions at any point in time.

It is further foolishness to even propose that a system with a full workload would be as responsive as a system with only the OS and it's essential support systems installed. This is not indicative of a degradation in capacity or performance.

And, Pparks did not say otherwise.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
03 Oct 2009   #45
dsteinschneider

windows 7 pro
 
 

Windows 7 is comparable to XP speedwise. I'm typing this in Windows 7 on a Micron GX3 laptop with 2Ghz P4 M, 1GB RAM and a 60GB harddrive that I purchased in 2002. In some places it seems even quicker. I've loaded up the same apps including MS Office 2007, SQL Express 2008 and Firefox.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Oct 2009   #46
musiclover7

Windows 7 Ultimate
 
 

My gut feel is that 7 is faster than Vista. I generally notice this the most in the common tasks.. Minimizing, opening folders, and just standard use.. 7 is snappy. Vista used to do that thing where it would appear to be thinking to itself for like 10-15 seconds every now and then when you just told it to do a routine simple task. Never understood why that was, but a lot had the same experience.. I do not get this in 7...

I wish copy times were better for large groups of files, or small groups of large files.. and I wish the machine was less vague about what it was chomping on when completing these tasks... and yes I have used the alternative programs like Teracopy, but was not entirely impressed. This is one area, I am hoping they work over by the first service pack. Would round out a pretty much perfect OS..
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Oct 2009   #47
SofTones

Windows 7 7600 OEM
 
 

My friends, anyone with any sense will know that 7 is 90% Vista, and 10% "7"... this is why all your Vista drivers work in the "new" OS... there isn't anything much 'new', but M$ just HAD to do something with Vista, so they restyled and added a few glitzy bits.. it takes many, many years to design and implement a decent OS, M$ spent a number of months... but they DID make it look like an improvement, and I for one must admit, 7 "feels" better than Vista, although I used Vista for a very long time without any problems... I even have a Ghost image of Vista, in case I feel like reverting back from 7, but speed is the crucial thing for lots of people, and I can't really say I see much improvement in this area... I had the x64 7600 installed, and sadly, reverted back to x86, because x64 ran like a slug in treacle... Anyway, friends, an oppinion is only an oppinion, and we all have our own, that's why not EVERYONE drives a Ford....
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Oct 2009   #48
harpua

Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (Retail)
 
 

I have the same apps installed on my 7 ultimate x64 rig as I had when my OS was vista x64 (on the same hardware). And my experience is 7 is noticeably faster in every respect I can think of. I think if you have a very powerful machine, you might not see that much difference in speed between the two OS's, but on a moderate powered rig like mine, there is a significant difference. Also, Vista was always quite glitchy for me, in minor but annoying ways. I don't have such problems with 7.

And while it is true that 7 is based on vista, anyone who has taken the time to read the 7 engineering blog would realize that 7 has many, many significant "under the hood" improvements over Vista that go beyond improvements in the GUI. But I'm not going to list them because they are laid out in some detail in the engineering blog for any interested party to review.

Anyway, for me 7 is more than a tiny bit faster and way more refined.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Oct 2009   #49
whs
Microsoft MVP

Vista, Windows7, Mint Mate, Zorin, Windows 8
 
 

Here is a video by Mark Russinovich that explains some of the "10% changes" that SofTones refers to. Quite interesting: Deep Inside Windows 7 with Tech Guru Mark Russinovich - Operating Systems - Lifehacker
My System SpecsSystem Spec
05 Oct 2009   #50
SquonkSC

Win7 Build 7600 x86
 
 

One thing I did notice yesterday.

Opening a wav or mp3 file in "media player" takes 20 seconds in Vista,
and about 3 seconds in W7.

The size of the file doesn't seem to matter.
Even the smallest 2mb wav takes 20 seconds in Vista.

Very annoying when you want to go through a list of songs to add to a CD and you have only 15 minutes left before you have to go.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Closed Thread

 7 faster than vista? - a tiny bit maybe




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Will my computer Be faster with vista sp2?
Hi, I am running windows 7 sp1 and im looking foward to "downgrade" to vista sp2 Processor: AMD A8-4500M APU with Radeon Hd Graphics 1.90 GHz 8.00 GB (7.48 usable) RAM 64-bit operating system
Hardware & Devices
programs load muich faster in vista than win7?
went to my second hd to boot vista for a change. win7 is on my first hd. was shocked to see programs booted up on vista in the snap of a finger while on win7 they take 30 seconds or so. wondering why vista is so fast.....
General Discussion
China raises tiny [Spec Ops] reserve army. Really tiny.
Behind The Wall - China raises tiny reserve army. Really tiny. Video: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3032619//vp/43612160#43612160
Chillout Room
Vaio SZ Laptop - Slow with Vista and 7 - faster HDD??
My 2 year old Vaio SZ laptop became fairly sluggish with Vista so I have recently tried Windows 7 - and I'm just not finding it much faster! Also due to no Sony driver support it also freezes at times. I think though I have identified the bottleneck, the HDD. The 5200Rpm Toshiba drive hits...
Performance & Maintenance
Windows 7 growing faster than Vista, overtakes Mac OS X
Source - Windows 7 growing faster than Vista, overtakes Mac OS X
News
Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista
Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista Though Windows 7 edged out Vista in our lab tests, you may not notice much of a difference. http://images.pcworld.com/news/graphics/164485-win7rcspeed_overall_original.png Read more ...
News


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:02.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App