Windows 7's Unexpected 'Killer' Feature

[Night Hawk]

Windows 7's Unexpected 'Killer' Feature

Everyone loves a killer feature — but what gives Windows 7 a strong future is not what you're thinking.

Randall C. Kennedy, InfoWorld
Nov 3, 2009 4:42 pm

Everyone loves a killer feature: that must-have capability or technology that prompts you to plunk down your hard-earned cash in an effort to upgrade your computing experience.

In the case of Windows, there have been precious few versions that included a truly killer feature. Windows 3.1 was a killer version because it allowed PCs to finally break (or at least reduce the impact of) the dreaded 640K barrier. Windows NT was a killer version (at least for power users) because it introduced the concepts of client/server security and true, hardware-based memory protection to the environment.

[ How to choose between 32-bit Windows 7 and 64-bit Windows 7. | Get InfoWorld's 21-page hands-on look at the new version of Windows, from InfoWorld’s editors and contributors. | Find out what's new, what's wrong, and what's good about Windows 7 in InfoWorld's "Windows 7: The essential guide." ]

Windows XP was a killer version because it bridged the gap between the consumer (Windows 9x) and business (Windows NT) computing spaces. And though generally considered a flop, Vista was a killer version in that it forced the Windows ecosystem to evolve beyond the Windows XP paradigm and thus paved the way for Windows 7.

More at: Windows 7's Unexpected 'Killer' Feature - PC World

 

[kegobeer]

I really enjoyed this:

Given the same number of CPU cores, Windows 7 runs circles around both Windows Vista and Windows XP. In fact, the results aren't even close: In one multiprocess workflow test, Windows 7 outpaced Windows XP by 250 percent -- this on an eight-core (dual quad-core Xeon) HP Z800 workstation.
This is Windows 7's killer feature. It means that, as customers invest in new PC hardware, they'll be better positioned to reap the improvements in CPU, memory, and chip set performance by deploying Windows 7. It also means that sticking with Windows XP -- ostensibly because it is less bloated and performs better -- is a fool's errand.
Times have changed. The hardware landscape is much different than when Windows XP was on the drawing boards. Back then, the concept of a multicore CPU was still just that: a concept. Windows XP was designed for a world of single CPU desktops and the occasional two- or four-way (discrete CPUs, not cores) engineering workstation. It simply isn't smart enough to know how to leverage something as complex as a modern-day Core i7- or E5xxx-series Xeon processor.

I wonder how the XP die hards will react?

 

[pezzonovante]

Randall C Kennedy is a complete joke. One week he bashes Windows, the next week he praises it and the one after he bashes Linux.

 

[Night Hawk]

I wonder how the XP die hards will react?

Likely a little "hot under the collar"? For the last 2yrs. all I heard all too ofter was how great XP was compared to Vista while the newer version there was geared for dual and quad cored cpus and ofter had no need for any special patches for many of the newer hardwares!

XP itself was a quick bridge over from Fat to NTFS and the NT core following the ME flop! It took 3 service packs to get it running good while 7 is good out of the box so far! Vista was the inbetween there but a larger OS generally more secure and stable then it's own predacessor.

 

[Lee]

Agree. Never really got into XP because of Win 2000, and the new Mac OS X (the first OS X). The only reason I ever used XP was because it came as the Main OS on a new laptop, but six months later that laptop was updated to Vista (never turned back to XP). There will for a long time be those out there who will swear that XP is the only true windows OS, just as there are those who would die before giving up there Mac's or Linux based computers. What you going to do, best thing is just to pay them no mind, and hopefully they will go away.

 

[AussieGuy92]

a lot of die hard xp fans hate vista and prob wont be switching to win 7

 

[Night Hawk]

They will be the ones at a loss sooner or later there. The only real holdup seen with 7 initially was with the ISPs here. You go for the latest offers and end up with outdated 2000, XP driver support for the modems and softwars they provide!

Hopefully now that 7 is out and more and more people are running the 64bit Windows between Vista and 7 the ISPs will smarten up there a bit!

 

[bullfights]

a lot of die hard xp fans hate vista and prob wont be switching to win 7

LOL... I am a diehard XP'er, as I type my W7 pre order is on the shelf waiting to be installed. Tho I am running W7 7100 x64 on another PC.

When Vista came along, I tried, then went back to XP and didnt look back until I saw what 7 was doing, I went thru the beta and liked it from the start.

I would install 7 on my main PC (XP) but have so many 32bit apps. I am also wondering why, with the 64bit PC I am almost out of space (2gb left on 69gb WD 10k drive), and dont even have that many apps installed compared to the XP box, which also has the same identical drive, but with 35 gb free space, and so many apps, like I mentioned. Will I need a large drive just for W7?

And then again I dont really like the mail setup for windows mail, it looks messy, I know I can probably clean it but havent even played with it, not even in the 64bit box, lol

 

[Night Hawk]

I see you have several drives there between the two systems. Here the drive space simply goes fast due to numerous programs downloaded along with updates and custom files kept onhand for various purposes like for illustrating how to do things. Wallpapers as well as virtual machines add to the list.

