Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 12th Dec 2008 23:44 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Windows I'm sure you're all still (sadly) familiar with the recent 'debate' I had with InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, which detailed a lot of silly things. The seed of that discussion was planted with Kennedy's first article which, among other things, claimed that Windows 7 performed similarly to Windows Vista (meaning, slower than XP). Leaving the thread count discussion behind, Kennedy did include a benchmark which showed that Windows 7 performed similar to Windows Vista. There's a new benchmark out now, comparing a slightly more recent build of Windows 7 to Vista RTM/SP1 and XP SP3, and in these tests, Windows 7 blows all of those out of the water.
Order by: Score:
v Microsoft Windows and User accounts
by centos_user on Sat 13th Dec 2008 01:00 UTC
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights. "

I stopped reading your comment right there, as this statement alone demonstrates that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Windows, since NT, has supported programs that install and run under a non-admin user account. There have, and always will be certain actions that require higher authorization to execute. It is up to the makers of Windows programs to avoid taking those actions unless absolutely necessary for their program's functioning.

The problems with Windows programs that require admin access for no apparent reason was a problem with the writers of those programs, lazily installing in places that require admin access, or lazily storing settings in the wrong registry locations.

Reply Score: 12

joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"Ok how do you run a program out of the box that will not run without admin rights?"

Uh, Gee, I don't know, you get the idiots who wrote it to use non-privileged locations for installation, data storage and registry entries?

"You just contradicted yourself, this is not to be blamed on just software writers it is a flaw of the Windows Operating System."

Oh, so the Windows Operating System makes it impossible to create an application that doesn't require administrative rights? Do tell.

"I am not going to argue with someone who read a report on Windows NT years ago, you are incorrect and you have never worked in an Enterprise environment."

I am not wrong. I have worked in an Enterprise environment. I was merely stating that Windows NT 3.x, the first versions of the Windows kernel that had much of a concept of user rights and privileges could support programs that didn't require Administrative rights to run.

"Theory and Hype is what Windows is built on, if it is so wonderful why is constantly exploited on the desktop/server?"

What?

"Why do you need to install Anti-Virus/Spyware just to keep it halfway operational?"

I don't run anti-virus or anti-spyware. Besides, this has nothing whatsoever to do with whose at fault for the mess of programs that require administrative rights.

"Microsoft does not share the code to enable software writers to make the programs behave in a correct fashion."

Ummm. Yes they do. It's quite simple.

"I believe in a free Republic however I do not believe in selling software that mis-represents and has blatant security flaws that are inherit in all versions of Windows period."

Wow, you really aren't capable of forming a coherent argument are you?

"It is the same code base, just rehashed with pretty graphics and some extra bloat ware to make people think who this is neat. Then after using it for 3 months the performance has deteriorated which requires reboots, defrag, and so on."

Uh, sure.

"I know what I am talking about and you are incorrect."

No you don't, and no, I'm not.

Reply Score: 2

MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12


The problems with Windows programs that require admin access for no apparent reason was a problem with the writers of those programs, lazily installing in places that require admin access, or lazily storing settings in the wrong registry locations.


The problem with such statements is that you are most probably not a software developer for Windows (neither am I).
Just blaming developers is far too easy. As a software architect, I can assure you that developers are not joyfully going to restrict their own apps with installation requirement like "Admin Rights Needed": There are normally good reasons for harming the field of application of your own app (spending 20% of your time / budget or so just to make the software run under restrictions is a good reason, believe it or not!).

I knew of a case where "no apparent reason" was the dependency on a certain MS system DLL (needed because of bugs in other versions).

I guess that MS (once again) harmed one of the golden rules of software framework APIs "Make simple things simple and hard things possible" (developing for restricted accounts should be "simple" but seems to be so "hard" that developers don't do it unless forced to).


And talking about sloppy programming: Just have a look at a default Windows installation (preferably a non-English one) to see what sloppy programming means. It's not that MS itself is a good example ..

Reply Score: 9

Yamin Member since:
2006-01-10

The problem with worrying about user accounts in windows is its easy to look back in history and say... gosh... how could they design this crap. However, back when it was being designed, it probably made sense. The improvements they made on it and backwards compatibility probably made sense too. Heck, their changes and move to Vista UAC is also evolutionary and make sense.


The best example we have to day is the WWW. It started out as HTML the simple markup language. Then it morphed into some screwed up web applications using AJAX. Toss in some screwed up ActiveX and other attempts in there as well. Looking back now, the whole AJAX/HTML structure is mentally ill. No one would design something like that. If you were going to design it today, you would probably think of something like MS Silverlight or Adobe Flash. Yet, can we just throw out the entire WWW and demand everything be redone in Silverlight or Flash? No. So we deal with it.

It's the nature of development. It's a jungle out there and always will be. Somehow we get by with all the hiccups.

Reply Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

As a former Windows software developer (no, it's not something I want to do again. Ever) I have to say something here.

As a software architect, I can assure you that developers are not joyfully going to restrict their own apps with installation requirement like "Admin Rights Needed"


They dont do it joyfully, they do it out of cluelessness. Face it, up until very recently the majority of Windows developers did not understand or care about security concerns. Although some of this blame must go to framework and toolkit developers too, they didnt care or understand much either.
This is painfully illustrated by the many, many games who for, God knows what reason, don't work unless you're an Administrator.

I knew of a case where "no apparent reason" was the dependency on a certain MS system DLL (needed because of bugs in other versions).


That's not how DLL's work. If a dev told you that he was either lying or didn't know how to do the task properly.

It's not that MS itself is a good example


That's no excuse.

Reply Score: 4

joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

"Just blaming developers is far too easy."

It's where the blame lies. MS provides simple and easy methods for installing and running apps that do not need Administrative rights. If developers can't figure out how to use them, it's not Microsoft's fault.

" As a software architect, I can assure you that developers are not joyfully going to restrict their own apps with installation requirement like "Admin Rights Needed": There are normally good reasons for harming the field of application of your own app (spending 20% of your time / budget or so just to make the software run under restrictions is a good reason, believe it or not!)."

I have no idea what you are saying "There are normally good reasons for harming the field of application of your own app" doesn't make any sense.

"I knew of a case where "no apparent reason" was the dependency on a certain MS system DLL (needed because of bugs in other versions)."

You don't need Admin rights to load a DLL.

"I guess that MS (once again) harmed one of the golden rules of software framework APIs "Make simple things simple and hard things possible" (developing for restricted accounts should be "simple" but seems to be so "hard" that developers don't do it unless forced to)."

Most of the problem is the result of installing in privileged locations, or writing files/registry settings to privileged locations. Are you telling me that changing a few file paths and registry locations is just to difficult for the average developer? If so - what do you suggest MS do to correct the problem?

"And talking about sloppy programming: Just have a look at a default Windows installation (preferably a non-English one) to see what sloppy programming means. It's not that MS itself is a good example"

Guess I will just have to take your word for that - have no idea what it has to do with the topic at hand.

Reply Score: 2

dizzey Member since:
2005-10-15

is it now. maby there are bad devs that follows bad habits but microsoft do sent try very hard to discourage this behavior.

if they did they would go the osx wqay and just say this is our new secure api use that and make new applications, oh you whish to use our old and un secure api well the you will be run in a secure vm sandbox

Reply Score: 1

Yann64 Member since:
2006-04-14

I have 3 Windows XP computers, and all user accounts are non-administrators one. There is absolutely nothing preventing me, my wife or my children using these computers every day without being administrators (except to install programs or do administrative tasks...).

Same goes with the XP station I'm using at work.

You are being mistaken between OS and application. An application not doing administrative tasks but still requiring Admin account is a badly coded one. You can't blame the OS for that.

