PCMark Vantage x64
We’ll be skipping the usual SiSoft Sandra synthetic tests this time around, for obvious reasons. Those “pure CPU” benchmarks will eliminate most of not all performance differences between OS versions. And if there are any, they would only be relevant to that particular software.
Instead, we’ll be looking at some practical real-world benchmarks, starting with PCMark Vantage. We have been using PCMark for quite a while in our CPU and motherboard reviews. It was always a simple way of contrasting performance of various components of a PC with its ability to test different subsystems individually. It used components of real-world tests to give combined scores in various scenarios. For instance, the CPU Suite ran various tests that stress the CPU specifically; file compression, decompression, encryption, audio encoding, etc. Multi-threaded results were given by simply running several tests at once.
For CPU reviews, we would run the CPU Suite and the System suite, and it generally gave us a good idea on how the processors compared in terms of overall performance. But these were never ‘real world’ tests.
PCMark Vantage is a completely different approach compared to what we’ve seen before from the PCMark team. Instead simply testing low-level performance of PC’s, there are several new suites in the program that attempt to recreate what a real user might do, all using the software built into Windows Vista (and now Windows 7). This is really the way we’ve been going with our reviews as well, something you’ll have noticed if you’ve been following us over the years. Although we include some synthetic benchmarks like SiSoft Sandra and even 3DMark, we feel it’s far more important to test real-world scenarios. Futuremark agrees, and thus PCMark Vantage is a great fit for us.
Vantage itself runs in a way similar to the older PCMark programs – select a ’suite’ to run, and it will test a variety of scenarios and give an overall score for that ’suite’. There is also a CPU test that is very much like the CPU test from PCMark 05, and a Graphics test that uses components of 3DMark 06.
Each Vantage suite was run three times, and the average score of the three is given each time.
Memories Suite
Memories focuses on Windows’ photo and video features. The tests include some image manipulation, which depends on the CPU and GPU. There is also some video transcoding (two videos are compressed to 320×240 1 Mbps WMV9 – one is 720×480 35.38 Mbps, and the other 1280×720 11 Mbps) which is obviously CPU dependant as well.
Win7 is off to a great start already, with a significant improvement across all processors in this suite. Note that the GPU is used here, so any improvements it received from switching to Win7 will show up well here.
TV & Movies Suite
This one is pretty obvious – it uses Windows’ various video playback and transcoding features. All sorts of video types are played in these tests – 720p VC1 from an HD-DVD, 1080i MPEG-2 from terrestrial HD, and 1080p MPEG-2 from Blu-Ray. Even more video transcoding is done in this test, a lot of it also in HD. As you can guess, this suite is very CPU bound, but relies on GPU as well.
This time the results are very close, probably within margin of error. That would explain why the Athlon II scores seem to be reversed by a bit.
Music Suite
The music suite does a lot of music transcoding, something a lot of people do every single day. There’s some WAV > WMA Lossless, MP3 > WMA, as well as shrinking WMA files to a higher bitrate WMA format. There is even some web-browsing thrown in (you gotta buy your music somewhere right!) with transcoding and Windows Media Player library management going on in the background.
No margin of error here! Music transcoding (and purchasing) performance is significantly improved in Win7, straight across the board.
Communications Suite
We all communicate using our PCs, right? So why not test it! Actually, the communication suite in PC Mark Vantage has a lot of data encryption (CNG AES ABC) as well as some data compression. Also tested in the suite are web browsing using IE7, searching within Windows Mail, and some audio transcoding to simulate VOIP.
Once again we are seeing significant performance increases with Windows 7, possibly related to the audio transcoding that was done in the previous suite.
Productivity Suite
Probably the least intriguing suite in the program; after all, how productive can you be in Windows without installing an Office application? Still, these tests utilize Windows Contacts, Windows Mail, IE7, Windows Defender, and WordPad. Yes, WordPad. At least it’s not Notepad. Also, Windows’ startup time is tested.
Usually one of the lesser interesting components of PCMark Vantage, the heavily threaded Productivity suite is showing us exactly where much of Windows 7’s performance improvements come from. As you can see, performance increase scales directly with the threading capabilities of the processors. The single-core Athlon 64 didn’t see any performance increase at all, the dual-core Athlon II saw a bit, and the eight-thread Core i7 saw a significant performance gain of 20%.
