ZitZot: Benchmarks – Windows 7 not much faster than Vista
This article was published at ZitZot.com. Visit ZitZot for full article and more Tech news.
Improving performance is one of Microsoft’s design goals with Windows 7, and many early reviewers have said that the new OS seems peppier than Vista. But tests of the Windows 7 Release Candidate in our PC World Test Center found that while Windows 7 was slightly faster on our WorldBench 6 suite, the differences may be barely noticeable to users.
We loaded the Windows 7 Release Candidate on three systems (two desktops and a laptop) and then ran our WorldBench 6 suite. Afterward we compared the results with the WorldBench 6 numbers from the same three systems running Windows Vista. Each PC was slightly faster when running Windows 7, but in no case was the overall improvement greater than 5 percent, our threshold for when a performance change is noticeable to the average user.
The largest difference was 4 points–102 for Vista versus 106 for Windows 7 on an HP Pavillion a6710t desktop. Our other two test machines showed similarly minor performance improvements: A Maingear M4A79T Deluxe desktop improved by 1 point (from 138 on Vista to 139 on Windows 7), and a Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop improved by 2 points, from 97 on Vista to 99 on Windows 7.
Comments(93)
Win7 is overhyped BS.
Vista is my favorite OS EVER, period.
#1 (chris) FAILs
Win 7 is definitely better than Vista.
But they still need to improve.
so it's still crap!
I've used both Vista and 7, and if you're even trying to pass off Vista as the better OS then you're honestly mistaken.
@1 you seem like you haven't used Windows 7 or Windows XP. Overhyped he says…I think you mean Vista was overhyped.
My theory is, if it's from M$, it's crap.
I have had Vista since it came out.
My pc runs fine with it and i have never had any problems.
both still crap graphics information not found on my vista 64 bit and until they get it right like windows xp im not going to buy a new pc until my dies.
Well if the test was done at PC World it can'y be trusted. Their PC's are loaded with resource-heavy crap when u buy them. Takes longer to uninstall it all than it would to reformat it.
Benchmarks are bullshi* guys! it's the real world performance that matters, and all other blogs and sites say it's far better than Vista and I think so myself as I've been using it since the beta as my primary OS besides XP and it's great, stable, faster than Vista and even better than XP, Period.
NO way! I installed Vista and it's damned slow! Seven is running a lot better!
Interesting topic. I'd say that Vista actually made me consider all other options such as MACOS, Ubuntu and LinuxPC. For me on ASUS gear (both latop and Desktop) I found W7 to be overall better in restore from sleep and also to run applications such as Visual Studio 05/08 pretty good.
I guess when operating systems start becoming too much, too big and too broad, I guess it seems perhaps that they are too slow.
When Compiz for linux included Beryl.. that kinda rocked my boat.
W7 is cool but you cant run it to test it from a cd like good old linux.
.
And they did this on prebuilt crap computers, and they even were called DELL?
well.. /wrist
And this is why I'm still loving my XP Pro SP3.
It works just fine and doesn't eat 75% of my memory just for opening the start menu.
LOL @ saying "Windows 7 not much faster than Vista"
Answer these 2 questions first..
1. Vista was officially released how many years ago?
2. How many more months until windows 7 is completely finished and polished?
How CAN u benchmark something FULLY that hasnt been released
DONT TALK DOWN ABOUT MY WINDOWS!!
99 percent of the world uses windows deal wit it punk
FLAME WAR
no my linux is best! no my unix is faster! no my redhat all the way
NO MY obscure OS is best!
u geeks sounds like this guy at work who describes his PDA like a car
#13:
not true.
vista & 7 use a different caching mechanism as xp.
if a programm needs much ram, the OS reduces caching.
Vista is not a bad OS. Vista with SP2 (even SP1) is very stable and decently fast. I'd been running Vista with SP1 for months without even one crash, before switching to Windows 7 beta. The biggest improvement from Vista to 7 is the interface. Windows 7 might not be any faster benchmarked, but it FEELS a whole lot faster. And prettier
Go Microsoft. Redeem yourself!
While the test is correct, it does not take into accout the user experience improvements that Microsoft has made. They took several measures to make actions more responsive so that while it isn't technically faster, it seems that way.