Reply Score: 2

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

You can blame the OS, I've seen it done many times. It just doesn't make you right :-)

Windows COULD make it possible to install apps without admin rights, restricting access to local effects only.

It COULD do what it SHOULD do, and ask for an admin password in order to install the app ( like Linux ), rather than requiring a round-a-bout method - but there is something to be said for the Windows method as well.

What Windows MUST do, is require an Administrator password. Simple. All accounts with admin rights should also require passwords.

What Windows SHOULD do, as well, is completely segregate the registry entries for each application. Store a file for any entry an app makes, so that uninstalling that app will uninstall that registry hive. Make it MORE work to effect the registry globally, and simple to effect the app's own store.

The only global entry an app would get free is its installation entry, which it could not manipulate. That would fix an incredible amount of problems, and even stop many viruses and spyware.

But, the most vital thing Windows NEEDS to do is to stop permitting root-kits to be installed. This requires a redesign.

Another thing of note, is that the UI can be made to respond differently based upon the threat level of what is happening. Users rarely read anything other than the bold text - or maybe look at the icon. A warning about not having a CD in the tray looks nearly identical to one about a program trying to modify the kernel directly.

Of course, I could go on, but I'm on my third glass of wine and I think my current torrent is done... maybe I'll reboot to Windows Vista ( gotta know all OSes, y'know ) and play some Crysis...

--The loon

-- and relating more so the article:

A 'jump' of .7% is hardly worth writing home about, but is a start. Thing is, though, that Vista requires more hardware to get what Windows XP gets from it, while it can do more with the RAM it has. Windows 7 hasn't corrected enough to merit placement as an 'improvement' in terms of performance. Maybe a jump of 2-2% would merit the lowest entry of 'improvement' without specifying 'minor.' Whereas, 5-6% would be safely called a 'good improvement' and 2000% would be in line with what Microsoft typically tries to convince has been accomplished.

In any event, my upgraded system does run Vista better than XP in *some* cases. BUT, BeOS, Haiku, & Ubuntu all have - at the minimum - a 50% performance benefit ( BeOS about 5000% ) in the most important metric - perceived performance.

Edited 2008-12-13 04:38 UTC

Reply Score: 13

soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

But, the most vital thing Windows NEEDS to do is to stop permitting root-kits to be installed. This requires a redesign.


You have a lot of valid points but I have to take exception with this one. Windows is not the only popular operating system that can be affected by rootkits. OSX and Linux are vulnerable to rootkits too. So are you also suggesting a major redesign for those operating systems to prevent rootkit infections too?

Edit:

Another thing, with UAC enabled Vista is very hardened against rootkits. UAC is not perfect, but there is no denying it is effective when a smart user is behind the keyboard. Even UAC can't fix stupid.

This report was released in May of this year.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146256/vistas_despise...

Edited 2008-12-13 22:02 UTC

Reply Score: 1

looncraz Member since:
2005-07-24

Yes, indeed, any OS supporting root-kits needs to find a way around that, entirely.

They have their uses, but they are a bigger problem than a benefit. Ideally the OS would provide hooks for scanning software, rather than blindly allowing what root-kits allow.

UAC doesn't help the idiots - and they need to be protected more so than anyone else - they outnumber us. The more infected machines there are, the larger the problem, obviously.

--The loon

Reply Score: 4

merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights.

Sorry, but you're wrong.


The entire operating system has the same inherit flaws from rehash to rehash. Plus, they seem to break compatibility with software, yet 16bit legacy code is still in the kernel from the NT days.

I'm not denying this but, are there any proof of this? That'd be pushing backwards compatibility a bit too much.


In my opinion it would be better for Microsoft to scrap this code base and develop an OS that a regular user can use it without fighting with the OS to run a program without special rights. This is a fundamental flaw in which this piece is broken. The core part of this is viruses/malware/spyware installs effortlessly with users running as administrator.

Another fact, Windows Server is not a multi-user operating system they can repackage it as much they like it still does not have true multi-user unix/linux distro's have that are inherit. Plus the fact of cost of Anti-Virus, Spyware/Malware and lacking of a real firewall. When you add up the cost of Windows including problems with viruses/malware it is expensive to say the least.

The user rights issue is a fundamental flaw of your critique, just drop it. And we both know that you can't make an OS from scratch just like this. There are many, many things to keep in mind regarding that kind of decision. Technical details being the least important.


I would rather maintain CentOS desktops any day of the week than the time spent to clean up Windows boxes. I do not see Windows coming out with these new releases every other year being consumed as they were in the past. Even big mega corps have passed on Vista and Windows 7 is going to be a bigger mess with lack of compatibility and monster hardware requirements.

A Linux distro offers more security, remote management, office suite, email, and functionality Windows just does not offer that is able to maintain code reliability without major headaches. Anyways, just my rant and the famous quotes from a marketing machine that dribbles the same rehash that this version of Windows is the best, so fast you can't even see it boot and secure. This is why Microsoft is plagued with the same viruses people change up and send out over and over...


This we agree, my only complaint would be Red Hat-based distros, but that's just a minor detail ;-)


Not impressed, will not use it or will never purchase it and one day Microsoft will be like GM with time.


Neither will I, that's the good thing about free countries.

Now, is there any reason to read this kind of comment over and over again every time a Windows 7-related article gets published? Get a pet or something!

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06


"The entire operating system has the same inherit flaws from rehash to rehash. Plus, they seem to break compatibility with software, yet 16bit legacy code is still in the kernel from the NT days.


I'm not denying this but, are there any proof of this? That'd be pushing backwards compatibility a bit too much.
"

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it was a faulty assumption, based on the ability of NT-based OSes to run 16-bit Windows software. Which, as most of us know, is handled by the Windows on Windows subsystem, not by 16-bit code in the NT kernel.

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

I agree with you, but I figured you would be modded to hell for your post (surely mine will be too, but whatever, who cares). I gave up trying to fight XP to allow proper (ie., flawless) use under a *NON*-administrator account a while ago, and that was one of the last straws that pushed me from the OS. Not to mention what Windows' future looked like (containing barely anything I *did* want, and mostly everything I *didn't* want), plus Microsoft's insistence to brutally kill XP ASAP with whatever means it takes (in other words: *forcing* the next version on people like never before).

Honestly, I don't even want to *think* of all the braindead-stupid things I've came across just trying to install XP from the ground up with a decently-secure setup (main "Administrator" account active on the login screen and one limited user account). The OS just wasn't designed that way (at least, the way it was released).

Edited 2008-12-13 11:28 UTC

Reply Score: 5

casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights.


UAC in Vista does it. Have you ever tried Vista?

Reply Score: 2

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights.


UAC in Vista does it. Have you ever tried Vista?
"

It's probably been argued to death as to whether UAC actually does anything at all. I'm on the side of those who believe that it doesn't. It's nothing more than a false sense of security in my view; a band-aid in typical Microsoft fashion to alleviate a boo-boo instead of actually tearing it apart and fixing the underlying problem. Not to mention that it just trains users to click "OK" (which they're likely already used to from previous Windows versions).

Edited 2008-12-13 16:18 UTC

Reply Score: 5

centos_user Member since:
2008-11-16

This is what I was trying to say, however I am modded down because it is not politically correct and people know this is true and it is not a layer of security it is nothing more than pop up boxes....

It is amazing how I GET modded down for saying the same thing but whole well...

Reply Score: 4

casuto Member since:
2007-02-27

it is not a layer of security it is nothing more than pop up boxes....


you're wrong!!!!
UAC enables users to perform common day-to-day tasks as non-administrators. These users are called "standard users" in Windows Vista. User accounts that are members of the local Administrators group will run most applications by using the principle of least privilege. In this scenario, least-privileged users have rights that resemble the rights of a standard user account

Edited 2008-12-13 18:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

You get modded down because you're a troll and are saying inaccurate things.