Dude you need to learn how to make charts that make sense.
If you find that a chart with TWO bars is confusing, well I don’t know how to respond to that.
I think Bob is referring to the lack of labels on the charts. i.e. instead of “Core i7 (red), Athlon II (orange), Athlon 64 (blue)” being put once on the first page and easily missed by anyone just scanning through your article, each chart should be labeled with the appropriate system description.
Yeah, unfortunately I made my charts how I always do them, which means I usually don’t include three seperate charts for each benchmark. I didn’t notice until it was too late, but since you can hover over the image to see the alt tags, I didn’t think it would be a big deal. I’ll mention that in the article.
I find it interesting that every fan website, or website full of ads *cough* like to talk big about windows 7, compared to vista, but where are the XP benchmarks? Only a few websites have posted them, and they are finding that it is truly an improvement over vista, but only sometimes, in certain situations over XP.
So why didn’t you include XP? Oh wait, I see the “windows 7 secrets” ad on the right side of the screen. OK, thank you.
The ads on here are generated automatically based on the content. I get no direct income from writing good things about Windows 7. If Windows 7 sucked, I would write that, and the ads would be the exact same.
The reason I didn’t include XP is because it is obsolete, and many benchmarks wouldn’t have even run on it.
Windows 7 is a definitive improvement over Vista. I’m still using the Win 7 RC (will get my Home Premium this week from Amazon) and it’s light years ahead of Vista, both in terms of performance and reliability.
RE: Windows XP being obsolete.
I disagree. I know many fortune 100 companies are still using XP, as well as many home users. If you google “Windows XP Marketshare” you will see a lot of websites pretty much saying the same thing.
For example I used:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp
http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2009/09/04/windows-xp-still-holds-71-market-share/
These were just updated last month.
At any rate, this is a _GREAT_ article with many more examples comparing Vista to 7 than those “other” sites.
I would love to read a Windows XP VS. Windows 7 article that is in-depth as this one.
Windows XP is technically obsolete, since it is no longer being sold nor supported (if not now, it will be soon). People are of course free to use it as long as they wish.
The trouble with benchmarking XP, is that none of the tests that would benchmark multitasking performance (SYSMark, PCMark, WorldBench, HDxPRT), will run in XP. It would basically consist of the simpler single-program tests, like 3D Rendering (which as you saw in this article is CPU limited) and gaming. I may do a gaming comparison later though. But I don’t know why anyone would want to game without DirectX 10 (or even 11 eventually)
Only 36 games support directx10. Gaming has also been problematic in vista with many titles. So far its been even more problematic in windows 7.
Source? Sounds like something you just made up. My personal experience and that of my friends and family doesn’t sync up with that statement. How would 7 be MORE problematic than Vista? They essentially use the same kernel and driver system.
Despite XP being technologically obsolete (although I think that obsolescence was manufacturer and NOT consumer driven), I think an XP vs. 7 comparison is necessary. Vista did not wow consumers buy most accounts that I’ve read. Saying that Windows 7 is much better than Vista doesn’t give me (an XP user) enough information to decide whether or not to upgrade. If Vista wasn’t better than XP, any systems which proves to be a significant improvement to Vista may still fail to be a significant improvement when compared to XP. I think the article was well written however, though more careful labeling would help those skimming through articles like these to more quickly grasp the results of your analyses. Bob was a bit harsh.
i was going to upgrade to windows 7 until i found out the upgrade price.
i just bought a laptop 3 months ago with windows vista ultimate 64bit and to get the equivalent with windows 7 would cost me a fortune.
plus i dont see the point, i only use my PC for web browsing programming and games,since games are being treated as the bastard child i really dont see the point in the purchase.
i miss the good old days where PC games were light years above console games, now console games are on par with PC games.
look at now, uncharted 2 a 2009 game is on par with crysis a 2007 game.
in 2 years the ps3 has saw uncharted raise the bar than MGS4 than killzone 2 than uncharted 2.
all those in 2 years.
whats the PC had in 2 years?
see what i mean?
i spent 3K building a killer PC with top of the line everything, but boy was that a wast of money.
i thought developers were still pushing out crysis type games today, sadly there not.
and even more sadly im going to have to wait till crysis 2 or RAGE to see the PC improve.
but by then the ps3 would of had another 4 or so games that yet again raised the bar.
im a PC gamer at heart, but the developers are really pushing me away from it.
i can understand why there doing it, because of the piracy which is just as bad on the xbox 360.
another reason being sales are no where near as large on PC as on consoles, but still, i would like to see at least 1 game per year pushing the pc to its limits.
