Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista

[Blackhawk7188]

What people seem to forget is that the first 7 builds out were beta stages with only a portion of the services running there. 7 was simply progressed far enough where the public testing could take place for things like testing on all kinds of systems with different environments for additional data on problems and potential problems as well.

From that point the various labs go to work on those as well as further refinements until everything is complied into the RC builds no longer in beta form. You're now starting to see more background processes running as well as a few more features available except once again Windows Mail. The RTM will or maybe will see that there as default or a separate item to download.

Windows Mail has been completely removed for 7, you have to get "Window Live Mail" through the windows live essentials in order to get it, at least I had to. Isn't the RC still a Beta test too?, so wouldnt there still be bugs to be worked out of it?

 

[petrossa]

Windows Mail has been completely removed for 7, you have to get "Window Live Mail" through the windows live essentials in order to get it, at least I had to. Isn't the RC still a Beta test too?, so wouldnt there still be bugs to be worked out of it?

That and the debug code i guess. Still all well and done the only reason to adapt w7 for me would be is that you can switch audioendpoints without needing to reload the app.

Vista SP2, with a good skinner, is as pretty as can be and by now pretty well supported for x64 platform. On my rig Vista now outperforms w7 RC7100 .......

 

[Night Hawk]

Windows Mail has been completely removed for 7, you have to get "Window Live Mail" through the windows live essentials in order to get it, at least I had to. Isn't the RC still a Beta test too?, so wouldnt there still be bugs to be worked out of it?

I'm afraid that's not the case at all if you look in the Programs directory. The Windows Mail folder is still sitting there. While Vista was in RC form it was disabled there as well until the final retail release. The Live Hotmail can be installed on XP and Vista as well as 7 being a totally separate item there.

 

[chev65]

Actually it's the computer that makes the Op system faster not the other way around. Faster computer = faster Op system.

 

[kpo6969]

Actually it's the computer that makes the Op system faster not the other way around. Faster computer = faster Op system.

Don't forget about the person sitting at the keyboard also..

 

[Night Hawk]

Well if you have a ...ssssslowwwww... c... p.... u.... and only a small amount of memory installed things will certainly tend to .......ddddddrag on a bit. When going to help out someone with a single core on an old case good gosh! wiait and wait and wait while Windows loads following the slower post tests on the old museum piece.

 

[kpo6969]

Well if you have a ...ssssslowwwww... c... p.... u.... and only a small amount of memory installed things will certainly tend to .......ddddddrag on a bit. When going to help out someone with a single core on an old case good gosh! wiait and wait and wait while Windows loads following the slower post tests on the old museum piece.

I think I'm allowed a post once in a while that may be considered frivilous with no other motivation involved..:sarc:
Al least you got something out of it..

 

[Night Hawk]

I think I'm allowed a post once in a while that may be considered frivilous with no other motivation involved..:sarc:
Al least you got something out of it..

And what was that? The minimum system requirements for Vista were less then what will be the recommended for 7. For Vista, http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx

Even with 2gb of memory and a 2ghz cpu Vista was seen as sssslowww... compared to it's own predacessor XP by many. The opposite even with the RCs now out still seems to hold true that 7 is faster at starting up, shutting, and overall seeing a performance increase.


What kind of computer do I need to run the RC?

These are the Microsoft minimum hardware recommendations for systems that will be running the RC. These recommendations are specific to this release and are subject to change.

"Windows 7 RC system requirements:

• 1 GHz or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 GB RAM (32-bit) / 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
• 16 GB available disk space (32-bit) / 20 GB (64-bit)
• DirectX 9 graphics processor with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

Note: Some product features of Windows 7, such as the ability to watch and record live TV or navigation through the use of "touch," may require advanced or additional hardware." Windows 7 Release Candidate Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Now what's that? 7 sees 1gb of memory(x86), 2gb(x64) rec while Vista saw 512mb? 1ghz cpu minimum for both.

 

[Blackhawk7188]

Once you remove all of the unnecessary services and programs that run in the background my Vista is running smoother and faster than my Windows 7. Vista shuts down about 5 seconds shorter, actually almost instant anymore, while Windows 7 takes about 10 seconds or so. On boot Vista saves about 4 to 5 seconds compared to Win7. Both OS are 64 bit on all the same hardware. I removed the same services from both OSes but Win7 has ones that Vista doesnt and I didnt want to shut them down for no reason and have disaster happen, and actually vista at idle uses less memory than Win7, 19% on Vista, 26% on Win7.

I am sure that once it is out of testing it will be faster than Vista but for now I think Vista still has Win7 beat a little on speed and responsiveness, at least on my system.

 

[scaramonga]

Who cares which is faster?.........Win7 is 'usable', Vista was, at best, 'bearable'

End of.

 

[Night Hawk]

What you are realizing now is that 7 just isn't seeing more services but new features. You also have to look at what you have installed on both there too. IF you have a different software environment by seeing more loaded onto 7 then Vista that will have a direct effect.

Here I will be making comparisons with both RCs each on their own set up as stand alone installations as well as Vista HP 32 on a third drive seeing more installed on both 7s then Vista while Vista still appears slower. The delay seen here when shutting Vista down is due primarily to one item left to identify taking longer to close out there.

