Now that the Windows 7 beta is out, the
benchmarks are coming fast and furious, and while 7's been previously found to best XP and Vista during
"real-world" tasks, it looks like XP is still the outright speed champ on current hardware. That's at least the word according to
InfoWorld, which pitted all three systems against each other in a suite of tests designed to suss out how each performed on modern multicore systems, and while we won't pretend to grok all the data, there's nothing complicated about the final results, which showed that "any illusions about Windows 7 somehow being leaner or more efficient than Vista can now be thrown out the window." Sure, there was some speedup -- 7 was 60 percent faster than Vista during the dual-core workflow tests -- but overall, 7's just slower on dual- and quad-core hardware than XP. However, there's a silver lining here:
InfoWorld says the slowdown is in large part due to the extra code Vista and 7 use to manage multicore processors, and as the number of cores increase, the corresponding performance gains are much bigger than with XP since they can be used more efficiently. Of course, by the time we're all sitting pretty with 48-core
Larrabee machines this all might be just a distant memory, so for right now we're just going to get back to
installing the Windows 7 beta on anything we can find and reveling in the glory of perceived speedups.
Read - Analysis I (against Vista alone)
Read - Analysis II (against Vista and XP)
posted Jan 22nd 2009 6:52PM
Calm down Engadget its called a beta for a reason.
Yeah! Engadget, don't you realize that 'beta' means "made to be half speed of final product"? What did you think, it refers to stability or something?
Apparently Infoworld doesn't understand the term "beta." Not really Engadget.
I don't care what Infoworld has to say about it, Windows 7 feels damn snappy compared to XP or Vista. XP is officially old.
Uh, i dont know about you guys, but ive been waiting for benchmarks since windows 7 was announced. Looks like im going to be riding with XP for a lot longer than i thought... its too bad its so vunerable to so malware, adware, spyware, etc.
That just goes with the huge audience though.
Lots of text and not a single chart. Don't waste your time.
"Any illusions about Windows 7 somehow being leaner or more efficient than Vista can now be thrown out the window"
...
"you certainly won't lose anything by moving from Vista to Windows 7, and you may even gain a few seconds"
...
Something tells me those statements aren't compatible. And it's a beta. You can't expect massive performance gains but the fact that it's already faster than it's predecessor before the final tweaking is fantastic (while looking sleeker).
And engadget stop tooting your own horn. You did not install windows 7 on everything you can find. You installed it on like 6 macbooks and a vaio p. That is not everything. How about you install it on some more windows machines, you know the things that the majority of people will be using it on and the things that actually have varying hardware.
Or how about you make the article more interesting and actually try and install it on everything. Like a bootable flash drive, or a puppy. Something actually interesting.
Exactly. A lot of feathers are getting ruffled over this news. However, there is a certain segment of the population that might enjoy this news... the hardware manufacturers. Microsoft is pushing the envelope with the operating system to allow computer manufacturers -- and those in their supply chains (e.g., Intel and AMD) -- to sell the higher end machines at the premium prices. That is, if you really want performance.
The blades on my toy helicopter spin faster than the wheels on my car, but I wouldn't want to ride it into work...
The fact of the matter is that Windows 7 is not truly faster when running applications of the multicore/multithreaded nature. It just tells the gamers and data crunchers that XP is still more efficient for both these tasks (gaming IS picking up more and more multi-threaded/SMP techniques.)
It FEELS snappier because they finally started offloading some of the common tasks to other threads, but there is definitely more bloat as proven by the benchmarks. They just hid it in the other cores. So the DRM is still there, the Vista bloat is still there... they just allocated it to another process.
Cry that it's a beta all you want. They aren't going to cut it down THAT much by release unless they revert some of needless crunching going on in the background.
"Windows 7 feels damn snappy compared to XP or Vista."
People have said that about every new version of dos/windows since the beginning of time.. it is hilarious.
Engadget, please correct the title of this post to read "Windows 7 *BETA* ...", no need for misleading titles!