Reply Score: 4

helf Member since:
2005-07-06

you get modded down because you have NO clue what you are talking about.

Reply Score: 3

jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

It's probably been argued to death as to whether UAC actually does anything at all. I'm on the side of those who believe that it doesn't.


The following is quoted from http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/10/08/user-account-control.as...


Impact on the software ecosystem

UAC has resulted in a radical reduction in the number of applications that unnecessarily require admin privileges, which is something we think improves the overall quality of software and reduces the risks inherent in software on a machine which requires full administrative access to the system.


You can believe what you want, it's just maybe a bit unsupported by facts. UAC has made developers aware of unnecessary privileges, whether you admit it or not. And that is enough to say that it has accomplished something

Edited 2008-12-13 17:16 UTC

Reply Score: 5

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

And that is enough to say that it has accomplished something


People are shortsighted, and don't look beyond the tip of their own nose.

Anyone with an objective enough view on things, not blinded by Microsoft hatred, knows that UAC has been a massive success; it has succeeded in perfectly at what it was designed to do. It's one of the success stories of Vista.

It's the annoying beep you hear when you forgot to turn off the headlights of your car.

Edited 2008-12-13 17:21 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

So successful, I’m still removing viruses, spyware and rootkits from Vista.

Reply Score: 2

soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

UAC can't fix stupid.

Reply Score: 2

Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

Well the annoying part works. Any idea on how many people turn off UAC because they're so annoyed by it?

Reply Score: 3

soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

Only stupid people or those that have no Unix/Linux experience turn off UAC. UAC is supposed to be annoying in order to force software vendors to code their software to use least privilege. If people used proper coding practices, UAC prompts would become a rare occurrence.

Reply Score: 3

UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

"And that is enough to say that it has accomplished something


People are shortsighted, and don't look beyond the tip of their own nose.

Anyone with an objective enough view on things, not blinded by Microsoft hatred, knows that UAC has been a massive success; it has succeeded in perfectly at what it was designed to do. It's one of the success stories of Vista.

It's the annoying beep you hear when you forgot to turn off the headlights of your car.
"
A success? Perhaps in some ways, depending on how you look at it. But sure as hell not a "massive" success, as you put it.

Reply Score: 3

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

The only thing UAC has succeeded at is over-compensation. It's the "escaped horse, meet barred and triple-locked barn door" approach to security.

And coupled with the typical Microsoft lack of attention-to-detail, you get ridiculous situations like: even while logged-in with an admin account, I can't run an "ipconfig /release" or "ipconfig /renew" command from the shell (not even a UAC prompt, just a thoroughly-unhelpful error message in the command prompt).

Reply Score: 2

BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I just ran ipconfig as a normal user, it worked, then I logged in as an administrator, and it also worked. This is on Vista Home Premium.

I am not sure what is wrong on your end, but it is not UAC.

Reply Score: 2

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I've had the same problem he has too. Maybe it has to do with domain versus home. I believe you can add yourself to the local Network Configuration Operators group to gain this ability even when not in an elevated command prompt (can't test this at the moment, so I don't have access to a Vista machine).

Reply Score: 2

GoldenDragon Member since:
2008-12-15

It works if you try entering "ipconfig", but if you attempt to enter "ipconfig /release" or "ipconfig /renew", it will not work if you haven't ran the cmd with the "run as Administrator" option (rclick on cmd -> "Run as Administrator..."). Yes, it will not work without the elevation even if you are logged in as the "Administrator"-account.

Reply Score: 1

gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

You know, I never found out why the "lights are on" beep of the car even exists.

Make the headlights go OFF the moment you stop the engine, light them up again, the moment the engine runs. Elegent, simple, useful. Dont't ask the driver to perform an action that can easily be perfomed automatically.

If you want to have the parking lights on, switch to "parking lights", that is what it is there for.


The same is true for regular accounts. Make everybody use a regular account, and ask them for the admin password every time administrator rights are needed (for example for installing software system-wide).

Reply Score: 2

google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If you run as an administrator, you need to click OK to have the admin tolken get passed to the executable. If you are in a non administrator group, you need to provide the username and password of someone who is to elevate.

if you only have to press "Ok" to elevate, you are doing the equivalent of running as root in linux.

Reply Score: 1

soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

It's probably been argued to death as to whether UAC actually does anything at all. I'm on the side of those who believe that it doesn't. It's nothing more than a false sense of security in my view; a band-aid in typical Microsoft fashion to alleviate a boo-boo instead of actually tearing it apart and fixing the underlying problem. Not to mention that it just trains users to click "OK" (which they're likely already used to from previous Windows versions).



As configured out of the box, maybe. But if you are willing to lock all users but the admin out of the admin account and force them to run as a standard user, UAC is quite effective at preventing infections. UAC also makes setting up a standard user account very simple with none of the tweaking required to make standard user accounts work flawlessly. All Microsoft really needs to do is make the standard user account default in the first place to solve the issue you just brought up.

One more thing, those prompts are not the whole of UAC. UAC is a collection of features that help to harden Windows against attacks. DEP, Protected Mode on IE, improved user accounts and registry virtualization are all features of UAC. Those are the parts you don't see that work in the background to improve security. Even users that mindlessly click ok to the prompts are still better protected under Vista than XP because of those features.

(XP does include DEP since SP2 for those who wish to enable it for all programs for better security.)

Reply Score: 1

StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

I find it amazing how Microsoft can spend millions on an Operating System that cannot allow a 'regular user account' to run programs without administrator or power user rights.


What are you talking about? Just from personal experience, I was doing exactly that (running as a regular user most of the time) as far back as Win2k.

Another fact, Windows Server is not a multi-user operating system they can repackage it as much they like it still does not have true multi-user unix/linux distro's have that are inherit.


I think the word you're looking for is "inherent." And how is Windows Server not a multi-user system? That's one of the most bizarre claims I've read since David K. Every's assertions that NT has "DOS underpinnings."

In conclusion? There are more than enough real reasons to hate Windows - you don't have go inventing imaginary ones.

Reply Score: 5

Hmmn
by Nycran on Sat 13th Dec 2008 02:02 UTC
Nycran
Member since:
2006-02-06

The problem with these benchmarks is that they're showing Vista performance to be better than XP.

Most people perceive (for whatever reason) that Vista still runs slower than XP, and certainly, XP can be run in environments (low ram, slower CPU) where you wouldn't dream of using Vista.

Moreover, do these benchmarks tell us anything how about responsive and pleasurable the OS is to use? I'm using Vista SP1 on my laptop and it frustrates me in many little ways that Win2K never did.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love for Windows 7 to be a butt kicking OS, but until I have the opportunity to see it for myself I'm skeptical that it's going to be the OS that I want to use.

Edited 2008-12-13 02:03 UTC

Reply Score: 10

RE: Hmmn
by Jokel on Sat 13th Dec 2008 07:59 UTC in reply to "Hmmn"
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

I can only agree...

It is too easy to base your outcomes on some carefully chosen programs (I am not saying this is happening - only that it is possible). This is no real-life test.

It is far too early to conclude Windows 7 will be better. Although I am willing to believe Windows 7 in general could be faster than Vista, I think it is rather curious it would be faster than XP like the outcome suggests.

Don't forget there are a lot unfinished and missing things in Windows 7. Adding those things to the final product could have a dramatic effect on the overall performance. We have all seen that before, don't we? For instance - is DRM allready added? This seems to be a (negative) performance "tweaker" if I can believe the various readings here and there...

I think its is safe to say this outcome is nice, but it is too early to use it as a indication how the final product will behave. We could be in for a nasty surprise (not saying it have to be that way tough) if we do that. It would not be the first time this would be happening.

