Windows 7 RC1 vs. Vista: First Benchmarks

Gizmodo ran Windows 7 RC1 through a handful of benchmarks against Windows Vista today and the results are a bit of a mixed bag. Something I find very interesting is the authors comments on Windows 7 “feeling” so much faster, regardless what the benchmarks say.

The overall takeaway sounds like a mixed message: Windows 7 RC1 consistently beat Vista in raw benchmarks by a small margin, and lagged slightly behind Vista in some very real world measures. What's really interesting is that in regular usage, Windows 7 still feels faster and more responsive than Vista, even though the objective numbers say otherwise.

So my question is this…if it is a “slicker, more refined user experience” that “feels faster” then who cares about a few back and forth benchmarks? What do you think?

It does feel faster and more responsive. I actually really like it, it has a smaller memory and hard disk footprint, too.

Why would they test the 32-bit versions?

Because irrelevant results for both Vista and 7 are the way to go?

Someone is going to care enough to use one or the other, or care enough about which one is faster, but not care enough to actually run a 64-bit OS on a 64-bit processor?

Originally Posted by Steve

So my question is this…if it is a “slicker, more refined user experience” that “feels faster” then who cares about a few back and forth benchmarks? What do you think?

I think you hit the nail on the head. I spend more time navigating Windows (Firefox, Excel, etc...) than I do games mostly. I have Windows 7 (albeit beta) running on a couple of my other machines with older hardware and it is very slick. I am only running Vista x64 on my main box because I know I won't be the first to run out and buy 7 because Vista is "fine" for right now. What will make be buy is the overall experience though. Good benchmarks are going to be had through more refined software. Time is on our side I think.

the only really slower thing shown that is really anything large is a 3dmark 06 bench. anyone else not give a damn besides me?

besides, we're talking about an o/s that is yet unreleased - patches will become available later, drivers may yet be immature in some ways, and furthermore how do we know this isn't a problem with 3dmark 06 that could get patched later?

overall i find this very impressive.

Well It does "feel faster" but I do have it running on 3 ocz vertex raid 0 :P so I can't really judge

overall I say win 7 = win!

Originally Posted by Steve

So my question is this…if it is a “slicker, more refined user experience” that “feels faster” then who cares about a few back and forth benchmarks? What do you think?

That's how I felt about Vista for a bit over a year, but apparently feeling faster doesn't matter.

There are still technical and non-technical people that bash vista for problems that were fixed as early as summer of 2007

In can't put into words why I like Windows 7 better, I really can't, and I've been struggling for many months now to adequately come up with language or terms that can get the point across. I'm still stumped, to be honest, but I really do like Windows 7 far far more than I ever liked Vista.

I've used Vista for learning and testing purposes, to maintain my MCP, and other reasons, but I've never once put it on any of my own hardware as a day to day OS for my own uses, it just never quite clicked with me (no pun intended, if there is one). But Windows 7, from the first time I got my hands on it (the first Milestone build last August), I've never really spent any time saying anything other than I really do like Windows 7, because I do. Hell I'd go so far as to say I love Windows 7 at this point because it really is the best thing Redmond has ever created on the Windows platform. It's absolutely amazing...

I mean, there was this huge gripe when Windows 7 first started leaking from those Vista stalwarts that Windows 7 is the same OS with a new coat of paint and I couldn't come up with words to explain "No, it's not, you just have to use it for yourself for a period of time to know why." People that run it for day and throw out opinions should be dismissed quickly and decisively - it takes a week of day to day usage or even more to really get into it.

Now here we go with the benchmarks all over again. It's obvious that when Windows 7 is finalized, gold, and RTM that it will be as fast if not faster and better performing on almost every level than Vista SP2, that's a given, and I doubt anyone would seriously argue that point.

It already uses less RAM for itself to boot the PC, it does boot faster, it offers more hardware support natively (this is a given as each version of Windows always supports more than the previous one), in fact, the best way to describe it is to cop some tagline from Apple:

It just works.

