Though Windows 7 edged out Vista in our lab tests, you may not notice much of a difference. Improving performance is one of Microsoft's design goals with Windows 7, and many early reviewers (including ours) have said that the new OS seems peppier than Vista. But tests of the Windows 7 Release Candidate in our PC World Test Center found that while Windows 7 was slightly faster on our WorldBench 6 suite, the differences may be barely noticeable to users. We loaded the Windows 7 Release Candidate on three systems (two desktops and a laptop) and then ran our WorldBench 6 suite. Afterward we compared the results with the WorldBench 6 numbers from the same three systems running Windows Vista. Each PC was slightly faster when running Windows 7, but in no case was the overall improvement greater than 5 percent, our threshold for when a performance change is noticeable to the average user. The largest difference was 4 points--102 for Vista versus 106 for Windows 7 on an HP Pavillion a6710t desktop. Our other two test machines showed similarly minor performance improvements: A Maingear M4A79T Deluxe desktop improved by 1 point (from 138 on Vista to 139 on Windows 7), and a Dell Studio XPS 16 laptop improved by 2 points, from 97 on Vista to 99 on Windows 7. source: pcworld.com
Just leave those benches and numbers and start using this OS - it feels faster, boots faster (did measure it with a timer) is more responsive, Opera browser opens within a second etc. These benchmarks are only numbers - nothing more, nothing less.
Although i fully agree that benchmarks only test the capability of the computer to do benchmarks and as such are not of too much use, i do disagree with the other observation. I have Vista x64 Sp2 and Windows x64 7 as dualboot. Actually, in my case at least, since installing RC 7100 i found it slower or equal to Vista. The 'feel' is that vista responds quicker, even taken into acocunt that my Vista is skinned by Windowblinds and 7 is not. There is a distinct lag opening large folders with 7, the CPU runs slightly hotter whilst being less charged as 7 is a clean install and Vista is fully loaded. This used to be the exact inverse for earlier versions of W7 and SP2 (notably the RTM Escrow) but since installing the SP2 RTM and the RC 7100 the table shave turned.
same here ; I found Vistasp2 is as fast as Win 7 rc 7100. Tested with x32 and 64 bit version. windows experience Index Win 7x64 = 5.2 Vista SP2 x64 = 5.5 Having say that, strangely Win7 build 7048 feel faster than Vista SP1 by a long short!
it all comes down to the system its running on vista run like a snall on my i7 when windows 7 runs like lighting, boot time, install time you name it im loving it, and prathaprabhu Vista can suck on my nuts
Win7 doesn't boot any faster for me (than Vista x64 SP2) but it does use less memory.. haven't done any proper application benchmarks yet but it's all pretty smooth.
Vista runs HORRIBLE on the i7 chipset, knew a guy that build out a new Vista x64 system with the core i7 and it ran like crap, even after updating the chipset drivers. As for Vista being faster or Windows 7 being faster, they both probably run about the same if your drivers are updated. The thing that makes 7 different is app loading times, memory usage, and overall responsiveness of the OS. Out of the box on my laptop with Vista x64 I am using easily 2-2.5gb of RAM. With Windows 7 with EVERYTHING that I normally use; Dameware, MMC Snapins (ADUC, DHCP, DNS, Hyper-V Manager), Firefox, Foobar 2000, and other apps they all use about half that. Right now my memory usage is around 1.5 gb of RAM, you show me a Vista system that is using 1.5gb of RAM with all of those open and then the comparisons of Vista being better than 7 will make some sense.
Having 8gb i don't give a rats ass if vista uses .5gb more for itself. At the moment i run vista without virtual memory, and have yet (since a couple of years) to reach the point where memoryload exceedes 70% And, yes i do use memoryhungry apps.
Dare i say that if i have an old notebook running Vista x32 with a windows experience index of 2.2, i should be able to run Win7 on it just as smooth? It's an AMD Turion 64 with ATI. Thinking of installing but wonder if it would be a waste of time....especially if it lags with Win7.
But I have to comment Win 7 is much more feature rich than Vista. The most visible difference between Win 7 32bit and Vista is the file copy operations performance. Win 7 moves files much faster than Vista especially large ones.
I am loving my experience with the RC of windows 7. Everything works so much faster and more intuitive to use. I dont plan on going back to vista ever again lol
ok.. sorry its slow for others, but its fast as hell for me, so nuff said, i'll be sticking with 7, I suggest just try it, if its slow for you, then dont upgrade, seldom do I listen to anyone before trying anyway
I've been running Win7 x64 on an old dell notebook with similar specs: 2GB, ATI something, it works great and even runs the virtual XP. Everything is smooth. I will never again install an x86 OS on a machine if it is x64 compatible.
Also, the more ram you have, the larger the swap file it will make. Its ridiculous. You would think it would be the other way around, the swap file should get smaller with more ram.
Just for s**ts and giggles, I installed Vista x64 sp2 about a week ago. I couldn't WAIT to get it back off the hard drive and put Win 7 back on. It's just so damn responsive! In fact, in 7201, when I open Firefox, it damn near explodes onto the screen instantaneously. Compare that to Vista, when I had to count "1001, 1002..." Generally, that's representative of the improvements that I've seen across the board.
After installing Vista SP2 I found Vista Sp2 is in par with Win 7 7100RC. before that Vista SP1 is slower that Win 7 because of this perception I think most users have decided Win 7 is faster and better.