I just say: Let's wait for the final product before jumping to any conclusions. It would be nice if the final product was indeed faster, ore even on par with XP. I have my doubts tough. I firmly believe it will be faster than Vista, but by how much only the future will tell...

Reply Score: 3

Debate
by bibe on Sat 13th Dec 2008 03:19 UTC
bibe
Member since:
2005-07-09

The debate was so lame, why bring it up again? Stay professional!

Reply Score: 4

RE: Debate
by MysterMask on Sat 13th Dec 2008 09:43 UTC in reply to "Debate"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12

The debate was so lame, why bring it up again? Stay professional!


Being profession would mean ignoring useless performance numbers Unless you're an MS engineer working on Windows 7 I don't see a single professional reason to be interested in those numbers.

They are interesting for fan girls to hype (yet another) Windows version. Funny that they don't get it: Calling version x+1 "soooo much better" is admitting that version x (which they hyped, too) was in fact a piece of junk ..

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Debate
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 13th Dec 2008 18:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Debate"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

It's called progress. The old was good for its time, but sooner or later the field has advanced and there's better out there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Debate
by bibe on Sun 14th Dec 2008 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Debate"
bibe Member since:
2005-07-09

how insightfull 8)
i vote u up


Edit: if i could :'(

Edited 2008-12-14 02:11 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Comment by StaubSaugerNZ
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sat 13th Dec 2008 03:53 UTC
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

It is easy to modify a piece of software so it performs well on a given benchmark. Nvidia and ATI are well known for this - producing implementations that review well against known benchmarks but don't give the same performance 'in the wild'.

It would be nice if the Win7 comparisons vs. XP showed a large battery of tests. Then we'd be able to declare which was "better".

The benchmark I would like to see is file copy time of thousands of small files (for real-world example, the source code of a moderately sized application). In my experience Windows XP does ok from the command-line but is horrifically slow from the GUI when compared to the same operation in Ubuntu (either command-line or from GUI). Getting Win7 to copy as fast as WinXP in the GUI is not really anything to crow about.

Reply Score: 7

RE: Comment by StaubSaugerNZ
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 13th Dec 2008 05:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by StaubSaugerNZ"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

When you do those copies in Ubuntu and pull the power (or hard shutdown the machine), what will be the end result?

In the case of the Explorer File Copy engine on a machine with NTFS configured in the default way, the files are flushed to disk by the time the window closes. (At least this is true for Vista... I don't know the whole story on XP).

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by StaubSaugerNZ
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sat 13th Dec 2008 10:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by StaubSaugerNZ"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

When you do those copies in Ubuntu and pull the power (or hard shutdown the machine), what will be the end result?

In the case of the Explorer File Copy engine on a machine with NTFS configured in the default way, the files are flushed to disk by the time the window closes. (At least this is true for Vista... I don't know the whole story on XP).


Don't know for sure. You can issue a 'sync' which will ensure they are flushed to disk so I don't think the issue is write-behind caching. Plus, this effect is not seen when Windows command-line is used.

I don't know why the disk writes are sooooo slow in Windows from GUI (but not from command line). I'm talking 30s to copy several thousand small files on Ubuntu and all done [can remove USB storage] vs 500s on Windows. Please try it yourself.

Reply Score: 5

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

What FS are you using on your USB key?

I just did a little experiment on my win7 laptop: 3000 files with an average size of 40 KB took 40 seconds to transfer between two partitions on a 5400 rpm drive via explorer. Using RoboCopy from the command line yielded substantially the same time (39 s).

Copying the same files to a FAT formatted USB stick is much (10 X) slower (I suspect it's because it is also a very small stick, so I'm seeing the effects of having a full FAT disk).

Reply Score: 1

StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

What FS are you using on your USB key?

I just did a little experiment on my win7 laptop: 3000 files with an average size of 40 KB took 40 seconds to transfer between two partitions on a 5400 rpm drive via explorer. Using RoboCopy from the command line yielded substantially the same time (39 s).

Copying the same files to a FAT formatted USB stick is much (10 X) slower (I suspect it's because it is also a very small stick, so I'm seeing the effects of having a full FAT disk).


That's good news about the Win7. This was copying files from a NTFS formatted 5400 drive in a USB caddy. Will try and repeat myself with WinXP.

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7 Tests
by OSGuy on Sat 13th Dec 2008 06:22 UTC
OSGuy
Member since:
2006-01-01

While these results are of course anything but conclusive, they are promising. Windows 7 outperforms its predecessors in most of these tests, which might mean that Microsoft will stay true to its word. Windows 7 is still in pre-beta, so it's very likely that performance will only get better as release time nears.

Well I don't know what to say, I just find that hard to believe. I believe the final version of Windows 7 will be slower or about the same speed as Windows Vista. I am still on XP but I intend to migrate to Windows 7 and the ONLY reason for that is to keep up with technology. I am giving Vista the boot - not on my PC. Vista is just a pretty face.

Edited 2008-12-13 06:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

I don't get it
by MysterMask on Sat 13th Dec 2008 09:33 UTC
MysterMask
Member since:
2005-07-12

Benchmarking some pre-release builds of a software might be interesting for the developers of said software (to know if they meet performance requirement). But for the public?! Those numbers will look different for the final product, so why publish them?

Publishing such numbers is pure marketing (and food for fan girls).
The other side of the medal: it raises expectations: MS should have learned something from the Vista marketing debacle.

(OS news is IMHO getting boring without any relevancy selection. Publishing every bit regardless of relevancy makes a news site useless. It's like reading the REUTERS news ticker instead of a good newspaper that makes an (interesting and relevant) selection. The 'we publish every bit of info regardless of relevancy about the next Windows OS' was boring with XP and Vista. It will be boring for Windows 7. The same goes for OS X, Linux or every other piece of software. If I like to read marketing stuff, I go to the MS website directly ..).

Edited 2008-12-13 09:35 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: I don't get it
by irbis on Sat 13th Dec 2008 16:37 UTC in reply to "I don't get it"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

Those numbers will look different for the final product, so why publish them? Publishing such numbers is pure marketing.

Exactly, it's is largely only marketing (although, I suppose, one could also thank MS developers for being more open about what's going on behind the scenes).

Vista has been a flop for MS, more or less (although I see also many good things in it compared to XP). MS is now desperately trying to renew public's interest in the future of MS Windows: by publishing promising looking Windows 7 benchmarks, screenshots etc. in a continous marketing cycle.

The other side of the medal: it raises expectations: MS should have learned something from the Vista marketing debacle.

Yes, but they also need to keep people interested, and not give people a message that it would be a good time to look for OS alternatives. MS simply cannot afford to have yet another flop with Windows 7. So they have huge pressures now whether they use marketing to raise expectations beforehand or not. Also, like always, many will buy the new product simply because they want to see all the new advertised features, speed etc. themselves. That's how advertising and marketing works.

Here's the deal with Windows 7:
If Windows 7 would be a big flop, financially, technically and otherwise, it could be a huge blow to Microsoft, such a blow that their reputation and image in people's minds as a modern OS manufacturer and vendor capable of keeping up with today's requirements and expectations might never fully recover from it anymore. So MS is betting a lot on Windows 7 now, also in marketing.

Edited 2008-12-13 16:57 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I don't get it
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 13th Dec 2008 18:57 UTC in reply to "RE: I don't get it"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I was unaware that Adrian K-H is a MS marketer. You could look at his previous articles to determine that this is probably not the true.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I don't get it
by irbis on Sat 13th Dec 2008 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I don't get it"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

I was unaware that Adrian K-H is a MS marketer. You could look at his previous articles to determine that this is probably not the true.

Yeah, you may be quite right about him, he is an independent writer. But I was just talking about the Windows 7 article boom in general anyway. My fault if I didn't make it clear enough what I was referring to.

Anyway, MS clearly encourages also independent writers to write more articles on Windows 7, by sending copies of development versions of it etc. All kind of publicity keep people excited about the upcoming new Windows 7.

Why are there so many stories about Windows 7 in general now, even though it is still only a rough development version? What happened to Windows Vista, and why do we see much less Vista stories already than Windows 7 stories?

As to the actual benchmarks, they don't make very much sense yet, as so many things are still unclear about the final Windows 7. Just some tests for tests sake. So it makes sense to ask why do we see so many such benchmarks and articles about Windows 7 already.

Edited 2008-12-13 20:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: I don't get it
by Nelson on Sat 13th Dec 2008 20:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: I don't get it"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


Why are there so many stories about Windows 7 in general now, even though it is still only a rough development version? What happened to Windows Vista, and why do we see much less Vista stories already than Windows 7 stories?


Well, I think people are impressed with the amount of polish in these development builds. It's really hard to appreciate without using it, sure I get some crashes, and sure my sound driver is out of whack, but it's really really impressive and speaks volumes to the reorganization of the Windows Division from a development perspective.

Following Vista the team had an internal restructure to be more flexible than they were in previous releases, the new guys heading the Division are super-smart Office guys who know how to get things done. It's working, at least that's my impression.


As to the actual benchmarks, they don't make very much sense yet, as so many things are still unclear about the final Windows 7. Just some tests for tests sake. So it makes sense to ask why do we see so many such benchmarks and articles about Windows 7 already.


I think people are excited, every Windows release gets this. I remember during Vista's development OSNews was flooded with articles about every Beta as well.

The Benchmarks are to be taken with a grain of salt, but not to be dismissed entirely. While I am wary to trust any bencharmk but my own experience, I can say that Windows 7 is indeed faster than Vista (not sure about XP) by a measurable amount.

I wouldn't say "blows it out of the water", but it is faster with much less hardware.

For example, DWM.exe on Vista takes up 70MB while 7's DWM.exe takes up 12MB with the same number of Windows open. Something, clearly, something is happening.

I'm happily posting from Win7, if Microsoft can keep this up they will have a very solid release on their hands.

I know it's hard to buy into the hype, so take all of this with a grain of salt, and let your own experience dictate your opinion ;) .

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: I don't get it
by MysterMask on Sun 14th Dec 2008 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: I don't get it"
MysterMask Member since:
2005-07-12


I think people are excited, every Windows release gets this.


Yes, exactly the marketing / fangirl behaviour I was talking about. Software deserves to be ingnored unless it is a selling product.


I remember during Vista's development OSNews was flooded with articles about every Beta as well.


Yes, that was boring as hell, too (and made some fangirls really look silly since they praised the "all-new-and-wonderful" JesusOS for 5+ years and then - after release - had to defend that product with arguments like "performance isn't bad - you just need the latest and greatest HW and 2+GB or RAM" - how idiotic is that?)

We might as well talk about the color of Bill Gates underwear ..

Reply Score: 4

system requirements
by paul14213 on Sat 13th Dec 2008 13:27 UTC
paul14213
Member since:
2008-12-13

I wonder what windows 7 system requirements will be.

I realize in a few more years xp wont be able to phone

home. I wonder when that happens how will it affect apple

linux an bsd an the other oses.

A few people i talked to said they would goto linux

instead of buying a new computer.

Look at the computer walmart was selling intel

p4 1.5 ghz

Do we really need 3.0 or 4.0 ghz to use windows 7

if so ill be switch to linux or bsd

Reply Score: 2

RE: system requirements
by anduril on Sat 13th Dec 2008 15:31 UTC in reply to "system requirements"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

And you can easily run Vista on that same P4 1.5Ghz processor, hell you can run it on a 1Ghz processor as long as you have a decent amount of memory (2Gb which is dirt cheap nowadays). It'll run about as well as the latest Ubuntu release does actually...sluggish at times but fine for most useage.

The only thing you need 3-4Ghz for is gaming or rendering or the like.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: system requirements
by centos_user on Sat 13th Dec 2008 16:26 UTC in reply to "RE: system requirements"
centos_user Member since:
2008-11-16

Ok here we go again I am sure I will have negative numbers marked down but big deal. The truth is ignored and people who do not understand that programs should be built and designed around the least amount of system resources not the famous line below.

The entire theory with Windows and for that instance is this statement...

***'Memory and Disk Space is dirt cheap nowadays'...

Basically this is the excuse for POOR programming and POOR Operating System design you can throw CPU and MEMORY at ANY POORLY coded application and it will work. What happens when an earthquake happens again where the memory is made and it is not made in the United States. The last time this happened the prices sky rocketed so I guess people who have the famous line of 'memory is cheap will have to learn how to program again'...

Also, with all of the hype of green computing I hardly think this line will hold water in the future, when it takes a machine to run with 2 Gigs of ram just to be functional the environmentalist have not latched on to the computing world like the auto world they have brought to its knees.

Why does a operating system for HOME use require 2 GIGS of ram??? Or why does it need 20 GIGS for installation does anyone have a valid reason for this?

I can install CentOS for a desktop and have full functionality with 1G install and 512 of ram the latest release or for that matter RHEL 5 desktop for that matter with all of the programs I need.

The fact is Windows was not built around security plain and simple that is the golden rule of any common sense approach GRANT the least amount of security to get the job done. What Microsoft has accomplished is trying to add a security layer over the top of an operating system that was designed to run as administrator. Microsoft is to blame for the inherit design flaw, Linux/Unix systems do not require users to run as root to do job functions!

Edited 2008-12-13 16:34 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: system requirements
by anduril on Sun 14th Dec 2008 10:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: system requirements"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

You can absolutely slim redhat or ubuntu or centos down to fit into 1Gb but its going to be a pretty limited install. What, xfce or blackbox as your interface? abiword (if that...hope its more than nano or pico for word processing) for typing word documents, maybe opera for browsing? Good luck getting the average person to use the system.

Still doesn't make a bit of difference. Even if memory prices go back up, and they will, its not going to make a marked difference. You're still going to get $350 computers with 2Gb of memory. You're still going to get $600 computers with 4Gb of memory. Thats where the industry has moved to now. So again, who CARES if the default system needs 1Gb to have all the flash interfaces and features to run well...if ya got it. Use it

I have no idea where your comments on security came from either since I didnt discuss it but you're also wrong. True, the early versions of Windows (al 95 and 98) were not designed around security and required super user privileges for everything but NT has always had the option to be limited user and then elevate up through "Run as Administrator" capability in systems without group policies or real administrators. It generally worked like crap but thats not truely Microsofts fault, its a hold over on all the legacy software do to sloppy coding.

Under Vista you can easily run as limited user all day long and then if you need to do system admin stuff or install programs you just elevate yourself when you need it. It might sound familiar to you...its the same thing as "sudo"

Reply Score: 1

v RE[4]: system requirements
by centos_user on Sun 14th Dec 2008 16:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: system requirements"
RE[5]: system requirements
by centos_user on Sun 14th Dec 2008 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: system requirements"
centos_user Member since:
2008-11-16

"Obama is on tape saying he would "necessarily" spike the cost of
electricty under his plan by "huge" increases in taxes on coal plants.

Those costs will get shifted to you and me, so that is a tax on over
50% of the people because over 50% of us get our electricity from coal-
fired plants. I live in FL where there are no coal mines. But there is
a coal fired plant 10 minutes away as the crow flies.

Companies that use electricity...that's all of them...will have to
raise their prices to make up their increased costs.

So EVERYONE is going to get a big bite out of his or her paycheck. So
when Obama tells you you're getting a tax cut, you'd better hold onto
your wallet.

