InfoWorld says Windows 7's not that fast
While many of those who have played around with the early version of Windows 7 have noted that it feels pretty zippy, especially for a pre-beta version, InfoWorld says early benchmarks show the software is just on par with its predecessor.
In an article on Monday, InfoWorld said that Windows 7 is a "virtual twin" of Vista when it comes to performance.
On the one hand, this could be seen as bad news, considering Microsoft's efforts to position Windows 7 as better performing. At the same time, this is a pre-beta version. Early releases often lag in performance since optimizations tend to be among the later steps in operating system development.
For its part, Microsoft is encouraging folks to withhold judgment.
"Microsoft consistently encourages people to hold benchmark tests until software is finished and ready for broad release," Microsoft said in a statement to CNET News.
I've been using Windows 7 for a couple of weeks on a loaner machine from Microsoft (a Lenovo X300). It does feel considerably faster than my work machine, but that's a several-year-old IBM ThinkPad T42. And, as a colleague points out, a new Windows image often feels fast, until you load all of your usual add-ons and third-party software on top of it.
I will say, the new Windows has been incredibly stable for an early build. I used it a bunch at PDC and WinHEC and am currently using it as my main machine. Most things I have tried are working, including the software I use every day, such as iTunes and several IM programs.
On the not-so-hot list, I haven't gotten it to work with my Sprint wireless broadband card. I also haven't been able to connect to CNET's VPN, meaning I've been using Outlook Web Access as opposed to the real thing. But to me, the testament to Windows 7 is that I still want to use it, even though Outlook Web Access is way less convenient than Outlook itself.
I'll be interested to see if Microsoft continues in the right direction with its broad beta, which is slated to be released early next year, as well as whether it hits its internal goal of shipping Windows 7 in time for next year's holiday shopping season.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
Not to discredit InfoWorld because I do read their magazine, but there is always one piece of media which has to jump start the bandwagon on the other side. Technology can not just be great all around it has to be fought over. It is ridiculous. I am sure that Windows 7 will be a fine OS.
/P
Plus, of course, it's a beta. Anyone comparing beta versions to fully released products isn't really being entirely sensible.
Suddenly all is clear.
@Mark_Anderson: Forget the competition for a moment. Even compared to XP, Vista is slower. If it wasn't for Moore's Law, it would have flopped hard - whereas XP ran amazingly well when it came out, even on older equipment.
I do agree on it being just beta, and therefore unoptimized code (debug symbols being what they are). OTOH, and unlike 2001, Microsoft actually does have competition now. The consumer and the public are no longer forced to settle for Windows. OSX' explosive growth is evidence enough that, at least on the consumer side, the public knows this. When world+dog goes out of their way to avoid Vista, even at the OEMs, you have to realize the evidence of this.
Whether anyone desires Microsoft's success or failure is not a factor here - the facts alone tell the story: Windows' newest production OS is being avoided. Microsoft's competition is rising. The only reason Vista sells at all is because of OEM sales and "downgrade rights" accounting. This is not a condition that any corporation ever wants to find themselves in.
/P
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.as
Next.
...and as for your cite, Mark? You may want to read it more closely - Vista was slower in 3DMark 06 testing, and barely kept up in gaming (usually lagging behind XP).
Try again?
"Synthetic Results
Vista somehow outperformed XP in PCMark05's overall score, but its important subsystem scores (CPU and Memory) were very close to the older operating system.
The PCMark main score separated the two OSes by around 1000 points?but it's really hard to see any discrepancy in any other PC-related activities."
:)
Cue the pointless yammering (in both directions)...
Me, I'll be content to sit back and watch as business looks @ Windows 7, and does one of two things:
* Holds its collective nose and starts implementing the thing once XP EOL's, or
* Decides to ditch Windows entirely and start migrating to something else (Mac or Linux? Dunno, we'll find out).
Many of the largest enterprises have already begun pilots using alternate OSes (IBM, Intel, etc). Many more are sure to follow.
