First Look: Windows 7 Beta Performance

I don't know what you think ancient is, but you are sadly mistaken about hardware support requirements for vista and win7. vista runs better on my "ancient" latitude d810 than XP does. and faster. it does however have 2gb of ram.


i have 4 pc's in my house, and only 1 of them is 64-bit capable (and it's my work laptop, so it's stuck with 32-bit XP) - while most of us technically advanced types went 6t4-bit long ago, the vast majority of consumers are using 3 year old (or older!) hardware.

as for win7 performance:

I love the tablet integration. my most-often used machine right now is my IBM X41T - 1.5 ghz, 1.5 gb memory, and a 2gb SD card for readyboost (love the built in reader) - handwriting recognition is literally 10x better than vista - and vista was 100X times better than WINTE 2k5.
couple this with office 2k7 & one note - typing will soon be a thing of the past for me i think. well, outside of work, anyway.

it runs overall a little slower than a stripped down tablet ed. 2k5 install. generally faster than vista was on it. could be the readyboost, or me just getting more used to using vista on a daily basis.

new taskbar - bloody brilliant. quit whining about losing the quicklaunch. i used to depend on it, but i am starting to not miss it.
and you can configure the taskbar grouping, and add the text labels if you want. with a 1024x768 tablet desktop, i probably wont.

rotation works much better than xp or vista.

downsides:
had to use the XP driver for the intel 2200bg wifi. pretty odd that one of intel's biggest selling chips isn't included.
win7's default SD reader driver stuck in PIO mode. lenovo / IBM drive wont install. after a little searching, discover Ricoh 3 n 1 driver, get it to install, and suddenly readyboost works again.

i think i will definitely stick with 7 on the tablet. as for the desktop and the wife's laptop, vista will probably stay for a while.

funny to c game running 2-5 FPS lower on win 7
i was wondering what happened to perfomance boost,

Anyway, eager to get my fully functional i7 build, with Win 7 as secondary OS (Vista sp1 x64 as primary)
ill do my own benches :P

Originally Posted by tk421
i have 4 pc's in my house, and only 1 of them is 64-bit capable (and it's my work laptop, so it's stuck with 32-bit XP) - while most of us technically advanced types went 6t4-bit long ago, the vast majority of consumers are using 3 year old (or older!) hardware.

To be fair... the 'vast majority' of consumers aren't going to install any OS other than the one that actually came with their system. Or are still using the original default install. Either way, dropping support for 32-bit from an OS will affect businesses more than end-users... and most of businesses I've had experience of are still using Windows 2000, Win 98 or even in one case, Windows 3.11. They stick with what works, and it'll cost a lot to shift company-wide networks to a new OS like Vista or Win 7, purely on hardware requirements, even without taking into account 32 or 64-bit support.

Basically, there are a lot of good reasons for dropping 32-bit only releases, and only some weakening reasons for continuing to include it.

I have 2 questions about Windows 7, which aren't answered well in this article:
1. Does it have better backward compatibility with old software (esp. games, e.g. Diablo II) and hardware (e.g. Palm Tungsten E3 usb hookup, HP DeskJet 9300)?
2. Does Notepad handle the *nix line-end convention yet?

Originally Posted by Sark.inc
this is just plain stupid.

Is that a self-referential statement? :D

Originally Posted by Icy EyeG
I'd like to see that too... Since many people is considering a transition between XP and 7 (skipping Vista).

Regarding Windows 7: How possible is it to config the taskbar to be Vista-like? I don't like to see such thick taskbar with text-less icons only...

I'll have to FIND an XP disk first :S

You can make the taskbar thinner with small icons only, but there is no more words any more - it's all mouse-over to see multiple screenshots of the windows you have open. It gives more space and there's still the alt-tab/win-tab or stick to side if you want. It'll take some getting used to imo.

The quick launch icons are still there - but instead they are simply pinned to the start bar and not given their "own space" like in XP and Vista. It's a lot more fluid looking.

[quote]1. Does it have better backward compatibility with old software (esp. games, e.g. Diablo II) and hardware (e.g. Palm Tungsten E3 usb hookup, HP DeskJet 9300)?

No idea, we don't have that kind of hardware in the lab and Joe hasn't had time to play old games on it yet. I think if it works in Vista - it'll likely work in 7.

Im liking Windows 7, its cliche to say now, but its what vista should have been. The previous beta needed the chipset drivers loaded, on version 7000, everything was there, it took about 20 mins on an amd x2 3800 NF4 pc, and it is without doubt faster then Vista and xp doing the normal run of the mill things.