The biggest thing no one seems to have remembered:
There's lots of debugging code in the FRE builds of Windows 7 Beta 1. (I'm not talking about the CHK builds which are so loaded with debugging code that they might run as sluggishly as Windows Vista RTM).
A good chunk of this debug code will be removed from the RTM branch of 7 near the end of the development phase.
I'm with Penguin Warlord, the summary was worded poorly. Sounds like this particular beta is faster than Vista but slower than XP. We'll see if it can be faster than XP when it's released, but of course people like to hear prerelease status.
Yeah and they said that about 98 when XP came out, but they can both suck up viruses and crapware like nobody's business. Does everyone forget DX10 or 11 or whatever 7 has under the hood. It isn't going to perform tasks faster all the time, but it sure as hell will do a better job at it.
What kinda weirdo puts the taskbar on the left? Stay away from my childern.
C'mon, guys! can't you also see that Engadget was also trying to poke fun of Vista? clearly Windows 7 has beaten Vista in a lot of areas and it's a friggin' BETA!!!
you can't, however, compare it to XP, mostly because XP has been out for 9 years now.
I didn't know that anyone took InfoWorld seriously anymore since they became the Chris Crocker of tech blogs with their "Leave XP Alone!!" campaign. When can I expect to see topless girls on Page 3 of Engadget?
jesus christ...the speed difference between windows 7 and xp is really not that huge. for all you people running well, less than ideal spec'd hardware, ok stick w/ xp. but if you're running any dual core processor w/ 2 GB+ of RAM. why the _____ are you still running xp? dude...shiets old, get w/ the times. u people are turning into the same ones 5 years ago that REFUSED to give up their VHS players.
I'm sure they understand Beta, after all, their comment system is still in Beta, right?
Infoworld LOL
Second only to Compuworld in complete lack of credibility.
Exactly. Complete nonsense. Working for software companies, I can't count the number of times I've noted performance problems in Betas. The response from engineering is invariably either (a) "we know, there's a lot of debug code in there right now" or (b) "i agree, we need to review that area of code and see exactly what that guy did wrong in there". Either way, it's fixed way before the final release. Windows 7 may or may not be a huge improvement, but this is no way to evaluate it.
In other news Windows 3.1 is a SPEEDY BALL OF LIGHT compared to XP. Come on, new hardware, old code, what do people expect. XP is over, move on.
"In other news Windows 3.1 is a SPEEDY BALL OF LIGHT compared to XP. Come on, new hardware, old code, what do people expect. XP is over, move on."
LOL so very true and what happens when Microsoft and other software manufacturers do the unthinkable and "stop supporting XP". Oh no, then your XP is just as useful as that copy of 3.1.
I knew with an article like this the pro-XP anti-anything new crowd would jump on this and preach how great XP is. I havent been running XP for a while and after using Vista, i personally would not go back to using XP on any of my computers. On a side note, Windows 7 runs a lot better on my parents computer than XP ever did. I installed it for them on their Dell Dimension 2400, which if you look up the specs, has a Celeron 2.0GHz and i upgraded the ram to 1GB. They've never been more happy with what Win7 Beta has brought to their computer. Even cold boot time is improved over XP.
A note to Engadget, install it on some other computer configurations, i wanna see an in-depth on how it runs on say a single core processor that is not a netbook. I wanna see the average joe computer get Win7 on it, not your flashy MacBooks and Vaio P.
Why the hell doesn't Microsoft just add another service pack to Windows XP and be done with it. Vista and Windows 7 isn't even necessary. If Windows 7 goes over as big as Vista, Microsoft might as well just quit the OS business. Windows XP is just fine. One of the best products MS has ever produced. They could just keep upgrading it forever. Add a few interface tweaks and it's just as good as a whole new OS. All this new Windows 7 OS stuff is just a way to extort money from gullible Windows nerds seduced by the better, much faster, more stable, get more women spiel. Face it, Windows 7 is new Vista 2009. Make it easier on the Chinese and Russians. Let them continue to use pirated versions of Windows XP.
this is to be expected. its not really news worthy.
in recent news: water is wet.
damn it, since when is water wet? =)
there's three different clocks showing three different times on the desktop.