Thing is, Microsoft no longer has the benefit of being the only vendor on the block anymore. OSX is eating them alive in the laptops markets, and is threatening to do the same among home users in general. While OSX isn't usually considered "enterprise-ready", now would be a great time for Apple to start rectifying that image. While Linux isn't usually considered "polished", again, I can see Canonical and/or RedHat presenting an enterprise-ready solution at the desktop, perhaps with integration from CodeWeavers (the CrossOver guys), or perhaps even the folks who make Parallels.
"* Holds its collective nose and starts implementing the thing once XP EOL's, or
* Decides to ditch Windows entirely and start migrating to something else (Mac or Linux? Dunno, we'll find out)."
I don't see the first happening. Any professional in the IT industry knows this to be blatant FUD. I'm rather surprised you fell for it.
As for the second, why would people want to shift in the business world to a product that does not have a business support model? Apple cannot offer deskside support, does not have a fast turnaround time for any hardware, does not allow in field repairs or anything else that enterprise customers today take for granted. Linux can help a bit, but again, there isn't a good support model for that either. The OS is too fractioned and have no clear concise goal for the future. You may not agree with that, but it's the simple reality before us at this time. Perhaps in time that will change.
As for InfoWorld's article, it seems legitimate to me. Comparing a pre-release, pre-beta version to a product that is already in its second service pack seems logical indeed. It's like comparing a 2009 Honda Civic concept car to a 2000 production model and complaining that the new model isn't any better. They want people to fall for it, and it looks like you did- hook, line and sinker. Infoworld is counting on gullible people just like you.
Congratulations. You're a sheep.
* Holds its collective nose and starts implementing the thing once XP EOL's, or
* Decides to ditch Windows entirely and start migrating to something else (Mac or Linux? Dunno, we'll find out).
Many of the largest enterprises have already begun pilots using alternate OSes (IBM, Intel, etc). Many more are sure to follow. "
STOP THE FUD PLEASE!
"It's like comparing a 2009 Honda Civic concept car to a 2000 production model and complaining that the new model isn't any better."
Why release the pre-beta then? I was not aware that pre-betas were immune from performance criticisms...
Testing obviously.
Sheesh, you people.
It's good to see that Penguin - CNET's equivalent of the The Onion - is still going strong. Always good for a giggle that one.
2) Yep - I was 100% right about the ad hominem; I just didn't realize that it would instantly be used as the only argument most of you had at all. ;)
@ Dan: "why would people want to shift in the business world to a product that does not have a business support model?"
What are you talking about? RHEL, SuSE, Apple... all of these (and more) have business support models. RedHat's support model is considered among the best on the planet. Apple offers "deskside" support for the consumer FFS... why would you think they wouldn't for a business? It's not as if Microsoft commonly leases out folks who can be at your literal side 24/7. "In-field" hardware support is more often than not taken care of by the OEM (Dell, HP, etc) for any OS - as in, they do it right now. ...so who was alleging "FUD" again?
BTW: Car analogies don't always work; a prototype car usually performs better on the track than existing production models. Also, standing there and shouting "sheep", while you actively defend an OS that owns 80%+ of the desktop market? Am I the only one not seeing the irony in your doing that?
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2002/01/10/intel-chooses-w2k-over-winxp
Care to guess what actually happened?
Try again?
Also, standing there and shouting "sheep", while you actively defend an OS that owns 80%+ of the desktop market? Am I the only one not seeing the irony in your doing that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must have misspoke there Peng. I also got a chuckle from that bit of irony, so no you weren't the only one to see that. Unless you really didn't see it (but then why point it out?) ...
;-)
Oh and Mark, I didn't see Peng mention Intel. You did. How does that make Peng wrong again?
Reading comprehension FTW!
"by Penguinisto November 12, 2008 6:44 AM PST
1) There's no mongering of fear, uncertainty, or doubt here, folks. Intel has already said that it's skipping Vista, and I know for fact that they've ditched Windows entirely as a development platform in many, many groups. IBM and others do have pilot programs using non-Microsoft OS products. Can any of you show me counter-examples of this scale?"
It's the 11th word after the 1) in case you miss it this time around as well.
Man you seem so incredible informed. Typing this on Vista 64bit business with SP2...
Unless it is *FREE*
But only the type with quotation marks.
