You might've heard that crazy rumor making the rounds that Microsoft leaked the
Windows 7 beta on purpose to build some positive buzz, and while there's no real evidence (or likelihood) of that of any sort, the seemingly-magical build 7000 is certainly doing well for itself. Following up on
wide praise for the fledgling OS,
ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes pitted the beta up against XP and Vista in some informal "real-word" tasks like boot up, shut down, file maneuvers, installations and other common tasks. On both test systems, an AMD Phenom 9700 setup and an Intel Pentium Dual-Core E2200 number (with ATI and NVIDIA graphics, respectively), the Windows 7 install soundly bested XP and Vista task by task, with few exceptions. Performance testing is never an exact science, but it's clear that Microsoft is taking performance very seriously this time around -- we can't wait for the next conveniently-leaked beta to bolster this rep even further. Next on the benchmarking agenda?
Real World: Brooklyn tasks.
[Via
Ars Technica]
posted Jan 3rd 2009 5:15PM
AMD Phenom 9700?
Adrian shouldn't still have that box. It should've been returned to AMD a long time ago. The 9700 never went on sale!
(For those who forgot, the first batch of Phenoms had a critical bug which left them at risk of locking up slightly more often than they should have. They were all stop-shipped, though some 9500s made it through.)
I had a Phenom 9700 engineering sample like the one Adrian has. They were supposed to be returned to AMD after use.
Can I put Windows 7 on my Lenovo S-10?
Is Vista the New Coke of OS's?
You know, you could have always blackmailed him in to splitting the eBay cash with you.
That's what I'm going to do, now I know.
The unbelievable thing is that Windows 7 right now still has some debugging code in it. Once the debugging code is disabled for RTM, it'll be even faster.
Well, I wouldn't call a little optimisation after 8 years exactly "unbelievable", but I see where this is coming from: Microsoft got us used to such lousy standards that even a minor job seems exceptional. Way to go, Microsoft.
Yes MS wants a buzz on this thing so bad. Now they are claiming that it is better. This Windows 7 is just a repacked version of Vista with the updates included which we already have. It's not Apple made Vista sucks it's MS itself so we have to buy this new Windows. I am not going to upgrade it's a waste of money, now that Vista works perfectly for me.
I've seen Windows 7, and I'm not surprised that it performed so well.
Stick with Vista if you want, nobody will care. Most of us that pay for the latest hardware don't want to stick with a previous version of an OS because its "fine". What they are doing with 7 is no different then what Apple keeps doing with every animal flavor of OSX, Apple just does it more frequently.
I wonder if Apple will beat a dead horse even longer with those tired Mac vs PC ads when Windows 7 comes out? I wish they would spend their time hiring Windows developers to make Apple software not such crap on Windows.
Nobody likes a tattletale.
@treats!
Nicely done. I have gone through a lot of test code for Apple OS X, and I was on the Vista TAP. For me, the first things that stood out with Vista were the hardening options and the ease of deployment. Apple continued to promise everything in the next release, while MS worked with us to resolve issues with the current software release (whatever application or OS it was) and integrate functions into the new one. I like Vista, and I run it on all my systems, including both my Dell Mini 9 netbooks. I don't see the issue.
i think the fish swims:) please God please
Windows ME : Windows XP :: Windows Vista : Windows 7
I'm still holding out hope...
@ Inane_Asylum
Comparing Windows Vista to Windows ME just shows that you have never even seen Windows ME. That abomination REALLY WAS a bad operating system. The betas didn't even have TCP/IP in them! Vista just fell victim to collective ignorance and good smear campaigning by Apple. Vista > XP. Always has been.
Several sites list the AMD Phenom 9700 for sale. They are listed as discontinued now, but they were available to anyone (and apparently still are while old stock lasts).
I just finished installing it on an old laptop (1.7ghz pentium m 400mhz fsb 1 gb of ram intel graphics ... pos basically) and its running great! faster than xp was for sure! only problem is no wirless card drivers and the graphics divers wont install properly, everything else works tho! try it for yourself, I think you will like it!
I installed windows 7 and it rocks! (please send working key).
I was mostly interested in the media center improvements which are sooo nice. I even using the sidebar now. :)
The media center setup wizard found all my hybrid tuners and even added analog OTA channels for dual tuners. I havent checked the QAM.
I cant go back to vista. Noooooooo!!