No Jack, there are four you fail at math.
ugly desktop..*shudder...
hurry up and announce a release date for this POS, so Apple can come back over the top and pull the covers off Snow Leopard.
Plus the clock on the taskbar.
Well, conor, you fail at grammar.
@ ivanpertsev
Since it melted.
People settle down! There's plenty of fail to go around!
Well obviously XP won, it has less features, which makes it take up less resources.
I, personally, would choose Windows 7 or even Vista for the new features even if it would run slower.
The features of Vista and 7 make up for their sluggishness when compared to XP.
If you aren't using those features though, why would you want them taking resources?
For me, the primary task of an operating system is to run other programs, the programs I tell it to run. Therefore the OS that can run these programs better is the better OS.
@Loonie
Please stay with XP for the rest of your life then. If you don't want any upgrades at all, then why bother criticizing new things. If you want to be able to call people efficiently, don't get an Iphone. If you want to be able to simply cook, then don't get a microwave. But don't bitch at us when we all are running a hacked Windows 7 on our 5th gen Iphones while the Iphone is cooking my pizza.
Just what "features" are you talking about?
mmm..iPizza
Apple is obviously going to go in a radically new direction with Steve Jobs out of the picture.
Gfxlonghorn - er, are you sure you were reading my post? Only I don't remember saying I didn't want upgrades, or criticizing a new thing.
Actually, the more times I read your response, the less sense it makes.
I didn't even read his response and it didn't make sense
@Loonie
What you fail to realize is that you CAN (and probably should) uninstall elements of the OS you arent using. If you want it to run just other programs, then by all means, you should be trimming it down.
Once you cut out some of the bloat and luxury features, Vista/Win7 will run about the same speed as XP.
Look at it like this. You've got two cars. They have the same engines in them. However, one car weighs 1,200lbs less than the other. Which do you think is going to go faster?
The lighter one of course! However, if you remove the extra weight from the heavier car, you are back to getting identical performance.
Computing is the same way. If you cant handle the current load, get rid of what you dont need and try again.
Joshua Walters - How easy is it to "remove the extra weight from the heavier car"?
Again, if features are not actually in use, why should they need to take any resources at all, HDD space aside? Imagine if you had a powerful car with a tow bar, so that you could add the extra capacity and weight on if needed, and if you didn't need it, you could simply unhook it.
I am aware of the ability to remove parts of the OS, if you're going to use Windows for music production, you pretty much need to anyway.
I agree its just beta. Wait till full version comes out.
......and wait until manufacturers release fully Windows 7 compatible drivers. Until then there is no need to make these performance results a big deal as the software is just in beta.
chill down engadget.
I don't think windows 7 will have a problem with drivers like vista did/does.
Why is XP always faster than newer version of Windows? Because it was designed for hardware back nine years ago. This story is really getting old. Run XP on top of the line machines from 2001 and see if it's really faster than Windows 7.
A logical statement...
I salute you!
I have to agree with your astute observation. I'm sure if I could run Win 3.1 on modern hardware, it will also be speedier than Windows 7
The problem is that XP still runs programs that are made today, all on a framework that was designed for machines with 1/8 the ram average PC's have today, and 1/20th the processing power.
So those applications have a whole lot of hardware to access, since XP does nothing with it, unlike Vista and 7.
It is absolutely no suprise that XP is still the leader at this stage.
What is a suprise is that 7 is still in beta and comes pretty damn close.
So your reasoning is that you should run software on the machines it was developed to run onto, otherwise we'll get scary speed increases, and that's bad, real bad, sir. Not allowed.
Yeah. Right.
Today's 32bit OS's, like VISTA, commonly run with 16GB of RAM? Wait. What?
I agree, I think that slower performance from a newer OS can be justified by better features and presentation.
