Windows 7: Performance Analysis Comments

I will definitely be upgrading!! :) I held on to my windows XP Os as I had heard Vista was disastrous when it was first being released (which of course turned out to be true), well anyway luckily enough I will be getting windows 7 professional for free!! This is because my computer science course is joined with Msdn Academic alliance ;)

Thanks for the review, I was mostly interested in your subjective testing anyway as Vista feels very sluggish just browsing folders (C2D e4300, 4GB Ram, Samsung F1 500GB).

Was this a tri-boot on the one hard drive or did you do just wipe the hard drive each time? Were all the W7 drivers final versions?

As slow as I find Vista, I have also found it to be amazingly stable. If it ever gets into difficulty it always seems to manage to recover itself if you give it a little time, and never crashes in a big way that I seem to remember XP occasionally doing. All I want from W7 is that they fix this lagginess that seems to be present in Vista.

I haven't even tried a Beta of W7 yet so I can't comment on features, but I have pre-ordered Home Premium for both my PC and laptop so I have faith in it :)

remember there were some articles claiming the boot-up time to the point of low cpu/mem usage in win7 is not as fast as Vista...

I didnt bother to read the whole article though.

Thanks for the huge effort, I can remember how boring this used to be.

If anything the results show XP can admirably still hold up to the newer generation, and nothing will quite be like the leap from W9x to XP.
Even if I did shun it for the first year or so of its existence...

I guess you mean the Intel Core i5-750 CPU? Don't think there is an i7-750 is there?

Good comparison, thanks.
I've used all three OSes and Win7 definitely feels faster than Vista (on the same machine).
Re your test with small files, the reason for XP's better may simply because you don't have enough RAM. Vista and even Win7's footprint is much larger than XP, so with 2GB XP still has quite a lot of available RAM to do some caching. Much less so with Vista or Win7. I would bet that the test would be much faster for Win7 if you had 4 (or at least 3) GB of RAM installed instead of 2.

it would be interesting running the tests on a netbook with 1gb of ram,as im sure this is a vaunted part of 7 over vista.

Very interesting, Im quite amazed that the faster feel of 7 must be in my imagination.

My minor complaint is the reason for using the 32bit version. While 32bit XP and Vista are vastly more popular, now that 64bit drivers have matured and we are running into the limitations of 32bit, surely 7-64 will be whats used by the vast majority of people.

@Manni, @Ed; Not having ever used vista (stuck on Win2000 at work! & opted to stay with XP at home) but due to move to Windows 7 when it turns up do you think file handling performance would improve if I were to boost the memory using the ReadyBoost feature on Windows 7? I ask because my laptop maxes out at 2Gig & I often do a bunch of file handling stuff (for work & for play).

I'd heard W7 was snappy from forum users but many are likely going from memory alone or an existing XP/Vsita install, possibly even on older hardware, vs their fresh W7 beta install, so I'm glad to hear it remains true in a proper like-vs-like comparison.

I can't believe you think your hardware modest, or even vaguely representative of what anyone has at home. What is really relevant for me is whether is will run acceptable on existing hardware, I would expect it to run on new stuff. PCs last much longer now, and apart from flash a good P4 is fine, how will it run on this?

@sir stuie. I disagree. Most users will want to upgrade to 32bit Win 7. especially if upgrading from win XP/32 as most drivers and software on the old OS may not work in 64bit mode. Generally most everyday (non-power) users don't need more than 4GB of memory and thus no real need for 64bit (generally for example most laptops today can't be configured to more than 4GB anyway). Future proofing with a 64bit OS will mean that you need more space for RAM (more than 4GB) which means currently a top end machine(obviously benefit power/worstation users who already use 64 bit anyway.

I've been running W7 (32bit version) on an elderly AMD athlon 3200+ with 1GB of Ram as a test and it seem to work very well - to my surprise. Indeed, sufficient to be up there with XP pro Nice work for a change M$. It also works flawless on my AsRock Ion HTPC (64 bit version here)too...

Thanks very much Edward. Is it possible to have Win 7 64bit installed on a machine with say 4 or 6gb ram, which I imagine is what a lot of people will have, and show the results?
Also, Vista and XP have had the benefit of fixes and updates with their Service Packs.. A Win 7 Service pack should put it in the clear lead.

Testing with only 2GB of memory was a bit odd, I think 4GB or 8GB would have been a better choice - it shows the system at it's best and is generally a cheap upgrade if required.

Some objective testing of Windows 7's responsiveness would have been nice, maybe using the same setup Anandtech did in their input lag article.

@Sir Stuie, doubtful the majority of ppl will use 7-64, not to mention the capatibility issues, most ppl dont even know the difference between 32 & 64.

One lastest survey shows over 30% of participants dont know what internet browser is...

@whoever knows, regarding 64bit Windows, on Window 7 does it create two sets of folders for 32bit/64bit software? as somebody who likes organised folders, this is of slight annoyance. Why does 32bit software need to be installed on a dedicated folder?

