Windows 7 Versus XP: Which Belongs On Your Netbook?
Test Hardware And Notes
We wanted to use a current netbook as our test platform for this review and settled on Acer’s Aspire One D150. Although it is still built around Intel’s aging 945GME chipset, it does use a slightly faster version of the Atom processor, namely the N280 running at 1.66 GHz.
Beyond that, the Aspire One D150 is a pretty standard netbook. It features a 10” display, integrated Intel GMA 950 chipset graphics, 160 GB of hard drive space, 1 GB of RAM, LAN, WiFi, Bluetooth, and the usual complement of USB ports. It comes with Windows XP Home Edition SP3 pre-installed. During testing, any tools and utilities installed by Acer were disabled or uninstalled. After ensuring the drivers were up to date, we put the little Acer through its paces in a number of benchmarks.
Next, we performed a clean install of the 32-bit version of Windows 7 RC1 from an external optical drive and repeated the benchmarkds. Since Microsoft provides a wide variety of drivers right on the installation disc and via Windows Update, we originally intended to perform testing using those versions. However, it turned out that some of these drivers were badly out of date and were holding back performance. Installing the most recent Vista drivers greatly improved the situation, which is why they were used for testing instead.
There is one drawback to this approach, though. With Windows 7, Microsoft has continued tweaking its Windows Display Driver Model (WDDM) originally introduced with Windows Vista. Compatible drivers enable certain desktop effects and acceleration features, even providing the basis for GPGPU computing (assuming the GPU features such functionality). Windows 7 uses the most recent version of this driver model, WDDM 1.1. The latest graphics driver available on Intel’s support and drivers page during testing only supports WDDM 1.0.
From a performance standpoint, we therefore recommend installing platform and graphics drivers manually and not relying on the versions provided by Microsoft. As newer performance-optimized releases become available for Windows 7, you can always switch to that version.
| Windows 7 Performance Check | |
|---|---|
| Model | Aspire One D150 |
| Manufacturer | Acer |
| Display Size (Resolution) | 10.2" glossy (1024 x 600), LED backlight |
| Hard Drive ( Capacity, Manufacturer, Model) | 160 GB, Western Digital WDC1600BEVT-22ZCT0, 5,400 rpm |
| Battery Capacity | 59 Wh / 5,800 mAh |
| CPU (Code Name) | Intel Atom N280 (Diamondville), 1.66 GHz (HT) |
| Chipset | Intel 945GME |
| Memory (Number of Modules) | 1024 MB DDR2-533 (1 x 1024 MB) |
| Graphics | Intel GMA 950 integrated |
| Audio | Realtek ALC272X |
| Webcam (Resolution) | 1.3 Mpixel |
| Connectivity | |
| USB 2.0 (Number and Location) | 3 (2 right, 1 left) |
| Display Connectors (VGA/DVI/HDMI/S-Video) | 1/-/-/- |
| Networking | Atheros AR8121/AR8113/AR8114 10/100 PCI-E |
| WiFi | Atheros AR5007EG 802.11 a/b/g |
| Card Reader (Formats) | SD, xD, MMC, MS, MS Pro |
| PC-Card/ExpressCard-Slot | - |
| Bluetooth (Generation) | 2.0 |
| Operating System And Drivers | |
| Operating System | Windows XP Home (SP3) Windows 7 RC 1 (Build 7100) |
| Platform Driver | Intel 9.1.0.1012 |
| Graphics Driver | Windows XP: Package 14.32.4 Windows 7: Package 15.8.3.1504 |
Hence, the conclusion, THE ABOVE COMPARISON IS POINTLESS.
i know - BUY MORE RAM - just might help a little? who knew!
did you even read the article? look at the results. read Benjamin's conclusion. its the moder interface of vista with the functionality of xp. and this is only an RC. who knows what'll happen until the October release.
neither. I'm a running a Tux on me netbook. I pity da foo' running either da decrepit or da unwashed behind da ears OSes on them netbooks.
Hence, the conclusion, THE ABOVE COMPARISON IS POINTLESS.
Windows 7 on the other hand in a real world test, say opening up like 10 internet explorers, photoshop and other things....... windows 7 will be alot snappier then Vista, also it uses less ram and less gpu power.
Ontop of that, by default Windows 7 selects the most appropriate power setting for the processor you are using.
Take notice, low-mid range cpu's will be set to Balanced, where as high performance cpu's like quad cores will be set to High Performance by default.
Microsoft took Vista (good gui product a lil run down running wise) and for a better word tweaked it out...... much like tuning a car.
The result is impressive I say for notebook and desktops. However, they really do need to fix their minor network issues and IE8 issues.
wahahaha
The lack of a completed version of Win7 and un-optimized drivers makes this test more or less useless. Unless you factor in the obviously missing link in the test.... Windows Vista.
While I found the article really quite useful, it answered some questions I had. What I'd really love to know is just what the differences are when running games, surfing and doing the kinds of things you'd really be doing on a Netbook. Photoshop is really a meaningless benchmark for a Netbook, while it may reveal something about multiple cores and a strained system, it isn't really reflecting how the vast majority of Netbook users will be using the system. How about streaming flash in HD on Youtube, these are the kinds of benchmarks that I'd like to see, even if they end up being subjective opinion from the reviewer.
I'm lucky enough to have Ubuntu, XP, Vista and Windows 7 all running on same hardware to get a sense of what they all perform like, but this is on beefy hardware. Understanding what it's like on 1gb and a very modest processor is valuable stuff for those looking for that ultra portable.
For me, it'd be a deal breaker if I couldn't stream Youtube and other higher res video on the web. But if I knew that with XP it just worked ok,but was a little glitchy under Windows 7, that would again be really valuable information about which OS I would want to put on a Netbook.
I guess the best approach would be for people who already have XP to just slap it on their own Netbooks, run their own benchmarks that are meaningful to them and compare to Windows 7 and Linux. Time consuming and a shame tomshardware can't do it for us
Speak for yourself
The fact that drivers are "hacked" screams security exploit to me, hmmm. Maybe Linux coders should stop preaching a free government welfare style system and instead band together and do something like an "evil capitalist" and release a common commercial product. Maybe then Apple, Microsoft and hardware manufacturers might take you seriously instead of seeing you for the angry kids you truly are. Heh.
The point was mostly that while the OS might be almost done none of the drivers really are. Considering that so much that goes on with a computer is based on the drivers then having unoptimized drivers is going to make a big difference.
FWIW I gain 50% battery life on my Fujitsu Lifebook with additional tweaking that XP simply doesn't have, which includes display dimming to a level where XP can't touch.
One of the major under-the-hood changes to Windows 7 was how it scheduled CPU tasks to improve battery life. If you're GPU is constantly processing data, it's going to offset any performance improvement you gain.
Honestly, it doesn't matter whether you have Ultimate or Starter on it. The only performance improvement you would obtain would be from less services being enabled by default. However, considering that most of the benchmarks are very close, I think that speaks great volumes for how good Windows 7 is. Remember, you are comparing it to an 8 YEAR OLD OS.