“Windows 7 boots slower than its unloved predecessor, Vista, a PC tune-up developer claims,” Gregg Keizer reports for Computerworld. “The claims by iolo Technologies, a Los Angeles maker of PC software, contradict Microsoft’s boasts that Windows 7 starts up faster than Vista.”
“According to iolo’s tests, Windows 7 starts up 42% slower than Vista — one minute, 34 seconds versus one minute, six seconds — on a brand new machine when the time trials are run to the point where the machine is usable, at least by iolo’s standards,” Keizer reports.
“Windows 7 seems to start faster than Vista, says iolo, with its time-to-the-desktop measured as around 40 seconds,” Keizer reports. “But iolo measured startup as the point where the computer is ‘fully usable,’ with a low load on the processor.”
“Iolo also says its tests indicated that Windows 7’s startup times, like Vista’s, degrade over time. After several ‘commonly-used’ applications have been installed on a new Windows 7 box, for instance, its boot time — again, as measured by the company — slows to two minutes, 34 seconds, an increase of 64%,” Keizer reports.
“Over an even more extended span, Windows 7’s boot times get more sluggish than that: By the end of a simulated two-year period, Windows 7’s startup times increased more than 330%,” Keizer reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: As we wrote earlier today: “Windows rots. And we don’t just mean that’s inferior to our Macs, but that also over time, in the hands of everyday users, it clogs up, slows down, and generally deteriorates. Let’s give Windows 7 the time it needs for its inherent issues to begin showing up.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “James W.” for the heads up.]
I’m sorry, but you’re a picture perfect example of the ignorance and general obtuseness that plagues that Mac general fanbase. Unlike you, I refuse to allow blind bias and corporate fanfare to dictate products for the home as if they were political idiosyncracies. How pathetic one can be to take such stances to heart, but such is the life of a sheep in Steve Jobs herd.
Now here’s your chance to prove my notion wrong. Are you one of those less intelligent zealots that bash for no reason other than ignorance, or do you actually know what you’re talking about. Tell me exactly what “crud” Windows 7 will accumulate over time. I’m especially curious since Windows 7 includes more restrictive measures for the registry and automatically removes unnecessary entries no longer linked to active programs. Tell me what specifically Windows 7 does to slow your computer down over time (and how that somehow bypasses specific services, such as improved superfetch and more efficient data block writing to avoid file fragments).
There’s a reason why Windows 7 is well-received by users/tech journals/reviewers (of which many have bashed Vista like Mossberg, only to be impressed by Windows 7), and that’s because Windows 7 is actually a decent piece of software, whether you like it or not. Get used to it. I can only imagine the turmoil in this place once more reviews hit.
That was directed to “@exposed”, who (just like the MDN editors), are too afraid to conform to their own identities when spewing frivolous remarks that only highlights their own ignorance.
Exposed, It’s still Windows, and it still will suck (fast, slow, or otherwise).
“Unlike you, I refuse to allow blind bias and corporate fanfare to dictate products for the home as if they were political idiosyncracies.”
Iolo’s tests showed Win7 to boot slower than Vista, so you put on the ol’ tinfoil hat and called it an evil conspiracy. PC World’s tests corroborated iolo’s results on the 32-bit end, and all but corroborated them on the 64-bit end. One of us is having a problem with blind bias and corporate fanfare, certianly, but it isn’t me.
“I’m especially curious since Windows 7 includes more restrictive measures for the registry and automatically removes unnecessary entries no longer linked to active programs.”
Wow, neat! Too bad the registry isn’t the big bad culprit behind system degredation. Anybody who’s ever used a registry cleaner in hopes of making Windows run like new again can attest to this. There’s a reason alot of people have been reduced to wiping and reinstalling Windows every six months, and it’s not because they don’t know the registry can be cleaned.
“more efficient data block writing to avoid file fragments”
Defragmentation never did, and still doesn’t, do the trick either. Sorry.
“There’s a reason why Windows 7 is well-received by users/tech journals/reviewers”
Yup. Of course, it’s the same reason why Vista was well received until it actually hit the shelves. But let’s not pay attention to history, eh?
“(of which many have bashed Vista like Mossberg, only to be impressed by Windows 7)”
Vista? Bashed by Mossberg? You really must be an astroturfer if you’re attempting historical revision that shameless. He actually declared it the best Windows yet:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116908385298979668-0KM342sGUp9UKiEikdnpxRiVaZw_20080118.html
The only thing implying his W7 review is credible does for you is make it so nobody can take you seriously.
