Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Conclusion

Windows 7 And Windows Vista: Performance Compared
By

That Windows 7 was slated to be the next ”real” Windows shouldn’t surprise anyone, especially given such widespread use of the release candidates. However, how and where the final differences would be compared with Vista remained unclear. Now that we’ve run methodical performance testing of everyday operating system actions, such as bootup, standby (and resume), hibernation (and resume) and shutdown, we can finally see the reproducible benefits of Windows 7.

SYSmark 2007, once patched to version 1.06, can now run on Windows 7 and attest to Windows 7 performance benefits that are more substantial than what you’d get from purchasing the next faster CPU speed bin. Games also run faster on Windows 7. Other applications are mostly limited by CPU computing power rather than the operating system.

However, the most noticeable differences show up when you compare Windows 7 and Windows Vista doing everyday operating system operations. Startup, standby, and hibernation are much faster, proving that Microsoft had to turn many things upside down to reach these performance benefits. Given the fact that Windows 7 is more aggressive when it comes to performance versus power saving, considering the tangible performance benefits, and having felt the improved experience when handling Windows 7, our conclusion is rather strong this time: should you want to improve your Windows-based system, now is the time to change up to the next-generation edition—provided that you find driver support for all of your components, which may be particularly tricky for some notebooks.

Our conclusion is not only valid for fast PCs but also for all systems that aren’t top of the line anymore. We’ve installed Windows 7 onto many different systems and found that the new OS is even more favorable if your system hardware isn’t particularly fast. For instance, we noticed significant differences between Windows Vista and Windows 7 on Atom-based netbooks. Windows 7 showed much less stuttering than Windows XP and Vista. Just make sure you have enough RAM for Windows 7, as insufficient memory will slow down any system on every OS.

Display all 102 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 26 Hide
    shubham1401 , December 11, 2009 7:07 AM
    brockhI'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP. First off, if you're really a gamer your hardware should be at least relatively new; second off, you should be interested in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 by now. How can a "gamer" with relatively new hardware justify to themselves that Windows 7 may take up some more of their hard drive space or memory? 4.00 GB is almost a standard these days, not to mention Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was and is still trash.



    Why? A person having old rig but plays games can't call himself a gamer?
  • 16 Hide
    nzprogamer , December 11, 2009 6:35 AM
    Good review there but i still runing xp pro. how about XP Pro VS Win7 Ultimate. i believe there are still lots gamer still running XP Pro.
  • 10 Hide
    geekrick , December 11, 2009 7:20 AM
    When Vista first came out I switched to vista and never found it as bad as it is generally perceived to be in the first place.In fact the more I used it the more I started to like it.As per my experience the immediate advantages of Vista were- the aging effects were less prominent than that of XP and the backdoor was much more secure than XP,and you got less infected with malware. However as soon as windows 7 went to public beta I started using it.Since then I haven't looked back.It may be just an incremental evolution from Vista but it carried all the good points of both vista and Xp .
    7's UI is just awesome.It is more faithful to FITT's laws of UI design and increases productivity.
    Well XP's functionality and supporting services are much less(read less secure,less efficient)so no wonder it runs very very fast.
    Win7 on the other hand has all the latest technology but also runs very fast because it uses the available resources more efficiently .Providing all the goodies at almost the same speed as Xp is one hell of an achievement in itself and makes Xp look prehistoric.That's the reason I have at last upgraded my old P4 system from Xp to 7(dual booted with UBUNTU 9.04) and to be true I don't miss XP at all anymore.
    Windows 7 is really great like this review testifies and more.
    Not only the generic tasks are performed more efficienty , it helps to improve the efficiency of the user by its UI enhancements thus enabling a significant productivity boost.I think this part should have been elaborated in the article.However a very good article.
Other Comments
  • 6 Hide
    noob2222 , December 11, 2009 5:21 AM
    boot and shut down times are the main reason I put 7 on my laptop. Vista was getting soo slow, I would turn it on and walk away for 10 mins, and it would still be loading stuff into memory. If i sat there, I couldn't open IE for at least 3 mins from bios post, and 1 min after the desktop was showing.