Oh, and you forgot about EFI existing, so in some cases you don't even need a BIOS. ;)
Fedora is the distro where they cram all the new stuff they can into it. Even though that's the case Fedora 8 turned out to be pretty good, but Fedora 9, not so much. From I what I remember it had a new version of X and a new kernel that talked to X differently for less mode switches. NVIDIA was way behind on releasing drivers for it, and I'm not talking about an update. I'm talking about AT ALL. If I'm correct, you had to revert back to the old X system to get hardware acceleration out of your video card. It also had a buggy first version of KDE 4.0. It had changes made to it's package system. For someone running Fedora, big deal, but for someone trying it to see if they liked Linux? That was probably the worse version to try.
All these changes though may lead to a really awesome Fedora 10 though. That's what I was waiting for and why I never stopped using 8 except for when I swapped it out for Ubuntu, but I'm still waiting for 10.
Gullible sheep who believe any sort of propoganda that they see as long as it fits their own personal agenda. Check.
Penguinisto leading the charge into ignorance. You be the judge.
VegeHead-The Sarah Palin of CNET. AKA Parrot
* Holds its collective nose and starts implementing the thing once XP EOL's, or
* Decides to ditch Windows entirely and start migrating to something else (Mac or Linux? Dunno, we'll find out).
There is no hope of a positive one for Microsoft. Maybe Windows 7 is going to as XP was to Windows 2000. As much as people praise XP these days (or the haters make you think they do over Vista) it might not be a bad thing to keep the same base OS (Vista) and avoid a repeat of driver support problems.
As for Georgey Boy and his kind I find it funny how they continue to misrepresent us as shills and Microsoft fanboys when in reality we USE Microsoft products (along with others) and don't hate the other tech. We're just annoyed by the idiots who use FUD and hate in hopes to usher in the era of the Linux desktop and/or Apple's worldwide dominance. I think Georgey had the analogy wrong here; his camp contains the hate-mongering right wing rednecks that the Palins of the world have no problem stirring up into a frenzy of hate. That's right! You Apple and Linux fanboys are the "Real Americans" here. Just ask Georgey!
I'd agree with you about the ad hominem attacks if you didn't do the same thing with a disturbingly clockwork like regularity. Its possible you don't see them as attacks but I'd have to say that many would consider calling people shills, sheep, and idiots to be just that.
Anyway Windows 7 is still beta, if it is "slow" when released then it can be criticized for that. Until, then let MicroSoft work out its kinks.
Of course when he posts the full configurations, what apps he's using and the drivers we'll be able to make a comparison.
Or we could just look at ExtremeTech's benchmarks. Whatever.
By the by, your benchmarks still show Vista lagging behind in almost every metric against XP. And to think that we haven't even looked at the metrics against other OSes here... :)
For the record, I agree it's not really fair in and of itself to compare a beta OS against a full production version, except for the fact that M$ has been touting it's performance improvements. When they aren't there, you have to ask why. Is it just because they haven't optimized it yet, or is it because advertising doesn't improve operating systems? Honestly, we won't know until fista sp3 (code named winblows 7) comes out - what, maybe in 2012?
Or more accurately "you" (meaning people who will bother with fista sp3) will know. I prefer to own my own machine, rather than become a slave to M$'s whims. Yes, I'm "********" about WGA again. Rape me once, shame on you. Rape me twice, shame on me. I still run ex-pee on my gaming rig because, well, I was stupid enough to pay money for it. But if I'm not gaming, it's Ubuntu for me. My rig is mine.
What I do have a problem with is people who say "omg Vista is teh suckz0rz!1!" when they've:
a) Never used it
b) Used it for ten minutes
c) Used it a year or so ago - which, to be fair, was when it was a bit sucky
I have no issue with people who have genuine problems with Vista. For example, the file transfer speeds need sorted. They're better than they were but not good enough. Similarly it won't support some old hardware but then is that Microsoft's fault or that of the hardware vendor because it's hardly in their interest to provide extended support for old hardware, is it? UAC can also be annoying but you can disable it (if you're stupid) or install a filter like the one Norton offer. I also have a lot of sympathy for the poor sods who were duped into buying 'Vista Ready' machines which clearly weren't and for that alone some pretty high up MS execs should burn in hell.