You're going to be paying several hundred dollars more for your A/C
and for every product you buy. "


So be prepared and all of the Windows machines that require 2 Gigs to run and 'storage is cheap' we will see how this changes things.

It is coming, mod me down but this will be a fact.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: system requirements
by google_ninja on Sun 14th Dec 2008 17:37 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: system requirements"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

dude, where did you come from? i thought i knew all the trolls on this site...

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: system requirements
by anduril on Mon 15th Dec 2008 02:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: system requirements"
anduril Member since:
2005-11-11

What the hell are you ranting about? This is a discussion of operating systems...not politics or energy policy. 4Gb of DDR2 or 3 takes barely any more power than 1Gb in terms of a home usage scenario. Your processor uses far more, let alone the POS power supplies that most companies ship with their horrible inefficiencies.

Going from 1Gb to 2Gb on my Laptop with 64bit vista took maybe a minute off my runtime. 2Gb to 4Gb maybe 5mins...wahoo. thats massively expensive...expect my computer hibernates at night time using no power. Oh right, and it COULDNT do that under Ubuntu, of Fedora. Didnt matter if I used the nvidia drivers or the free ones...sleep and hibernation failed every time. My ibook gets it right, my three xp and vista desktops get it right and so does my laptop...but hey lets worry about how much more electricity is going to cost having to have 4Gb of memory in our computers!

Seriously man...get a clue

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: system requirements
by centos_user on Mon 15th Dec 2008 02:38 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: system requirements"
centos_user Member since:
2008-11-16

"What the hell are you ranting about? This is a discussion of operating systems...not politics or energy policy. 4Gb of DDR2 or 3 takes barely any more power than 1Gb in terms of a home usage scenario. Your processor uses far more, let alone the POS power supplies that most companies ship with their horrible inefficiencies.

Going from 1Gb to 2Gb on my Laptop with 64bit vista took maybe a minute off my runtime. 2Gb to 4Gb maybe 5mins...wahoo. thats massively expensive...expect my computer hibernates at night time using no power. Oh right, and it COULDNT do that under Ubuntu, of Fedora. Didnt matter if I used the nvidia drivers or the free ones...sleep and hibernation failed every time. My ibook gets it right, my three xp and vista desktops get it right and so does my laptop...but hey lets worry about how much more electricity is going to cost having to have 4Gb of memory in our computers!

Seriously man...get a clue"


In case you have not noticed ENERGY is a KEY point right now, just because Microsoft created a memory/cpu hog of an operating system will not fly in the future. Have you not heard of green computing yet, I guess when the environmentalist go after computing devices you will learn to leave the cpu/memory hog operating systems in the pasture where they belong. Windows is a inefficient operating system, that is why it requires tons of memory and a cpu bigger than a mainframe in computing power 15 years ago.

Like it or not ENERGY is at a crisis in this country it is self made predicament created by the powers that be and electricity is going to get extremely expensive believing me or not it is going to happen.

There is now way home users are going to be able to turn on their computers when this occurs because it will be equivalent to the high gasoline/diesel prices that spiked to $4 to $5 a gallon.

MY POINT is you write programs/operating systems to use the LEAST amount of cpu/memory so you if you code it that way is screams on hardware that is more efficient in design than the current I need 2 gigs to start a Vista box and a million ghz processor to meet the system requirements...

With our new 'Leader' electricity is going to spike with taxes on coal power plants and IT is a major player, do you think when it does big flat panels and other high energy consuming devices will be selling?

What happened to the auto industry is coming to the electronics industry in due time. Obama has stated his plans and taxing coal burning power plants WILL have an affect on you whether you choose to ignore it, Microsoft will have to change it business practices with creating bloated operating systems and get back to a normal system requirement that will not cost consumers $$$ per month to run.

Edited 2008-12-15 02:55 UTC

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: system requirements
by lemur2 on Mon 15th Dec 2008 03:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: system requirements"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

expect my computer hibernates at night time using no power. Oh right, and it COULDNT do that under Ubuntu, of Fedora. Didnt matter if I used the nvidia drivers or the free ones...sleep and hibernation failed every time.


Most likely a BIOS issue with ACPI for your motherboard.

If the implementation of ACPI is correct (complaint with the published ACPI specifications) in the BIOS, then Ubuntu and Fedora will both suspend and hibernate fine.

Ergo, not an Ubuntu or Fedora issue.

Many implementations of ACPI will return different answers depending on what OS they believe is running and requesting ACPI data. Why is this so? ... what is different about the hardware (requiring a different response from the BIOS) when one runs a different OS?

Edited 2008-12-15 03:20 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: system requirements
by phoenix on Sun 14th Dec 2008 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: system requirements"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

You can absolutely slim redhat or ubuntu or centos down to fit into 1Gb but its going to be a pretty limited install. What, xfce or blackbox as your interface? abiword (if that...hope its more than nano or pico for word processing) for typing word documents, maybe opera for browsing? Good luck getting the average person to use the system.


Kubuntu 8.10 (KDE3 or KDE4) runs just fine with 512 MB of RAM. I have it installed on my laptop that is used as a media centre in the living room. It's an ancient (pushing 5 years old) 2.8 GHz Celeron laptop with ATi's IGP 7000 chipset. Plays XviD videos via full-screen Kaffeine just fine. Can even configure the the screen as "stretched" across the LCD and TV-out, and surf the web while watching videos.

Don't know where you get the "can't possibly run Linux in less than 1 GB of RAM" mentality.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: system requirements
by perspectoff on Tue 16th Dec 2008 18:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: system requirements"
perspectoff Member since:
2008-11-06

I am also running Kubuntu 8.04 on a 256 Mb RAM laptop that is several years old without any problems. I replaced Windows NT on it, which was painfully slow.

I can run video over my Sprint EVDO card, albeit slowly.

I will add 256 Mb RAM for a total of 512 Mb, which will improve video speed. Unfortunately that's the maximum this old laptop will allow.

I could never run Windows with video on this laptop.

Reply Score: 1

Windows is not Windows XP anymore
by jbauer on Sat 13th Dec 2008 14:43 UTC
jbauer
Member since:
2005-07-06

I've been using Vista with a standard user account since it came out almost two years ago. It was a bit rough the first months because many apps still were not really adapted for UAC but using Windows without elevated privileges it's certainly quite doable now, and in a smooth way.

Anyway this is about Windows 7. Can we move on now?

Reply Score: 3

My take
by chris_dk on Sat 13th Dec 2008 15:09 UTC
chris_dk
Member since:
2005-07-12

Windows 7 is 99% similiar to Vista.

The horrible explorer is still there.

The horrible UI elements are still there.

The taskbar is not really an improvement. For instance, you cannot open two instances of Explorer by clicking the explorer icon.
The taskbar just seems more flashy than adding any real usability benefits.

It's really just marketing with very little value.

The amount of RAM used has gone a little bit down. It reported 416 MB RAM used compared to about 700 with Vista.

Windows 7 is going to be met with more or less the same rage that Vista was because there's nothing really new in it.

Reply Score: 4

RE: My take
by Nelson on Sat 13th Dec 2008 19:26 UTC in reply to "My take"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


The horrible explorer is still there.


Well that's a matter of opinion, but Explorer IS faster in the Windows7 build I tested.

Not just a little faster, a lot faster.


The horrible UI elements are still there.


Again, a matter of opinion. Microsoft seems to be listening to the UI concerns, a lot of UI redundancy has been removed in Windows 7.


The taskbar is not really an improvement. For instance, you cannot open two instances of Explorer by clicking the explorer icon.


This is a valid point, but there is a current workaround.

You must open Explorer, navigate to the location you wish, then use the Explorer Jump list to open a new instance of Explorer.

It's not very intuitive and I hope it changes. The jumplist should have the ability to spawn new instances, I know other jumplists do.