    I can run 7 basic on my laptop with all the bells and whistles turned on.

    On my desktop, windows 7 seems snappier, even compared to xp. Large file games seem to load quite a bit faster on 7, wish it was included in this review. Also left out was the first thing I noticed with 7 vs Vista, IE unloads from memory more than Vista. on a limited system, unloading fully is critical.
  • 2 Hide
    tacoslave , December 11, 2009 6:07 AM
    noob2222boot and shut down times are the main reason I put 7 on my laptop. Vista was getting soo slow, I would turn it on and walk away for 10 mins, and it would still be loading stuff into memory. If i sat there, I couldn't open IE for at least 3 mins from bios post, and 1 min after the desktop was showing.I can run 7 basic on my laptop with all the bells and whistles turned on.On my desktop, windows 7 seems snappier, even compared to xp. Large file games seem to load quite a bit faster on 7, wish it was included in this review. Also left out was the first thing I noticed with 7 vs Vista, IE unloads from memory more than Vista. on a limited system, unloading fully is critical.


    mine never got that slow besides im still running vista because i need to put that money elsewhere IMO where it really matters a new graphics card.
  • 16 Hide
    nzprogamer , December 11, 2009 6:35 AM
    Good review there but i still runing xp pro. how about XP Pro VS Win7 Ultimate. i believe there are still lots gamer still running XP Pro.
  • 1 Hide
    kettu , December 11, 2009 6:40 AM
    "Here’s a real life result: Far Cry runs faster on Windows 7."

    I disagree that this is a 'real life' result. Not at medium quality and 1280x800 resolution. In my opinion if you include gaming benchmarks you should use more realistic settings.
  • -9 Hide
    brockh , December 11, 2009 6:54 AM
    nzprogamerGood review there but i still runing xp pro. how about XP Pro VS Win7 Ultimate. i believe there are still lots gamer still running XP Pro.


    I'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP. First off, if you're really a gamer your hardware should be at least relatively new; second off, you should be interested in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 by now. How can a "gamer" with relatively new hardware justify to themselves that Windows 7 may take up some more of their hard drive space or memory? 4.00 GB is almost a standard these days, not to mention Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was and is still trash.
  • 26 Hide
    shubham1401 , December 11, 2009 7:07 AM
    brockhI'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP. First off, if you're really a gamer your hardware should be at least relatively new; second off, you should be interested in both DirectX 10 and DirectX 11 by now. How can a "gamer" with relatively new hardware justify to themselves that Windows 7 may take up some more of their hard drive space or memory? 4.00 GB is almost a standard these days, not to mention Windows XP 64-Bit Edition was and is still trash.



    Why? A person having old rig but plays games can't call himself a gamer?
  • 0 Hide
    bodyknight , December 11, 2009 7:12 AM
    Quote:
    I'll never understand why someone that considers themself a "gamer" would still being using Windows XP.


    The answer is: because of ArmA2.
  • 10 Hide
    geekrick , December 11, 2009 7:20 AM
    When Vista first came out I switched to vista and never found it as bad as it is generally perceived to be in the first place.In fact the more I used it the more I started to like it.As per my experience the immediate advantages of Vista were- the aging effects were less prominent than that of XP and the backdoor was much more secure than XP,and you got less infected with malware. However as soon as windows 7 went to public beta I started using it.Since then I haven't looked back.It may be just an incremental evolution from Vista but it carried all the good points of both vista and Xp .
    7's UI is just awesome.It is more faithful to FITT's laws of UI design and increases productivity.
    Well XP's functionality and supporting services are much less(read less secure,less efficient)so no wonder it runs very very fast.
    Win7 on the other hand has all the latest technology but also runs very fast because it uses the available resources more efficiently .Providing all the goodies at almost the same speed as Xp is one hell of an achievement in itself and makes Xp look prehistoric.That's the reason I have at last upgraded my old P4 system from Xp to 7(dual booted with UBUNTU 9.04) and to be true I don't miss XP at all anymore.
    Windows 7 is really great like this review testifies and more.
    Not only the generic tasks are performed more efficienty , it helps to improve the efficiency of the user by its UI enhancements thus enabling a significant productivity boost.I think this part should have been elaborated in the article.However a very good article.
  • 3 Hide
    Herr_Koos , December 11, 2009 7:55 AM
    Your comparative chart seems to be missing DX10 for Vista and DX11 for Win7...
  • 0 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:15 AM
    I ditched XP for Vista as soon as I got my hands on release candidate 1 and never looked back. For me (with the system I have and my presonal taste), I see little reason to switch to Windows 7.