1 crysis per year is not to much to ask, is it?
Well said. I’m a PC gamer at heart too but it saddens me to see all the efforts being pushed into consoles.
One thing though. If you’ve bought Vista after July 09, you are eligible for Win 7 upgrade just for $10, AFAIK
I guess you are talking about graphics here but……uncharted 2 is on par with crysis?? Have you even played Uncharted 2? Its like 10 years above crysis (in graphics).
You dont need a killer PC, with a PS3 its enough (you can have the power of the CBE) ;)
Actually, the PS3 only has 256Mb GPU RAM. That’s the same as in my netbook which can’t even run Half-Life 2 smooth! It’s going to be too bad for the newest, RAM eating games. Either an upgraded PS3 will be sold, or they have to make a new one. PC’s can be upgraded easily, but it costs..
sorry i meant 5 months ago.
bought bought my laptop in may this year :(
just my luck.
anyway, i work in the IT industry, so if my company decides to get windows 7 (highly doubt it) i can get a copy through them.
Ouch, tough luck m8 :(
I upgraded to Windows 7 from Vista.
There is almost no any improvements!!! Except larger buttons.
In Windows7 is REMOVED good things what was in Vista. I have feeling like downgraded OS!!!!
Missing:
1) In Start menu cannot access anymore recent applications!! My most often used applications ir replaced with Paint, Solitare, etc.. what I do not use!!!! They suggest that I should now manually add my often used links to TaskBar. In my mind it is less comfortable, take more my time and leave feeling of downgrade.
2) In Vista, Windows Internal Backup software was doing weekly backups of my computer to my Buffalo NAS. It worked very well in background. Now after upgrade from Vista Home Premium to Windows7 Home Premium, it does not work and in help is written that I should upgrade to Professional, etc!!!
In my mind this is robery!!!! I payed 80 GBP for upgrade and now by Backups do not work and I need to purchase some more software!!!!
I hope Microsoft will change their mind and will stop this robbery of Vista customers!!!
yeah, agree
you cant even buy vista anymore,
its all replaced by that 5-percent-better-but-looks-like-medusa-os of an win7.
it feels like roberry , and you are persuated to buy win 7.
whenever you like it or not.
and of all the gaming charts:what is the difference between 160 fps or 130?
its still flawless. so why upgrade?
you better can buy new hardware than a new os.
How about comparing to XP Pro. SP3? :(
WOW – I for one appreciate the time and effort that went into the testing, analysis and write up of the comparison study.
Unless I read it wrong, after reviewing your findings, Windows 7 appears to be missing the two improvements I really wanted – a new way to access and work with my information, and a killer boost of speed.
[Rant begin]
I am reminded of WIndows 98SE here. Back then, they (MS) made improvements, but at least then, they didn’t claim to be releasing a new OS. This time around, Windows 7 is looking a lot like VistaSE.
The recipe to a best selling OS is there for the taking. So many great suggestions daily on the web from MAC, Linux and Windows users. So many tiny utilities that boost the functionality of any OS with much needed usefulness. Why doesn’t somebody just put the ideas together in one package?
I spent an hour in a store yesterday REALLY wanting Windows 7. But (in my opinion), after you turn off most of the eye-candy features (which is what really slows you down anyways), it’s no different functionally than XP. How sad, after so many years of development that MS seems stuck in a rut. How un-innovative, how un-inspired … how un-impressive. And, it’s not like they don’t have the resources and great minds to do the job.
I want a new way to work, not more desktop gadgets, prettier icons, 3d effects and the ribbon bar.
