W7 vs Vista

[harpua]

Well those are certainly good reasons. I wouldn't put up with that either.

However, you might want to make sure you are using an updated video and also power management driver that might possibly be available to you through windows update on your W7 installation. I suspect that the issues you are experiencing are correctable with the right drivers or perhaps reinstalling them. If the drivers aren't yet available for your machine, they probably will be soon, so you might want to check every now and then.

 

[jazzpicker]

Same for me. The difference in performance is so huge, I almost can't believe it. Vista just never worked right on my laptop, probably due in part to some of Lenovo's less than stellar drivers. And, to be fair, I never did a clean install of Vista. I went off the factory preload, which almost certainly contributed to the poor performance I saw under Vista.

It so happens I don't have any desktop machines so I can't "evaluate" W7 on one. So for that reason I should be denied the opportunity to enjoy and asssess W7 on the machine I do have and use??? I really don't think so. Since my "evaluation" is for my personal use, I don't see why I shouldn't undertake it in any manner I feel like. My laptop may not be the most powerful thing around but it is x64 w 4 GB ram and is running super fast/well on W7.

What I do have are a bunch of extra hard drives lying around for my laptop, so what the hey is wrong with installing W7 on one of them and checking it out. Once I did that, loaded up my stuff and saw how wonderfully it was running on my system (as in better than it ever ran before), it was a no brainer to switch to 7127 for my main OS, mission critical stuff and all. I hope I never have to boot into Vista again, but of course, I have my old set up on it's own hard drive put away in case I should need it for some reason and I have several backups (both clones and images) of my current 7127 installation, so I'm perfectly comfortable testing, evaluating and using this wonderful OS (on my laptop or whatever). It is running everything I "need," in almost all cases, better than Vista did, including some programs with unsigned drivers like PG2 (had to test sign them myself).

We have another opposite situation. I wish I had a laptop to see how W7 runs on a slower computer. I bought one last year for travel but didn't use it much and sold it to a friend (too fricking slow). Lacking a laptop limits my ability to evaluate W7 on another class of machine.

 

[AstaLaVista]

I dual boot with Vista & W7 Ultimate x64 and aside from having some Internet connectivity issues with both OSs, W7 loads and shuts down faster than Vista does... BarNone. I even think that I have more software installed on my W7 OS and still, it loads quicker than Vista.

I had some issues with some games in Vista that I know play in W7 w/o a single glitch.

 

[Mark Phelps]

Like others, have Vista Ultimate and Windows 7 RC (both 32-bit) installed on the same box, and even after loading up Seven with the same apps and startup programs as Vista, it still boots and shutsdown in a fraction of the time it takes Vista.

The program launch doesn't seem any faster but the memory demands are less and (strangely) network performance (throughput) is a lot higher.

So, I'm sold on Seven, too.

 

[Night Hawk]

The MinWin wins out everytime here for 7 over Vista or XP. XP was always buggy in both Home and Pro editions while Vista lagged simply for being a new and much larger version while proving itself far more reliable. Then along comes 7 to take the prize!

Upon finding that just about every program run on XP would run on the 64bit RC guess what happens to XP? Gone! Vista has it's place along side the new XP mode on a virtual machine. But Vista will soon have had it's day as well.

 

[jazzpicker]

XP isn't gone yet, according to some windows sites security updates for XP will be provided until 2014 and who knows how long for vista.

The early vista releases were really buggy but the program has matured nicely over time. I haven't had many problems with either program.

W7 has been the best of all porgrams in beta but I am still finding and reporting bugs to microsoft. I'm glad to have found this forum so I can learn more about the program, it's a good resource for W7 with smart people providing answers.

 

[Night Hawk]

In actualality we're all rather newbies with 7 to start off with since it's the new version being introduced in apparently it's last stages before release. The more experienced are those who have been running various versions of Windows going back some time as well as those who are familiar with other OSs. But even there we're all still 7 newbies in one way or another.