    But, maybe I'm an oddball
  • 4 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:17 AM
    Herr_KoosYour comparative chart seems to be missing DX10 for Vista and DX11 for Win7...

    But DX11 IS on Vista too. Released October 27 as part of the Platform Update for Windows Vista

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_Update_for_Windows_Vista#Platform_Update
  • 2 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:21 AM
    amgsoftAfter the installation of Windows 7 I got the expression, that I have got a new PC. Windows 7 cannot be compared to Vista at all. In my case it takes 2 hours to "boot" a vista PC, well the GUI is up and running in 1 minutte, and then it spends 1-2 more hours crunching my harddrive som some reason, even if indexing is disabled and the antivirus does not start scanning. In the mean time my 4 kernels processor reacts like it was the smallest Atom processor on XP. After 3 or 4 hours the system is finally ready to be used by the user. The Windows 7 turned my Q6600 CPU to a real processor.It takes aproximatelly the same time to boot vista and windows 7. The difference is, in Windows 7 case, it can be used immediatelly after, in vista case you have to wait 1-2 more hours. I think that MS should fix problems with start up of vista.Finally I would like to know when MS finally stops with the elevated mode. The only result of the elevated mode is disturbing the user with stupid questions, because every user get used to click on "continue" button as he/she is asked every time he/she is starting any program. I can remember a single incident, when I didn't want to continue, because thats was exactly what I was asking for. Windows 7 is only party irritating.

    You should look into that more. Takes me 5 minutes at worst with indexing and antivirus on full plus loading up Live Mesh.
  • 0 Hide
    Herr_Koos , December 11, 2009 8:25 AM
    ravewulfBut DX11 IS on Vista too. Released October 27 as part of the Platform Update for Windows Vistahttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platf [...] orm_Update


    True, but the chart only shows DX9 for both Vista and 7.
  • 0 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:27 AM
    noob2222boot and shut down times are the main reason I put 7 on my laptop. Vista was getting soo slow, I would turn it on and walk away for 10 mins, and it would still be loading stuff into memory. If i sat there, I couldn't open IE for at least 3 mins from bios post, and 1 min after the desktop was showing.I can run 7 basic on my laptop with all the bells and whistles turned on.On my desktop, windows 7 seems snappier, even compared to xp. Large file games seem to load quite a bit faster on 7, wish it was included in this review. Also left out was the first thing I noticed with 7 vs Vista, IE unloads from memory more than Vista. on a limited system, unloading fully is critical.

    I went to Win7 on my laptop for the same reasons. My desktop still runs Vista though. Only reason I might switch to 7 on that too is for the better support of CableCARD and QAM TV tuners
  • 0 Hide
    ravewulf , December 11, 2009 8:28 AM
    Herr_KoosTrue, but the chart only shows DX9 for both Vista and 7.

    Whoops. My bad. I didn't catch that ^^;
  • 5 Hide
    Herr_Koos , December 11, 2009 8:50 AM
    I've never ever had a BSOD with Windows 7, and I'm still using the RC. Time for a clean install, Mr Space Eagle!
  • 4 Hide
    amgsoft , December 11, 2009 9:02 AM
    ravewulfYou should look into that more. Takes me 5 minutes at worst with indexing and antivirus on full plus loading up Live Mesh.


    Well I did. However Vista is made by a genious man knowing more then us normal mortal people, so instead of showing which program is running, it shows you, that 20 or 30 svchost.exe program are running and on top of it 30 other System images all of them using the harddisk. Sometimes it followed with even more sexy information attached like LocalServiceNetworkRestricted. That kind of information from MS is very usefull. I don't know any other system which show more totally useless information then Vista.
Display more comments