I found this blog that posted some times comparing xp, vista and 7 http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=1

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
You can make the taskbar thinner with small icons only, but there is no more words any more - it's all mouse-over to see multiple screenshots of the windows you have open. It gives more space and there's still the alt-tab/win-tab or stick to side if you want. It'll take some getting used to imo.

Nope, right click -> properties -> taskbar buttons -> never combine

Shows it like it was a nicer Vista with the quicklaunch for apps which you've dumped on the taskbar.

You can show the the text! Well DougEdey says how.

I like Windows 7... I just can't wait of official Windows 7 drivers to actually see the real performance of the OS. However, there is one thing that is killer, and I can't believe it was not mentioned. I guess I am the ONLY ONE that maximizes programs. Just because few idiots complaints under Vista, as they thought it was a bug the fact that when you maximize a window or program the boarders and taskbar turns blackish and opaque. In Windows 7 it doesn't do that, and you just can't focus on your application, especially if you have a bright background or an animated background or those auto-switch background that you can in do in Windows 7. An OS is useless if you can't use it.

I hope my feedback sent to Microsoft won't be ignored and that their are others that support me. If there is this war between which mode is best.. then how about an option to change the behavior (as I suggested in my feedback to Microsoft).

No WinFS? I thought that was supposed to be coming in Win7

Nah, that's been well and truly sidelined Veles.

Originally Posted by Kúsař
Why is MS still developing 32 bit OS? Everyone has 64bit capable PC and those who don't won't be able to run it anyway. They are adding more work to themselves, HW manufacturers(now they'll have to write 6 drivers for - XP, Vista, 7; 32/64) as well as other software developers. Moreover some programs runs significantly faster in 64bit mode.

I don't think they'll write many drivers for NEW hardware from 2011. XP should have died a long time ago.

Originally Posted by Kúsař
But these are ancient relics without driver support(chipsets) for Vista, let alone Win #7; and cannot even run MS Office 2007 fluently(under XP!). Last 32 bit AMD CPUs are using socket A, intel - 478 Prescott(E series) - 4 / 5 years old platforms. Compared to XP there wouldn't be any speed boost at all.

I run Win7 on a 3 year old HP NX8220 (Based on a Pentium M )at the moment (And my main rig), and it works really well. It even seems faster than XP. Driver support isn't any problem either, as Vista drivers will work just as well.

Originally Posted by Kúsař
Why is MS still developing 32 bit OS? Everyone has 64bit capable PC and those who don't won't be able to run it anyway. They are adding more work to themselves, HW manufacturers(now they'll have to write 6 drivers for - XP, Vista, 7; 32/64) as well as other software developers. Moreover some programs runs significantly faster in 64bit mode.

Many netbook CPUs are in 32-bit, and Microsoft wants that market.

Originally Posted by GoodBytes
You can show the the text! Well DougEdey says how.

I like Windows 7... I just can't wait of official Windows 7 drivers to actually see the real performance of the OS. However, there is one thing that is killer, and I can't believe it was not mentioned. I guess I am the ONLY ONE that maximizes programs. Just because few idiots complaints under Vista, as they thought it was a bug the fact that when you maximize a window or program the boarders and taskbar turns blackish and opaque. In Windows 7 it doesn't do that, and you just can't focus on your application, especially if you have a bright background or an animated background or those auto-switch background that you can in do in Windows 7. An OS is useless if you can't use it.

I hope my feedback sent to Microsoft won't be ignored and that their are others that support me. If there is this war between which mode is best.. then how about an option to change the behavior (as I suggested in my feedback to Microsoft).

You can change the transparency and color intensity in the desktop personalization window. If you click on "Window Color" at the bottom you can change color, transparency etc. there. so no more annoying background-bleed.

As to the whole Windows 7 Beta shebang...I'm liking it. I'm dual booting Vista and 7 Beta, and since installing 7 Beta I haven't been tempted to boot back into Vista once. It feels much more polished and the little tweaks, especially to the taskbar and UI are great. It just feels like it was made to work, rather than Vista which feels like it was made to look pretty and wow people. And at such an early stage in the development cycle it bodes well for the full release later this year/early next.

WoWo....Wow! I think there is a misconception of who Xp users are. I have Vista on my laptop, but I just use it for work traveling reasons. I choose to have Xp on all my desktops at home.