7 overall in the long run will be a bit faster while any version of Windows can start seeing slow down after a lengthy period of time from various programs being installed and later removed leaving items behind in the registry. You also start seeing a large collection of temp install and unstall folders at some point requiring the slight increase in access time when going to browse through various folders on the drive.

The primary item that will make the most difference is the refinement of the kernel over Vista there. Once you pile a ton of items on top then things tend to see the typical slowdown. With Vista that was things like the new Aero themes, side bar, and gadgets that saw the most blame there.

 

[Blackhawk7188]

The installed programs are exactly the opposite. I have all of my CAD software, media editing, and games on my Vista x64. Windows 7 isn't supported yet for Solid Works 2009 CAD software. I have only AIM and Firefox installed on Win7 x64 and Vista is still running smoother and faster with tons more programs and files.

It doesn't make sense since I still have SP1 of Vista, but like I said I shut down meaningless services and background programs that make it run smoother and more responsive.

 

[DrWho]

Can't we safely assume, that every new OS will be larger than the old one, as MS adds features and more glitz?
I shut down about 11 to 15 services in XP and almost 40 in Vista Ultimate 64.
I'm still using the same services shutdown batch file for 7 that I used for Vista, but I'm sure I'm going to have to revamp it upwards, to take care of some new services.
And if there's ever a Windows 8, I'm sure I'll have to revise it again.
That seems to be the way of things.
And so far, I've not found any way around it, if I want to keep on running MS OS's and continue to set up new computers and maintain them.

Maybe I'll just retire for good and forget the whole mess! Maybe.....:sarc:

 

[Night Hawk]

You know right off that each new version will be seeing something new. That could be anything from themes to security features or simply how memory is allocated. The move from XP's PreFetch to Vista's SuperFetch process of seeing the most commonly used programs preloaded in a standby in Vista is one example of that.

Another thing people may not know about is a bug that slipped past screening when the RCs were made public last week. "Microsoft patches huge Windows 7 RC bug" Microsoft patches huge Windows 7 RC bug

The fix was released on the 7th when MS released that the internal testers apparently missed something and is now available at the update site if you have the automatic updates turned off. Things like this show that the RCs themselves are not the finished product while Vista has been now for over 2yrs. already having seen it's own SP2 plus various other updates.

 

[johngalt]

Said patch affecting only English 32bit:

According to the accompanying support document, the problem affects only the English-language version of the 32-bit edition of Windows 7 RC.

 

[Night Hawk]

That's where the update went on when I booted into the 32bit and ran the update option to find it was already on and nothing bur a Sliverlight and W.Defender item for the 64bit.

 

[johngalt]

Can't we safely assume, that every new OS will be larger than the old one, as MS adds features and more glitz?
I shut down about 11 to 15 services in XP and almost 40 in Vista Ultimate 64.
I'm still using the same services shutdown batch file for 7 that I used for Vista, but I'm sure I'm going to have to revamp it upwards, to take care of some new services.
And if there's ever a Windows 8, I'm sure I'll have to revise it again.
That seems to be the way of things.
And so far, I've not found any way around it, if I want to keep on running MS OS's and continue to set up new computers and maintain them.

Maybe I'll just retire for good and forget the whole mess! Maybe.....:sarc:

If you think about it, almost every program ever written gets larger when you undergo major version changes - I am not talking about editing a module / routine / method to make it more efficient, that is not a major revision change.

A major revision change constitutes that addition of new features and fixing of broken things in older features. When you add new things, you tend to add code - which makes it larger.

And, FWIW, I have found that shutting down services tends to have a minute effect on the system these days, not b/c the systems have more RAM, but because the services are only used as needed, as opposed to being always on as they were in XP.

 

[Night Hawk]

That's where the SuperFetch plays a role again in 7. If you look carefully at the volume of fragmentation of a drive if you regularly saw a high volume on XP in short period of time from creating new, moving, copying, deleting files all the time and then look on the drive or partition where Vista or 7 is installed the fragmentation is 0%!

How come? Just like your most often used programs the two newer versions will preload things into ram in a low profile instead of the wait for programs startups and the need to schedule maintainence on a daily, weekly, monthly basis. That tends to use just a little more ram while keeping Windows in better shape.

The thing noticed right off with Vista and now 7 was seeing more stability. With 7 more services are set at manual even though the number has seen a slight increase for things like the preview when IE or W.E. windows are minimized by simply hovering the mouse cursor over the taskbar. That takes a few more registry entries as well.

 

[djfirestorm]

I will guarantee, even if the numbers show that its not much faster, end users will still think its way faster. Little thing called the placebo effect.

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.

 

[Night Hawk]

Vista is still a good version while having missing out on people still running older hardwares by not raising the minimum requirements from the start. Now new systems see 3-4gb of memory already installed even with the 32bit Home Premium.

It's not Vista is slowwwwww.... but it what it preloads into active ram right at startup being the most used programs as well as background services plus the typical as it goes expression of "eye candy" with the then new Aero themes and sidebar, gadgets.

Besides seeing the startup repair tools beginning with Vista one thing 7 now sees besides a heavily refined Vista kernel overall is the built in option to create a system recovery disk. That can be made at any time as well as seeing the prompting for this when finishing up a backup of the drive.