But here's the thing: Vista running on good hardware is actually pretty good. I run a fully up-to-date copy of x64 on a Q6600 powered machine with 4GB RAM and I really like it. It never crashes - occasionally it'll boot me out of Civ IV or Far Cry 2 due to nVidia's craptastic drivers (now there's a company you really can hate) but just back to the desktop. There's no BSOD, no lock ups, no shut downs. This was not always so but it is now - it's late 2008 and time and Vista have moved on.
To contrast this I recently installed Intrepid Ibex on my back up box and it runs pretty damn well. This was, of course, after having to install ndiswrapper and the appropriate Netgear drivers to get wireless access and fiddle with Compiz because it just doesn't seem to like the Radeon 9800 installed in the machine but, yeah, pretty well. Those who go on about DOS boxes should bear in mind what Terminal actually is.
However, it's really just a curio because, like the Macbook I used to have, it doesn't actually support the applications I use be they business or personal. In addition Windows XP used to fall over on me reasonably - although not excessively - regularly and is actually pretty awkward now I've gotten used to Vista. I still use it at work on my desktop and my Lenovo Thinkpad and it's just so... basic.
The function of an OS is to sit in the background largely unnoticed and let you run the apps you like. Is OSX more elegant than Vista? Yes, it probably is, although not to the degree that its most fanatical adherents make out. Can it run Far Cry 2? Nope. Office 2007 including MS Access and Outlook? Nope. Can Linux? Nope. Of course, if I was using a Mac I could install Windows under Parallels but then why the hell would I want to run two operating systems (given the point that the purpose of an OS is to run the apps, not the other way round) to do tasks I could do with one? That would just show that I'd made a poor decision in choice of platform.
The bottom line is that you can continue to spread as much FUD as you want and the usual MS bashers can come in and scream and shout about everything plus the tech bloggers can get their hit counts up by playing the old anti-MS game and the general public and the vast majority of corporations just won't care because they know Windows works. That's where it is where it is and why OSX and Linux are where they are. Sure, they may make some inroads - such as the whopping global market share increase of about 2% Apple has made in the two years that MS botched Vista's launch and which they capitalised on with a particularly imaginative smear campaign - but fundamentally most people are always going to pick Windows because despite all its faults it works the vast majority of the time, runs all the stuff they need and is familiar. Things may change when this cloud malarkey surfaces in reality but then there won't be a need for embedded operating systems at all and Apple, Microsoft and most brands of Linux are all going to be dead ducks.
I appreciate that you may not like this scenario because the readership weighting of tech blogs might actually give you the idea that a lot more people really care about which OS they use than actually do whereas the reality s that they're really only a few voices howling into a largely indifferent wilderness. That's just the way it is.
So it goes.
This guy is drawing conclusions on a pre-beta release of Windows. That is like a food critic commenting on a dish before it is cooked. He is obviously biased against Windows for whatever reason and seems to be on some sort on crusade to deface it before it is released. Maybe he is Penguinisto's cousin... Anyone with half a brain will see through this and reserve judgement until a release candidate build is available. Microsoft still has about a year before the scheduled release. It is also amusing how he twists fixing issues with Vista + new features as a negative in terms of the OS update. When was the last time you upgraded anything with something that decreased the value you already have? That article is a waste of internet bandwidth.
I learned my lesson with the iPhone, rushing to judgement before I even picked one up and used it. After getting my hands on one, I realized how great a device it is. The FUD spreaders should try the same with Vista and Windows 7.
Windows 7: Oops! Microsoft did it again!
Windows 7: The 'dog food' tastes bad
Why I (still) curse Vista from time to time
Die, Vista, die!
Those are just from the last month.
I guess when you are already pissed at a company for one a previous run in(trying to sell information that was against a liscense he agreed to), you might have a pre determined result.
Microsoft says that Windows 7 will have very similar resource requirements, that it will use the same driver architecture as Vista, and that it will retain UAC. We can also see that the interface is different to both XP and Vista. So where are people getting this "Vista is crap, Windows 7 is great" idea from?
Personally, I think Windows users should stop whinging and just accept Vista for what it is: A reasonably good operating system, and a mile better than XP.
Add the word "Microsoft" to a title and have the internet jump.
Seriously.
