XP vs Vista vs 7

Dharok · 4 Jan 2009 at 18:59

This is not my testing or article! Source can be found here:

Source:

Code:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=1

How does Windows 7 beta 1 compare to Vista and XP in terms of performance? That’s a question that’s been hitting my inbox regularly over the past few weeks. Let’s see if we can’t answer it!

Important note: Before I go any further I feel I need to make a point, and make it clear. The build I’m testing of Windows 7 (build 6.1.7000.0.081212-1400) is a beta build, and as a rule beta builds are usually more geared towards stability than performance. That said, the performance of this build should give us a clue as to how the OS is coming along.

Rather than publish a series of benchmark results for the three operating systems (something which Microsoft frowns upon for beta builds, not to mention the fact that the final numbers only really matter for the release candidate and RTM builds), I’ve decided to put Windows 7, Vista and XP head-to-head in a series of real-world tests to find out which OS comes out top.

The tests

There are 23 tests in all, most of which are self explanatory:

1. Install OS - Time it takes to install the OS
2. Boot up - Average boot time to usable desktop
3. Shut down - Average shut down time
4. Move 100MB files - Move 100MB of JPEG files from one hard drive to another
5. Move 2.5GB files - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from one hard drive to another
6. Network transfer 100MB files - Move 100MB of JPEG files from test machine to NAS device
7. Network transfer 2.5GB files - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from test machine to NAS device
8. Move 100MB files under load - Move 100MB of JPEG files from one hard drive to another while ripping DVD to .ISO file
9. Move 2.5GB files under load - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from one hard drive to another while ripping DVD to .ISO file
10. Network transfer 100MB files under load - Move 100MB of JPEG files from test machine to NAS device while ripping DVD to .ISO file
11. Network transfer 2.5GB files under load - Move 2.5GB of mixed size files (ranging from 1MB to 100MB) from test machine to NAS device while ripping DVD to .ISO file
12. Compress 100MB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
13. Compress 1GB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
14. Extract 100MB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
15. Extract 1GB files - Using built-in ZIP compression
16. Install Office 2007 - Ultimate version, from DVD
17. Open 10 page Word doc - Text only
18. Open 100 page Word doc - Text and images only
19. Open simple Excel doc - Basic formatting
20. Open complex Excel doc - Including formula and charts
21. Burn DVD - Win 7 beta 1 .ISO to disc using CDBurnerXP
22. Open 10 page PDF - Text only, using latest Adobe Reader 8
23. Open 100 page PDF - Text and images, using latest Adobe Reader 8

These series of tests will pitch Windows 7 build 7000 32-bit against Windows Vista SP1 32-bit and Windows XP SP3 32-bit. The scoring for each of the tests is simple. The winning OS scores 1, the runner up 2 and the loser scores a 3. The scores are added up and the OS with the lowest score at the end wins.

The test systems

I’ve used two desktop systems as the test machines:

An AMD Phenom 9700 2.4GHz system fitted with an ATI Radeon 3850 and 4GB of RAM
An Intel Pentium Dual Core E2200 2.2GHz fitted with an NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS and 1GB of RAM

The results

Here are the results of the tests for the two systems:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/images/02-01-2009-12-34-11.png[/IMG

[IMG]http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/images/02-01-2009-12-35-16.png[/IMG

[B][U]Conclusion[/U][/B]

The bottom line is that the more I use Windows 7 the more I like it. Sure, we’re looking at a beta build here and not the final code, so things could change between now and release (although realistically final code ends up being faster than beta code). Also I still have some nagging issues relating to the interface, and some concerns that the UAC changes will break applications and other code, especially installers, but overall Windows 7 beta 1 is a robust, solid bit of code.

Sure, Windows 7 is not XP, and never will be (thankfully). And if you’re put off by things such as activation and DRM, then Windows isn’t the OS for you (good news is there are others to choose from). But if you’re looking for a solid OS then Windows 7 seems ready to deliver just that - a fast, reliable, relatively easy to use platform for your hardware and software.