Hate to say it but I’ll bet the only way we ever see any real changes in Windows is if somebody else does it and MS copies them. But who – MAC and Linux? – don’t see too much different over there in terms of a new way to work.
[Rant over]
W.
I agree having making XP benchmarks is a hassle. If you noticed all these benchmarks and os’ us 64bit and 64bit XP is utter crap. There would be no point in comparing 32bit XP because there becomes the problem if only being able to use 3GB instead of 4GB like these machines were using and other differences affecting the results.
[...] 49 EUR unmetered Dedicated Servers fast setup fast connectivity fast support Dedicated Server OffersWindows 7 vs Vista Performance Comparison Windows 7 vs Vista Performance Comparison is also a nice resource.IT [...]
It seems pretty obvious that for the extra money one has to spend, Windows 7 is a waste. Of course, I’m one of those rare creatures that actually understands Vista and how to use it correctly and effectively, unlike the general populace that whines and snivels constantly about how that outmoded and crappy XP OS is better. Go figure.
Personally, I’ll wait 6 months before I decide to format & re-install windows 7 myself. I’ve already partaken in beta testing it on its initial release and was not impressed enough to run out and buy it on the day of its release. lol
Plus, If we’ve learned anything from all the previous OS’s, and Microsoft’s history… its that no matter how much they beta tests there OS’s, there never tested enough!!
Once the bugs have been ironed out a little more, and some of the openly known vulnerabilities have been fixed, I’ll consider buying it & installing.
By then it should drop @ least another $100 starting online… And I say this simply because they’re asking an outrageous amount for an OS they should be giving away right now to Vista license holders.
I’m not one for copyright infringement, but I do foresee the torrent network being used a lot, and many more people will lean towards a hacked version vs a legit license if they don’t pull there heads from there arses and drop the prices a little.
I also want to give props and kudos on a fantastic thread, job well done with sharing your benchmarks! I am sure this has answered many questions for many people, as it’s answered a few performance ones I had myself.
Thanks,
HighOnTek
You can’t see why people would use XP over Vista? And you call yourself a tech expert? Yeah, ok…
it’s about time some good tests came out i thought i would have to do it… sence every one all ready knows windows 7 in almost all cases the same or up to 20% faster then vista and the ones that were less perfroance it is because most of the software is made for vista not windows 7
i would love to see some xp versus windows 7 compariosons so people can look at it and upgrade
but in all means if you have anything less the a dual-core and 1GB of ram DO NOT UPGRADE KEEP XP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I look at it this way.. Microsoft really has no intrest in making a OS that performs well with games due to the fact they have moved into the console market. With them pumping out games for the XBOX 360.. which I would rather play my PS3.. they have no need to make a great OS to play games on. I just did some work on 3 computers last night.. 2 x Vista’s and 1 xp, Vista..ewwww.. sucks.. reminds me of when I had Win98se and they came out with WinMe. I havent seen Win7 But I will wait a long time before I switch any of my stuff over..
This is a very useful article giving real-world benchmarks on a number of individual applications. However, the real problem with Vista is not the speed with which it runs individual apps, it is the ridiculous wait times experienced by users navigating the operating system, the rotating “wait” mouse cursor is ubiquitous, the frustration escalating. Vista is one of the least productive computing environments I have ever experienced.
I wish I had a scientific way of benchmarking “OS UI response”, but I don’t. However, I have installed Windows & dual booted with Vista, and I can tell you that on a frustration scale of 1 – 10, Vista is a 9 – virtually unusable as a productive environment. Windows 7 is only a 4 – a vast improvement. That said, OS X is maybe a 2.5 and Ubuntu a 2 (lightning fast).
Still, if you need to run Windows apps, Windows 7 is a reasonable successor to Windows XP.
Try installing it on anything other than a toaster, may be you will get more favourable results with WIN 7.
I just wonder, is this test with Vista SP2 and the DX11 platform update?
I know that the DX11 platform update is supposed to add better support for multithreading, so if it isn’t included in this test, I guess that Vista should perform a bit better with it
I would recommend switching to Windows 7 because it’s much better, faster, works better with applications and more compatible with hardwares.