I've read some pretty good comments from people actually using Windows 7. Most seem to be in the same ball park as Ina's comments. It just seems to be the big publishers (cnet excluded) that start the bashing right out of the bax.
Funny thing I've also noticed is Computer(we hate MS)world seems to have some more tempered articles on Windows 7 than InfoWorld. It looks like the roles are reversing. Interesting...
In this case Windows 7.0 seems to have the same bechmark as Windows Vista.
But Windows XP loads faster and has better benchmarks than Vista, and Windows 2000 loads even faster and has better benchmarks than XP.
Windows ME is too unstable to benchmark.
Windows 98 and 95 load quicker than higher Windows versions and seem to be a bare bones operating system. Microsoft abandoned the Windows 9X (Classic Windows) for the NT 4.0 flavor and up as 2000 was based on NT 4.0 and XP on 2000, but Vista was supposed to be a rewrite but still uses some NT/2000/XP code but with serious issues.
I am using Virtual PC on a Dual-Core AMD Turion 64 laptop and Windows 95 loads in about 15 seconds, under Virtual PC. ON a real Intel 486 66Mhz system with 24M of RAM, it would have taken 5 to 15 minutes to load.
This tells me that Microsoft shouldn't give up on legacy software and Classic Windows. Some people and organizations don't want the bells and whistles and extra features, all they want is the "core" OS to boot up in less than a minute and not require any more than 64M to 256M in a Virtual Machine so that it can run fast and not hog up the RAM of the host Windows PC, but still run fast enough in a Virtual Machine to be productive.
When Microsoft released Windows Vista, it shut out a few million pieces of legacy software that only runs on Classic Windows and not Vista, and the software companies won't or can't port those programs to Vista due to budgets or the fact that their development tools don't run on Vista or compile a Vista compatible program. That is where Virtual PC and Virtual Server take over and run Classic Windows in a virtual machine. But Microsoft needs to keep the security patches updated with the Classic Versions of Windows, or at the very least make the best of 95 and 98 and turn it into Classic Windows 9X (Hint hint, P2P Pirates already did that with their 'Windows 99' release that also lacks IE, Media Player, and other useless bloatware) or take the best of 2000 and XP and make Classic Windows NT (Hint Hint P2P pirates have already done that and called it Tiny XP or Windows XP Experience, or Windows XP Lite that is just the core of the XP OS without the bloatware).
What Microsoft is doing with Windows Vista and Windows 7.0 is stacking features so high, that eventually they will create the electronic version of the "Tower of Babel" and then it will be too high and come crashing down on them, and features will conflict with each other, or bloat the machine to the speed of a 286, or confuse the user, or cause such a learning curve that people give up learning and go back to an older Windows version or an alternative such as Linux, a Macintosh, AROS, OS/2 eComStation, etc.
I guess what I am trying to say is that "Less is more", with fewer features, Windows loads faster, is less prone to crashing, is easier to learn (smaller learning curve), and can run really fast on the latest hardware or via a Virtual Machine on the latest hardware. That is the version of Windows that people really need, just the core features, at a reasonable price like $35 - $50 - $85 that just runs the basics of the operating system so that it has better performance and they can add in the features and software they want to, without having them chose for them and taking away their freedom of choice. For example, most people avoid using Internet Explorer and just download Firefox, Opera, Seamonkey, Safari, or Google Chrome and then don't use Internet Explorer at all, so why bother installing it in the first place?
It still wouldn't hurt MS to raise the minimum requirements on the box to 2 gigs of ram though. If they look bad because people think it is bloated, well MS is just going to have to deal with that. It was their idea to build the OS like that. The very least they could do is get behind the decision that they made by putting that truth on the box. Is that really too much to ask? But it isn't like you won't be able find a computer that can run it.
However, if Microsoft bloats it even more, even by a half a gig of memory, they're going to have a problem worse than the Vista PR disaster. Their problem at that point will be when everyone realizes no matter how loud they scream Microsoft isn't going to listen to them. Once they know that they will start looking for a solution that does not involve Microsoft once and for all.
- by The_happy_switcher November 13, 2008 7:56 AM PST
- Cue up some Who music: "Meet the new turd (Windows 7) same as the old turd (Vista)."
- Reply to this comment
-
(61 Comments)