My main system is a Q6600/680i/3gig ram/8800gtx. Thats a great updated system to sensible standards. I have stripped XP down to the bare bones and use my own programs of choice. I use to have to reinstall XP ever so often to get the speed up again, now, everyday it is like the first day of installation,...no bloat. I use it for PS3, Maya2008, ZBrush, en/decoding, Gaming, burning, etc. (92Gigs of programs on main Drive)Security wise I have every hole blocked and every ping and talk is acknowledged or blocked. My system is 80 plus % freeware. My systems performance ratings are off the charts in every way when compared to similair systems (same hardware)with Vista. I see myself as completely up to date minus the OS....but I choose to be. And so do my savvy computer friends that do the same.

I guess what I'm saying is XP users are not ancient relic computer owners or people that hate change. We just use what can be best If you know how to make it that way. I feel like I own my system, and have gotten the best performance out of its hardware based on what I can do with XP vs Vista.

I cant wait to see what Win7 can do, I'm ready to upgrade to some bling and friendly performance. But I won't unless I know its better. I've owned the first edition of windows and have skipped the ownership of ME and 2000 when they came out. I see Vista the same way, defiantly skip it and wait. For now using XP for me is not outdated or a handicap it's the smart choice. :) just my thoughts.

"The start bar now has the option of large icons and icons are now used without words; this means that if there are two Firefox windows open for example there will be only one Firefox icon - you'll have to mouse over it in order to get a thumbnail image popup and then click on the one you want. "

Is there a way to turn this off, and keep the title with the icons in the startbar?

Originally Posted by DougEdey
Nope, right click -> properties -> taskbar buttons -> never combine

Shows it like it was a nicer Vista with the quicklaunch for apps which you've dumped on the taskbar.

Ah! Win. Too many options to find everything :o

Originally Posted by GoodBytes
Many netbook CPUs are in 32-bit, and Microsoft wants that market.

Atoms and the latest VIA CPUs are 64-bit compatible.

Originally Posted by Leitchy
Would it of been hard for them to have an native solution for Multi-Monitor task bars? Although Ultramon does the job most of the time, it's still classed as a beta and a little buggy since the VIsta versions came out.

Overall though I'm enjoying Windows 7!

I spoke with several of the MS reps at CES about this very issue. Multiple pics for backgrounds for multi monitor support, or even a better taskbar support for multi monitor. They said they are not considering it now. (my opinion, shoulda had it in xp). However they will only start work on it if they get enough feedback to use it.

For the love of god, if they would quite making it for mass market everyday joe, and instead make the power user, advanced user happy, then limit some of the options for your everyday joe; they wouldn't be loosing out on people switching to mac or *nix.

Most companies still have yee old 32bit processors. Thats the main reason for the 32bit OS.

I want to see that XP->Win7 comparison. Thats the step I'm thinking of taking as well. How about a 3-way comparison with all the updates to date?

I'm probably one of the few, but they need a feature to enable the previous taskbar, I live without icons other than the my computer, recycle bin, briefcase, and docs that will grace the latter two. I'm going to miss quick launch.

Originally Posted by Andy Mc
I will proberbly jinx this, but under Win7Beta L4D runs faultlessly, it hasn't crashed once. Vista however is another story, It constantly dies with that OS.

sorry bud i'm going to have to fault user/hardware error on that one. My friends and I all have the game, vista and no problems whatsoever, speaking for myself I play the game like it's the second coming tommorrow, my steam rating has been a 10.0 every week since release, for me that's not normal.

Quick launch is still there!

You drag & drop an icon to the task bar and then it creates a quick launch like icon, but it groups any instances by default, middle-clicking the icon gives you another instance of it.

Originally Posted by aon`aTv.gsus666
One more thing:

I haven't tried it yet but apparently the 'problem' you mention with just one icon in the start bar for X open windows of an application can be 'fixed':

Go to the task bar preferences, there is a simple drop down for that with 3 settings:

• Always combine, hide labels
• Combine when taskbar is full
• Never combine

Does anyone read my posts? :| :(

aon`aTv.gsus666 I strictly only read your post and no others,... their word in my mind. Questions are always answered dude.

Originally Posted by Goty
I personally don't like 7 at all and think I'll be sticking with Vista until I can get a free copy of 7 through school. My biggest complaint so far, Win+E no longer takes you to the root directory. Why couldn't they have cannibalized a shortcut I never used rather than the one I use four or five times a day to great effect?

are you serious ? I use this shortcut all the time. damnit ... i hope it will be either changed before release or at least tweakable

Is that really such a major issue? You just need to click on the access bar on the left of the window which it brings up to get to where you want