@Crand:
I *did* have ME on my computer at one time...albeit not for very long. It lasted about 3 or 4 days, which is admittedly shorter than Vista's lifespan on my Toshiba (which it shipped with). Vista started farting out on me at around 2 weeks. This was on a "Designed for Vista" laptop, and not just a "Vista Capable" machine. Not even close to a month into using it, I started getting "Windows Explorer has stopped working and has to restart," then every window closes, and the desktop refreshes. After searching around, it was a widespread bug, with no apparent fix. Vista having shipped with System Restore off, by default, I was screwed, and shortly thereafter was taken by Ubuntu.
My analogy is only to show that ME was a building block towards XP, as Vista is towards Windows 7. To say Vista only failed because of Apple is a rather extreme statement. Yes, it had an effect, but as an OS, it left a *lot* to be desired.
Is windows 7 64 bit only? and whats the release date?
thats beautiful :)
@Inane_Asylum
Uh, sorry, Windows XP is NT-based, while Windows Me was built on old bones (a.k.a., Windows 4.x: Windows 95, 98, 98 SE). Worlds apart.
Hey MS:
How about you leak the 64-bit version too? If I want 32-bit, I can stick with XP. What I care about in terms of Windows 7 performance is the 64-bit version, not the 32-bit version.
Well, you could wait until the beta program actually starts.
This pirated copy must be really inconvenient for you.
That's not what I'm saying. I didn't even download it. I have better things to do than to reconfigure my entire machine to run an OS that will expire in a few weeks anyway. And that includes when the real beta program comes out. I don't even run Vista SP2 for the same reaons (I run Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1).
What I'm saying is we're going to hear benchmarks, it is useless to me to hear 32 bit ones. Who would run 32-bit Windows 7 or Vista?
I would prefer if there where no 32 bit version, you would still need a 64 bit capable computer to run it so why not.
At least that way everybody would feel motivated to make 64 bit windows better.
I have a Pentium 4. Would a 64 bit operating system not run as well as a 32 bit on it?
Depends on your Pentium 4. Many of them won't run 64-bit code at all.
If your processor will run 64-bit code, it should run it faster than 32-bit code. But then again, maybe not. That's why I'd like to see the 64-bit benchmarks.
Zeo:
I agree, although it's selfish of me. I wish there were no 32-bit version so that everyone had to commit to running 64-bit and thus the 64-bit OS would be tested well with all apps and hardware.
+1 for the 64bit windows 7 only.
THose of us who are satisfied with our investments in core duo machines appreciate the 32 bit version. Also, BTW this copy expires in June, and the release candidates will probably be out by then.
And levi - to be on the safe side, got eith the 32 bit version, unless you have over 3 gigs of ram (and entirely compatable hardware.)
We have yet to see if 64bit 7 is as picky as vista when it comes to driver signatures, but it is likely that it will be.
One final question: Do atom cpus support 64 bit?
A dual core atom and 1-2 gigs ram would run 7 fine, but im just curious.
Err...Core 2 Duo supports 64-bit OS's.
Core Duo doesn't though.
My 64-bit Debian Linux on my core2duo says it does.
wait, core duo? who the hell still has one of those short lived processors?
A 64-bit Only OS wouldn't be a bad idea, but i think that with such a low system footprint, they will possibly be looking to replace XP on netbooks, which are running Atoms which are not 64-bit capable.
I'm waiting for the Windows bashers...
Why, so you can take lessons?
Well, I'm happy. It only took them eight years for this incremental upgrade. Yay.
And when it's out, it will be more like 10 years. Double yay!
P.S. Where have the idiots that thought every OS had to be slower than the previous one because "it's always been so" hidden?
snow liger is gonna be better
*bash*
Snow Liger?! Is that a future Ubuntu distro?
Seriously, dude, people treat Microsoft like the mentally challenged kid in class.
"Oh, look, he can tie his shoes. Such a smart boy! Oh, joy, he can comb his hair! This is awesome!"
Microsoft took EIGHT YEARS to leak a beta that runs faster than another eight year old operating system (XP) and after releasing 10 different versions of a sub par OS that is universally hated (Vista) and people here are all in a tizzy because the beta WORKS WITH THEIR GAMES.
Well, knock me over with a Zune! How wonderful. It's the greatest OS ever made! It can work with my games and runs faster than a operating system older than dirt. What other amazing things can come from the coffers of Redmond? There is no limit to what they can achieve now!
Uh, okay, I admit, I've been downloading it all night.
/snark
Are we talking about Zoids?!?
@bill
The snow liger is renowned for its, well, snowy magic skills.
@Paul.
Cannot be more true. The worst thing though is when people do that but don't realise it; see most of the excited posts here.
