Proof that 7 is much faster than Vista

In vista,my laptop couldn't even play Warcraft III smoothly. My mouse felt like floating on my screen. Now I have tried playing Dota (a 5 on 5 map of Warcraft) in newly installed Windows 7(actually upgraded from Vista),and it goes incredibly smooth.

I think I've got proof that 7 is much faster than Vista.

What do you think?

 

IME, it definitely seems to take up a lot less resources than Vista and performance overall seems a lot better.

 

Generally, or maybe just perception ... Id say my browsers (IE8, FF) start up faster and load pages better with Win 7. I haven't taken a look at the comparitive stats for this but it just feels slightly slicker.

I might move up to Win 7 from XP ... its a logical step up. But tbh there isn't a lot there that really blows me away. Might just run XP into the ground untill Microsoft shut the door.

 

Hi,

Wow, this is off topic, but I play Dota too.
I guess I should really think of changing my Vista.

 

I think we have reasons to run XP or 7. But we got no reason to stay with Vista any more.

That's why I wanna share my experience.

 

Vista and 7 are so close, comparatively, I don't really think there is going be any great increase in performance. Anyway just buy it, you know you want to

 

But my point is that there is great increase in performance. It may not be because 7 is superbly designed,but Vista really sucked.

 

I found an up-to-date test that shows you are right. In some areas Win 7 whacks Vista. Not massively, but still an upward progression for all.

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/gaming-smackdown-windows-xp-vs-windows-vista-vs-windows-7-604178?artc_pg=2

Once the Drivers are working right Win7 might just be gamers choice.

 

I'm not a gamer, my laptop is very powerful, after testing Vista and Win 7 all I could notice was less memory usage and an imperceptible change in speed. If Vista sucks as you say, then Win7 sucks too. But then again you don't mind delays of seconds when you browse. I suppose it goes down to priorities in the end.

 

I think if you test Vista and 7 with some big programs you may notice the noticeable difference. I hadn't felt nothing special either until I tried the same game today. Actually Dota is even heavier than the standard Warcraft game which I had also played on Vista. Well, there might be a chance that 7 is faster with the certain game by accident. Another reason may be that your computer is very powerful,then it's hard to notice the greatly improved performance which is easily perceived on a poor computer like mine.

As for browser,I really care more about functionality than speed,since the speed differential is even less than 1 second. However,browsing 1 sec slower and gaming with 1 second delay of every action you make are completely two different things.

 

I have used both and to be honest I don't see much of an improvement in 7 in day to day usage. In some cases, things like app loading was actually slower. I did see faster app and driver installs in 7, along with better speed in things like file copy. But all in all, overall after many weeks of using 7, I don't find it much better. Just a slightly newer look, a bit of performance improvement and that's about it. I don't find it worth the extra $$ myself.

 

Actually, if Vista is modified, it's faster than XP and W7 and has a smaller installed size than W7 too. Without removing much in Vista via VLite (language pack's, media centre, tablet pc (laptop) support were the biggies), it's far faster than I hoped; supposedly the Aero theme slow's it but I like that and W7 has it too. Oddly, modifying XP and W7 returned no gain's and the only downside that I've seen so far is SP 2 won't install on a modified Vista, SP 1 does. Other than that, W7 is just an improved Vista, Vista SP 3 if you like; didn't use W7 long though I saw nothing I needed. Vista's been running a month or so and no issues seen. Never ran a game so don't know if there was any improvement there. Stock, I'd go with W7 or stay with XP.

 

I've done my fair share of vLite customizations, and also used readymade ones like TinyVista. I like Win7 better and it feels faster. I don't think cutting down services etc can make up for core improvements like on demand service loading, reductions in DWM memory usage etc.

Also I think soon we will see VLite support for Win7, its the same WIM format and file structure basically.

 

Vlite and W7 work well together, Vista and W7 are basically the same as you say. For me W7 was barely faster than Vista and neither were close to XP and once Vista was modified, it was more than twice as fast as W7 and even beat out XP. No such improvement with Nlite and XP or W7 and Vlite; in fact, just about everything I removed in Vista was already gone from W7 so there wasn't much I took out. Again, that was only here though. Vista does use a fair bit of memory at 18% of the 4G installed with all my program's installed but even 2 G of RAM would be under 40% used .

 

Yes you are right and it's not perception. There are already some benchmarks which show Windows 7 is clearly faster than Windows Vista. But it's a bit hard to declare a winner when the contestant changes into Windows XP.

