Benchmarks for Windows 7 with RT7Lite ?

Have you tried windows servers? less msft crap, to me they seem faster and more responsive

 

What do mean exactly by "optimized" and what do you believe "solid evidence" to be? For a while I "optimized" Windows XP and Windows 7 installations, but all I did was incorporate updates, SPs when they came out, "chain install" certain programs and make a very few "light" performance tweaks. The physical effect was to increase the size of the installation footprint to about 4.5GB for Windows 7. And given all the stuff it installed as it went along (Office for one), the installation process was significantly longer than a "stock" installation. Is that a benchmark? Dunno, but it did get a lot of things done in one fell swoop. That's "solid evidence" to me.

As to it being more stable, my basic belief is that tweaking decreases stability and the "stock" installation will always be the most stable. But how long does a stock installation remain stock? Not long on pretty much every machine I've had to deal with. I think that's a moot point unless you do some really heavy tweaking that's known to affect stability.

Is what you're addressing "worth the time and effort to learn and test every component/service to remove"? Not for me, but that's like asking is it worth the time and effort to do anything ... it just depends. Depends on how much initiative and time you have to dedicate to such a project. The question always worth answering for me: do the ends justify the means? For hobbyists and enthusiasts, that's another moot point since it's all for fun mostly anyway. If you're a profit oriented business, the answer will be different. It just depends ... on you.

 

Are you trying to make a sale? If so then from my time in the corporate world you're going to have to do a cost vs. benefit analysis and demonstrate how quickly your product will pay for itself. If that were available online, I'd expect the corporate IT folks to already know about it.

If you're just doing it for your own satisfaction, why not just do it yourself?

 

this is so stupid that its unbelievable

as for original question, you can't tweak win7 as XP was tweakable
no lite version can be so stripped that runs faster or that consumes less resources

you can only disable aero/DWM to have better response on crap hardware
and disable very few services, as win 7 has more dependencies than XP has

want speed ? get SSD and 4+ GB RAM

the only heavy stripping on win7 goes on getting install size smaller (think 1.5 GB was smallest I encountered, by eXperience that made win7 that fit on 700MB CD)

 

In an enterprise and networked system I really don't think it should be considered commendable to make builds with RT7lite. On my personal images I do tweak certain services (disable some, set to manual others) but the way I do that is make 'base' images using sysprep. Using MS' own tools to generalize the image for deployment over a group of computers is really the way to go. If you're really interested in making customized images you should consider sysprep methods.

If it's about lite images, vLite would definitely have my preference over RT7lite. Yes, it will work with Windows 7 SP1 too (just have to re-save/export the install.wim first). Recently I successfully made a lite image of a fully updated Win7 x64 image (sysprep'd first) and I got the iso down 1gb to 2.5gb (with IE10 integrated) with all updates (McRip repo) installed. Yes, I find it to be a very snappy install and have installed anything from Office 2013 to Adobe progs, you name it, and it is completely stable and WU can be used. It takes a lot of work to get it that way though, especially if you've never done it before.

 

As jayblok suggested: install Server 2008 R2! You could also install Server 2008 Web Edition which is the fastest "Out of a Box" because of even less installed features.

And forget Benchmarks, if you need to get the real speeds, do working with the apps you're using and count the real timings and compare those timings with the timing from other OS's.

 

With Win8 I also tried Win Server 2012 and in that case found server made into a workstation not faster, even with features/roles uninstalled/not installed. Server 2008 R2 I have not tried, though. But I notice you are confirming in a roundabout manner that you do think 'less installed features' equals 'fast', which I thought was the very thing being questioned, and about which you said it can only be verified by comparing timings with other OS's. So, is that what you did to verify Server 2008 is 'faster' than Win7? Just curious.

 

I used Server 2008 Web Edition and compare to windows 7 and running Office apps, special Excel, it works faster.

To be honest, to see the difference in timing, you've to run some Apps which need a lot power. Such is easy done with Excel, using huge Worksheets and attached Macros. The differences for the same worksheet and the exact same filtering macro running, were more than 10min by an complete time of near an hour for the whole process to be finish. The same in Vista Ultimate were 1.5h while in Windows XP more than 3h!! All running on 64bit OS.
In many work you hardly will see any differences because it's maybe just a few seconds or even less. I know from customers of an friend which is working with Video Editing/modifying thet using Server 2008 also because of higher speed than they could reach in Windows 7.

But again, in "normal" apps you'll hardly see or realize the difference. And for me, that whole benchmarking is just a joke, something for to show off.

 

That's interesting that Win7 x64 would take 10 minutes longer than Web Server 2008. Your real-world test really shows difference between Win7 and Vista too

 

If you know Excel, you know that using Filtering Macros will need a lot of power which goes that far that you even couldn't do anything else on that computer at that time those process is running. Just one click with the mouse will force Excel to hangs and you've to start the whole process again! That has changed with Office 2013 running on Windows 8 while on Windows 7 it still has the same outcome as with Office 2010. Office 2007 is even much more worst!

That's exactly why I didn't like those Benchmark apps, they never shows the truth and for me that's just fooling! To test real performance, use it to do with real work and bogus apps.

 

Of course. (Note I never talked about benchmarks.) Did you try Office 2013 on Windows 7? Because Office 2013 on Win8 vs Office 2010 on Win7 is no comparison.

 

Same as making a sale, but you're paying yourself. I doubt seriously you consider your time as having no value, so you are trying to do some variation of a cost vs benefit analysis. You just have to decide if there is value added to your "product", whatever that might be, by doing what you're wanting to do. I can tell you that many large corporations "brand" their installations and develop a standard image for imaging new system.

Those branded images are often pretty heavily tweaked but usually a primary concern is data security and consistency of applications across the company. But once that image was created in my company, it was good for three years until a given location was upgraded. XP had its image for years, 7 has had its since it was adopted.

Tweaked images were created, but they were changed very seldom. The cost to do so was simply a cost of doing business. Your mission, should you decide to accept it, will be to determine is the cost worth the effort. And given that no benchmarks have turned up, I'm guessing it wheel invention time.

 

As I wrote already: Yes, I did. I did run the same process as for Office 2010 and the differences were just little with the same problem: any work on the machine will crash the process. On Windows 8 instead, it worked a bit faster and, what's more important, it didn't crashed the process while doing a work. the time saving compare to Windows 7 were about 3min while the whole process was need 48min.

I could not tell anything about any Game performance because I didn't play except Flight-Sim's.