| Vista v Win7 ... Now which is really faster? For several years now I have read the whingers and moans of the general population about how slow Vista was/is compared to Win7.
Today I loaded Vista 32 bit and Win7 32 bit onto a single machine. One comp, one hard drive. Identical other than Vista was on the first partition. Superfetch and Readyboost disabled and the only other setting both set to best performance.
Vista booted twice ( to give the best memory allocation ) ditto Win7 , just to be fair.
I then ran Novabench on each.
Win7.. 296.. Ram 94.. cpu 186.. Graphics 7.. H/D 9....
Vista.. 298...Ram 95.. cpu 186.. Graphics 7.. H/D 10
Which is the slower? |
|
| Absolutely meaningless benchmark and its already well known (ever since Win7 betas and the multitude of benchmarks that came out since then) that Win7 was what Vista should have been.
No surprise your results are nearly identical.
What some might notice is that Win7 is a LOT more stable than any earlier Win OS. |
|
 JohnInSJPremium
join:2003-09-22
San Jose, CA | reply to eddiebbb
said by eddiebbb :Which is the slower?
The one that no one will use more than once.
--
My place : »www.schettino.us |
|
 BlitzenZeusBurnt Out CynicPremium
join:2000-01-13
kudos:2
 ·Frontier FiOS
| reply to eddiebbb
32-bit really? Sounds like you have ancient hardware to begin with, and less than 4GB of ram. It would seem that this machine didn't need Win 7 on it at all, and might even be too antiquated to properly support all it's features in the hardware, including directx 11 on the video card.
The reality has been that Win 7 should have been a service pack to Vista, but after extending support for XP they wanted to make a newer release sooner.
--
I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday we obeyed kings, and bent out necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to the truth- Kahlil G. |
|
Reviews:
 ·TekSavvy Cable
 ·TekSavvy DSL
| reply to theyipper
You serious there the same OS with few tweaks always cracks me up when someone bashes Vista but sings the praises of Windows 7. Hate to break it to you but there almost no difference between Windows 7 sp1 and Windows Vista sp2 there based on same NT kernel. |
|
 JahntassaWhat, I can have feathersPremium
join:2006-04-14
Conway, SC
kudos:4 | said by neuromancer1:Hate to break it to you but there almost no difference between Windows 7 sp1 and Windows Vista sp2 there based on same NT kernel.
The same major version, sure. (6.x) But that's similar to stating that Different favors of Linux are the same because they're based on the same kernel. A lot can change in a minor revision, not to mention everything on top of it, like desktop window management. |
|
| reply to BlitzenZeus
It matters not what comp the test was done on, it could have been run on an Xt with 640k of ram. The fact is Vista is no different to Win7 ala its supposed to be so slow. So where is it slow.
The figures are there as proof.
The comp had 4 gig of ram. |
|
