Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster Than Vista

[bodmas]

which one is fast depends on system specs.

keeping other specs unchanged with 2.0 GHz core2duo processor :

if total installed RAM size is 512 MB:

XP is faster than vista x86 & x64 all version.

If total installed RAM size is 1 GB:

Vista Home Basic x86 is faster than XP but here version of vista Home premium and ultimate are still slower than xp either 32 bits or 64 bits.

if total installed ram size is 2 gb:
vista x86 basic & HP is faster than xp but here still vista x86 ultimate and vista x64 all editions are slower than xp.

if total installed size of RAM is 4 GB.

vista x86 or x64 all editions are faster than xp.

if total installed ram size is 16 GB then the vista x64 bits with all editions are damn faster than xp.

so when you see any system running xp faster than vista then please look into the specification and I am sure that you find that particular system with low specs.

 

[djfirestorm]

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.

Well, I have a Maximus II and a Q6600 OC @ 3.0ghz, so no old hardware issue, I have tried vLite a copy, really slim no background services, eye candy disabled, and it still eats ***. I also have 4GB of DDR2 PC-9600 and my board clocked to run it at that. So, ya, support the turtle...you obviously have no concepts of time if you think Vista is "still a good version" Heck you probably think Mac is the only solution. One more inaccuracy...W7 is not a heavlity refined Vista kernel...it is its own kernel, and to be technical, it is NT kernel. W7 = NT6.1, XP/Vista = NT5.X. Before you tout against someone who knows...and acknowledges Vistas complete failure in every way, know your **** so you don't look like a dumb ****

 

[jimbo45]

which one is fast depends on system specs.

keeping other specs unchanged with 2.0 GHz core2duo processor :

if total installed RAM size is 512 MB:

XP is faster than vista x86 & x64 all version.

If total installed RAM size is 1 GB:

Vista Home Basic x86 is faster than XP but here version of vista Home premium and ultimate are still slower than xp either 32 bits or 64 bits.

if total installed ram size is 2 gb:
vista x86 basic & HP is faster than xp but here still vista x86 ultimate and vista x64 all editions are slower than xp.

if total installed size of RAM is 4 GB.

vista x86 or x64 all editions are faster than xp.

if total installed ram size is 16 GB then the vista x64 bits with all editions are damn faster than xp.

so when you see any system running xp faster than vista then please look into the specification and I am sure that you find that particular system with low specs.

Chapter and Verse please for these Stats. Also what were you actually testing.

Also have YOU actually tested and verified this -- OK you *might* not have a 16 GB RAM machine -- but if you ARE quoting these sorts of results we need to see the SOURCE so the provenance of the results can be verified. So Links please. If you've done it yourself then COMPLETE system specs of the machines you ran this on and the actual nature of the tests you executed.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Win7User512]

which one is fast depends on system specs.

And software: like services that are running.

 

[Night Hawk]

I had all three running here on the same hardwares and even most of the exact same programs with a few former exceptions seen with Vista as far as compatibility. The one thing that makes an equal comparison impossible is due to how long each installation had been running.

Both XP and Vista saw clean installs last fall while the 7 RCs were only put on last week! If all three were installed fresh with the basics only each as stand alone installations on three separate but identical drives you would have a more accurate frame of reference to start off with.

 

[patmos]

Definitely much faster to boot and work

 

[RST101]

What else needs to be taken into account is xp and vista are established with service packs. Windows seven hasn't even got started.

 

[Night Hawk]

Another thing to note is that prior to SP3 XP was a disaster in progress in a variety of ways. Besides being an obviously newer and larger version from XP Vista is also far more secure. SP3 was the realization of over 1,000 much needed fixes for various security holes as well as other bugs.

Besides being the newer larger OS Vista also saw an improvement over XP's memory manager with the SuperFetch replacing XP's attempt there with the PreFetch. While XP installations can tend to see large fragmentation on volumes Vista sees various tools preloaded and running low profile in the background keeping the drive at a 0% fragmentation level.

The drawback for the newer version over XP was more memory being used since the most commonly used programs were also preloaded into memory for faster loading times. But that also brought up the problems seen on older systems with less resources and capacities.

What 7 sees now is MS stepping back to take a serous look at first the refinement of the Vista kernel to start with. In other words less "bloatation" kind of like switching from the older versions of Norton to a freebie like AVG! Far more responsive as well as bringing in some rather new features to make 7 more interesting to start with.

 

[DrWho]

Dude! Where did you find that little pearl?

 

[bodmas]

Chapter and Verse please for these Stats. Also what were you actually testing.

Also have YOU actually tested and verified this -- OK you *might* not have a 16 GB RAM machine -- but if you ARE quoting these sorts of results we need to see the SOURCE so the provenance of the results can be verified. So Links please. If you've done it yourself then COMPLETE system specs of the machines you ran this on and the actual nature of the tests you executed.

Cheers
jimbo

Dear, those are based on my experience I came through the past 2 years. I think it is not a matter of argument.

But if I am wrong then you can prove it. I will add your tested information to my experience list too.

 

[bodmas]

And software: like services that are running.

I have already mentioned that "keeping other things unchanged".

services are part of OS hence have same effect on both OSes viz, XP and Vista. services does not let you compare between XP and Vista. we need to test both OS as a complete package.

 

[SIW2]

Hi djfirestorm,

You are entitled to your opinion, of course.

No need to be rude to those who have a different experience.

Do you want to call me a noob?

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.

