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.
Not to mention boot times, security, usability, 64 bit and drop dead good looks over XP
my computer carnt work internet explorer and its windows xp 2000
These authors are doing a fine job of dispelling the myth that Windows 7 will give you a huge performance boost over Vista. Here, we see Windows 7 is about 3% slower (which by the authors' own definitions, is getting close to "glaringly" favouring Vista), yet offers a battery boost of only 1.5%. Small margins yes, but it still suggests that Windows 7's "greatness" does not come from it's performance.
I find it particularly interesting to see how little performance boost XP provides - only about 7% faster than Vista. It's only one benchmark, so one can't draw too many conclusions. However, there's an awful lot said about these three OSes that doesn't always seem backed up by the numbers.
MS are to be commended; they managed to convince the world that Windows 7 is a good thing. The authors are doing their best to stay "on message" as they were very quick to suggest justifications for Win 7 being the slowest in the tests. I like Win 7, and think that some of it's features almost make it worth spending money to upgrade from Vista. However, I have yet to be convinced that it will improve performance significantly. For the vast majority of people with a Vista PC/Notebook, they are probably better saving their cash for when they finally decide to upgrade to a new machine.
Seems to me that Win XP provides around 10% better performance than Windows 7 in this test yet has around 8% less battery life. Is it just me or does that mean that if one is actually using their laptop intensively that more work can be done in less time by XP, therefore negating the battery life increase by Vista or Win 7?
Ooops - I forgot that somehow this means that Win 7 is better all around for laptops. The "Ministry of Truth" would be proud.
this is what i cannot understand, the article does not point out any (apart from battery life) reason that a winxp laptop user should upgrade to a newer ms operating system...
why on earth would anyone want to install vista/win7 on there laptop anyway, if it a)needs 4 x more ram, b) makes apps run slower, c) takes longer to boot... what is the point? wow the battery lasts a tiny bit longer in win7? but surly thats not the reason to ditch xp?
i really hate it when consumers are mislead.. people assume they must purchase newer machine to support the latest os's, if for the most part people just browse the net and/or use office applications? why not just stick to xp or install win2k instead of feeling forced to upgrade or buy new machines. as for security and support? thats all tosh anyways these are buzzwords used by microsoft to keep everyone tuned to the idea of buying into new operating systems.. they purposely leave "security" holes in the Os then point them out as big potential sucurity risks that they must patch asap lmao (that no one on earth apart from the person who made the security issue would ever know)... they do it on purpose.
Doesn't this help to dispel the Windows 7 myth? I've never bought the hype tbh.
I use windows 7 on two very old machines. One is an NC6000 laptop with a 1.7ghz centrino and 1.5gb of RAM, the second is an old P4 2.8 desktop with 2gb of RAM. Both machines run Aero. I have tried Vista on both machines and every day use felt akin to walking through thick mud. Windows 7 on the other hand feels snappy and lively to the touch. I can’t quite put my finger on the differences, I just know when I have used Vista I have become extremely fed up with staring at that slightly hypnotic blue swirly hour glass. Hype, no, just personal experience and observations.
Why no Linux comparison?
Why no Linux comparison?
Because this is a Windows article
"Windows XP has long been a favored operating system for true enthusiasts."
What?! Hush!
I wonder what order the battery life test was done in. It's not impossible that there could be a significant variance between the tests due to the full power cycling of the battery ie. manufacturers claim that it takes 3 power cycles to reset battery 'memory' affect, so if it was done in the order of XP, Vista, 7 then one might put at least part of the performance difference down to that.
to be honest i am leaving my netbook on xp but i have changed my desktop from vista to 7 and saw huge gains, the bench marks for 7 are a lot better over xp and vista for duel or quad core systems. 7 uses multicores a lot better but on a notebook on a single core cpu its really debatable what os is better, i say just stick with what is loaded on your netbook....in my case sticking with xp but 7 is still miles ahead of xp and vista
I have found extra gains in performance upgrading from XP to Win 7 to be large. However, I imagine most of the gains are due to lucking out and having Win 7 install in a nice contiguous space and reinstalling all software into yet more contiguous space. Sometimes there is nothing a defragmentation can do to for hard disk heck that is file system fragmentation. Still, Win 7 is proved remarkably agile on a notebook with 1.6Ghz dual core w/1Gb RAM, ATI integrated 128Mb RAM. Perhaps just as spritzy as XP, if not more. And also I have found far less disk thrashing on Win 7 compared to Vista.