“Iolo’s tests showed Win7 to boot slower than Vista, so you put on the ol’ tinfoil hat and called it an evil conspiracy. PC World’s tests corroborated iolo’s results on the 32-bit end, and all but corroborated them on the 64-bit end. One of us is having a problem with blind bias and corporate fanfare, certianly, but it isn’t me. ”
Actually, this most DEFINITELY proves that it is you. So which is it, does Windows 7 boot slower than Vista (32- bit), or faster (64-bit)? For someone that doesn’t even have Windows 7, nor care for its use, it’s blatantly quite obvious you’re an individual blinded by ignorance and hatred. Pathetic, really. I mean, why else would you ignore PC World’s other tests that favors Windows 7 overall, and pick out a single test that barely shows a load advantage for Vista on a Gateway laptop?
It’s quite simple logic, even for a moron. Windows 7, unlike Vista, does not load all services at startup. This trigger-based scheme results in fewer services having to load. Coupled with a leaner kernel, Windows 7, on paper, should boot quicker than Vista. This is supported by various real world tests, such as this one:
http://lifehacker.com/5124955/windows-7-beta-boasts-sub+30-second-boot-time
It seems logic is not a trait for Steve Job’s loyal herd of sheep.
Of course, you can always purchase Iolo’s “System Mechanic 9” for $39 to boost start up by 800%. Applications such as these are specifically for the less informed, gullibled masses…a perfect fit for you.
“Wow, neat! Too bad the registry isn’t the big bad culprit behind system degredation. Anybody who’s ever used a registry cleaner in hopes of making Windows run like new again can attest to this. There’s a reason alot of people have been reduced to wiping and reinstalling Windows every six months, and it’s not because they don’t know the registry can be cleaned.”
You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You see, this is a picture perfect example of why Mac Zealots as yourself are a laughing stock to the rest of the world.
So, who exactly are those people that wipe out Windows 7 from their hard drives every 6 months, considering Windows 7 is not even retail yet? What “crud” accumulates in Windows 7 over time that slows it down, and how does it bypass specific self-maintenanace services? ANSWER THE QUESTION.
You’ve shown your true colors, I should have known better. I thought I was clearly explaining some of the reasons why Windows 7 is better than Vista, and hence its overwhelmingly positive reception (again, unlike for Vista). Instead, each one of your sentences further sinks you deeper in a pit of feces-infested ignorance. And what do you do, you retort with frivolous blanket statements concerning Windows XP/Vista. Typical of a clueless mac zealot.
Defragmentation never did, and still doesn’t, do the trick either. Sorry.
Sorry, you’re an idiot. You don’t have a damn clue as to what you’re talking about. You thought I was talking about Defrag?
Did you bother to even read the PC World article referenced in your post? Specifically the section detailing Windows 7 HUGE advantage over Vista in disk performance (read/write/indexing etc..)
I can get into further details, but for what cause? It’ll only go over your head, and never find a way through that thick, biased head of yours. I really feel sorry for people like yourself–living a life of pre-conceived notions, refusing to acknowledge any strides/accomplishments for those out of your favor, be it Microsoft, Political Parties, Team sports, friends and neighbors perhaps, etc… I would hate to be doomed to a miserable life as one as close-minded as yourself and your fellow sheep.
Yup. Of course, it’s the same reason why Vista was well received until it actually hit the shelves. But let’s not pay attention to history, eh?
Let’s not pay attention to history? Have YOU been paying ANY attention AT ALL? Right off the bat Windows 7 was developed differently than Vista. Windows 7 was open from the beginning in terms of manufacturer and user support, feedback, debugging, developer tools, etc… This was one of THE most significant changes for Windows 7 development compared to Vista. Honestly, this was one of the most harped-about positives during all of Windows 7’s development cycle by third parties, for you to not even be aware of this significance extolls just how closed off you are from reality. A side effect of bias and ignorance, I suppose.
“of which many have bashed Vista like Mossberg, only to be impressed by Windows 7)”
Vista? Bashed by Mossberg? You really must be an astroturfer if you’re attempting historical revision that shameless. He actually declared it the best Windows yet:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB116908385298979668-0KM342sGUp9UKiEikdnpxRiVaZw_20080118.html
“
Did you bother to read that article? It wasn’t exactly a glowing review, Vista’s flaws were quite apparent as he pointed out, and his overall impression was lackluster. Pity you had to concentrate on one sentence that really didn’t reflect the entire article. Of course, it must really irk you that he specifically addressed Vista’s drawbacks in his Windows 7 article, and how much it actually improved..even his “negatives” were downplayed. Quite a difference than his “Vista largely unexciting” article.