 

[DrWho]

I've tested Vizduh on three computers here at home. Like most posters on these forums that would be very limited experience.
But I've also set up over fifty computers with Vista since it was originally released. I tweak and tune and do everything in my power to make every PC run at peak performance.
Right out of the box, V. is a hog. Several times the size of XP on the HD.
That makes backups more challenging.

If shutting down redundant services only improves performance 1%, then that's still a gain. If I only get 1% here and 1% there, then I've gained 2%.
By the time I get done setting up V. the way I do it, it runs a lot better than it did when I started. I'm not going to get into that quagmire of saying it's 10% or 12% or whatever.....suffice it to say, "It's better".
It looks better, it runs better and for my old customers, upgrading from XP or maybe even '98, it's acceptable.

Few PC makers are really up to speed, installing enough ram to adequately run Vista the way it should run. Almost daily, I take a customer to "Crucial.com" and we order a ram upgrade, right there on the spot.

Whenever someone (anyone) complains about V. or 7 running really slow, I question if their hardware has ever been optimized for that OS.
Many people (I know it's not all) are testing 7 on a PC that was built for XP. There's a huge difference in the system requirements of those two OS's.

I know it's an individual thing, but I find that Win-7 runs faster on my own PC than either XP or Vista. NO, I don't benchmark!

Y'all have a great day now, Y'hear?

The Doctor

 

[Fate]

Judging from own experience with windows 7 ( only started using it since build 7077 showed up ). I dunno, I've ran it til the RC came around ... Comparing to vista, I had to run over dozens of tweaks and had to make sure to fine tune it. So far, I've not adjusted anything to windows 7 due to not being ready to be used as a primary operating system ... But i can tell ya that this one is what vista should've been. Alright, Let's just say the numbers are " correct " ... But, The personal experience with it is far more different again. It runs more performant over a a longer time of using it, You're able to dive just that more deeper into features and options in the GUI, It's also been refreshed. However, A screw up is always possible at the last minute, And to be honest sometimes ... A third party application , Detects your OS to be windows NT 5.1 ( XP ). Then again, What do i know? So come what may ... Let's just hope that this thing will not run into the same problems as vista had.

 

[SiliconAddict]

I call BS. You can do all the canned benchmarks you want. The reality is that Vista on a netbook was a complete and utter joke. It was and is a massive resource hog and choked on the Atom processor with even 2GB of RAM. Dropping even the beta of Win 7 on a netbook was like night and day. And I'm sorry, but if anyone is claiming that Vista should have never been on a netbook to begin with...well then what? XP? An OS that Microsoft is doing its best to kill?
I can say on the dozen or so systems that I've setup with Vista, the biggest issue was simply boot. Yes getting to the login and logging in only took a minute or so, but that initial 5 minutes after login were painful for laptop users who didn't have a 7200 RPM drive, and even with it, it was bad. With all the TSRs that most people, and most OEMs, have loading on boot with whatever Vista was doing at login it simply saturated the bandwidth of a system. With Windows 7. The overall performance may not have changed much between Win 7 and Vista. But MS obviously listed to its customers and realized where people perceived speed. It wasn't via a freaking benchmark app. It was at boot, it was launching apps, it was shut down. This is where Win 7 kicks Vista square in the family jewels.

 

[Dinesh]

win 7 gives me slow boot time.

 

[Lebon14]

I know that Windows Seven is simply much faster than Vista no matter how hard you try to find something in 7 that is slower than Vista. Simply :

Vista < Seven > XP.

From experience, I've installed Vista on many computers. Two of my friends are running Vista 64. No problems (except maybe drivers problem from ATi... but obviously, not Vista's fault) and they both love it and they don't see it like a slow OS.

At home, I have a Vista x86 with the config below... I even think the boot of my Vista is slightely faster than Seven's. Or maybe equal. What though, there is one thing that I cannot stop saying WOW! is that when my PC get past the "Welcome" screen on Seven... everything is loaded under... what? 10sec? Wow... (My WEI : Vista : 5, Seven 4.8)

Also, I have also installed Vista on a laptop for work. No problems. It runs fast enough and has Aero. (WEI Score : 3.6).

I don't see why exactly people says that Vista is bloated and slow... I simply CANNOT see the difference between both sometimes. Even XP. *sigh*

My friend 1's config :
Core 2 Quad Q6600 2.4GHz
4GB of 1033MHz DDR2
320GB of Hard drive 7.2k RPM
ATi Radeon 4850 512MB
19" Acer 1440x900


My friend 2's config
Core 2 Quad Q9400 2.66GHz
4GB 800MHz DDR2
320GB of Hard Drive 10k RPM
ATi Radeon 4870
28" 1920x1200

My PC, check below

The laptop : It's a Toshiba Satellite Pro PSAG9C-01500Y except that there is a fingerprint reader...

 

[Night Hawk]

win 7 gives me slow boot time.

Both 7s boot here like lightning compared what is seen in both XP and Vista alike taking some time to finish loading thing even after being at the desktop. It's not simply one version alone that will see that. You likely saw an incomplete or bad install of something there causing the delay at startup. Look over the startup items in the msconfig if you have a number of programs installed.

 

[elZee]

Not to get into this argument as it is pointless but clearly MS themselves have realised Vista's shortcomings by going to all the trouble of getting W7 out to the public ASAP.

"Nothing to see here, these aren't the OSs' you're looking for. You can go about your business, move along!"

 

[SIW2]

I think you will find M$ decided they left it too long between XP and Vista.

They are now planning to release another o/s version every 3 years.

Win 8 by Xmas 2012 - with luck.

That is not because 7 is bad.

It is the product life cycle/business model which generates the most profit for M$.