[...] is RSS?) PostsCommentsTagsArchivesLinksNetflix Coming to PS3, Using BD-Live Technology UPDATEDWindows 7 vs Vista – Which One is Faster?The Definitive Windows 7 vs Vista Performance ComparisonSony Announces 250GB Playstation 3 Slim For [...]
vista was fine is your pc exceeded the minimum system requirements. can anyone really explain the major fault with vista?
“The reason I didn’t include XP is because it is obsolete.”
The majority of us using PCs are not generating 3D computer graphics for the entertainment industry or spending EITC money on new hardware to play the latest games while living in our mothers’ basements. XP works just fine for the mundane, but necessary, multitasking environment of the average business or home. The OS exists to support the hardware and software that makes a computer useful. Microsoft has apparently forgotten that fact.
I have WIN XP and I find it 100 times better than vista..
Excellent article. The biggest thing I took away from it was the multithreading performance.
Personally, I still like XP though I havent had the time to really sit down with windows 7 but so far I definitely think it is better than vista.
However, for my users, I think vista/windows 7 is better for the userfriendly factor (the indexing search while having quite the overhead, is nice for the more computer illiterate and people that just work with lots of files)…which is what I dislike about it. Extra menus and panels that do organize operating system components better, but just take longer to drill through to get to what I need. I have no doubts that XP is faster than vista…vista is noticably smoother, but slower. Windows 7 seems to have the best of both worlds. I be guessing that windows 7 would be faster than XP because of multitasking.
History is repeating itself…this is no different than when windows 2k came out and the hype was centered around active directory and ease of driver installation. But windows 2000 was clearly unfinished and people noticed. Microsoft scrambled to finish it up and released XP shortly after which was a huge success. Vista/Windows7 is the same thing Vista= unfinished Windows 7.
I’ve noticed that everyone wants an XP benchmark, yet don’t understand the hours of work that have went into testing just the 2 OS’. Why don’t we just get all geeky and compare ‘98 as well? We don’t because it is out dated and there is no more support for it. Quickly is the fate of XP as well, as we are seeing Vista specific programs already. I would like to thank Carl for his efforts and attempts to show the world that Win 7 is a more complete os.
i like this lab but i have stell one qshachan. is windows better of linux
i like windows 7, it runs smooth. absolutely has improvements over vista and is faster. if u have vista, upgrade to 7. if u have xp and a slow computer, stay with xp. as simple as that.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with vista.
1 – Vista runs smoothly and loads files and browses through the C:/ drive or other drives very quickly.
2 – Great search system in the start menu
3 – No problems running ancient or new games (going to properties and checking administrator mode or compatibility mode is not a big setback)
4 – Quick start-up/Restart with fast file transfers and great multi-tasking capabilities (i simultaneously can have a game running in the background and search the web while chatting on msn, and my computer is average/low @ $750 worth)
5 – Easy access of information through the control panel and nice look.
The only bad that i find is:
1 – takes a while to start-up large file installations
The computer does not stop functioning so i’ve learned to do other things while i wait, i’m sure other people can too, its not everyday that you have to install something thats 2-4 gigs.
2 – annoying “widgets”
Widgets can be closed and permanently deleted so not a big problem…
So tell me, whats so bad about vista?
Where are the charts and benchmarks. Is there a link?
The charts are all there
I don’t find the charts either Carl. Everything I clicked on was an advertisement. The Permalink you listed above next to “The charts are all there” took me right back to this page!
Are you sure? They all load for me. They all start on page 2 of the article. What if I link the image directly?
So, what is the real answer? Which one is better? Taylor thinks that Vista is probably just as good. I can’t understand the rest of the graph and all of that stuff. Which is faster? Which runs better?!
My “toaster” has dual quad core Xeon processors, 8 GB RAM, and RAID striped 15,000 rpm scsi drives.
But you’re right; users need more power to get a reasonable UI response.
Thanks for helping me make my point.
Man that’s slow.
I run 4 quads on hyper thread 18 GB DDR3 on 10 20K drives on a RAID 6 array.
Suck it Trebek!