@ bill cant fart
No it'd have to be Lazy Liger or Loose Liger or Livid Liger or something of that nature...
Leaping Ligers!!
@ "All Apple" Paul Chappel
"Oh, look, he can tie his shoes. Such a smart boy! Oh, joy, he can comb his hair! This is awesome!"
That's how you talk to mentally challenged peeps? You're an asshole.
@bill can't fart:
take less beano.
Hey Paul, go get a job at one of these companies and develop an OS that can do as much as windows can (and more) and in less time. Then come back and run your mouth. If they rushed out an unfinished product you'd be the same one complaining that they rushed it so just shaddap you damn hypocrite.
P.S. For something to be universally hated everyone has to hate it. You are NOT everyone!
@Ellianth
You mean an OS that's finally a little bit faster in less than 8 years and with a couple of thousand people working on it? Is that supposed to be hard?
Oh sorry, I forgot we're talking talking about the mentally-challenged kid. Sorry sorry, I shouldn't have so "high" expectations.
I have no problem with praising Microosoft, but can we please praise them for doing something noteworthy, like supporting SLi in the next release or getting rid of the registry and WGA? Come on, praising Microsoft because Windows 7 runs faster than an eight year old OS and another OS that is slow as molasses (Vista) just seems a little bit stupid. And I don't know what my ability to code has to do with anything. You think Steve Ballmer can code? Hell, Bill Gates hasn't coded anything since his years writing BASIC for the Altair. Ever since then, he's been paying people to write code, but the problem is, they're a bunch of second hand programming rejects from India.
Microsoft is one of the biggest H1b Visa employers in the country. Remember what happened to Dell when they outsourced their customer service to India? Yeah, same problem.
Rofl a Liger? ahahah that is such a funny name. i never believed it when my brother told me about this animal then im like oh ye, so whats this 'beast' called (i thought he would come up with something ridiculously obvious) 'A LIGER' .. my reply ROFL IN MY MAO 10 minutes straight.
I still belive Microsoft should be forced to give Windows 7 away to Vista users. Vista was an unfinished flat out con.
@ Apple Paul
Dude, Seriously? I don't think you get it. Are you saying that Snow Leopard will run faster than whatever version of OSX was out 8 years ago? This is HUGE. This means that people that are still on computer 8 years old will still be able to upgrade to Windows 7. People on 8 year old macs won't be able upgrade to s(l)ow Leapord (Intedl ONLY).
Well, i really dont think that Vista is all that slow. I use it on a Gateway Laptop with a Pentium Dual-Core with 3GB of RAM and it runs Vista better than XP. XP if anything is the one that runs slower. Not to mention an apparent bug that seems to hang the system where Windows Firewall disables and reenables itself before the system can be used, even on a freshly formatted machine. I had the issue on two different machines and never had a problem with it on Vista. I have had Vista (both SP1 and pre-SP1) installed on 3 different configurations (my Gateway laptop, my C2D desktop, and a Athlon XP desktop) and they ran Vista faster than XP. Seriously, the only real reason that people(Paul) say Vista is publicly hated is because of Apple propaganda and bashing it saying their systems just work. Until recently, Apple has been pulling shit out of its ass for the commercials because there isnt a lick of truth in their older commercials, and i think that if M$ really wanted to, they could do the same against Apple when Windows 7 is released, but will they, probably not cause M$ is better than that. Ya it took them only 5 years (Aug 04 for XPSP2 release). It took Microsoft 7 years to get a decent fast running OS after 98, why not take the time to do it right again. I would rather wait 5 or 8 years for another stable OS then hear people bitch and moan that Microsoft rushed things. I guess Beggars cant be Choosers, there is people who bitch it took too long, but those same people bitch when Vista just isnt up to par cause they say they rushed it.
Is it possible to run these betas in a virtual machine? Anyone have a suggestion of a good VM program to do this in?
VMWare ?
Yes, you could use programs like VMWare Workstation or Sun's VirtualBox. I don't see the point though, because if you're wanting to evaluate performance and compatibility, you'll need to install and boot directly to the OS. The overhead in a virtual environment, not to mention the performance hit if you install the virtual machine to the same hard drive as your Host OS, makes it pointless unless you're just wanting to see the new features.
very possible. Installed easy for me in the latest version of virtual box.
Although, it will run in Windows 7 Basic mode due to lack of adequate graphics that the VM provides.
It is a convenient way to test performance with different amounts of memory though. It works wonderfully with 512MB of memory allocated on VMWare for me.