W7 is still beta with non optimal drivers…apples and pears
#
frag
May 9th, 2009 | 08:48
And this is why I'm still loving my XP Pro SP3.
It works just fine and doesn't eat 75% of my memory just for opening the start menu.
YOUR XP SUCKS, JUST LIKE YOU DO!!!!!!!!!!!!
Windows Vista doesn't eat 75% of your RAM, it eats 40-50%
Which is very high.
Windows 7 probably 10-20%.
I don't know how they got the benchmarks to be so low on Windows 7.
Because I benchmarked my laptop with Vista and 7, and I could see a radical increase in performance from 7.
This is the biggest prank of all time!!!
Remember the Mojave experiment??? http://www.mojaveexperiment.com
Microsoft is taking everyone for a ride… I bet ya they're laughing at everyone who says this renamed Windows Vista is faster than Vista (the old one)… lol… Kernel's the same… A few tweaks here and there… Then walla… Windows 7 is born… Just think of how fast they had this developed when Vista failed miserably…
@24,
You must have read OLD reviews about Win7 ie. pre 7000 build.
All the post 7000 builds use a whole NEW Kernel which was rebuilt. I'm sorry you have FAILED.
@21 (EddieZ) – Windows 7 is now Release Candidate, it's not beta. Beta is software still in development. RC means it's ready to ship bar any eleventh hour bug fixes. However, you're absolutely right in that most drivers are not final yet, especially WDM compliant display drivers. although having said that, the nVidia RC drivers do a damn fine job so one can only expect even better performance from the final drivers.
@24 (John Doe) – Hello? It IS faster than Vista. You also contradict yourself. The kernel is not the same, it has been tweaked for performance. If something has been tweaked it cannot therefore be the same, can it?
I have upgraded two of my laptops to W7 from XP and from Vista and both are now more responsive with faster staryup and shutdown times. The user experience improvements as a direct result of the removal of blocking operations that were in Vista is instantly noticeable in W7. One the things that plagued Vista were slow file system operations, these are back to working as they were in XP with the advantage of improved network transfers.
Memory utilization is also noticeably more conservative. No longer does DWM process leak memory over time, it now stays at a reasonable 30Mb or so on my machines.
Any why are some people against Dell hardware? Dell is the number one selling PC vendor so it only makes sense to conduct such tests on common hardware. Dell alongside IBM and HP are also common place in the enterprise. By testing against common hardware, the majority of users will be covered. Gamers with hardcore gaming machines are a minority and will always find something incompatible with a new OS release, but you have to allow time for 3rd parties to catch up and release drivers.
@26, I don't hate dell now, Dell is pretty a decent computer systems builder company. A lot of people just hate it because they only remember first impressions.
Sorta like some people hate AMD since their AthlonXP series ran so hot, so now they think all of AMD chips run hot.
These impressions are as followed:
1. Their older laptops/desktops had poor build quality. I remember the blue/silver inspiron laptops, bad plastics bad build quality. So basically people who got screwed over once by dell.
2. Dell Service is usually outsourced to indian call centres.
3. Dell (then again most computer companies) source special motherboards which attempt to restrict "upgrades" and forces the users to buy new pcs when they get too old.
ie, a M/B which Clearly has capabilities for 2x PCI-E ports however since they only use one, they would desolder the other to prevent it from ever being used.
Or simply have 1-2 Ram Slots, preventing more ram from being put in.
However this problem doesn't only lay with Dell however there has been many other large scale computer companies which use this strategy to force users into buying a new system.
Benchmarking a Beta is bad form. So to be realistic, they should have benchmarked a beta Vista also. If we all go back in time after Win 98 came Windows Millenium. This was the first Microsoft fiasco. XP came along and no one wanted it. It was a disaster. Terrible program. People were switching back to 98. Windows 2000 also was around and many changed to it because of XP's poor performance. It took many years for XP to become reliable. And I agree it is reliable and runs fast. Vista came and it had all the earmarks of millenium. It made people have to get a newer computer or at minimum beef up their old. It is finally getting out the bugs in it and becoming reliable, especially if you have a newer computer. Windows 7 is still not completed, so give it time. Personally I like it, far better than any of the linux os's. But I set up an iMac the other day for an old friend. Now that is how it should be done. And I had not been on a Mac since the 80's.