 

[AstaLaVista]

If it wasn't for the lenghty time it takes my Vista x64 OS to boot/load & Shutdown (I have done all the tweaks posted here) , I would probably stick with it but, I can honestly say, I am looking forward to the Launch/Purchase of Windows 7, although, I have taught myself to always wait for SP1 when it comes to a Microsoft software... I guess I will force myself to do the same this time.

 

[Shak 10]

ummm i like both i have vista ultimate x64 sp1 as my main os and win 7 RC x64 on a 100gb hardrive partition and tbh i like them both windows seven for me is a tad faster in all respects inculding boot and shutdown times but i still use vista ultimate more because ive grown more accustomed to how its set out not that i don't like the Ui of windows seven quite the opposite, i dunno its a hard one.

 

[wysiwyg]

Your kidding right? Some notebooks are more powerful than mainstream desktops running Quad cores and 8GB of RAM, and GTX 280 SLI

Probably but you'd need a large bank loan.

I'm talking average.

 

[SIW2]

7 was never intended to noticeably outperform Vista on a reasonable machine - and it doesn't.

The point of 7 is that it runs well on lower spec machines.

M$ got a fright when net/ note things started appearing with
Linux.

If the general public uses Linux and is happy with it - that is the end of M$ dominance.

The public at large doesn't know there is a viable alternative.

M$ wants to keep it that way.

Now they have something that will work well on net/ note, /whatever they call them next.

Shouldn't be too hard to get their "partners" to supply the machines with 7.

Linux disappears off the shelves - the Public stay ignorant - M$ retains it's market dominance.

That's business.

 

[Night Hawk]

From what I've been seeing here since the 7 betas is a rather striking difference in performance over both XP and Vista alike. While the RCs are larger in size they install to the drive faster, startup faster, shutdown faster, and a few other things like being a bit more responsive at the desktop in different areas.

The only constant item that needs to see a fix for presently is seen with every startup or reboot the power options is reset as well as forgetting a few folder settings. But 7 is still not a finished version at this time while many are trying to run it like it is as their primary OS.

Meanwhile in today's news from MS they made a correction on the "shutdown every 2hrs." dates for both the betas and RCs.

 

[jazzpicker]

Probably but you'd need a large bank loan.

I'm talking average.

I agree, some of the new desktops are really powerful and need some space in the case and fans for cooling.

 

[Lebon14]

For myself, I have both Vista Home Premium 32-bit and Seven 7100 RC and hell, I can tell the difference in booting.

The shut down is considerably faster on Seven.

Some stuff is faster on Vista while some other are in Seven.

Seven uses MUCH less RAM in my case...
Now I'm running Firefox, Windows Live Messenger, Mozilla Sunbird, foobar2000, mIRC, Steam and NOD32. Windows 7 uses ~775MB of RAM. Note that I disabled no Windows services. Vista would use around 1GB of RAM for the same thing! Wow...

Anyway, my opinion.

 

[wysiwyg]

7 was never intended to noticeably outperform Vista on a reasonable machine - and it doesn't.

The point of 7 is that it runs well on lower spec machines.

M$ got a fright when net/ note things started appearing with
Linux.

If the general public uses Linux and is happy with it - that is the end of M$ dominance.

The public at large doesn't know there is a viable alternative.

M$ wants to keep it that way.

Now they have something that will work well on net/ note, /whatever they call them next.

Shouldn't be too hard to get their "partners" to supply the machines with 7.

Linux disappears off the shelves - the Public stay ignorant - M$ retains it's market dominance.

That's business.

M$ frightened of Linux, dream on.
But the general public don't want Linux, market figures prove it.
Of course the public knows there are alternatives, but they are not viable to them, and thats the criterion, common sense prevails to go with the system with most support, for both hardware and software.

M$ and any company wants to keep their markets, and why clutter up the shelves with a non-seller.

Market forces are the base of all popular usage. always has been, always will be.

