• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Windows 7 build 7000 outperforms Vista and XP

Slimy

One Microsoft Way
Vista Guru
Gold Member
#1
Normally, I would frown upon testing beta software against final code that has been updated frequently, but the results this time around are very interesting. Instead of using benchmarking programs, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes from ZDNet put together 23 real-world scenarios to see which operating system would be the quickest to complete all of the tasks.

He tested the 32-bit versions of Windows 7 build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400, Windows Vista SP1, and Windows XP SP3. Two separate test machines were used:
  • An AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz system fitted with an ATI Radeon 3850 and 4GB of RAM
  • An Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 2.2GHz fitted with an NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS and 1GB of RAM
Neither of these computers is top of the line, but Windows 7 managed to outperform both Vista and XP on both. Kingsley gave a 1 to the operating system that finished each test first, a 2 for second place, and a 3 for third. Windows 7 scored 25 points on both systems, placing first in 21 tests, and second in two other ones. On the AMD system, XP scored 61 points and Vista scored 52, while on the Intel system, XP scored 56 points and Vista scored 57.


Either way, Windows 7 slaughtered both of its predecessors. Bill Gates wasn't kidding when he said Windows 7 would "be more efficient."

Full Story: Windows 7 build 7000 outperforms Vista and XP
Results: Windows 7 beta 1 performance - How does the OS compare to Vista and XP? | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com
 

joel406

Senior Member
Vista Guru
#2
All good news! Even though Vista runs better then XP ever did here on all of my systems.

If only someone would leak the x64 windows 7 7000 I could give it a better shake, I did load the x86 and it seemed to run fine, but I got to much RAM to hobble it with a 32 bit install.
 

Bare Foot Kid

R.I.P. August 13th 2014
#6
Hello all.

I know one thing; for 32-bit, 7000 screams on my system! For that matter 64-bit 6801 isn't no slouch. I'm ready for 64-bit 7000; actually, I'd like to see 64-bit 7004.



Hello Joel!













Later ;) Ted
 
#7
Hello all.

I know one thing; for 32-bit, 7000 screams on my system! For that matter 64-bit 6801 isn't no slouch. I'm ready for 64-bit 7000; actually, I'd like to see 64-bit 7004.



Hello Joel!













Later ;) Ted
I am running the 32bit 7000 build and it does move quick! I really want to try the 64bit! :D
 
#8
I didn't know where to say this so I thought I'd post it here.

I Installed the 32bit version on a spare PC today (wasn't prepared to mess around with a vital PC). Less then 2 hours to download 2.5Gb, and around 30mins to install, and it runs faster than my Vista ultimate 64 or XP Pro, which are both on impressive computers.

The computer I installed it on: AMD Sempron 3000+ 512Mb Ram, and it boots faster and seems more responsive, than any of my other PCs.

There's a few things I'm not too keen on with it, but considering it's a beta just released, it's looking good..
 

96accord

Senior Member
Power User
#10
I am at work checking out these results with a co-worker and we are shocked.

I am going to install it (dual boot with Vista x64) tonight and see for myself! ;)
 

dinesh

Vista Expert
Vista Guru
#12
Is it necessary to get connected to internet while activating the Windows 7?
I entered the product key and now its trying to connect to internet without which the key wont activate. Any comments?
 
#13
Is it necessary to get connected to internet while activating the Windows 7?
I entered the product key and now its trying to connect to internet without which the key wont activate. Any comments?
Yes, this version activates over the internet just like the earlier Vista and XP. The beauty of it is that it does it automatically. Plug in your router!
 

patio

Vista Pro
Gold Member
#14
64Bit tested last nite...install was flawless except for some reason it hated the 64Bit MBoard drivers and refused to accept them.
Sent a report.
Also tried the slideshow screen saver and although it ran well while i watched it for 5 minutes i took a break and came back to a blank screen and had to boot to last known good config...also reported.
As far as i can tell it seems like they actually may have gotten it right this time.
More Later.
 
#15
Some guys said microsoft promised what they couldn't deliver in another thread; in a way they were right as they integrated some Linux Architecture in Windows 7.

The exntfs file system stores and accesses files in a similiar, efficient manner as that of the Linux Kernel; there is less seeking to get parts of fragmented files. It organizes the free space interleaving the used; so, when new files are stored less than, a guess based on tests, 50 MB, they are less likely to be stored in parts or fragmented.

The windows kernel is also VERY VERY stable now; it is more stable than XP! It is NOT A VISTA SP2, as someone said; It takes 7 seconds to go from boot sector to desktop on a core 2 quad with 4 gigs of 1066. I'm not saying a laggy, still-in-load desktop either but a fully usable while loading startup programs.

This is due to them completely changing the way windows accesses memory; it, again, is similiar to how linux accesses memory! There are also checksums now for writing memory to harddisk so data is less likely to get corrupted. Through all previous versions of windows, the protocol for the windows kernel to access memory has remained farily unchanged with the exception of revision for architecture (x86 and x64).

Windows Vista, if you had read a year or two back, was a prerelease of Windows 7, or Windows Vienna; Gates wanted, in my opinion, retirement money :huh: and It was worse in performance than windows 98. I had various problems with 50 percent of my applications which were made to Microsoft's standards for windows vista.

I also know the truth as to why I had so many problems; as I said, the protocol for the windows kernel to access memory has remained farily unchanged since windows xp. They wanted to release vienna early BUT they were in a bind; they weren't done with the new Vienna kernel. So, Vista became the partial looks of Vienna with the partial of the kernel BUT most of the kernel came from XP! This was a quick fix BUT a terrible idea. You can't mix oil and water!

Windows 7 does have bugs, but, unlike the prior version's bugs, the bugs are not in performance or stability. Microsoft actually rethought their priorities focusing more on these areas, for once. In previous versions, they focused more on appearance and functionality than reliability and stability. I'm sure they will have everything fixed by October of 2010.

By the way, I got double the frames on most of the DX 10 games in comparison to vista; I got 30 percent more than XP in dx 9. The ATI HD series (I use 3870's) cards support Tesellation where the images are drawn using triangles instead of Hexagons or Squares. The Tesellation is exclusive to Directx 11, included in Windows 7 Beta build 7000; also, whenever the Direct3D is not in use by games, the GPU's become my 5th and 6th main system processors. Still thinking of buying that Core 2 Extreme when you can get 4 way SLI and more performance for the same price?
 
#16
these computers is top of the line, but Windows 7 managed to outperform both Vista and XP on both. Kingsley gave a 1 to the operating system that finished each test first, a 2 for second place, and a 3 for third. Windows 7 scored 25 points on both systems, placing first in 21 tests, and second in two other ones. On the AMD system, XP scored 61 points and Vista scored 52, while on the Intel system, XP scored 56 points and Vista scored 57.