Conclusion
Windows 7 is capable of delivering better performance than Windows Vista. However, the last three Windows operating systems—Windows XP, Vista, and Windows 7—produce quite different results when used on upper-mainstream notebooks, such as our Dell Latitude 630.
We used identical hardware and had three identical 2.5” Momentus 7200.2 160GB drives by Seagate. Even the firmware was the same. We aligned the power scheme settings as much as possible to allow for a straight comparison. The performance result isn’t surprising, as Windows XP with Service Pack 3 delivered the highest application performance. If you want your apps to execute at their fastest then Windows XP still is the best choice. Since it will still be supported for a while, the choice is rather safe.
Windows Vista did better, despite its its poor reputation; performance and battery runtime were rather balanced. You get less performance than on Windows XP, but slightly better battery runtime. Windows 7, which has received laurels pretty much everywhere, loses the performance battle, although the difference will not be noticeable in everyday life. In exchange, you get by far the best battery life of all three operating systems. While the Windows XP installation forced a shutdown after 5 hours and 50 minutes, Windows 7 allowed for 28 minutes more. That’s 8% more battery life.
The results and especially the 8% difference won’t be fully applicable to different system configurations, but they help to make a general decision on the operating system. If you’re considering buying a new notebook, your best choice is probably going to be Windows 7. The performance is close to XP, but you get that extra battery runtime as a bonus.
- 1 / 3
- Next
-
Latest Software News
Latest Software reviews
-
Latest Microsoft News
- Steve Ballmer Has an 80-inch Windows 8 Tablet in His Office
- Nokia Lumia 610 Arriving in UK Next Week
- Specs for Dell's Windows 8 Clover Trail Tablet Leaked
- Microsoft: Windows 8 Can Boot Up Too Quickly
- Microsoft Talks Multi-Monitor Support in Windows 8
-
Latest Microsoft reviews
- Web Browser Grand Prix: Chrome 18, Firefox 11, Windows XP
- The Windows Phone 7.5 Review, A Month-Long Experience
- Web Browser Grand Prix 9: Chrome 17, Firefox 10, And Ubuntu
- Web Browser Grand Prix VIII: Chrome 16, Firefox 9, And Mac OS X
- Tom's Hardware's 2011 Gift Guide: Part 2,...
kinda short on the results... er rather very short ... too short.
Most people would like to know wich apps crippled the results on windows versions instead of just posting the overall results in one graph.
There may be a problem with one of the tested programs that still needs to be updated to work with windows 7 more smoothly (esp considering Vista scored better), but we can't see that with only the conclusion results.
This article could be good, but with this little information provided, its rather useless.
Including a performance benchmark on gaming, normal usage like surfing downloading content on the internet ( any normal pc user usually does) on the 3 os would make this article much better.
Good article. But I think many users are more concerned about how fast the system FEELS (program launch times and so).
I agree - not enough tests were run. Synthetics are not enough. Perhaps next time use an automated script to launch programs and such, to see how the batteries drain?
Good article. But I think many users are more concerned about how fast the system FEELS (program launch times and so).
Maybe. But you can't benchmark how a notebook feels. Launch times can be done, but that doesn't quite equate to how fast a notebook feels.
This is called time wasting review. Most of the programs in MobileMark 2007 are out-dated, you need to test the system using more modern programs.
If you are going to do something; do it properly, otherwise is best if you leave it out.
cool
Which of the latest Windows versions provides the best performance on notebooks? And does the Windows version have a noticeable impact on battery life? Both questions can be answered with a “yes.”
Actually, only the second question can ^_^
I'm tired but it seems to me that only the second question could be answered with a "yes"...
Haha - guess I should have refreshed the page to see the latest comments before I said that.
Using old programs such as winzip 10 and cs2 versions of adobe creative suite apps wont give you comparable performance on win7 and probably vista...They arent supported....
Merry Christmas and Very Happy New Year to All of you!!
That was almost a pointless article. How about some gaming information or specifics in more than one simple benchmark. Winzip...etc
I've installed Windows 7 on my sister notebook which is a Dell Latitude D610. For a laptop of that age, performances are incredibly smooth. I tuned the OS: deactivated restore point, indexing, lots of services... anything that could eat lots of HD transfert and background CPU power and that was unneeded. Now the laptop feel as smooth as a new Pentium Dual Core would do while its an old Pentium M. What is funny is that Windows XP SP3 was sometime jerky and would froze for seconds.
As above. I have it on a HP tc1100, 1.1Mhz Pentium M machine and it runs fine AFTER tuning and turning things off.
I wish MS would release a config app that turns off crap at the press of a button.
Damn just reading article and thought something was wrong when I reached the Conclusion page after a few short clicks!!!! Guess not. This is more of a teaser than an article.
would be intersting to see bootup shutdown and standby times for xp vs windows 7. Also would be interesting to see the benchmarks on a netbook to see how win 7 handles it.
You only used one synthetic benchmark?? That's like a half real-life bench...
I had windows xp, vista and 7 for a considerable amount of time (had windows 7 since build 7100) and can say that windows 7 is the ultimate combination of stability, performance and user-interface, even when comparing the build version (which is the same as RTM only with slightly LESS performance-tweaks).
ACPI problems with WinXP? don't you mean AHCI, which is COMPLETELY different and ENTIRELY unrelated?
I have to admit, I was a little disappointed in this article, particularly given the very nice job done on the simlar article referenced at the begining of this one. (Windows 7 And Windows Vista: Performance Compared). I would have loved to have seen shutdown, startup, hibernation, sleep, and wake times compared, as it was done in the other article. Additionally running a variety of benchmarks and comparisons provides much more information and value.
One other thing I would personally LOVE to see. A comparison of all three OS's on a comperably equipped Dell Latitude D630 and Dell Latitude E6400. We still use Windows XP and we recently made the switch from the D series to the E series at my company. The performance of things like shutdown and startup TANKED with the new model. It is taking considerably longer. Users dont seem to care what the performance is like after they log in. As long as it is acceptable it doesnt matter if one is much faster or not. However how long it takes to start and shutdown? WOW, they get worked up about that and they HATE the new model. I am very curious to know if newer OS's have similar issues on newer models, or if this is some unexpected penalty for running a 9 year old operating system on a 6 month old platform.
I would have liked to have seen how fast the bootup time of Windows 7 vs Vista and how fast programs load. I have a HP laptop with an AMD Turion64 and 3GB ram and running Vista 32 bit. I can't tell from this review if it is worth the money to upgrade to Win7.