@25 Anon
Have you seen the kernel itself? Well you contradict yourself a whole new kernel is normally coded from the ground up and not a rebuild from an old one.
@26 Moshster
I did not contradict myself. While it is not the same code for code, everything came from the same Vista kernel. Think logically and not be a smart @$$.
Well i'm using Windows 7 x64 RC right now, and so far i liked. It feels much faster than Vista x64, the boot time also is a lot faster. I'm not saying it will be faster and better than Vista or XP for all people, since everyone doesn't have the same pc configuraton, but at least for me its working way better than Vista or even XP.
.
The installation process was smooth, and detected ALL my hardware without asking me anything. Gpu, soundcard, usb devices all working the way they supposed to be, right from the start. Didn't have to insert any cd driver.
All the software i used on Vista x64 are working under Windows 7. If i have something to complain about, at least for now, would be the UAC. I still don't like it and i turned off like i did on vista
What about Server 7 vs Windows 7 ?
xp nlited user!
Long Live XP!
LOL!!!
Long Live WINDOWS EKS PEEEEEE!!!
linux mint 7, fast as hell low memory use, easy as hell, based on ubuntu, has all codecs, nice theme, easiest linux ever.
http://www.linuxmint.com/
CAN YOU PLAY GAMES ON YOUR LINUX MR JACK??? NO? Then to hell with it.
XP FTW.
Linux is soooo much better.
I use it for browsing the internet, listening to music, browsing the internet, listening to music, browsing the internet, listening to music, browsing the internet, listening to music…
Oh wait.
Windows 7 not much faster than Vista = Windows 7 is faster than Vista….
i dont like hype reviews, but i also dont like reviews that dont have to say anything else than that the glass is half empty…
Something is wrong with those benchmarks. There must be more to it cause I've been using windows 7 recently and I find it noticeably faster and smoother then vista.
Also most of the posters here are idiots and needs to get with the times. If windows 7 isn't working better then XP, well then your PC is obsolete and needs to be trashed.
lol at the xp kids. Windows 7 is faster than XP and this is the only article that says otherwise, everyone elses tests have shown its faster. This is pretty much flamebate and wanting to cause argument.
Oops faster than Vista*** bad typo.
Linux? Thanks but no thanks!
I'd sooner *PAY* for Windows.
window7 mite be good ..but it dont support punkbuster for game …well not yet anyways ..so if ur into game that support punkbuster ..this software not for you ..not yet anyways
hope this info helps
I've tried a couple of different windows 7 builds, all x64 though… and none of them have worked properly… the last one I tried was build 7000 and it was just horrible. BSoD's and crashes all over the place, so for now I can't really say that win7 is a better OS than vista.
Agree with you Daz. Once the final release of Windows 7 is out and after the first Service Pack, if you have a newer computer there will be no debating the issue. With a dual or quad core x64 even the gamers will see that Windows 7 is much faster and stable compared to Vista or XP x64. But if you have an older computer with little ram, naturally your choice will still be XP. Because that is what you are limited to. Not because XP is faster as many tout.
XP is soo much faster than 7.
Also, Wolfenstein 3D is soo much faster than Crysis.
Mikey566… get your mouth off Daz's C0CK okay? I have a fast computer and I do NOT want to waste even a single % of my computer's resources on a useless cr@p running in the background of my operating system. I am not saying that Win7 is cr@p okay? Its not even finished. I am just saying that XP is the wiser choice for now… A wise choice for a wise guy…
Someone should tell those zitzot "wannabe" testers to f*ck OFF!
As anyone said HOW CAN YOU COMPARE SOMETHING IT IS NOT FINISHED? IDIOTS!
And , as far as I know in my opinion W7 is waaaaay over Vista , just thinking from the angle of productability and speed. My computer runs it extremely fast other than VISTA crap.
Drivers are working flawlessly , games the same , applications even better.
whats diff between the iso releases on this site to this one below?
http://www.softpedia.com/get/System/OS-Enhancements/Windows-7.shtml
(Sorry to ask in this topic, i asked same question in an old topic which might not get picked up)
cheers
Dave
@ lolcat
XP is a very outdated OS which will one day have its updates stopped which will force you to upgrade unless you want to be vulnerable to exploits. Sure its fast, but on a good new system even Vista runs fine… most people just refuse to update their systems or pay the money towards a cr4p pc which they expect to work fine and it never does.