Perhaps it's like doing a framerate test on a modern computer comparing between Quake 2 and Crysis, then saying that UT runs faster. Sure, but I'll take the added feature of better graphics at the expense of 'speed'. So long as it's still playable/useable. (And Vista imo is more than useable).
Shouldn't people be grateful that the latest and greatest Windows OSs are actually harnessing the massive computing power of modern computers? Instead of letting it go to waste?
I always lol when ppl say they'd prefer running an 8-year-old OS on their brand new Core i7 rigs.
Wow people, you have some twisted minds.
Harnessing the massive computing power of modern computers = Slower OS
Letting it go to waste = Faster OS
It's not really wasted, is it?
Shocking revelation: it is used to make the OS faster.
You have a screwed up logic. Seriously, I run applications. I couldn't care less if I run Mac OSx, Linux, Windows XP, Vista whatever.
I don't care what the system is called and I don't care about glossy interfaces. All I care about is how good I can work with it. If it looks nice - good but I really don't care.
At work my IT guy says 'but run Vista, it is so much nicer' - I hate it: it is slower and it eats batery life. So it is worse. That's it.
What are you guys doing? Looking at an OS or you actually use your computers for anything?
BTW I guess DOS is even faster than XP, then let's return to DOS. And I am sure Win98SE is also faster than XP, are we going to return to Win98?
So? The bottom line is, if Windows 7 ain't snappier than XP, I'll stay with XP.
@Mac
How many present time applications can you run on DOS? How many on Windows 98?
I can run 100% on Windows XP, only faster.
What's your reason for upgrading, "it's the latest one so I must have it"?
@gyiliop
You mean aside from DirectX 11?
Yeah, because of all those DirectX 10 and 11 games out there... What, are there 5 now?
@Mark Anderson
Ah, so now all those features we're supposed to be gaining are reduced to DirectX 11, which is not even out - so with a performance increase yet to be ascertained - and that applies to hardcore gamers only, which are - what, 1% of the users?
There are a lot more than 5 DirectX 10 games out there, also it's not the only reason - the better security, stability and future optimisation are good reasons too.
That said, i won't be upgrading from Vista until I buy a new PC in a couple of year's time.
Extra code to manage multicore processors. I mean isn't code like that supposed to make multicore processors more efficient in running the OS? If not what is the point of having that extra code? I'll never figure these things out.
You'll never figure it out because there's nothing to figure out. Of course this code is meant to run things faster, but people here have trouble understanding the very basic concept, and so think it's perfectly normal to have code that's supposed to make your OS faster that makes it slower instead; "because it's doing more".
*SIGH* so much hate......
In other news, Windows 95 runs much faster than Windows XP.
Dude, you should see how fast Windows 286 runs on my Core i7!
you just won an internet.
congratulations!
@ Proud Japanese
The JPEG compression on your icon looks funny.
Not so true - the DOS kernel really wasn't so bright in terms of process time scheduling (and many reasons against your statement), but I do get your point.
I concur! And Windows 7 wins with functionality and sexiness. Take a chill pill Engadget
Yep. Randall Kennedy tends to cherry pick benchmarks to make Microsoft products look bad, and then acts like a child when his shoddy methodology is pointed out. The man has no credibility.
And look, the article contains little detail, just his analysis and the claim that Win7 is crap. Que'll surprise.
*pats XP on the head
Good boy...good boy.
True, a beta.. I bet with future driver support and applications made for the 7/Vista Platform it will run smoother..
I am pretty sure you haven't tried Windows 7, because the driver support is already pretty much completely there for new-ish hardware. It really seems like a RC more than a Beta(in comparison to how the Vista beta ran anyways)
DON'T BELIEVE THIS CRAP! It's just Randall Kennedy ranting....
Windows 7 my computer is waiting oops sorry CRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAVVVVVVVVVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNGGGGGG!
thanks for ruining the surprise for us, Nilay.