So all of a sudden an 8800GT is outdated? o_O
Considering the G80 dates back to 2006, I’d say it happened gradually over 4 years, not “all of a sudden”
great article…good use of graphs and benchmarks thru a WIDE variety of programs including making use of adobe products…i just wanted to add something to your comparison above
WINDOWS VISTA IS THE HALF FINISHED VERSION OF WINDOWS 7 PEOPLE!!!
ah i feel better now…windows vista was an uncompleted OS…go back thru articles dating back 5-7 years ago before vista was even called vista (back when it was just referred to as “Longhorn”) …vista was never given a release date by microsoft…they just told people when asked “well release it when we feel its done”…well that didnt sit well with people in the industry…so thru so much complaining and whining, microsoft finally caved and said “fine, we will give you a new OS, but its not done yet, were leaving x,y,z,1,2,3 out…deal with it”…so MS released dear ol vista in its incomplete form…WinXP SP2 was SUPPOSED to be the stop gap in the OS’s until vista/7 was finished
basically i think people tend to forget their history a bit when looking at microsofts operating systems in the last 10 years…im still a huge supporter of the idea that windows 2000 was THE BEST OS they ever made…it was small…it was rock solid…it ran on everything WELL…and it was SIMPLE…thanks to apple and their stupid “hold you by the hand” methodology on everything, windows is now adorning the same ideas in their OS releases…but im not going to get into that
basically i think so many people bagged on vista but really didnt understand what happend behind the scenes with it…it certainly didnt help that it was missing WinFS (longhorn was being developed to run specifically on WinFS…NOT NTFS)…ive used 7 a bit and i will say they fixed quite a few annoyances i have with the way vista works…but on the other hand theyve removed a few things (like the classic start menu) that will be sorely missed
and by the way…i also wanted to add…does anyone remember what a useless pile of horse dung Mac OSX was when it was first released??? it couldnt even burn CDs ;)
ah how people scorch and burn microsoft for the minor things that are done wrong…but no one seems to remember how useless apple’s OS was about 8 years ago…when was the last time you had to boot back to windows 98 to run legacy software???
FUCK WINDOWS 7, ill just stick with vista :)
I miss 98! :( it was so simpler. and it ran all my favorite games. having said that i am running vista on my faster machine (8 gig ram phantom 2) and as long as you shut down all thoughs useless apps they put with it it actually is a good operating system. the only stability issues i’ve had are with old games that were not designed to run on it. perfect examples are heros or might and magic 3 and battlefield 1942 and veitnam. not resource heavy games but as soon as you use more memory then the original game was designed for it crashes. dos based games can only use up to 3.5 gig or ram after that. they become unstable. if 7 was some how to change that then i’d switch. i like options!
I do believe that Windows 7 is better than Vista. I do in fact own both and have used both (both of which are 64 bit).
As for gaming, we need more games that are PC exclusive. I am hoping with the release of Directx 11, that gaming on the pc will see an increase, with Directx 11 there should be a huge advantage the PC has over consoles, because come on lets face it. Directx 10 was pretty lame and didnt really have that many improvements.
A game that will be coming out is Metro 2033. This is being released multiplatform I believe, but its supposed to be directx 11. Only time will tell if directx 11 will make it or break it for PC gaming.
Also, it is in Microsoft’s best interest to keep the PC gaming crowd happy because come on, gaming on a MAC? LAME. Only with pc can you get the awesome gpu power of 3 or even 5 way sli plus physx.
So Microsoft,….. STEP IT UP.
sorry not 5 way. I meant 4 way.
I think I’ll stick with Vista. Not going to pay MS more money for marginal performance gains and eye candy.
For those of you that say Win7 is what Vista should have been, I’ll add, that it should have been released when Vista was.
Really, how long does it take MS to get their act together. With all the resources and research put into their os developement, I’m constantly astounded that it takes them so long, and then that they get it wrong. No matter, a new release will compel suckers to keep forking out. I mean, getting excited about a new MS os release, the buzz went away years ago.
True. But once you go windows 7. You dont want to go back. Trust me. I have used xp. vista, and 7.