Simple fact is Windows 7 is faster than Vista, regardless of what this one single article says. Can you have DX10 games running correctly on XP? No. Does XP give you a Media Center so you can do more with the Xbox 360? Not unless you download the crap MCE edition. Not to mention Windows 7 is more secure than XP… its a no brainer for anyone thats can atleast play most current games. If your systems unable to play a game such as Call Of Duty 4 on max settings your PC is way out of date and Vista nor Windows 7 will run at mind blowing speeds… MS shouldn't have to make the OS perform the same as XP just because people refuse to update when its running perfect for most.
I can run Windows 7 in VirtualBox and its fast as hell (from within my Windows XP) and when installed on another partition its even faster. You don't have to ditch XP… just create a partition so you can run both if your that picky.
To all the MS haters puk you !
Your just angry bcos you know they are the best, and your a looser on a mac etc..
And another thing, vista is great OS ! miles better than xp rip !
if you think vista sucks its simple, you have a sh!t ass pc !!
Anyway we all have are views on vista, and thats mine, if i offended you then am sorry, but its the true..
Have a nice day !
If it is supposedly not much faster then why does it run sooooooo much better on my system. Vista was a good attempt that was not finished properly, 7 is what the finished product of Vista should have been….I know that has been said to death but it is the truth.
HI guys
I've been using and experimenting with Win7 since it's first beta conception. Every step of the way,it is a far more efficient OS than Vista. I followed pretty much the same course with Vista when that first appeared and I was NOT impressed. It ran like an old dog. I threw everything I could at W7 and it hasn't thrown a wobbly yet. It runs games beautifully (Dead Space and Crysis 2) without a hiccup. Office apps are clean,smooth and efficient while general day to day operation online etc. is also smooth and hassle free. I treat Vista as a learning curve approach for 7. It was a teaching tool for navigation but that's it. I know far more people who've experienced horendous problems both business wise and home use wise with Vista.
Most of the time you can put it down to "operator error" but in Vista's case many problems were associated with incompatibilities and slow performance. W7 will run smoothly and comfortably on a basic P4 with 1gb ram. Running Vista Ultimate on that was a joke. As for p3 machines….it'll do it but not recommended.
Please don't run it down until you've tried to wear it down. If it won't fall over,it's not doing bad. I'm impressed.
Been running build 7100 (x86)on my Acer x3200 for about a week and although there are many nice visual and layout improvements it needs more work.
The biggest problem I have noticed is hard disk performance is woeful! Transfering files or downloading causing video to stutter and the GUI lags!
Also I abondoned IE on 7 as it crashed all the time and I have even had to "blue screens" so using fox and its much better.
Keen to see if RTM version addresses these problems, if so it would really be a nice imoprovement on Vista.
Not sure why some of you say that Windows 7 is Beta. It went Release Candidate (public) this week.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx
It helps when you actually know what you are talking about.
I am running Windows 7 built 7100 right now, I found a few bugs but considering it's not even the final retail I am very impressed by the product.
The article dosen't specify wich version of Vista was tested. In the case they compared a pre retail Windows 7 against Vista sp2 then the comparison is just useless.
The retail version of Windows Me was just bad, same goes with Vista. On the other hand when I installed the retail version of XP even with a few bugs I could see something good was coming and now I get the same feeling with Windows 7.
While WIn7 is definitely not bad it will never be the OS of anyone taking his computer serious. It will always stay in the niche of gamers, dumb-asses and idiots, which is the smart thing to do since 90% of the world is classified as such.
in the end they just bring out one cash cow after another… and thanks to dropping support on the former ones.. the big masses are forced to just upgrade and update whether they need it or not
I'd like to know if Windows 7 was really better than Vista.
But i can't even install this one. Each time i'm trying, i've got a BSOD (0X0000001) – due to the ite driver, it seems that there is a problem with my sata HD.
Windows 7 reacts like Windows XP with my computer (i had to install XP on a IDE HD with my sata HD disconnected).
Sweet Microsoft.
ZitZot reviews suck.
Hi thar.