But do please ignore Mossberg. Windows 7 is open to everyone, even though it hasn’t hit the store shelves. There are plenty of other journalists praising Windows 7 in its current release candidate form. MDN will have a tough time finding Windows 7 bashing reviews (didn’t have much luck so far for the RC or Beta)…might have to look in the gutters of the internet, or blogs by nobodies, like they usually do.
The only thing implying his W7 review is credible does for you is make it so nobody can take you seriously.
You’ve already shown your stupidity and ignorance, which I’ve been more than happy to Expose. You have absolutely no clue about the differences between Windows 7 and Vista, and why it’s been so well received so far. In fact, the way it ruffles the Mac community is quite amusing. Like I said, you can completely ignore Mossberg and his assessment. Because unlike Vista, which had bad reviews from the start, even during development, Windows 7 is shaping up as a decent release, because it’s actually a decent OS. Even by Mac journalists from Mac-affiliated websites (unlike this crap of a site).
Get used to it.
So, Windows 7 may be a more thoughtful technology, with less degradation over time… and may indeed provide a better user experience… but who will go through the trouble of updating their XP machines? When they work “good enough?”
Saying that Windows 7 is the “best Windows ever” is akin to saying that the Detroit Lions win over the Redskin is their “most exciting win in the past three years.”
As for our cute little troll (Expunged or whatever your name is), I’d be interested to know the depth of your knowledge about all thngs Macintosh. MOST of us who use Macs do so because we’ve HAD to use Windows and understand the ability to CHOOSE the superior operating system…which we’ve done by getting Macs. MOST Windows users seem to know ONLY Windows and apparently suffer badly from the Stockholm Syndrome. As a faculty member of a school system with an incredibly narrow-minded, short-sighted IT department, I’ve suffered with Windows machines for the past 10 years (but have been able to covertly use a Mac mini in my office), and I can tell you quite clearly that the quality of use, ease, stability, and elegance of the “Lexus” of OSX far exceeds the “Yugo” that is Windows.
If having the ability and the insight to choose a superior system and get my work done faster and with far hewer headaches or lost time makes me a member of the Jobs herd, then so be it. I’d certainly rather be that than a devotee of Ballmer!
Now, back under the bridge, troll…your check from Redmond will arrive soon enough.
Exposed had an excellent point! The company pointing out the slowness has a potential conflict of interest. The corroboration offered showed less than a quarter of the increase they noted. AND, they noted that the 64-bit version of 7 booted faster. As for suffering from “cruft”, wouldn’t the Vista version suffer the same?
I’m not defending ‘7’, never even seen it in use! When someone has a good point to make, though, it is rather childish to start a witch hunt in their ‘honor’. Sort of like the Republicans have done with Obama, like they did with Clinton. It is offensive in politics, it is offensive here. Grow up, children!
Defrags? I’ve never had to do them since I switched six months ago!
MusicDoc,
Funny you should reveal yourself as a faculty member lambasting your IT department, because I personally found quite a few faculty members are considerably stubborn and obtuse when it comes to anything computer related. I’m willing to bet I’m alot more intimate with OSX than you are, because our institution has it installed as dual-boot configurations for all staff/faculty members. I’m amazed at how some find a way to blame Windows when Safari doesn’t display properly with Blackboard/WebCT/Angel. Or they need help with Entourage and somehow blame Microsoft for not connecting to email. One I even had to show how to copy and paste. Thankfully, the greater portion of staff/faculty are actually more knowledgeable….but it’s no coincidence the smaller percentage of vocal Mac zealots are the ones constantly complaining.
And that brings us to you. Before you start slamming off words like “narrow-minded” and “short-sighted”, perhaps you should look into a mirror. Do you think I really care about how you feel about Windows? Or your prior experiences? Sorry, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass…but don’t think you can get away with asinine, blanket statements like “Saying that Windows 7 is the best Windows ever is like blah blah blah….” Have YOU used Windows 7, the point of my discussion? If not, then you’re yet another example of stupidity, ignorance, and close-mindedness that oh so plagues the Steve Jobs herd. Maybe, for amusement’s sake, you should try Windows 7 public preview–perhaps it may change your perception for the better, as it has with other Mac enthusiasts. Otherwise, stick to teaching octaves and scales, because you aren’t qualified in mind and reason to do anything else.
Mac users are so afraid of Windows 7 becuase they know it rules and will be the end of Apple’s run…
“Actually, this most DEFINITELY proves that it is you. So which is it, does Windows 7 boot slower than Vista (32- bit), or faster (64-bit)?”