The taskbar just seems more flashy than adding any real usability benefits.


I find it very usable. Aero Peek to me, is very functional, and comparable in usefulness to Expose.

Not just Aero Peek, but the fact that it's so well integrated into the Thumbnails which makes it really functional.

I'm curious, what parts specifically did you have issues with?


It's really just marketing with very little value.


I don't think so at all.


The amount of RAM used has gone a little bit down. It reported 416 MB RAM used compared to about 700 with Vista.


That's little? That's almost two times less than Vista.


Windows 7 is going to be met with more or less the same rage that Vista was because there's nothing really new in it.


There's not really supposed to be, it's a refinement of the foundation that Windows Vista built. It's succeeding in that regard because it IS measurably faster than Vista.

Windows 7 is also Pre-Beta as of now, so passing any definitive judgment (in any direction, for or against) is not very smart.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My take
by chris_dk on Sat 13th Dec 2008 19:52 UTC in reply to "RE: My take"
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12


Windows 7 is also Pre-Beta as of now, so passing any definitive judgment (in any direction, for or against) is not very smart.


Do you really think that the Windows 7 beta will change much from now until january when it is supposed to come out?

I am so happy that for every day that goes by the choices of other OS'es are going up and the lock-in of Windows is getting smaller.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: My take
by Nelson on Sat 13th Dec 2008 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My take"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

The word is that Windows 7 is set to RTM sometime around April to early May.

If you look at Vista when it hit Beta1, there is a world of a difference between it's RTM.

If the progress between the two builds I've tried is any indicator (6801 to 6956), then yes, the builds are getting much better with each progressive release.

However, you seem to have already formed an opinion regarding what Windows 7 will be through whatever psychic powers you have, so I'll leave you to your business.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: My take
by jbauer on Sat 13th Dec 2008 22:15 UTC in reply to "RE: My take"
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06


This is a valid point, but there is a current workaround.

You must open Explorer, navigate to the location you wish, then use the Explorer Jump list to open a new instance of Explorer.

It's not very intuitive and I hope it changes. The jumplist should have the ability to spawn new instances, I know other jumplists do.


I don't know... I think it actually makes sense. Why would I want to have two Explorer windows pointing to the same location? For any other app, the method to open a new instance is pretty straightforward if you have a three button mouse: just click the icon with the middle button. I find that it's in fact better than the current situation because now you have to search the app again in the start menu (unless you have the launcher in the Quick Launch).

Edited 2008-12-13 22:16 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: My take
by Nelson on Sat 13th Dec 2008 23:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: My take"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


I don't know... I think it actually makes sense. Why would I want to have two Explorer windows pointing to the same location? For any other app, the method to open a new instance is pretty straightforward if you have a three button mouse: just click the icon with the middle button. I find that it's in fact better than the current situation because now you have to search the app again in the start menu (unless you have the launcher in the Quick Launch).


Well, let's look at what happens when a user interacts with the Taskbar (in Windows7)

He clicks the taskbar and Explorer pops up, naturally he'd click it again to get a second Window (For say, a file transfer)

When he does this nothing happens, the first Window just regains focus. It does this UNTIL you navigate somewhere AND click "explorer.exe" in the Jump List.

That's not very intuitive, when I read this original commenter's problem I tried to find a workaround to post here, and it took me a while to find this solution.

Most other programs (Notepad for instance) work by just hitting "Notepad" in the Jump List, for some reason, Explorer does not.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: My take
by google_ninja on Sun 14th Dec 2008 00:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: My take"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

If you open up explorer and don't navigate anywhere, any subsequent launches will just focus the first instance. It's been that way for as long as I've used windows (at least xp)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: My take
by phoenix on Sun 14th Dec 2008 18:17 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: My take"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

If you open up explorer and don't navigate anywhere, any subsequent launches will just focus the first instance. It's been that way for as long as I've used windows (at least xp)


Hitting Win+E has always opened new Explorer Windows as you press the keys, since Windows 95. Has this changed?

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: My take
by Nelson on Sun 14th Dec 2008 21:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: My take"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Yep, no longer does this.

Reply Score: 2

ROTFLMAO...
by cmost on Sat 13th Dec 2008 16:02 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

I always chuckle when I see these little snit fits over benchmarks breaking out on discussion forums. Does it really matter if mine is faster than yours if yours does what you need and you're perfectly happy? All these numbers and forensic analysis are just peachy but they don't really add up to much in the eyes of John Q. Public. Most people just want their computers to work well and do what they want fast and efficiently and without a lot of fuss. Period.

Edited 2008-12-13 16:04 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7
by zenulator on Sat 13th Dec 2008 17:02 UTC
zenulator
Member since:
2008-06-29

I think when it's all said and done Windows 7 will be a major improvement over Vista. With that said I won't really care about the benchmarks until RC1. Until then I'll glance over articles like this and try not to troll a pre-beta operating system.

Reply Score: 2

Where's the Story?
by segedunum on Sat 13th Dec 2008 17:23 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't see Windows 7 performing any better than XP or Vista in those benchmarks, so I don't know where it 'blows them out of the water'. I seriously wouldn't be turning to ZDNet for credibility. As with all ZDNet pages, it takes half an hour to actually view it.

They're all very much on a par with each other in those specific benchmarks beyond statistical noise.

Reply Score: 3

windows vista vs ubuntu
by paul14213 on Sat 13th Dec 2008 20:41 UTC
paul14213
Member since:
2008-12-13

For myself I like desktop bsd an tinyflux from what i read the walmart 200 pc sold out once.

How well does this Gos do.

Reply Score: 1

They still have 5 or 6 months...
by madcrow on Sun 14th Dec 2008 02:28 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

To add in all the bloat and make W7 just as slow as Vista.

Reply Score: 2

Famous quote..........
by centos_user on Sun 14th Dec 2008 02:36 UTC
centos_user
Member since:
2008-11-16

Next year is the year of the secure Windows desktop.

LOL

Reply Score: 2

Windows 7
by portamenteff on Sun 14th Dec 2008 08:23 UTC
portamenteff
Member since:
2008-05-25

If Windows 7 is a major improvement from Vista, then I may actually try it. I'm not (completely) dissatisfied with Vista as of yet. I have a liscenced copy of XP Proffesional, SP2 in my office. I just haven't been so frustrated with Vista that I reach in the cabinet and put it in the tray of my machine.
I feel though that it would do Microsoft some good to spend more resources on actual software development than on advertisement. Let the good work speak for itself. Let's not forget that Apple users became endeared to their systems because of how well it worked, not that guy in the commercial that's supposed to be cooler than the PC guy.

Reply Score: 1

Change of tune
by deathshadow on Sun 14th Dec 2008 17:36 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

From me at least, because now that we have SP1 and drivers from the hardware makers are finally maturing Vista is starting to show that the original claims were not bull.

I'm fairly well known for bashing Vista pretty hard, since my early attempts at using it, and even attempts post SP1 all ended in unstable systems I couldn't use for more than 20 minutes at a time without a forced reboot, sending me happily back to XP x64.

Pissing me off even further were the jackasses saying "If you had modern hardware it wouldn't be a problem" - a serious case of STFU since if a Q6600 processor, 680i mainboard, 4 gigs of RAM and a Ge8800GTS for one display and Ge8400 for the other two isn't 'modern enough' for Vista, somebody needs to **** the hell off.

All that changed back in August. An article here on OSNews mentioned that the majority of Vista issues in fact came from hardware drivers, with nVidia having the largest slice of the blame... Hmm, I have a nForce mainboard, and two Ge8 family video cards, gee, wonder what the problem was? (don't even get me started about the drivers for my Audigy 2 ZS)

I'm a firm believer you do not have the right to badmouth something you haven't tried, so I keep a spare 160 gig HDD around for 'testing'. Shortly after reading that article nVidia released a set of drivers that fixed a few of the issues I was having with XP x64, so on a lark I said "I wonder if they fixed Vista?"

