| 48 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Toms hardware and Anandtech seem to be unanimous in this. Windows 7 offers a negligible performance advantage over Vista. The only real disparity is with in-network transfers. I think this shows once again once you have a fast enough computer, the OS makes very little difference in performance. With an OS its always about what it can support, not if it can be supported. |
|
Originally posted by Cleffy
Good to know, having links to these articles would be nice. -=AlaKraM=- |
|
Originally posted by Cleffy
who cares vista is still a POs even tho 7 is a stripped down vista almost XD take the min specs of windows 7 to run it and try running vista i bet youll see a performance diffrence |
|
|
Pretty logical since windows 7 is only a slight adjustment of Vista. Vista was always a good OS, very stable. Windows 7 is a bit better out of the box than Vista, but for tweakers, the difference is negligeble as we tend to disable things like superfetch anyway. Basically they made Windows 7 more newbie friendly. Windows 7 can now also benefit of the good driver support that vista has build up. The biggest change Windows 7 in itself brought is the improved user interface and aero functionality, it is actually beneficial now, where in Vista it was just a toy. I certainly like it. They did their homework ( and took a peak at MacOS X :p ).
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh |
|
|
talismen351
 Hard Core Member
Joined: 11/01/07
"Easy" only equals "better" for crack addicts and MMORPG developers. |
Originally posted by CyberWiz
You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it. I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista.
|
|
Tomshardware: www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-7-performance,2442.html
Anandtech: www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx
RIP, Orc Choppa |
|
Originally posted by talismen351
You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it. I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista. i no people that had a fair few problems with Windows 7 and drivers. Vista for me was fine, had it for about 2 years and didn't have a single problem except the printer i had didn't release a new vista 64bit driver. Apart from that vista was fine. I do prefer Windows 7 though but vista wasn't that bad for me. |
|
|
I started with Vista 64 and have not had one single problem. There were a lot of people fooled that got Vista 32 that had problems from the start. Talk about a trully worthless OS. So in answer to some of the comments, yes Vista was incredibly stable. Yes it works great on games. The Vista 64 version, that is. The 32 version was designed to screw people out of money. This is my opinion. It succeeded wonderfully at this task. Here is a good rule of thumb. Do not purchase anything from Microsoft until Service Pack 1 is out for OS, or 1 year has passed for software. You will not have a problem if you follow this rule. Unless you got 32 which means you didn't read anything relating to the softwares and did little to no research. Let the buyer beware. You DO NOT get what you pay for anymore. |
|
|
That is a very shallow test, I know Tom's Hardware tests the best but they need to test the worst as well when analyzing a new OS. Windows 7 is crazy stable compared to Vista and can operate on half the hardware. We have 7 deployed in classrooms with 32 MB Geforce 2 graphics cards and 256 MB's of RAM on 1.6 Ghz P4's. Vista takes a dump on those machines and runs away laughing its head off. The base of Windows 7 is incredibly improved over Vista. While higher end machines may not be able to really make a noticable difference I can guarantee you beyond a shadow of a doubt that Windows 7 will kick Vista all over the place when it comes to performance on lower end machines - the machines Microsoft should have and now are more worried about. Gamers may have high end machines, but anyone that knows someone who isn't computer savvy can easily see that gaming machines are not the norm. |
|
Originally posted by CyberWiz Little off-topic but why would anyone want to disable superfetch? One of the best new things in windows. |
|
Originally posted by talismen351
You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it. I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista. 3rd party manufacturers not making proper drivers is OS fault cause of? |
|
Originally posted by aelieth
Also don't forget why it's so friendly on older hardware as Windows 7 has been developed for the netbook market in mind which uses the Atom CPU that's about as powerufl as CPU's were 5 years ago but produces a lot less heat thus allowing the small netbooks. |
|
Originally posted by dfan Little off-topic but why would anyone want to disable superfetch? One of the best new things in windows.