M$ 85%, Linux 1.02% nuff said.

 

[SIW2]

No, they don't know.

Many people I ask have never heard of it.

Of the few who have heard the name - most don't know anything about it, how to get it, etc. Moreover, they are not interested.

What comes with the machine is what they use.

Many don't even know the name of the o/s they are currently using.

M$ were definitely very concerned about the emergence of Linux on machines generally available to the public - and they were right to be.

Their market dominance is not due to Windows being superior ( it may be, but that is not the reason for the monopoly position) - it is due to clever business strategy - and being in the right place at the time.

Keeping the public ignorant of a viable alternative is what matters here.

If M$ had just kept Vista and phased out XP - they would have nothing to put on the net/note etc.

Hundreds of millions of people would be using a non microsoft o/s.

They can't afford for that to happen.

That is what 7 is for.

 

[AstaLaVista]

7 was never intended to noticeably outperform Vista on a reasonable machine - and it doesn't.

Well, I am a Noob but I sure noticed a hellacious difference between the two of them.

I really could care less about the eye candy stuff that Vista brings that may not be on 7, I also understand the other side of the token, the majority of the people who will use a computer love eye candy and care very little about performance... until they have used the thing for a while that is!

The point of 7 is that it runs well on lower spec machines.

And how is this a "Bad Thing" when it comes to choosing between the two OSs?

If the general public uses Linux and is happy with it - that is the end of M$ dominance.

I hardly doubt this is the case but, knowing how Big Corps think, they would want zero competition from anybody.

The public at large doesn't know there is a viable alternative.

This is also true for the most part. Heck, I would probably think that if you put 2 notebooks with two different OS that act similarly, the vast majority of user wouldn't notice a difference.

 

[SIW2]

Hi,

It's not a bad thing.

In fact , M$ have done a great job with with 7 - they have nipped and tucked to make it work on lower spec machines , and haven't lost anything in the process.

Anybody faced with the choice of buying Vista or 7 would likely choose 7.

Those who already have Vista on a reasonable machine, and can't notice any improvement, may not want to rush out and buy it.

I see no difference in performance between the two - like many others. In fact Vista boots considerably faster on my machine - despite having a lot more programs installed.

Your perception may be different - it's a free (ish) world.

 

[tw33k]

7 was never intended to noticeably outperform Vista on a reasonable machine - and it doesn't.

The point of 7 is that it runs well on lower spec machines.

M$ got a fright when net/ note things started appearing with
Linux.

If the general public uses Linux and is happy with it - that is the end of M$ dominance.

The public at large doesn't know there is a viable alternative.

M$ wants to keep it that way.

Now they have something that will work well on net/ note, /whatever they call them next.

Shouldn't be too hard to get their "partners" to supply the machines with 7.

Linux disappears off the shelves - the Public stay ignorant - M$ retains it's market dominance.

That's business.

excellent point. i agree with you

 

[Night Hawk]

Hi,

It's not a bad thing.

In fact , M$ have done a great job with with 7 - they have nipped and tucked to make it work on lower spec machines , and haven't lost anything in the process.

Anybody faced with the choice of buying Vista or 7 would likely choose 7.

Those who already have Vista on a reasonable machine, and can't notice any improvement, may not want to rush out and buy it.

I see no difference in performance between the two - like many others. In fact Vista boots considerably faster on my machine - despite having a lot more programs installed.

Your perception may be different - it's a free (ish) world.

I just spent the last 8hrs. seeing a clean install of Vista plus all 298mb of updates, installation of both SP1 and SP2 in concession plus seeing IE 8 installed. You know how it takes to see that much? 20 minutes clean install plus time for drivers/softwares roughly 3hrs. tops!

The main difference between right from the start is the introduction of the MinWin kernel which essentially is starting off with a new core element. MS finally realized Windows was getting too large and slow with Vista and took steps to 7's core redesigned into the modular form. On the basically Vista ready system here 7 takes the lead every time!