I was using Xp since release, Vista since release, then switched to Win7 Beta1 at release, and am now running the RC1.
From my personal experience: Windows XP does a pretty decent job performance wise, Vista on contrary consumed quite a lot more memory. Though with enough RAM (having 4gb for ages now) you barely notice a difference. The only difference at higher RAM levels is that the UI actually responds faster due to hardware acceleration.
With 7 what I noticed is that memory consumption went down noticibly, and it got even more responsive (maybe due to the fact that now even GDI is hardware accelerated with WDDM 1.1 drivers). I like the "superbar", I like the overall design, it seems to perform a lot better than Vista & XP did, and also it's damn pretty.
So I'm definitely going for 7 as soon as it hits the MSDNAA of my univerity.
i own a mac pro and a pc desktop loaded to the gills. I don't see what all the arguing is about. Everyone downloads software, games and media so the only real cost to the user is hardware, which is relatively cheap due to mass production and technology evolving less than 9 months.
I'm still waiting for blu-ray writers to come down to around $200 USD.
Stop squawking after MS, you'll just download it.
for ppl bashing ZitZot , its not even their article, just news from other sources
I don't give a sh!t what ZitZot says. What matters to me is in my own testing W7 is way better than Vista. Windows 7 will be my OS of choice.
I'd say leave the benchmarking and reviewing to the pros.
Those benchmarks are ridiculous and in NO way really show the differences between Win7 and Vista. Besides…..aside from the benchmark noted here, the other one (Yeah, there's only TWO, synthetic, benchmarks in that review!) shows more than a 20% improvement. And this is with alpha/beta drivers.
lrn2review, ZitZot.
All you n00bs that are saying Vista or some other OS is better then Win7 had better wake TFU and smell the coffee!
I have loaded ALL (Vista/XP/Linux/Unix/Ubutu/Mac/Win7) on different computers that have the same cpu (2.5Ghz) the same memory (3GB) the same hard drives/video cards/audio cards/etc to get an even test. And sorry to bust your bubbles Chuckles, Win7 BEATS THE HE!!OUT OF ALL OF THEM!
The closest one to even come near matching Win7's speed was Mac 10 OS. For Graphics the closes one to 7 was Linux with Ubutu close behind (Mac only edged them out when I used MAC specific programs). For Audio, not one of them came close to 7. For options (like 3d pages etc) again 7 was looking through the rear view at all of the rest. Internet connection (from webpage to webpage and loading time) 7 AGAIN beat them hands down. I loaded a highly graphics intensive site http://www.coasttocoastam.com and had the page up and running in less then 1 second with nothing stored in the memory cache. The rest took over 2 seconds to load. For games..PUH-LEAZE, your kidding right? World of Warcraft loaded and was up and playing in less then half the time it took the others to even load the blinking game! Win7 COMES WITH a bare bones XP OS ENCODED INTO IT! AND you can play or use any XP program on Win 7 complete with shortcuts just like you had it installed on the hard drive (only with Win 7 it is a virtual drive)..can ANY other of the OS's make that claim? Didnt think so! For networking..Win 7 is a one click, the rest took from 5 minutes to as much as 10 to get a network set up. Win 7 is also going to be 128bit digitally encrypted. Can it be broken…yes. Can normal script kiddies and virus monkeys do it or write stuff for it? NO, they dont have the computing power needed as even IF they could, Win 7 already beat them before they start as there is a small code that if tampered with will freeze Win 7 and make it revert back to the basic install at the next reboot, and that is a code that makes you APPROVE the changes to any of the main parts of the OS BEFORE it can be done. You can install anything you want and run it, but if it is going to modify the say…Host file, then you MUST APPROVE said modification before it will be done. Can viruses still be written for it, yes. But it will be a he!! of a lot more difficult. IN fact I would state here that if Win7 keeps its present config, it will have less viruses for it them Mac does.
You people busting Win7's chops before you have even tested it in the real world need a major wake up call and to STFU on items that you obviously dont know what the he!! your talking about!
Oh and BTW, I also ran win 7 on a 1.5GHz Cpu with 256mb of ram on a 10gig HD, and it ran faster and better then a Vista loaded machine with a 4Ghz cpu and 2GB of memory on a 500GB partitioned HD. So DONT try and tell me that Win 7 is a memory hog as it only uses just enough for it and the programs you are running, no more no less.
