7 faster than vista? - a tiny bit maybe

[pparks1]

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.

 

[Zahl]

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

 

[SquonkSC]

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

 

[Antman]

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.

 

[dsteinschneider]

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.

 

[musiclover7]

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..

 

[SofTones]

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....

 

[harpua]

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.

 

[whs]

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

 

[SquonkSC]

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.

 

[H2SO4]

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

I'm pretty sure that Vista problem is "environmental" (specific to your setup)

 

[SquonkSC]

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

I'm pretty sure that Vista problem is "environmental" (specific to your setup)

Can reproduce it on my HTPC too.
Happens since after last mediaplayer update.

Vista x64, AMD 64 dualcore at 2.8ghz, 8gb ram, 1x 500gb samsung + 2x 1TB samsung, 2x Hauppauge MCE 150
Not much 3rd party apps on it, only mediabrowser, metabrowser, and tmpenc 4.
It's a dedicated media machine.

Luckily I have dual boot W7 on every machine.

Having used Vista the last couple of days to make some kind of a comparison between it and W7,
I can without a doubt say that W7 is much more responsive than Vista. (identical setups and sw)
I didn't realize the difference was this big, but it is.
Booting into Vista takes a minute longer than W7. (identical startup scheme)
Opening explorer, IE, mediaplayer, in short all the native windows apps just take multiple seconds longer.
Screen refresh is faster on W7, going to things like device manager, computer management, services, etc etc... is much snappier in W7.

I'm not dreaming it, the difference is multiple seconds each time.

Tested it on two machines, and results are similar each time.
W7 wins by a mile.
Screw benchmarks, they don't represent every day use.

Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Greetings

 

[Antman]

...Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

 

[Mercurial]

lmfao

 

[Tews]

...Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

And a monkey is still a monkey... :roflmao:

 

[H2SO4]

...Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

Is there really that much of a difference? (only half-joking)

 

[Antman]

...Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

And a monkey is still a monkey... :roflmao:

Point of order:

A chimp is an ape, not a monkey.

 

[Antman]

...Even if MS changed only 10% of Vista to make W7, they changed the right 10%.

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

Is there really that much of a difference? (only half-joking)

No. The genetic differentiation is actually much less. Poetic license applied.

It only figures that you would be the one to call that.

Kudos.

 

[Tews]

Similar to the 10% change in DNA between a chimp and a human.

And a monkey is still a monkey... :roflmao:

Point of order:

A chimp is an ape, not a monkey.

I was using the term generically, I stand corrected...

 

[SquonkSC]

Slightly of topic but going with the flow:

There was a TV commercial done by "the animal protection front" a few yrs back, that said:
"Help protect animals from the beasts"

Our 10% difference has changed us for the worst.

I mean us as a species, not any individual in particular.