Actually we are still thinking whether we should upgrade to Windows 7. What Windows 7 offers that couldn't be offered in Windows XP + third-party programs. So far the reviews I read are trying to compare the minors. Reasons like improved taskbar and more shortcuts are not good enough to make the switch.

Review like this is a joke:
http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/en...indows-7-RC-Review-Good-Speed-Bad-Taskbar.htm

This is basically what the reviewer says:
Good: Faster than Vista
Bad: Micrsoft selling Windows 7 in Multiple Editions
Ugly: Taskbar default view

I'm still looking for a really comparative comparison between Windows 7 and Windows XP.

 

Hi Masterton,

When it comes to the comparison between XP and 7,I'd like to compare XP and Vista first. We have to admit that Vista is much more secure than XP(UAC). I used to hate UAC,but now I'm getting used to it. Why can we have the crazy pop-ups from HIPS but not those from UAC? Besides,7 is better at handling UAC pop-ups. Secondly,Vista is more user friendly. And now 7 is even more.

The taskbar default view? With a few clicks you are back with the classic style. And I do like the new style with the taskbar on the left side of my wide screen.

I guess XP must be faster than 7. But to me,XP can't make up what 7 brings.
Still,people who're die-hard speed and performance fans,got a good reason to stay with XP.

 

If anyone want's to disable UAC, Number One here is good, you will get a security centre pop up each time you reboot but only for a few second's and a security centre notification in the task bar but that can be exited if it bother's anyone: http://www.blackviper.com/WinVista/supertweaks.htm

 

The point is that UAC makes Vista much more secure than XP. I guess few people don't know how to disable it.

 

Well I think it's true if you compare a bare Windows XP and a bare Windows Vista. But I doubt it once you have installed third-party security products to Windows XP. A third-party HIPS is probably even better than UAC. There are many free security products available so UAC doesn't justify to pay for an upgrade.

I would like to hear is how Windows 7 is improved in the way that the infrastructure (the base) becomes technically safer and is less prone to so many potential exploits and bugs we are seeing every day.

Yes you are right and I don't care about it. That's why I said review like this sucks big time. But many reviews are written in such quality. They are not doing detailed comparisons between one and another. They only pick up several things they like or don't and give their own verdict.

I'm more interested in the changes Windows 7, more on userability and technical changes, rather than some visual differences or something that Windows XP can easily be added by third-party software.

 

This is a significant consideration.

I remember buying copies of Netroom, Qemm386, and 386Max to overcome limitations in DOS.
I also remember Stac Software.
These were companies that made a living because of the limitations of the OS.
Where are these companies now, after Microsoft made their contributions meaningless?

Many of these security companies will serve no purpose when Microsoft finally fixes the glaring security holes in their product.

 

If all 7 does is improve hdd performance, it is stellar compared to the crappy performance in vista. At least on the machines I have tested it with.

Sul.

 

It's also pretty smart when it comes to SSD's disabling services such as ReadyBoost and also disabling scheduled defrags.

 

Totally agree.

 

Keyboard_Commando: it may not be a perception trick. They made lots of improvements to SuperFetch in Windows 7. So a lot of programs that you often load will load faster in general. The footprint for Windows 7 is only a small bit more than Windows XP. If you are still using XP, I see no reason (unless you are on a Pentium 2) to not upgrade. Well maybe if you are holding out for a new machine and can use that as an incentive.

MistyCat: There are lots of reasons for normal users to upgrade to Windows 7. One of the first things that jump out at me is much easier time dealing with drivers and devices. Secondly is much easier networking, be it wired, wireless, the new homegroups, or legacy networks. Plus supporting newer technologies, improvements in the scheduler (better support for multicore and multi-tasking), and better memory management. On the surface, it may not seem like much, but there is a whole lot there to like. I also imagine VLite will get a closer hold on how to tweak out Windows 7, as right now it is still sketchy to use it. Give the devs a bit of time and they will find the tricks and bits to disable and enable to get optimal slimmed down installs. Also, as to UAC, it is better to keep it up, as it is there for a reason and for security. Windows 7 implements the varied levels of escalation so UAC doesn't pop up when you don't want it, and you can tune it for everything.

As to Masterton, TechNet has listed tons of changes to the underlying structures changed for security and stability's sake ( http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/dd361745.aspx ). Usability has been increased quite a bit with things like Device Stage, homegroups, and lots of UI improvements. Even the new superbar, once given a chance, shows that it is an incredibly efficient way of doing things. Some of these things could possibly be coded by third parties to be back ported to XP, but the underlying improvements (scheduler, network stack management, driver modeling, etc) can not as they are kernel level changes.
Just my views on the subject.