Because in a world where people have desktop PCs with 8 gigs of ram (like the one I'm posting this on), people still cling to the idea that 20-30 megs of ram in use by the OS for some service they don't fully understand is 'wasted resources'. IE, they're clueless. |
|
|
I have been running Win7 since RC1 and have never looked back to Vista OR XP. You do notice a difference on high-end machines as well. I have installed it on my game rig (see signature) and laptop (2Ghz dual core, 4 gig Geil gaming ram, 500gig HD) and saw a noticeable improvement over Vista which i bumped up from. I have yet to have a crash or notice anything slowing down over time as I have read about on other forums. Install went without an issue. Only OS that I have tried that beats it in sheer speed is Ubuntu 9.04, and that is just barely. Remember that this is on a high end gaming rig and mid grade laptop. Anyone try tossing Win7 on a low end computer yet? EDIT: I run the 64 bit version, can't say anything about the 32 bit sorry! - Case: Thermaltake Kandalf Black Chassis "I like wow, I like aion and I like AoC all for different reasons.....the later cause i get to see boobs, but still its a reason!!" - Sawlstone |
|
|
Ok this is one time I have to dissagree with Toms Hardware on something. Normally I read there testing and get about the same results with the machines i build. This Windows 7 test just bugs me, my own personal experiance with vista x64 and 32 ultimate, and windows 7 ulitmate x64 and 32 go against what I have seen on Toms hardware. I will admit that I never did some side by side comparisons but I do know the computers I have ran them on and how they all ran with xp, and this is what I found. I have 3 machines that i have tried a version of vista and a version of windows 7 on, and all have run XP at some point. These machines are as follows... Machine 1 Toshiba Qosmio F10 1GB Memory Nvidia GeForce FX Go 5700
Machine 2 Pentium 4 2.2 1GB Rambus Memory Nvidia GeForce FX 5500
Machine 3 I7 920 @ 2.67GHz 6GB Memory Geforce 8800GT 64Bit
On Machine one all I ever ran was Windows Media Center untill recently, I upgraded it to Windows 7 just for the heck of it. It was the RC client just so you know, although it was a royal pain in the arse to find some drivers I got it working. Here is what I found... In XP: I was able to play Command and Conquer 3, Lord of the Rings Online, Eve, City of Villans. All games ran pretty good some of them were a bit much for the system like C&C3 had alot of slow down but it ran good enough to play. Sorry I don't have any frame rates for you, but C&C was the only game out of the ones above where I had to turn the graphics down from the default to be able to play. After Windows 7 There was really no difference at all, each game runs about the same as xp Windows Vista Yea didn't happen, C&C wouldn't start, and when I got EVE to start it was a slide show, I uninstalled very quick.
Ok this machine has only being used to play Mame for the last year or 2. The nieces and Nephews like Mortal Kombat so they love playing on the 50" big screen with this computer. The hard drive pooched on me about a month ago so I decided to have a laugh since this machine meets the requirments for vista and windows 7, to try out vista and have a laugh. In XP Mame ran flawlessly, no slowdown on any games, Mortal Kombat especially In Vista What a nightmare, after I was able to get the machine booted up and mame loaded, I tried Mortal Kombat, it was like watching a slideshow, HORRIBLE in every aspect of the word. In Windows 7 THe damn thing runs as good as XP, I crap you not, all the Mame games run flawlessly, I even use it as a media center now as well, and play videos from it. Machine 3 Well this machine is my gaming rig, so I play more on this then any other machine. Being playing classics like Half LIfe 2, Counter Strike, Lord of the rings ONline, EVE, AION, NFS:Shift...etc. All games I try turning up to max settings to see how they run. In XP x64 The machine ran great, no issues the games seemed flawless, no slow down no frame lag nothing In Vista x64 I noticed that Aion fluttered a bit, was choppy, NFS:Shift was a bit laggy as well, LOTRO had alot of pausing going on that was not related to network or hard drive. Also the OS was not as responsive as XP x64 In Windows 7 x64 Again ran as good as XP x64, I didn't have any slow down in any of the games at all.
My personal recomendations, upgrade from XP to Windows 7. I have done it on my P4 2.2 and I don't regret it at all it is nice to get away from xp finally. On first run machines that have vista basic on them, the ones that were with release of Vista put Windows 7 on them and see a 60% improvment in my opinion. On machines built to run Vista, you will see an improvment over Vista, but not quite as fast as XP, but the ability to utilize the new graphics from the latest DX in games to me is worth it. XP should be dead, just like windows 98 died to XP, XP should die to Windows 7. |
|
Originally posted by Eben
Because in a world where people have desktop PCs with 8 gigs of ram (like the one I'm posting this on), people still cling to the idea that 20-30 megs of ram in use by the OS for some service they don't fully understand is 'wasted resources'. IE, they're clueless.
Superfetch in Vista took away all your RAM for caching purposes. Often there was more than 2GB of RAM that was used as cache from a total of 4GB RAM. Superfetch seems to be improved in Windows 7, but still I don't see a good reason to use it when playing games. I think you are clueless about the workings of superfetch.
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh |
|
|
I hated Vista from the first time I got my new PC which was preinstalled with it I was use to XP on my old PC and rarely had a problem with it but with Vista I have had so many problems in only 3 months then the 5 years with XP. Found out the other day I get a free upgrade to WIndows 7 and I will be using it for sure. |
|
Originally posted by CyberWiz
Superfetch in Vista took away all your RAM for caching purposes. Often there was more than 2GB of RAM that was used as cache from a total of 4GB RAM. Superfetch seems to be improved in Windows 7, but still I don't see a good reason to use it when playing games. I think you are clueless about the workings of superfetch.
Idle ram is wasted ram. I think you are the one that is clueless as to the workings of superfetch. |
|
Originally posted by talismen351
You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it. I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista.
No I am not joking, of course Windows 7 is alot more compatible than Vista was at release, but that is thanks to Vista paving the way. Vista and Win7 drivers are basically the same, so you can't say Win7 is more compatible than Vista in that regard. Uprading from XP to Vista on old hardware with little driver support was not a good idea, but that is still the same with Win7. The only way you should have used Vista when it was released, was by installing on a new assembled computer and researching that you had the drivers to support your hardware 1st. Random crashes is just BS, Vista at release was almost as stable as XP SP3. Program compatibility was an issue, but that has not improved with Win7 either, it are the software publishers that adjusted their software to make it work with Vista, and because of that it now works with Win7 as well ( even tho some games work better on Vista than on Win7 ). Only newbies claim that Vista is as bad as ME. With ME, the OS in itself was flawed. With Vista it was a case of compatibility, and it is only because Vista paved the way, that Win7 is now alot better out of the box.
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh |
|
Originally posted by talismen351
I agree. Also is Vista the most patched Os ever, that say something about it. Vistas problem was that it was and still is very buggy. It also performs horrible on slower computers. The technology in itself might be good but the compability and number of bugs make it MS worst OS ever. Just look on it's sales numbers compared to XP. |
|
Originally posted by talismen351
You are joking right? Seriously, I never have had so many issues with my PC since Windows ME. Vista was far from stable. Random crashes, many programs didn't work properly, compatibility issues with printers, cameras not working properly with it. I put in Windows 7 and did not have to download a single compatable driver. Win7 was able to detect and update everything for me. With Vista I had to install everything, sound card, graphics driver, motherboard, and printer took days to finally get the dam thing working with vista.
I never had any issues with Vista it was always very stable for me. I think alot of the issues people tring to say Vista is not stable are running hardware from last decade. Sic semper tyrannis "Democracy broke down, not when the Union |
|
Originally posted by Eben
Idle ram is wasted ram. I think you are the one that is clueless as to the workings of superfetch.
So instead of idle RAM you cache it with things you don't need? You claimed that superfetch only used 20-30 megs of RAM, that is the reason I called you clueless ( and because you essentially called me clueless ). I don't need things to be cached if I only run a game on my computer. Besides that I really did not see my performance improve with superfetch, rather the opposite, and that is all what matters to me, real life performance.
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh |
|
Originally posted by CyberWiz
So instead of idle RAM you cache it with things you don't need? You claimed that superfetch only used 20-30 megs of RAM, that is the reason I called you clueless ( and because you essentially called me clueless ). I don't need things to be cached if I only run a game on my computer. Besides that I really did not see my performance improve with superfetch, rather the opposite, and that is all what matters to me, real life performance.
Sorry, wasn't aware you'd turned your PC into a glorified game console. I retract my statement. If all you're doing is gaming, and never do anything else, then by all means, strip the hell out of it. |
|
|
Spaceweed10
Novice Member
Joined: 4/01/08
"Any attempt to glean joy from this torrid husk of an entertainment product is met with disdain." |
Originally posted by Cleffy
Support with link. As for my personal opinion, that is absolute rubbish. Windows 7 is a massive improvement on any platform I have previously used. I have used W7/Vista/XP on my current rig, and there is no comparison. W7 is worth every penny, and for the record, Vista was garbage. Anyone who compares Vista/W7 as remotely comparable, doesn't have a clue what they are talking about - period. |
|
Vista used the same amount of ram for apps whether they were in the foreground, background or minimized. Win7 reduces the ram usage of apps that are background or minimized. Thats a big deal. |
|
