Conclusion
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.
- windows ,
- 7 ,
- performance
- 1 / 2
- Next
-
Windows 7 is such a lovely operating system. I agree with everything mentioned in this article. I cannot wait until schools and businesses start to upgrade form boring old XP!
I'd like to see 7 vs vista with an SSD to see how much of an impact TRIM makes. Also more gaming benchmarks where the frame rate is somewhere around the 30 fps mark so that differences could be appreciated in a real life gaming scenario.
It would be interesting to have the same tests compared with XP, simply because Microsoft have really done a good job with 7. You expect with a new OS that it might require a few more resources than the previous one, but to produce a new OS a few years later that runs equal to, or quicker, is some feat. If the same tests with XP have similar results than Microsoft will have done an astounding job and XP users can feel assured that it is okay to upgrade at last.
It would be interesting to have the same tests compared with XP, simply because Microsoft have really done a good job with 7. You expect with a new OS that it might require a few more resources than the previous one, but to produce a new OS a few years later that runs equal to, or quicker, is some feat. If the same tests with XP have similar results than Microsoft will have done an astounding job and XP users can feel assured that it is okay to upgrade at last.
I still prefer XP over Vista and 7. It would be nice to see a comparison like this with XP and Windows 7.
i also still prefer xp over the latest two os and have no intention of upgrading in the near future.However i have tried these two latest os and i dont think its my cup of tea.
Thank you TH this is a very nice article. However I agree with the above two posters, it would be even nicer to see XP measured as well. It would have been amazing to have also ubuntu and OSX, just to get a nice all round OS comparison
I strikes me that, with only a few exceptions, the margins aren't as remarkable as one would expect given the level of hatred of Vista vs love of Win 7. It appears that even the author is guilty of pre-judging Vista, given the fact he claims that a 5% margin constitutes a "glaring" advantage in the Sysmark testing. Yes, it's a win, but I wouldn't go and spend £70 on any other upgrade for the sake of a 5% performance boost.
Don't get me wrong; I think that Windows 7 gets a lot of things right that Vista plainly didn't. I am just not sure that the speed improvement vs Vista is it's strongest advantage. I imagine that against XP one would see that even Windows 7 is somewhat sluggish on a lot of measures. I still believe that in the minds of many Windows 7's biggest advantage is simply that "it isn't Vista".
The inclusion of OS X and Linux benchmarks would certainly make for interesting reading too (although mindful of my comment above about spending, I imagine many people would feel that the money you shell out to run OS X certainly couldn't be justified by the performance gains).
I think you need to re-run the tests on a more mediocre business type platform and then you will see a vast improvement over vista. Vista has always run well on high performance gaming machines it just won't run well on anything else.
I would also like to see comparisons with the most popular OS, XP!
where is winXP ?
OK, fair test, but what was being used? 32-bit or 64-bit? The test system had 6GB of RAM......
wizball is on to something here.. It is better.. But at what cost?? A lot of people bought into vista and are now in a dilemma, they recognize the benefits of windows 7, but is it really worth doling out all that cash just to get a "vista that works"??
Yes spending £80 for a 5% increase over vista is a no go as far as I am concerned, I run Vista 64bit Prem sp2 and I cant find any reason to change TBH. The point about lower end machines is valid and tests should be made using these types of machines and not high end rigs.
A test against XP is a must but I cant see many testers wanting to do that as it might show flaws in W7 new image.
Yes spending £80 for a 5% increase over vista is a no go as far as I am concerned, I run Vista 64bit Prem sp2 and I cant find any reason to change TBH. The point about lower end machines is valid and tests should be made using these types of machines and not high end rigs.
A test against XP is a must but I cant see many testers wanting to do that as it might show flaws in W7 new image.
everybody knows that w7 beats vista
If they brought out windows 8 tomorrow with a 5% increase in performance over 7 would you recommend people who have bought 7 upgrade to that?
5% + dx 11 = worth it if you have a HD5XXX
All the above posts have very good points but in the end if the computer is a few months old and full of 3rd party programs then I would like to see how they both fair then in regards to start up and shut down tests.
When vista was released it was a dog which then set the tone for the rest of it's life but microsoft have fixed but a little late for most users.
Yep, would love to see XP. Since Vista was so universally disliked lots of people skipped it and are now looking at XP vs 7. A range of specs would have been interesting too, dual core, slower quad, SSD etc.