Bits First Look: Windows 7 Beta Performance

I can see where kusar is coming from, neither vista nor 7 offer much to make me want to upgrade (over 2K), however much as i was dragged kicking from win2k it is inevitable i will have to leave xp behind however if can put this off as long as possible, fine, so while win7 may just be a version of vista i still don't mind too much since i'll have saved at least one upgrade stage and probably £80.

Besides they seem to be stealing more and more from linux and os x maybe they'll have a decent wm sometime soon.

 

I see your point, Wuyanxu. The reason why I want to skip Vista and get #7 instead is that Vista might get discontinued(support) a bit sooner than #7(even though it's "modified" vista, you know - marketing reasons). And #7 will be here soon enough. I'll get used to it eventually...

And BT recommendation is enough to convince me Vista isn't as bad as people say

 

Vista support won't be discontinued for a long, long time. Windows 2k is still in the Extended Support period and will officially be supported until somewhen in 2010. So Vista will most likely be supported until 2016, 2017. No need to worry there.

And about the stealing from OSX/Linux: They've always stolen ideas. Every OS is basically a rip-off of another one [at least partially]. It's all about making it the best/most secure/most comfortable choice for customers. If they see something good, chances are they'll implement in their next release. But it's not only MS who do that.

 

do you think that it will be alright if i install windows 7 to my amd 64 4000+ ?

 

People complain about the aero interface being "fluff" and a waste of resources.

Other people review vista and 7 and defend aero or agree that it's a waste.

How come NONE of the people who spend all that time playing the both OS's TOTALLY FAIL to mention that it's a simple matter to turn all that fluff OFF????????????

These are (probably) intelligent people who most likely are well aware of this fact, but chose to ignore it.

Is there some reason none of them want to mention that the "fluff" can be turned off?? This ability has been available since XP.

Right click on computer, select advanced then performance and uncheck everything except the drop shadows.

Simple.

 

It still doesn't look like Win 98. And that seems to be what those people are after. Without all the fluff it just looks like Diet Aero.

@ psychoti: Errr... why not? I don't get it...

 

They need to make a solution to proxy settings on multuple networks. I'm sick of staff comming to me unable to connect their laptop to the internet at home or at work cause they have their bloody proxy settings set wrong. Sure I can make scripts and stuff for them to run to fix this, but I shouldn't have to, it sounds like they have already made this adjustment for network printing.

That and the drop down menu to see parent folders when file save as'ing, when they removed that it was very uncool.

 

Am I the only one who in general found vista faster than XP and win7 slower than vista?

I think it's probably because it's in beta but occasionally I get a slowdown in windows 7 and explorer (not internet explorer) often seems preoccupied when I want to do stuff...

 

Vista is faster than XP thanks to a working Prefetch technology, and Superfetch. Also dropping old technologies and making the OS asynchronously rather than synchronously makes Vista faster and more responsive. You are not the only one to see this.
Windows 7 might be slower because the lack of official, and especially optimized drivers. Microsoft did modifications to the drivers sections in Windows 7, enough to have this effect but not enough to prevent Vista drivers from working. Another effect that you see, is the same as if you would re-install Vista, as the OS still learns what you do with the system (i.e: Superfetch learns what program you run often and at what time, and preloads it before you do.)
Look at the Windows Experience Index and compare it form the one in Vista. On my laptop my HDD under Vista 64-bit is 5.3 but under Windows 7
it's 2.9.

Oh and I almost forgot, under Windows 7, the system is probably indexing your HDD.

 

I spent the weekend testing Windows 7 64bit.

It boots significantly faster than Vista.
Like Vista, the compatibility mode worked flawlessly.
It was very stable
I was able to use Vista drivers when needed.

 

I think you just summed up a lot of people's experience so far. Well done, crispy!

 

Is it still possible to get in on the 7 beta bandwagon?

 

RC1 is due in a month or two..

 

There are loads of torrents over on the usual sites. And as beta keys are not unique it shouldn't be too hard to grab one.

[HINT] PM me. [/HINT]

 

I got several BSOD when I tried this....

Not that impressive either, imo. Why should it be praised if it's what vista SHOULD have been?

Meh, I'll stick to *nix.

 

Dude:
1- It's BETA.
2- your drivers are at Alpha or Beta stage (or non-existent).
3- It's still under development (BETA).
4- Your computer is probably no Vista ready either-way.

 

*nix fanboy Looking for an excuse tbh

 

I only need one thing from Win 7- The recognition that some of us luddites still run CRTs and want to push them out to 100Hz like XP lets us do at the moment. Vista assumes the world has gone TFT and locks the modes down to 85Hz at most. Same hardware, crippled by software unless I get RivaTuner or ATi equivalent to hack it (and that's even when it PnPs the right monitor). If I'm just doing 2D then I do use Vista in a dual-boot now but for DX9 gaming I just leave all that to XP at present.

Also will want to go 64-Bit with 7 and I don't know if those versions are included in the big pre-order fanfare. If they were, I'd reconsider my waiting for a service pack.

 

1- You did not install (or doesn't exists) your monitor drivers In my case I can set my monitor (without drivers as it's for XP only) to 150Hz no problem under Vista 64-bit.

2- If you have an Nvidia graphic card (maybe the same with ATI.. try to look for that), you can force a resolution and refresh rate by creating a custom added resolution. See video card control panel.

3- Computer LCD TFT goes to 150Hz, and as for TV you have 200+ Hz. Vista has no problem.

4- You don't need RivaTuner, it's in front of you, at the Nvidia control panel (see side column).

5- Everything said above applies to Win7.

6- DirectX 9 and earlier works perfectly with no performance drop under Vista/Win7. You don't need XP unless the game was programed in 16-bit CPU's instead of 32-bit (x86) processors, like the original Pentium. Some games have non-official patches to make them "NT compatible" which is a hacked exe of the game made in 32-bit instead of 16-bit.

 

my vista build (7100) is running my LCD at 120hz so I don't see why the RTM wouldn't be able to do it with CRTs ... oh and I was at 100hz on vista back when I had my CRT so I'm not sure why you had this problem