Comparison of Win7/Vista/XP

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree that Windows 7 is coming along well, but I have to question the tests. They say that Windows XP is the slowest to boot? I call nonsense! I've ran Windows 7 6801 and XP Home on two different computers as well (Pentium 3 850MHz/512MB RAM and Sempron 1.85GHz/2GB RAM) and have to say, XP boots fast. Also, saying Vista boots faster than XP is definitely a lie, one of Vista's largest complaints is that it is bloated and hogs resources. This definitely results in a slower boot. If anything, I'd say XP fastest, 7 second, Vista slowest, but not the other way around!

I think the requirements for 7 will be lower than Vista. At worst they'll be the same. Microsoft is trying to make Windows 7 lighter than Vista and use less system resources. So far it seems they are succeeding.
 
They systems he tested with are significantly more powerful than the ones you used so that may be the cause of the different results. Although it could also depend on what he was running on start up for the various operating systems.
 
they will never get 64 bit right until they do away with 32 bit. when they updatd from 16bit, they didn't keep it on the side. they ditched it

There has been some indication already that 7 will be the last to see any 32bit editions. The hold up is a simple look at all of the softwares sold still being 32bit. It's still a 32bit market place.

When initially specifying the minimum requirements for Vista that was a mistake there since the delays and finished version saw revisions to accomidate the latest capabilities. It should have raised from 512mb minimum to a 1gb minimum and 2gb recommended for average desktops.

Once 7 is finished I wouldn't be surprised to see that being a little larger then Vista. Newer softwares will also be growing in size as well since the hardware capabilities and larger capacities for memory are driving it. The OSs/softwares have to play catch up to the fast turnover of hardwares.
 
Well, from what I've seen, Windows 7 (fresh install) uses up less RAM (I have 2GB) than Vista 32 (also fresh install, so no SP1 or anything). Comparing Windows 7 to Vista SP1 may be a bit more accurate, as SP1 seemed to make Vista considerably lighter.
 
Anything regarding Windows 7 at this time is only a partial not full OS. You would be talking about a shell with a limited gui tossed on it not a full featured OS with all services running. The best comparison is between two finished versions where everything is present.
 
Anything regarding Windows 7 at this time is only a partial not full OS. You would be talking about a shell with a limited gui tossed on it not a full featured OS with all services running. The best comparison is between two finished versions where everything is present.

This is incorrect. IT is not just a shell with a GUI. If that was the case you would not be able to run software. Such software as MagicISO, CDBurnerXP, Convertxtodvd, 3DMark , F@H and much more. Cause that requires many of the system services that you claim are not running. There are only a very few services disabled in fact.

The main one noticed is the one to run Virtual Drives. Which isnt even the case case you can run Virtual Drives on Win7 just not with Daemon Tools or Alcohol 120. But Virtual Clone Drive works perfect on here. I have it installed and operational.

The services that are disabled are mainly the ones used for creating VHD and DISM images of the OS. Which at this point is not needed because why would you want to create a image to install on various machines of a Beta OS.

So no Win7 right now is not just a shell with GUI. It is a operational OS. I have been using it for everyday tasks. Listening to music, burning DVD's, mounting ISO and all of that. Just like i do in Vista. So yes this test is accurate for what it tested.

Tim-

Right now the requirements are not known. But it will be almost identical to Vista.

Eric -

You are right no advances will be made till they get rid of 32 Bit. But also have to remember that not everyone is running 64 Bit hardware. Myself included.

Eye-

The statement about Win7 being the last OS to be 32 Bit was also said during the Vista Beta as well. So to say that the rumors say that now holds no weight cause it was said a few years ago as well.

Vista will be the last version of Windows for Pentium 4 and Core Duo owners
From My 2007

That is just one of many articles about the subject. Microsoft made their stance known at WinHEC 2007 but as we all can see by the fact that i am running Win7 32 Bit that it isnt true.
 
What I was referring to there was not seeing a 32bit edition for Windows 8 with 7 being the supposedly last to see 32bit edtitions there. Again this is typical of the rumor mill articles and blogs being plastered all over.

As for WinHEC 2007 one blog points at Server 2008 being the last.

No more 32-bit operating systems – Microsoft Mobility
By Humphrey Cheung
Thursday, May 17, 2007 12:10

Los Angeles (CA) - At the annual WinHEC hardware engineering conference, Microsoft General Manager Bill Laing proclaimed that Windows Server 2008 will be the company's last 32-bit operating system. He added that it was “the right thing for the industry”. TG Daily - No more 32-bit operating systems – Microsoft

I didn't say that nothing was on it But not it's still not a full featured OS at this point. You have to be able to run programs you install yourself in order to report any bugs. But it's not a full retail product ready to use as the main OS with everything already included but a rather limited form.
 
right, but windows server 08 is already out.. and windows 7 clearly has a 32bit side to it as mak has/is used/using it, so server 08 isn't the last windows product to be 32bit.

I didn't say that nothing was on it But not it's still not a full featured OS at this point. You have to be able to run programs you install yourself in order to report any bugs. But it's not a full retail product ready to use as the main OS with everything already included but a rather limited form.

which is why it's still in beta testing. if it were a full retail ready product then they wouldn't be beta testing it ;)


as for the main thread topic, that's a really neat comparision, hopefully we'll get a print out of it at work so we can show people that even though you think vista sucks compared to xp it really doesn't and vista is a good os, and also get people's expectations up for windows 7 and that it's better than vista/xp. and hopefully there will be more extensive testing for 7 so when it comes out ms isn't faces with the same issued it was faced with with veeesta.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom