Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

WINDOWS 7 THREAD (ongoing)

<< < (29/54) > >>

zridling:
I like it, too. Isn't this what we all hoped Vista would have been two years ago? Imagine living in that world. But this is what Microsoft has always done. They build something, and then they make it better. But since XP had outlived itself, the pain caused by Vista was acute, since most businesses didn't adopt it.

A nice ancillary benefit? Since netbook hardware is quickly growing in power, Win7 should run fine on them.

nontroppo:
InfoWorld have done another set of benchmarks, showing that Vista and Windows 7 are birds-of-a-feather, closely identical in CPU intensive workloads, and are still significantly less efficient than XP:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/09/01/22/03TC-windows-multicore_1.html

It should come as no surprise that Windows 7 performs very much like its predecessor. In fact, during extensive multiprocess benchmark testing, Windows 7 essentially mirrored Vista in almost every scenario. Database tasks? Roughly 118 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 92 percent slower) and 19 percent slower than XP on quad-core (identical to Vista). Workflow? A respectable 38 percent slower than XP on dual-core (Vista was 98 percent slower) and 59 percent slower on quad-core (Vista was 66 percent slower).
--- End quote ---

His point is that on dual and quad-core systems, XP is still causing much less CPU activity to do the same operations, but it fails to scale as well, and that by 16-core systems, Windows 7 should finally overtake XP for comutation efficiency in the kinds of tests he used. Whatever kernel changes MS made to Win7, they are still not enough to negate the simpler code paths of XP unless you have many cores. That still also suggests XP will remain speed king on current and low-end newer hardware for a few years to come.

Caveats: will RTM Win7 be significantly faster than the beta?

f0dder:
Heh, from that article (and damn I hate sites that use CSS to hide selection color):
(sorry, Windows 2000, you're 32-bit only)
--- End quote ---
- that's wrong :). It doesn't run on x86-64, though...

Btw, I find it relatively lame that the article keeps mentioning DRM for tasks that have nothing to do with (and aren't influenced by) DRM. Yes, there's nasty DRM in Vista and it's real enough and does have real-life effects. But please, don't use it as a catch-all when it's not in effect (except, perhaps, for the WMP test).

I wonder what exactly makes Vista and Win7 slower in his tests (does he use clean OS installs, or multiple OS installs on a single disk, meaning OS #2 has a "closer-to-disk-end-slowness" disadvantage - et cetera) ... and how other kinds of benchmarks would fare.

zridling:
Is it true you can dock the taskbar on the side of the screen like KDE allows?

f0dder:
Is it true you can dock the taskbar on the side of the screen like KDE allows?
-zridling (January 23, 2009, 06:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
You've always been able to do that afaik, but with Win7 it finally *feels right* :)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page