It really does...

My only problem with Windows 7 was it wouldn't let me load external storage under any format. USB, Firewire, eSATA... you would hear it *ding*, but you could never actually access the data. Was the only reason why I went back to Vista 64 Ultimate. If they fixed it in the RC I might upgrade with it.

I'm thinking the "faster" bit is the UI response improvements that Windows worked on. Even though the UI responded faster, it doesn't mean the actual O/S is faster in benchmarks (which rarely deal with user UI repsonse times)

As for the UI involvement, there could be a great deal to that because with WDDM 1.1 drivers, the 2D itself is accelerated now on top of the 3D GUI of Aero. Vista didn't have that (I'm not sure if they intend to make that backwards compatible with Vista, unfortunately - they could, I just don't know if they will).

Some aspects of an OS responsiveness just can't be tested realistically, hence we get the "oh it's so much faster" more often than not. I mean, I've been reading for what, 15 years + now that Linux is sooooo much faster than Windows is, yet whenever I run Linux, regardless of the distro (and I've done full blown Gentoo installs compiled up the freakin' ying-yang too) and I swear, Linux is dog fucking slow to me in terms of the GUI, even with Compiz/Beryl/Fusion/whatever they call it nowadays in operation. Everything is ridiculously slow... fastest Linux distro I've used (in terms of how responsive it felt) was actually a clean install of Arch Linux as it's precompiled from the git-go... damned thing was quite snappy but still no match for the sheer responsiveness of Windows.

Must be just me, I guess, but I've known a few absolute diehard Linux supporters that wouldn't touch a Microsoft or Apple product even if the got a free week's vacation in Vegas with free everything, a million in cash, and hookers with condoms and clean STD tests just to do it... and their machines are pathetically slow in comparison to a high perf Windows box with a bit of tuning.

Who knows...

Bad timing.. Should have tested against Vista SP2

feels faster

If it feels faster you should find a way to measure it. Until you can measure it, then it is emotions.

Originally Posted by GotNoRice

Why would they test the 32-bit versions?

Having used both 32bit and 64bit versions on the same hardware, the 32bit versions always "feel" faster and more responsive. I'm sticking with 32bit until more 64bit apps hit the street.

I loaded RC1 Build 7100 on my XPS laptop and out of the box I would say that my impressions of it over the Beta versions are very much positive. The speed at which my laptop wakes up after Windows 7 puts it to sleep is just crazy. I have noticed an increase in stability, as should be expected in the later builds. I ran Vista at home and at work for quite some time before reverting back to XP. There were just so many little things that annoyed me about Vista. I don't feel any of those from Windows 7.

i cant tell any real world difference between vista and win7 as far as performance. win7 looks nicer, makes more sense overall with the layout and shortcuts... thats what makes it faster... but actual speed theyre still the same os.

Originally Posted by nilepez

That's how I felt about Vista for a bit over a year, but apparently feeling faster doesn't matter.

There are still technical and non-technical people that bash vista for problems that were fixed as early as summer of 2007

I know. I get a laugh out of it. Reminds me of the people bashing XP non-stop. All I have to say is if you like Windows 7 (aka Vista SE) welcome to Vista SP1 / SP2. Now maybe we can get f*cking EFI support.

I suggest EVERYONE read this blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/

Doesn't have to be all at once, but just read a section whenever you get bored. By the time you finish reading, you'll have a much better understanding of the improvements in Windows 7, and you'll NEVER want to touch Vista or XP again.

Oh, and it's four extremely long pages, so don't go trying to read it all at once lol. It would take you a whole day.

eh, I use vista 64 daily and have been using 7 since the first beta release.... honestly, they feel pretty much the same IMO. I don't notice one being/feeling quicker than the other at all... I think it's honestly all in people heads.

They're both damn fine OS's, despite what the trolls would like you to believe.