It boots slower than Vista. When I said I’d be nice to PC World, I meant I’d kindly humour their 14% figure. But I’ll stop humouring it now: Their definition of “boot time” is how long it takes from when they power on the test computer to when Windows 7 loads the desktop picture and cursor(http://www.pcworld.com/article/172510/windows_7_how_we_test.html). Which any Windows user can tell you is absolutely laughable, since it’s still booting up at that point. Iolo on the otherhand actually waited until W7 had finished booting. That’s why there’s a discrepancy.
So, even though PC World was trying to rig the odds in W7’s favour by ending the test before W7 was really done, the 64-bit version of W7 still barely came out ahead of Vista, and the 32-bit version was even slower. Why… This all implies that W7 doesn’t fix Vista! How could this be!? Perhaps Microsoft… No, that’s impossible. They’d never lie.
“I mean, why else would you ignore PC World’s other tests that favors Windows 7 overall”
Because this article’s about boot time. Duh. Do really want to get into PC World’s other tests(?%20Alright.%20This%20should%20be%20fun.%20img%20src=http://www.macdailynews.com/images/smileys/lol.gif)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
They installed W7 on 5 computers. Two desktops, two laptops, and one netbook. They ran their WorldBench 6 benchmark suite as the test. Here are the overall results:
On the first desktop, 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate scored a whopping 3.6% higher than Vista. On the second desktop, 32-Bit W7 scored 2% higher than Vista. 64-bit W7 scored 7.3% higher, however. Feel the speed!
On the first laptop, 32-bit W7 Home Premium scored 10.3% higher. On the second laptop, the 32-bit Ultimate edition of W7 scored only 1.2% higher. 64-bit W7 scored 5% higher.
At its best, PC World’s benchmarking shows that W7 is, if you concentrate really hard, maybe perceptibly slightly less slow than Vista(10%). But the speed increase falls below the realm of perception(<= 7%) on average. How are you going explain away those pitiful scores, Astroturfer Boy? Is it another conspiracy? Or are do you think iolo and PC World are in on it together?
“You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. You see, this is a picture perfect example of why Mac Zealots as yourself are a laughing stock to the rest of the world. “
Interesting. I wonder how I can be a “Mac Zealot” when I’ve used and maintained Windows systems for many more years than I’ve sparingly used the Mac OS, less than a year of which has consisted of OS X(sadly). Maybe it’s like some funky metaphysical thing?
By the way, I wouldn’t talk about laughingstocks if I were you. Microsoft flaks are kind of like the court jesters of Mac sites. You’re good example of why.
“Have YOU been paying ANY attention AT ALL? Right off the bat Windows 7 was developed differently than Vista.”
Windows 7 is Vista. Just for fun, let’s dial back the clock to see what you would have said nine years ago: “Right off the bat Windows ME was developed differently from 98SE. How dare you suggest it’s no better. How dare you.” Although in the case of W7 vs Vista, the differences are even more negligible.
“Sorry, you’re an idiot. You don’t have a damn clue as to what you’re talking about. You thought I was talking about Defrag?”
You were talking about Defrag, oh fountain of intentional comedy. Disk fragmentation is the root source of file fragmentation. It is, infact, the primary goal of disk defraggers to defrag data. I.e., files. It’s nice that Microsoft is trying to avoid disk fragmentation in W7, but like the registry, it’s hardly the magic bullet that will stop Windows from degrading over time. The real culprit is its own impenetrable nightmare of a codebase, and that isn’t going to change without a complete rewrite from the ground up. By programmers far more competent than the ones Microsoft likes to hire.
“Did you bother to read that article? It wasn’t exactly a glowing review”
It wasn’t exactly a glowing review, but Walt certainly wasn’t bashing Vista. Unless you consider his overall impression that it was the best Windows yet to be “bashing” it.
“But do please ignore Mossberg.”
Considering his spectacularly faulty judgement of Vista, I will.
“You have absolutely no clue about the differences between Windows 7 and Vista, and why it’s been so well received so far. “
Hah. You have no idea how perfectly that sums you up.
“Are you one of those less intelligent zealots that bash for no reason other than ignorance, or do you actually know what you’re talking about.”
@Exposed
I love it when Windoze zealots accuse Mac fanbois of being fanbois
Do you have a point to make or do you like lurking on Mac oriented web sites for fun?
Or is it some kind of evangelical thing, where you stand on a virtual street corner with a big sign shouting and foaming at the mouth about Jesus and don’t even wonder why everyone walks past, shaking their heads.
@DLMeyer
“The company pointing out the slowness has a potential conflict of interest.”