It might be worth reporting that it's been confirmed that a national postal worker strike will start on the 22nd (Window 7 release date) and last for a-week-or-something...

@ChaosDefinesOrder:
Apple conspiracy confirmed ;).

@ChaosDefinesOrder - Bad news indeed. I've ordered from Amazon - haven't they just changed their postal operator. I'm not sure if I'll be affected?

@darkspark88 - As far as I know there's two folders created in Windows 7 x64. "Program files" for 64-bit software and "Program Files(x86)" for 32-bit software. As to why, that's beyond my knowledge ;)

Is one not to expect a more radical advance in performance, considering the fact that Win 7 is being compared to a version more than 8 years old? Why bother trying to do it justice? I have confined Windows to the past and made the switch to a Mac more than a year ago. I am still amazed at the sheer quality and stability of this beast (and reduced stress levels!). Good luck to those entering another phase of issue fixes, security updates, etc...

@darkspark88: It's only the Program Files folder that's split up, hardly an issue as you shouldn't need to delve around in there too often.

I'm confused by some of these comments though. I can see why 32-bit was used for this test, since that's what the majority of people still use. However, why are people still fresh installing 32-bit Windows on their machines, after all these years? If there's no real downside to 64-bit, why wouldn't you install it?
Please people, go 64-bit. You'll be helping to push global adoption and advance civilization as we know it. ;)

Xiphias: I disagree, the idea is not to show the system at its best but to try to recreate the "average" home user's setup. Many consumers are still using systems with 2GB or less - indeed even brand new laptops (which seem to be gaining in popularity over PCs) often ship with only 2GB.

Interesting that XP still seems to have the edge in several areas if going by the benchmarks, although this is hard to reconcile with the various slightly vague claims that 7 "feels" much faster.

Personally I'm not yet convinced by the speed advantage of Win 7, nor by the changes in UI which still look to me like an attempt to "Appleify" Windows. What I really want to know is, is it horribly buggy? I have been living with Vista on one machine for nearly a year; it crashes regularly, refuses to work well with Winamp and other fairly undemanding programs, and the user/documents folders have become a horrible mess of folders which endlessly self-replicate for no apparent reason. Given Win 7's similarities to Vista, I hope these problems are not repeated in the new OS. Finally, some of the features designed to make Vista more "intuitive" actually just needlessly complicated matters while removing control. Since Win 7 is supposed to be even more "intuitive" and "user-friendly", I hope this is not once again code for "Idiot mode which prevents you doing what you want". Ah well, hopefully all will be revealed in the full review... Thanks TR.

Got me a nice new speedy hard drive coming tomorrow for Windows 7.. just got to wait for Play to send me it.

Most new notebooks are shipping with x64 as standard now, so I think the proper review should reflect this. It doesn't take a while for certain things to become mainstream. 64 bit is now there, not that I notice much difference from the 64 vista notebook I've used. Then again, it is running Vista.

@MrGodfrey - I have been running Vista Ultimate 64-bit for over a year on the same install (I seemed to reinstall XP every 6 months it seemed) and I've never seen a BSOD or have to hard reset it. If it ever trips over itself it just takes a moment to regain composure while XP used to just give up and freeze. Stable as a rock for me and I use Winamp os a daily basis with no problems :s

I really wouldn't get too hung up about having two program files folders. Installers (well most of them) will select the correct location for you. You should not have to delve into those folders - they are protected anyway. The two folders come into their own when you have 32-bit and 64-bit versions of an application installed, although for most people the only example of that is probably Internet Explorer.

@StephanDoc: Not really. Ways of doing things are advancing at a much slower pace to hardware so expecting an OS to be much more efficient isn't reasonable. Plus many things aren't even going to be limited by the OS but by something else instead.

@MrGodfrey: Changing OS is a pretty major and fairly expensive job on your main computer so adding an extra 2GB of ram alongside that if it would improve the situation is going to be an acceptable idea for anyone considering it.

As others have said, Windows Vista has been amazingly stable for me, compared to Windows 2000, with nary a blue screen or crash in sight.

I would agree about the awful unconfigurable mess the default folders are at present. If Windows 7 were to have fixed that I'd forget about staying with Vista and upgrade in a flash.


What's wrong with the two program files folder? I don't use them myself and install all programs to a 'programs' partition so is it just the annoyance of finding out which one a program is in or is there something more?

I have a problem with consistency. I'm not sure where to find programs, so thats extra work, plus when I install onto another partition (e.g. D:), I'm unsure whether to create the two folder structure again or just install all programs into a folder again called Program Files...plus certain games I've installed on Vista 64 bit haven't worked, despite working fine with Vista 32bit. It may have nothing to do with the folder structure, but I've heard that 64bit should run everything that 32bit Windows does. Not the case.

At present on my current notebook, all system programs and productivity applications are installed on main drive C:, all games and associated software such as Steam are installed on D:. I like order and neatness, and until I learn a bit more about why and how Windows creates two seperate folders, I'll be a little wary.