[COLOR="Yellow"]No hotlinking[/COLOR]

Hxc · 4 Jan 2009 at 19:06

They are some really nice tests. Glad to see them.

Dicehunter · 4 Jan 2009 at 20:34

Just a quick question for you, where/how did you get the beta ? and is it to late to get involved ?

Dharok · 4 Jan 2009 at 21:13

DF1986 said:
Just a quick question for you, where/how did you get the beta ? and is it to late to get involved ?

Personally I don't have the Beta, those that do have acquired it illegally which is fair enough. I have heard however it's due for release tomorrow on Microsoft's MSDN site.

harris1986 · 4 Jan 2009 at 21:51

anyword on how windows7 is looking as a gaming platform? also what drivers are you running with windows7?

Conan257 · 4 Jan 2009 at 21:58

I'd like to see these in a format that is useful... Like timings rather than a rating between them...

Something like:

Install Time. XP xxmins Vista xxmins 7 xxmins...

bb_karn · 4 Jan 2009 at 22:15

I believe that Microsoft don't want reviewers benchmarking windows 7 in its beta state, and that's why there are no proper benchmarks or comparisons. The scoring system used for this ZDNET article is a way to try and get around this.

clv101 · 4 Jan 2009 at 22:26

Conan257 said:
I'd like to see these in a format that is useful... Like timings rather than a rating between them...

Useful? I'd say it's relative performance that is useful, don't we want to know how it compares to other systems rather than how many seconds something takes. How many seconds something takes are mostly determined by hardware, we're interested in software here.

Cobertizo · 4 Jan 2009 at 22:28

Dharok said:
Source:

Code:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=1

Thanks for highlighting this article. One thing though, not directly related to the article itself, but which I feel it's worth mentioning, regards the way you've quoted the article. Apart from the fact that it's a bit of a copyright infringement to take the whole article and paste it here, the way you start your post (straight into the article, not within quote tags etc) makes it look a lot like your own testing (even though you do quote a source at the end - but that's easily missed)! May be worth bearing that in mind in future!

Final8y · 4 Jan 2009 at 22:39

Cobertizo said:
Thanks for highlighting this article. One thing though, not directly related to the article itself, but which I feel it's worth mentioning, regards the way you've quoted the article. Apart from the fact that it's a bit of a copyright infringement to take the whole article and paste it here, the way you start your post (straight into the article, not within quote tags etc) makes it look a lot like your own testing (even though you do quote a source at the end - but that's easily missed)! May be worth bearing that in mind in future!

I thought it was the OP tests..it just goes to show.

Dharok · 4 Jan 2009 at 23:00

Cobertizo said:
Thanks for highlighting this article. One thing though, not directly related to the article itself, but which I feel it's worth mentioning, regards the way you've quoted the article. Apart from the fact that it's a bit of a copyright infringement to take the whole article and paste it here, the way you start your post (straight into the article, not within quote tags etc) makes it look a lot like your own testing (even though you do quote a source at the end - but that's easily missed)! May be worth bearing that in mind in future!

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I've also updated my original post, to try and make it more clearer for readers that this is not my article.

Daegan · 4 Jan 2009 at 23:43

Dharok said:
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind for the future. I've also updated my original post, to try and make it more clearer for readers that this is not my article.

You're still quoting the article in its entirety though, even hotlinking the images. It doesn't look like unintentional plagiarism now thanks to your notice at the start, but it's still copyright infringement. Normal practice would be to post a small quote or summarise what the article's about, then provide a link so people can visit the site themselves

Dicehunter · 5 Jan 2009 at 00:02

No offence meant pal but he meant well giving us this information, just say thank you and move along like im doing.
Dharok, thanks for the info bud much appreciated.

Daegan · 5 Jan 2009 at 11:20

Not saying otherwise. But there's nothing wrong with getting into good habits when it comes to citing sources, and it can be important for anyone planning to go to uni, doing research or publishing anything.