W7 FTW for sure!!
My XP boots up in 20 seconds. W7 boots up in 5 seconds.
Just my own personal experience of course, your mileage may vary.
My system is a healthy "average", Core2Duo Wolfsale running at 3.7GHz, 4GB memory, decent video. I mostly run Arch Linux on it, but I do dual-boot into XP for gaming. (Wine and Cedega are ok, but just can't beat the real thing yet for gaming.)
On my system, 7 definitely seemed to boot up faster, I'll give it that. A GeekBench and 3DMark test though didn't show it to be much different from Vista. *But*, the whole system just "feels" a lot more responsive than Vista. Personally I wouldn't say it's much faster than Vista, but its overall multitasking and responsiveness is definitely improved.. it just "feels" faster if you get me.
If you like Vista, you'll definitely love 7. (Aside from having to buy it of course.. Vista users should get a free upgrade so they could forget that disaster.)
But for me, I still hate it. Just feels like a "toy operating system". Still has compatibility issues with some things, granted not officially released yet so that may improve. The XP virtual machine was a cop-out on Microsoft's part, plain and simple. Vista users can get the exact same effect with a free copy of VirtualBox.. using that same logic, I could say my Arch Linux desktop was XP compatible too, which of course it isn't.
I do like some of the new features. Not a fan of the new taskbar/dock hybrid thing, but some of the minor usability features are pretty slick. (I liked the snapping feature especially.. AeroSnap gives this functionality in Vista/XP nicely.)
So yea, if you're using Vista, you'll definitely want 7. For me, it's still a huge "meh", I'll be sticking with XP, which just flat out runs *everything* with zero issues at the best possible speed that Windows can give.
7 is my lucky number
Stop there Windows 7 is Great….
i have run all windows OS and Windows 7 is more like XP but better, Vista is useless as it uses so much memory and had so many driver problems plus software compatibilities.
Windows 7 is fast lots of little extras like snipping tool were you can cut pictures off the screen. 7 uses less memory at idle, upgrading is very easy takes a while to upgrade but transfers everything and no errors. new installs are fast.
if you install the new beta make sure it's 7100 or higher as internet explorer 7 has some issues. new beta 8 works fine
no my linux is best! no my unix is faster! no my redhat all the way
NO MY obscure OS is best!
"This article was published at ZitZot.com. Visit ZitZot for full article and more Tech news."
No this was published at PC WORLD (http://www.pcworld.com/article/164485/speed_test_windows_7_may_not_be_much_faster_than_vista.html)
And you took the whole article word for word without even mentioning the source. Well done!
To all linux freaks : Can you open multiple pages with flash animation and keep CPU usage under 100% because crappy ATI drivers and X.Org hate each oder guts ?
Vista64:
With 4gig of ram, CPU is AMD 5600+, nVidia 8800 GTS, while i play WoW + having a firefox with about 10 tabt i always get out of memory.
XP32:
Now XP can utilize all of my memory so i end up with about 3Gig memory and with the same scenario as above i have always over 1gig free memory and sometimes 1,5Gig.
So no vista dont utilize the momory/cache as it should. IT EATS it and spit out error messages.
I hope win7 gets as good as XP or i will not "downgrade".
I've been on Vista for 2 years. I've never had a single problem with speed and performance. Yet, when I installed the Win7 RC, I noticed a huge slowdown on my machine, and after removing it, my system was completely messed up. Also, Vista is NOT a resource hog, I'm running it on my laptop right now. Win7 is a piece of garbage.
I LIEKS TO SCREAM AND SHOUT ABOUT DIS TOO EVEN BECAUSEI WON'T PAYFOR ANTGHNG AND DOWNDLOAD IT ANYWAY!1 ps bite my shiney Mac behind
Anyone got what "Teh Tech" said? Nicely done sir.
I had a few laptops with vista. The PCs in my music studio have XP, BUT my main computer P4@3600 has 98SE and is the FASTEST and more STABLE computer I ever tried.
doubt these benchmarks are reliable, my pc runs 64-bit, 4gig ram and a AMD Phenom 9650 Quad processor on vista ultimate, i have no problems at all and i wont seen any improvment with windows 7 besides the increased startup and shutdown times.