Who coulda thunk it. In 2001, no one could ever have imagined that Windowx XP would be the BEST, FASTEST OS ever. Forget Windows 7, 8, 9 and whatever comes next. XP for life!
/sarcasm
Yes! Now that we have 20x faster machines than 2001, let's clog them and have them work at the same speed - no wait, slower! Yay!
okay okay, DUH!!!... sometime i wonder, do people get bored at their job, and do things, yet everyone is already sure who's going to win...
Very few programs are actually CPU-limited now adays. Usually you're limited by disk i/o.
(Off topic warning)
whats the background? can someone give me a link?
I'm wanting that background too, they've shown it off in a few Win7 article's.
I'm running Windows 7 Beta 7000 Build in VirtualBox inside WindowsXP and I am just surprised at how well the OS runs with 512 MB or 1024 MB memory in VBox. UAC nagging is much less intrusive and annoying than Vista. No hardware issues so far and it boots up pretty fast compared to my Vista PC.
wait, if your running in virtual box, how can there be hardware issues?
Running in a VM is a way to compare the OS by placing them on the same base hardware (even if it is virtual.) You can test how the OS drivers handle the virtual hardware. In VBox, using the same configs, on the same PC, XP is faster than Win7 for me.
Yes, I know the basic of it, I run windows 7 and ubuntu linux sometimes in Sun VirtualBox
The older operating system is always faster. If i had a computer with a single core and a gig of ram and ran a benchmark on xp and windows 95 what operating system would win. 95 of course! because it was made to run on machines with less than 100mb of ram and a processor measured in mhz. But would i ever dream of using windows 95 on such a machine.. no! the vast improvements in xp would make it 100 times worth the slowdown. It will always be the same with every new os.
What exactly can be thrown out a window here ? According to the tests Win7 is 60% faster than Vista, that is amazing.
The fact that the first official beta of Win7 comes close to the performance of a 7 year old OS with all its lovely interface features is very close to greatness.
Snow leopard had better be good or alot of mac owners might start making a deal with the devil.....
Yep, even with OS X being a good and easy OS, softwares run generally better and faster on windows... Its the case for Adobe creative suite, After Effects, Maya, C4D and Lightwave... and you need windows to get XSI and 3D studio max. Also there is way more plugins for windows.
I switched to pc because Lightwave mac version was so buggy. Now each time I play with my macs (I have 5) I feel the pain.
They also seem to forget that XP has had 3 service packs, countless updates and so on.
It still should be fast, but overall 7 IMO is still better.
XP is so basic and outdated compared to 7 IMO. the new task bar to how it boots to just about everything. Just think it's better.
Plus XP can get messed up on 1 click of a mouse compared to Vista or 7 its just a joke.
I have noticed a huge decrease in spyware,malware, viruses etc. XP just seemed to pick those up like food lol.
what the fux is all that shiv on the desktop?
dogs chasing their tails in this comment section...
"it's just beta... wait til the final version is released!"
eh, no, don't wait...
shout, scream, complain... that's what the beta is for....
just don't expect much...
they fooled us once with vista, shame on them
Dude, seriously. Do you expect every single OS to outperform the old one? New OS's offer newer, better features, as well as better UI's. They evolve with the current hardware. Why not go run DOS? It run's great on an i7...
Dell still sells rigs with open DOS or free DOS watever it is called.
I love Windows 7 and all, but I think some of the immediate "snappiness" that people are perceiving comes from installing a fresh copy of Windows period, regardless of version. Windows just gets slower the more crap you put on it, so if you install the 7 beta after using a 4 year old XP install for example, 7 is going to seem really great, but install a fresh XP next to it and you might not be quite so impressed. Now of course lots has been added to 7 so if it's nearly as fast as XP and carries significant added functionality then I think we all have reason for excitement.
That settles it then...I'm sticking with XP the rest of my life
Microsoft specifically stated they have not done anything performance wise to the beta and that that stuff would be done during the Release canidates.
So why is anyone even benchmarking it:?