"It is a convenient way to test performance with different amounts of memory though"
No, it really isn't. Running any OS within another OS is never, ever, ever a way to test performance properly.
I've tried using it in VMWare Fusion. Don't. Performance is worse than Vista, and VMWare tools just won't install. It's probably a VM issue though, because performance is pretty good when running native.
Oh, and VMs tend to crash when the Windows installer checks hardware capabilities after install. It's still a beta, you know.
@KarlW
Thats because VMWare fusion sucks (at least in my experience). Id suggest Parallels seeing as you are using a Mac, its worked a hell of alot better for me.
MacBook Pro + Virtual Box + Windows 7 = heaven.
It runs so good under VB and you almost forget that it's being virtualized when you fullscreen it.
I made an Applescript to launch it right away, and added a windows logo icon, and now I can run windows 7 just by clicking it on my dock :D
It works quite well an installs in around 20min into a VM on my machine using Virtual PC 2007. Its free, as is Virtual Server 2005. However Virtual Server is meant more to be used with headless servers that you don't interact with much through GUI, but does offer a bit more features like being able to assign multiple cores/us multiple cores for VMs which Virtual PC 2007 can't.
The box I run my VMs on is a Q6600, 4GB ram, 64bit Vista Ultimate. I also run my VMs from a separate physical HD. Runs pretty well on that with 1GB of ram in the VM. I have it also installed on the only test box I have sitting around which is a 3.2Ghz HT P4 with 1GB of ram and Intel 865 onboard graphics. I haven't gotten around to installing the 865 drivers yet so its not running Aero, but all in all performance on the VM as well as on the 3-4yr old box has been pretty decent.
Possibly a stupid question, but here goes: If I were downloading this (which I obviously wouldn't -- I'm a good boy) how would I install it on my (XP) machine, and run it natively, without losing files. I'm hoping to try this out for the 30 days, and then switch back, but I don't have my files backed up. Any help would be nice.
You're best waiting for VMWare to recognize Windows 7 if you are having issues with it. My experience is that the latest VMWare Fusion (+2.0) has so many native instruction set optimization and driver tricks it tends to run Windows better (read: more stable) then Windows natively on my DELL XPS dual core. (granted my VMWare is a quad core and VMWare allows you to allocate as many cores as you want to the guest OS). Unity makes it even better as I like having Windows only apps appear on the dock and function with OSX's drag and drop... 3D and HD with near-native acceleration are also plusses.
VMware does, ummm... will work fine.
Wowzer in my trouser!
Can I see?
You should probably see a doctor about that...
Will it be an explosion when the full version is released? I can't wait for a full release since it should fix the terrible performance I get with Vista.
indeed, the gold fish has always been a symbol of raw power.
You have much to learn young grasshopper.
Gold is Power! Gold is .... LIFE!
I believe it is a "Beta" Fish, get it?
A BetTa fish, actually, but yes it was clever.
My friend,
That is no common gold fish. That is a Siamese Fighting Fish.
B. splendens usually grow to an overall length of about 6.0 centimetres (2.4 in), though some varieties reach 8.0 centimetres (3.1 in) in length. In recent years[when?] breeders have been able to create "Giant Bettas" that exceed 8.0 centimetres (3.1 in) due to the manipulation of a mutant gene. Although bettas are known for their brilliant colors and large, flowing fins, the natural coloration of B. splendens is a dull green and brown, and the fins of wild specimens are relatively short. However, brilliantly colored and longer finned varieties, such as veiltail, delta, superdelta, and halfmoon have been developed through selective breeding.
I've been using build 6801 since it came out(bout 3months) as my main os, and its good. So this build is probably even better. I just hope when rtm comes out, it isn't bloated with a bunch of crap lke ms always does. As long as they keep it streamlined, I see it doing very well
I'm not sure what kind of "bloat" you are talking about. When Vista came out people didn't all like the heavier (than XP) desktop window manager and graphical stack overall that took a decent amount of RAM but that is one of the main changes to 7. If you meant the extra programs like Mail, Movie Maker, Messenger, etc. then you will be glad to know that these things are not included by default but rather are optional free downloads.
I think the two main problems with Vista out the door were 1) poor driver support and 2) heavier graphical requirements for the new bling. This uses the same driver model so it takes advantage of the now-extensive Vista driver support and as I mentioned they spent some time optimizing the graphical subsystems.