Performance advantage for 64-bit versions will not be significant for normal user scenarios. The main advantage for 64-bit version is addressing > 4Gb of RAM. So the question you have to ask is how much RAM do you require? I think for typical user set ups 3Gb is enough. For me the OS 'feeling' fast is more important so boot up, resume from sleep are really important. Likewise opening programs, switching windows and search. How long it takes to copy files is not so important since much more dependent on external factors. When I need to copy big files I use scripts/command line so a few seconds here or there don't matter. More importantly they don't affect my impression of things such as system responsiveness.
Performance to me also means stability so consider memory leaks, unresponsive programs and task management. Although these aspects weren't covered in this article I feel Windows 7 has improved over both XP and Vista in these respects. While I was running 7 beta my Aspire One netbook would freeze regularly, the graphics driver also crashed regularly. Since 7 RC it is considerably more stable, this is in part the OS but also updated drivers.
I guess performance analysis of an OS is highly subjective and really dependents on the individual's needs. However overall the article covered general features fairly well.

@darkspark88: I assumed it was just to be helpful in a few years time so you could see which programs were still 32-bit and could do with upgrading so they still work when 32-bit support is dropped (like 16-bit support has been dropped in the 64-bit versions of windows).

3GB might be fine just now but 4GB and more will be needed soon enough I would urge everyone to go 64 bit and future proof themselves better, and remember everything that is windows 7 certified has to have full 64 bit compatibility so there is no reason not to upgrade

I've used Vista 32 since the day it was released, and then switched to Windows 7 64 on Beta 7100. 7 is a massive step up, and just adds more polish and stability. It is good to use, and as a Mac user at work, is definitely on a par.

On the subject of RAM, I seriously question the statement that 3 gb is adequate. I run a decent system albeit not cutting edge any longer - Q9450 and 8 gb RAM. Heavy use of Lightroom and Blurb can easily get into the system taking 5+ gb of RAM, and these are applications where you will not want to swap space to any speed HDD.

I've had zero problems on 7100 64 bit. Looking forward to my new retail version shipping soon, postal service permitting.

I am struggling to find a reason to upgrade from XP pro. Further, given that my scanner will no longer work if I did upgrade - meaning more cost - I think I'm staying put. At the end of the day my pc does what I need it to do.

@Isaac: Your comment is a reminder for people to keep a level head. We'd all like the latest and greatest, but do you really need it? What more is it really going to achieve than what you already have? If it ain't broke.....

My retail copy of Windows 7 turned up at lunch time today! Nice surprise as I was expecting it to be dispatched on Wednesday in time for the weekend. @supamario what Windows 7 brings is useful incremental changes, think back to Windows 2000 then ask yourself that question again.

@DEB: your very lucky you have it now, if it had been dispatched wednesday due to the postal strike I doubt you would have got it before midweek next week at the least lol

Just a quick comment from me on File transfer speeds.
I have a Q6600 machine with removeable SATA hard drives. I have WIN7 64Bit, VISTA Ultimate (32 bit) and WinXP professional installed on seperate drives. Rather than trust a dual-boot situation I just slot in the correct drive before powering up.
For WIN7(64bit) and Vista (32bit) I use 4GB ram (2 times 2GB sticks of RAM).
When using XP I remove one stick of Ram leaving me with 2GB running on a single channel.
(This is to ensure no memory clash with my 4870x2 graphics card)

When running Win7 -I found copying 20Gig of various media files across to a USB external HD to be faster than Vista but slower than using XP.
However if copy the same files using a third party file manager tool (I'm using Directory Opus) instead of Windows - the transfer speeds are much faster on each PC, and WIN7 then transfer the files at a similar (possibly even slightly faster) speed to XP.
So not sure why WIN7 (4GB) and VISTA (4GB) should be slower at file transfers than WIN XP (2GB) but it does seem possible to use third-party software to increase that speed so that you can still enjoy the other Win7 features.
My opinion is that Win7 is far better than Vista and XP when running on modern hardware.

Just installed on my ASUS EEE PC 901.

Seems good so far, only had a quick play around. Although I did have to boot in via safe mode and update the Intel gma drivers.

Install process was a bit problematic, first time round I thought it had finished and manually rebooted. It hadn't. Second time round, it worked OK with a little moee patience on my part. As before just seemed to hang, this time I waited, it eventually restarted. However then it did the same thing again (blank screen, no hardrive activty/dvd activity, waited an age (over an hour); and in the end I had to manually power down. Restarted fine.

Also - Just another quick response to "Is Win7 horribly buggy".

I've been using Win7 (32bit on my laptop/64bit on my desktop) since the initial beta, then the Release candidate and now (as of Monday) have installed the official release.

In all cases I have found Win7 is far more stable than Vista and XP.
- Since going to Release Candidate I haven't managed to crash it once despite attempts to load/runsome very old (Win95/DOS software).