For working with video drive space instantly become a commodity. I saw that in your specs for the XP case. with a 500gb OS drive with 465gb available once partitioned and formatted the one still seeing the 64bit RC has over 400gb taken up! I had to clean up numerous temp files as well as ones simply no longer used to bring that down a bit to 406gb from about 436gb!

A 74gb Raptor despite speed leaves hardly any room. The high priced SSDs come in at 256mb for the largest seen so far suggesting a 500-1tb 7,200rpm performance model if not going with a 160gb Raptor would be the options there.

 

[bullfights]

well yes, and no... I mean I have deleted everything I can possibly delete off that 7 drive and the most I can have of free space is 5gb. I am actually thinking about combining the two 74gb drives (one has 64bit the other 32) in a raid setting abd installing the 64bit W7. But then again I mainly use 32bit apps, though I do have some 64bit's, and I would like to get the most ram I can, the W7 has 4gb, just as the XP 32bit, tho can only see 3gb.

I just might grab a 500gb or a terabyte. Yes I do alot of video, mostly dvd conversions from PAL to NTSC and have lots of copies on hand sometimes duplicates, but thats why I also have that stuff on 1 TB drives, of which I have 3 in the XP and 1 in the W7, yeah even a 160gb would do....

Gerry

 

[smarteyeball]

Randall C Kennedy is a complete joke.

That's why we normally don't post his stuff on this site...

 

[Night Hawk]

I wasn't favoring or discrediting any one author but came across this one at PC World when looking what news was seen for 7.

 

[chuckr]

I really enjoyed this:

Given the same number of CPU cores, Windows 7 runs circles around both Windows Vista and Windows XP. In fact, the results aren't even close: In one multiprocess workflow test, Windows 7 outpaced Windows XP by 250 percent -- this on an eight-core (dual quad-core Xeon) HP Z800 workstation.
This is Windows 7's killer feature. It means that, as customers invest in new PC hardware, they'll be better positioned to reap the improvements in CPU, memory, and chip set performance by deploying Windows 7. It also means that sticking with Windows XP -- ostensibly because it is less bloated and performs better -- is a fool's errand.
Times have changed. The hardware landscape is much different than when Windows XP was on the drawing boards. Back then, the concept of a multicore CPU was still just that: a concept. Windows XP was designed for a world of single CPU desktops and the occasional two- or four-way (discrete CPUs, not cores) engineering workstation. It simply isn't smart enough to know how to leverage something as complex as a modern-day Core i7- or E5xxx-series Xeon processor.

.
I wonder how the XP die hards will react?

.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:
.

 

[smarteyeball]

I wasn't favoring or discrediting any one author but came across this one at PC World when looking what news was seen for 7.

That's okay mate. I just remember that John didn't really want any link backs between him and this site.

Personally, I find R.C.K a riot

 

[Night Hawk]

I guess I got stuck with the bad one this time!

The problem with a place like a large magazine's online site is the large volume of "contributers" where a few end up being....? less favorable?

 

[smarteyeball]

I wouldn't worry about it mate

 

[Zen00]

I'm only using about 32gb of data and that's with everything installed on my C: (Office Ultimate, Expression Suite 3)

Edit: Dang, I'm late.

 

[Night Hawk]

I'm only using about 32gb of data and that's with everything installed on my C: (Office Ultimate, Expression Suite 3)

Edit: Dang, I'm late.

So that's where my folder went! :roflmao:

That's about the size of just one folder around here! Try 134gb taken up after the clean install of 7 a week ago.

 

[bytebull]

I really enjoyed this:

Given the same number of CPU cores, Windows 7 runs circles around both Windows Vista and Windows XP. In fact, the results aren't even close: In one multiprocess workflow test, Windows 7 outpaced Windows XP by 250 percent -- this on an eight-core (dual quad-core Xeon) HP Z800 workstation.
This is Windows 7's killer feature. It means that, as customers invest in new PC hardware, they'll be better positioned to reap the improvements in CPU, memory, and chip set performance by deploying Windows 7. It also means that sticking with Windows XP -- ostensibly because it is less bloated and performs better -- is a fool's errand.
Times have changed. The hardware landscape is much different than when Windows XP was on the drawing boards. Back then, the concept of a multicore CPU was still just that: a concept. Windows XP was designed for a world of single CPU desktops and the occasional two- or four-way (discrete CPUs, not cores) engineering workstation. It simply isn't smart enough to know how to leverage something as complex as a modern-day Core i7- or E5xxx-series Xeon processor.

I wonder how the XP die hards will react?

They will be glad they waited for 7 ... and didn't fall into the Vista trap.

 

[Zidane24]

I'm only using about 32gb of data and that's with everything installed on my C: (Office Ultimate, Expression Suite 3)

Edit: Dang, I'm late.

So that's where my folder went! :roflmao:

That's about the size of just one folder around here! Try 134gb taken up after the clean install of 7 a week ago.

I normally use about 13GB of disc space on my laptop (Windows + Office + ETC)

I can see you guys shuddering as you read this