I was a Vista early adopter on a quad-core PC. I migrated from Windows XP 64-bit edition. I was truly horrified at the poor performance of Vista. Now with Vista at SP2, I can live with it. The only cling-on that frustrates me still is the long boot time. On my very well spec’d PC, it’s totally unreasonable to have to wait a couple of minutes after I have logged in before the PC performs like it should. To this day, I don’t miss Vista when I log into my XP pc in the office. My office PC has a quarter of the ram, only one core, but easily boots quicker and does everything just as well.
My first look at Windows 7 was a disappointment too. A slightly more polished Vista. People a right when they say it should have been a free upgrade. That said, I’m about to rebuild my quad-core with Windows 7. I don’t really expect much of a performance boost. My one and only reason for upgrading is to have the PC in a usable state sooner after booting.
I think MS have detached themselves from the user community. Their boffins play with the UI with no real idea of what the users really want. They are self serving. Somewhere along the way, MS got lost.
I’ve never owned a Mac, but the do the basics very, very well. When a friend visits with his powerbook, I’m amazed how quickly and smoothly he can manipulate photos & music and it’s all silky smooth. Doing the same on my much more powerful Vista PC feels clunky and awkward by comparison. MS have forgotten to get the simple things right first.
Bill. I cann 100% relate with your story. I had windows vista ultimate 64-bit on a quad core computer. And I really had no issues with it. I am a PC gamer. Still no problems. Service pack 2 came out and it was better. Yeah it was a little slow at first when released. But come on what big software that first comes out is perfect from the get-go?
Now I have windows 7. I have an i7 920 running at 3.8ghz. I have 6gigs of ram blah blah.
Its runs fine. Its fast and responsive. Its what vista set out to do. The way you can move windows around and organize them in windows 7 is fantastic. I go to use xp and try to organize windows around the way I do in 7, and I’m like wait, can’t do that. Yeah windows 7 just feels right and it catches on easily. Make sure you get a 64bit version and your golden.
Just let me know if you have any questions.
I think that win7 is way beter then vista if you are a gamer. also not every one is rich and can pay for a quad core computer or some other computer.
This is true. I do have windows 7 running on 3 dual core pc’s. An athlon, an i5, and a some other slow intel cpu. And it runs very well.
I think that anyone that turly believes that Windows XP is a ‘useless, outdated piece of crap’ is a complete and utter moron.
I quite happily run XP on my Intel I7 920, got 6GB Corsair RAM (1033MHZ), with my nice shiny new 2gb nvidia.
Just because Vista and 7 are shinyer and better looking, doesn’t mean they are better, either performance wise or any other.
If you are smart enough, you can XP to do anything you want it to, hell, i even run back to 98 sometimes for certain debugging issues.
I didn’t like Vista, but i am getting it soon and upgrading, for the simple fact that i don’t particularly wat to be running XP all my life… I want M$ to come out with an OS that WE want, not what stupid computer-illiterate end-users want. I’d like an OS that runs faster, doesn’t look flash (because looking flash = less performance), handles my apps and games faster and smoother, and also gives us the freedom to upgrade and customize it FULLY, how we need or want it.
Personally, as a video editor, i’m thinking of switching to Mac OS soon, because it handles the few games for it exceptionally well, and its very good with media.
Unlike Vista and 7.
That’s just my opinion.
If you really are running XP on a Core i7, you are wasting your system’s potential. MS made huge improvements to SMP performance going from XP to Vista, then did the same going from Vista to 7. If you have a system with more than 2 threads (yours has 8) then XP won’t make full use of them.
I agree with the James above. Vista or Win 7 is better suited for an I7
Windows 7 is much more focused with the goal of being more compatible with hardware and it applications. Much more features is included on windows 7 such as direct access, advances in touch and handwriting recognition.
7 > Vista >> XP
QED
i’m using vista ultimate sp2 64 bit currently. its a pretty good OS really. I’m a computer engineer by trade and have used many computers over the last 25 years of my computing history. for fun I’m into games, audio production, web design, some video editing. really, i’ve always thought every single OS i’ve ever used has been pretty good. most people are not patient and quick to regurgitate what they’ve read. win 3.1, 95, 98, 98se, 2000, xp, vista, mac OS 9, OS 10, linux, really, they are all gems for their time. i never used windows ME but i udnerstand that really was a pos.