I think they did a good job of working on the things that many people didn't like or that caused issues for early Vista adopters. The way Vista manages memory makes it appear to have a heavy footprint but I've never had any issues on 2 or 3GB systems and I've run it well on 1GB systems. With the low cost of 2-4GB of RAM nowadays, I can't see that as a big barrier to entry anymore. I think they realized that a lot of the complaints were regarding users' lower-spec systems that worked better with XP (netbooks, older PCs) and they made an effort to scale to those systems as well as modern ones.
@neodorian
What I meant by bloat was 50+ services runnin after a clean install. In 6801 its about 32 services by default, I just hope it stays like that in the final rtm build.
It is, I did an update from Vista and with all my usual background apps and Firefox running, I have 42 running.
I swear right now I'm like a kid one his first day to the most exciting journey ever! I keep switching back and forth to Windows 7 beta just to play around and enjoy the goodness. That OS makes me love life. :)
I hope Microsoft produce only 2 versions at max so people can enjoy all the good stuff right out of the box and without confusion.
"I'm like a kid one his first day to the most exciting journey ever....That OS makes me love life."
Wow, if you were talking about OS X, you'd be brutalized by the Engadget commenter horde for fanboy lameness with such a comment. I'm sure there would be references to dirty oral acts and Steve Jobs.
But since you're talking about Windows, carry on - people here will salute you as a hero. :|
fat chance
I'll have to agree with this one. It's looking like there's only one thing that can screw this up, Microsoft saturating the market with 5,000 different versions.
I have build 6956 going on my machine, and it is more stable than Vista, not to mention I get to enjoy all of my old games without them crashing.
Is there that big of a difference between the pre-Beta and the Beta?
yeah 32 and 64 bit, screw the different versions
Microsoft is also doing a lot of good things with Windows Live. Skydrive is great and the new Windows Live Messenger beta has some cool features.
@ Quix: If I was talking about OS X in a Windows post or vice versa, I would be really lame. You catch my drift?
@ Johan S: I know what you exactly mean, the whole Live experience is getting better and better by the minute!
One thing left to be seen though: Windows Mobile 7. :)
It runs excellent even on my three year old laptop. I made the switch from XP. It's faster and more stable. I'm very happy with it. It also works very well on dual monitors. It's just a much better experience overall.
I've also had no problems installing software which normally runs on XP or Vista. Thank you MS for getting your crap together!
I completely agree --- Mr. Balmer was correct though ... "It's like Vista, but better!" On the surface, it is just like Vista ... but seems more polished and its tweaks are better thought out. I love the new start menu, (How it extends automatically to display your search results) Also, retrieval of your search results seemed MUCH faster than Vista; almost as instant as OSX's Spotlight.
"Also, retrieval of your search results seemed MUCH faster than Vista"
If you've installed the WDS4 update for Vista, you should get the same results.
I'm actually really liking how this is looking so far, and I'm an Ubuntu guy... If it's as good as it looks like it will be, I may have to add this as another boot option for the stuff that is unfortunately incompatible with Linux. I love my 8.04 box to death, but there are some things that are just simpler on Windows.
yea, i put mine on a VM, any software should work with it, microsoft virtual pc should, but i used VMware. i only gave it a gig of RAM and it runs great! i love it!
If it doesn't require a machine that's able to play Crysis with a constant FPS of 60 then I'm sold!
The only thing I hate about Vista is that it's so bloaty and works really really really realllly slow on a 2 year old computer. Even XP was better than Vista at that one. I had a computer with Win 98 on it, with XP set to minimal, you'd get all the advantages of XP without the slowdown!
"...works really really really realllly slow on a 2 year old computer."
Bullshit. I have the thing running on 4 year old machines perfectly. And I'm talking 512mb and 1ghz with a decent enough graphics card for Aero. You're not going to be playing games on it but Vista isn't crawling.
Any 2 year old computer can run Vista fine so long as you aren't installing Bonzai Buddy the moment you boot. Which I can only assume you are.
It should be laptop
SO THERE YA GO
Crappy onboard video card
dude im running it on a pentuim m
w/ 1 gb of ram
and intel graphics
its relatively good :P
wtf are you smoking ??
Vista doesn't NEED a hot graphics card. It just needs it for Aero. Basic doesn't require anything special. You are the problem, not the OS. I'd love to see the number of checked boxes in your "Startup" tab.
Pentium 4 - 1GB RAM - Nvidia FX5200
Vista ran perfectly and quickly - I now have Build 7000 running as primary OS and it feels quicker to me.
Now climb on that and ride it home. (Upside down bar stool)