I am however installing windows 7 on this laptop i have running XP. just for laughs and giggles.
End of the day its all down to personal prefrence, vista may run slow for some people and fast for others on similar machines quite simply for the fact that the users do different things, have different programs installed. If your pc is running slow do one of the following.
1. Buy a better pc, or quit trying to run programs designed for higher end pcs
2. Stop trying to play CRYSIS with your onboard graphics and pentium 3 processor.
3. slap yourself, the only reason your pc is running slow is because YOU made the wrong choice of OS for YOUR specific needs and pc type, re-evaluate what you want / need to do with your pc, upgrade your pc with anything needed to perform these tasks if nessesery, and then select an OS best suited for you.
4. Stop visiting dodgey p0rn sites, not only are they filled with spyware, malware and other nastys, you will go blind.
5. Dont blame the OS, IT didnt choose you, you choose IT.
that will be all lol
This whole site is fulled with trolls, its always you're computer's to crap to handle it i mean really and that's a good thing because a new OS is poorly optimized and runs games slower than the so called obsolete one, my computer pawns most peoples i run Vista fine, do i love it nope, u just hate it out of envy you say, suck my balls i say, these people saying this crap are just one eyed fricken pain in the a$$, you only have vista because it was pre built into you're system or you got sucked in by it. Anyway thats not even the start of the bullcrap visa provides and windows still slower than xp my new name for windows 7 well i haven't got all week, just like i havent got a whole year to explain how crap vista is, Google it noobs oh you cant read big story's.
Um… This is just another ME & XP all over again.
I will need to know which vista they used, the initial vista or vista sp2 because sp2 is quite peppy and comfortable. I love win 7 though.
I have Win7 RC on three computers and the networking improvements alone make this better than xp and vista..
Its awesome.
Streaming movies on my 4 year old laptop only uses 330 MB of ram total
If you dont use an OS then your opinion doesn't mean sh !t
No need to bash an OS if you don't know it.
The worst thing about operating systems are the fanboy users
Win7, Best Windows to date.
@85 – You're out of touch with reality if you truly beleive this is another ME. For one thing, MS isn't going to make another mistake like that, especially not in this economic climate.
I'd bet money that all those that are reporting that Win7 is performing poorer than their previous XP or Vista install probably have driver related issues. They probably have some component that does not have a compatible driver yet. The newer your computer the more likely Win7 will have a driver for it out of the box. Also, people should keep in mind that the RC has additional code for collecting telemetry for last minute show stopper bug fixes. The RTM will remove the telemetry thus improving performance further. But it's the drivers that all the other vendors are readying for the RTM that will make the most difference. The nVidia release candidate drivers do a damn fine job already.
Got it running here, avarage of 10FPS higher in games then I did on XP SP3, same machine, both clean installs. No clue wot it does after a few months.
Irelivant! Period.
I have used windows seven as my main rig since the beta now using the RC is is snappier and less annoying….
Plus the Review is testing a RC win 7 against a full patched vista
I think that people who don't like vista don't know how to use a computer properly. I've been running Vista since it was first released and I haven't had a single issue with it. I do music production with it, video editing, I rip movies, cd's, tons of adobe products and it has yet to crash on me.
Windows 7 is definitely an improvement on Vista but I'm not in any rush to switch.
Who ever wrote that article is high off his ass. I had Vista Home Premium on my laptop at first, then i jumped to Windows 7 beta, and then i began downloading the monthly leaks. I still remember til today how slow Vista was. Windows 7 is way faster.
DOS… use DOS
i installed windows 7 over xp yesterday and its awesome, sleek, sexy, fast, out the door, i love it
[url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308b.htm]onkyo 308b[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308review.htm]onkyo 308 review[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo3300review.htm]onkyo 3300 review[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo508review.htm]onkyo 508 review[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo608price.htm]onkyo 608 price[/url]
[url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308b.htm]onkyo 308b[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo308review.htm]onkyo 308 review[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo3300review.htm]onkyo 3300 review[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo508review.htm]onkyo 508 review[/url] [url=http://www.onkyo1.com/onkyo608price.htm]onkyo 608 price[/url]