... and they have.

My system which before august was an unstable disaster under Vista but rock solid reliable under XP x64 has been running Vista Ultimate x64 since august without a single problem that I could blame on the OS. (In fact the only time it crashes is when I'm testing my own code, or running a game that EVERYONE has problems with)

The user interface, even with the goofy Aero crap turned off (which handles multiple displays really badly) is now crisp and responsive. ... and more importantly DX10 is FINALLY delivering on it's promises. While if you turn off AA, AF, and drop your settings XP can be faster, if you turn on all the fancy stuff DX10 sees a great deal less impact meaning that at high resolutions with graphics at max, Vista is faster.

Oblivion, Fallout 3, FEAR, Supreme Commander - all 10-20% faster on my machine at max settings at 4xAA at a reasonable resolution (1280x960) and entirely playable at medium settings at 1920x1200 if I feel like swapping my center CRT for the LCD on the left... Settings which would choke XP down to below 30fps on this hardware.

In fact the only games that take a performance hit are OpenGL games (maybe 5-10%) and older DX7 games... Of course a Ge8800GTS is a sledgehammer on DX7 so who gives a flying **** if FRAPS is reporting 460fps instead of 490, when anything over your refresh rate is meaningless anyways!

... and for most anything SERIOUS in terms of computing I really am not seeing a difference one way or the other.

I have found that Vista does still SUCK on single core processors - it does make use of both cores. I don't have a problem with that because if I'm going to spend for dual core, I'd like SOMETHING to at least use them. Frankly though, running Vista on a single core processor is IMHO like running XP on a pentium II - you can do it, doesn't mean it's a good idea.

In a way, I have to apologize to Vista as it was not the operating systems fault, as the problems I was having with it can be traced entirely to faulty drivers from nVidia and Creative. In general hardware makers have had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the new driver model - and they have the lions share of the blame for NOT bothering to put serious effort into developing stable Vista drivers for the THREE YEARS of leadtime Microsoft gave them to do it in.

... and blaming Microsoft for not waiting for them to catch up would have been no solution at all, since that would have delayed the release decades or more.

Hell, the only thing I can't do native in Vista Ultimate x64 is test IE6 as a standalone - and MS Virtual PC takes care of that right quick. (which I use instead of VMWare for the tighter desktop integration and smoother networking - well, that and it doens't hijack the host OS)

Edited 2008-12-14 17:41 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Change of tune
by StaubSaugerNZ on Sun 14th Dec 2008 19:59 UTC in reply to "Change of tune"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13


My system which before august was an unstable disaster under Vista but rock solid reliable under XP x64 has been running Vista Ultimate x64 since august without a single problem that I could blame on the OS. (In fact the only time it crashes is when I'm testing my own code, or running a game that EVERYONE has problems with)


If your machine crashes for any reason it is hardly 'rock solid'. The operating system should not allow this, and the fact it happens is terrible (and suprising it has been happening to you under Vista).

Your expectations must be very low regarding operating system reliability (for example, a Solaris user would be disappointed if their machine crashed for any reason other than a hardware fault).

Are you writing device drivers? If not, why is your user-level code crashing the machine? User-level code should never crash the machine - your program should terminate and you get a stack trace to diagnose what is going on.

The fact you can crash the machine from user-space means you either have a hardware fault or there is something wrong in Vista (less likely, but kernel drivers, including 'certified' drivers from third parties, should be considered as part of the 'Vista' system).

Edit: typo

Edited 2008-12-14 19:59 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Comment by diego
by diegoviola on Sun 14th Dec 2008 20:32 UTC
diegoviola
Member since:
2006-08-15

I think that Windows with it's flaws are coming to it's end, and things seems to only get worse and worse in the Microsoft / Windows world.

People are starting to realize that the computer world is not only Microsoft and Windows anymore, and they are switching to other OS's like Linux, OSX, etc. I believe we will only see more of this in the future.

I also believe that Microsoft will be forced to play nice and also developers (in general) will be forced to target the main platforms in the future, and make their applications, including games, etc, all cross platform.

Maybe the main three platforms will all be at a 50% same level of usage.

I could be wrong of course, or maybe I'm dreaming too much, but by the look of it I believe this is what it will happen.

Edited 2008-12-14 20:48 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by diego
by diegoviola on Sun 14th Dec 2008 21:08 UTC in reply to "Comment by diego"
diegoviola Member since:
2006-08-15

I think that Windows with it's flaws are coming to it's end, and things seems to only get worse and worse in the Microsoft / Windows world.

People are starting to realize that the computer world is not only Microsoft and Windows anymore, and they are switching to other OS's like Linux, OSX, etc. I believe we will only see more of this in the future.

I also believe that Microsoft will be forced to play nice and also developers (in general) will be forced to target the main platforms in the future, and make their applications, including games, etc, all cross platform.

Maybe the main three platforms will all be at a 50% same level of usage.

I could be wrong of course, or maybe I'm dreaming too much, but by the look of it I believe this is what it will happen.


Maybe it's not going to be exactly like that, or maybe it will be in a completely different way. But it's happening already... That's why we can see/feel it.

Reply Score: 2

market share
by stooovie on Sun 14th Dec 2008 21:27 UTC
stooovie
Member since:
2006-01-25

"Maybe the main three platforms will all be at a 50% same level of usage."

You, sir, have made my day :-D

Reply Score: 2

v UAC and Windows
by centos_user on Mon 15th Dec 2008 00:11 UTC
it's all about ui
by gsmd on Mon 15th Dec 2008 11:09 UTC
gsmd
Member since:
2007-02-02

From what I see having installed Win 7 myself, it's gonna be to Vista what WinXP2 was to WinXP.
What they refuse to understand is that people want WinXP cuz they are productive with it and they are quite happy with the way it looks.
I think the adequate approach for the post-Vista OS would be
1) evolve the core stuff: make it faster, more secure, etc.
2) evolve the UI the way you like, e.g. rip the taskbar from KDE what they've done in 7
3) backport the XP & 2000 UI. just make the damned thing look exactly the same way those versions did if people want it.
Unfortunately, we are not going to see #3 as MS is about making money and receiving bonuses by every employee (e.g. for innovative design and other kinds of "innovations") and not about making users happy. The very same way stock exchange nowdays is not about determining the real value of a company and funding innovations that are valuable to the society but about making money out of nothing by dumbasses. We have a chance to see too well what this approach has led the world economy to.

Reply Score: 1

Sasparilla
Member since:
2007-12-07

These benchmarks show Vista RTM, the pig, as faster than XP or 7 - yeah right. Shoots the credibility of the benchmark as a measure for user experience right there.

Having both installed on the same machine at home, XP is definitely a snappier, faster experience than Vista on the same hardware - and infinitely less constantly annoying (you sure you want to run that program you've run a thousand times before but I keep stopping you to ask every time you launch it, you don't have access to that directory even though you're logged in admin mode - cause the directory doesn't really exist but I show it like it does and don't explicitly say its a link.blah..blah..blah).

There's a reason people go through the hassle of rolling back to XP, Vista is pretty but its a pain - particularly for anyoen who does stuff manually around the system. I've got a new system right now (3Ghz Wolfdale) - one of my goals was to stick with Vista just to do it, my 2nd experience with Vista. Its so annoying, that after 3 weeks that I'm gathering XP drivers to preserve the option to move back to XP - the glitter just isn't worth the constant hassle of an OS that is constantly getting in your way.

Reply Score: 1

evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

Or you could just turn off UAC if it bugs you that much ...

Reply Score: 2