Yes, I agree. It’s like Symantec and MacAfee releasing Mac “virus alerts” trying to frighten people into buying their warez for non-existent threats.
It boots slower than Vista. When I said I’d be nice to PC World, I meant I’d
kindly humour their 14% figure. But I’ll stop humouring it now: Their definition of
“boot time” is how long it takes from when they power on the test computer to when
Windows 7 loads the desktop picture and
cursor(http://www.pcworld.com/article/172510/windows_7_how_we_test.html). Which any
Windows user can tell you is absolutely laughable, since it’s still booting up at
that point. Iolo on the otherhand actually waited until W7 had finished booting.
That’s why there’s a discrepancy.
So, even though PC World was trying to rig the odds in W7’s favour by ending the test
before W7 was really done, the 64-bit version of W7 still barely came out ahead of
Vista, and the 32-bit version was even slower. Why… This all implies that W7
doesn’t fix Vista! How could this be!? Perhaps Microsoft… No, that’s impossible.
They’d never lie.
Frankly, you’re an absolute moron. You’ve ignored every detail I posted. First of
all, Iolo’s “test” is already been under scrutiny for conflict of interests, and for
their “usable” desktop criteria. The desktop is usable once all major services have
been started and the cursor appears, any additional third party services continue to
load silently in the background, and all other Windows services are “on demand”.
Windows 7 (and to a lesser extent Vista with SP2) is snappy in response even if it
has to load third party services, unlike Windows XP. If you actually had Windows 7
installed you would know this. If you had any knowledge, or reading comprehension,
you would know how Windows 7 accomplishes this compared to its predecessor. But what
the @#! do you know, you’re just a hateful idiot with an agenda on your shoulder,
more content to believe a questionable, arbitrary benchmark (with business to gain
from said benchmark) rather than dozens of other tests that show otherwise.
Like the other link I provided. Here it is again:
http://lifehacker.com/5124955/windows-7-beta-boasts-sub+30-second-boot-time
How about this?
http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=3236&page=2
this should be fun. LOL
They installed W7 on 5 computers. Two desktops, two laptops, and one netbook. They
ran their WorldBench 6 benchmark suite as the test. Here are the overall results:
On the first desktop, 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate scored a whopping 3.6% higher than
Vista. On the second desktop, 32-Bit W7 scored 2% higher than Vista. 64-bit W7 scored
7.3% higher, however. Feel the speed!
On the first laptop, 32-bit W7 Home Premium scored 10.3% higher. On the second
laptop, the 32-bit Ultimate edition of W7 scored only 1.2% higher. 64-bit W7 scored
5% higher.
Yes, this WILL be fun LOL. And BRUTAL, I’d like to see your dumbass bluff your way
out of this one. Do you know what exactly are “Worldbench 6” benchmarks? Here, I’ll
go over them with you:
http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=172509&page=1&type=table&zoomIdx=3
Overall, you can see how Windows 7 dominates the vast majority of individual tests,
even if incrementally in some cases. Let’s start with DirectX rendering. Windows 7
introduces a new driver display model (WDDM 1.1) that elliminated alot of
inefficiencies in Vista. In Vista, for each window open, the application window data
was stored in video memory. Yet, the application window data had to be duplicated in
system memory as well to be addressed by the CPU. This was redundant and highly
inefficient, and posed a problem with performance when a considerable number of
windows were open. WDDM 1.1 elliminates this redundancy, and is the reason why
Windows 7 “feels” considerable snappier in Aero mode, especially on lesser machines.
You can tell by the chart this leads to decent performance gains, although their
tests didn’t nearly stress the system enough to increase the gap further.
Firefox? Well exactly how fast do you expect an OS to accelerate a web browser? This
is the test that closes the scores artificially. You must be proud of your 7% figure,
where Windows 7 is barely quicker than Vista…based on Firefox. Idiot.
Now we get to some of the more beneficial, relevant benchmarks–disk access. You can
clearly see that even with a light load (Winzip), Windows 7 is faster overall. Put a
greater load on the disk activity (Nero), and Windows 7 is MUCH faster than Vista.
Windows 7’s superior caching/read/write/indexing/block addressing is just one of its
many strengths. You’ve totally ignored PC World’s section concerning Windows 7’s HUGE
advantage over Vista concerning disk access.
Now, take those 7% and 10% figures that you don’t even know what they represent and shove them up your ass. You must only cling to PC world because of those easy, summarized numbers. Hidden within my mockery of you there is always grains of truth, facts and reasoning. Meanwhile, you’re just a moron that reads numbers off of sites (in fact, you didn’t even bother to explain yourself, you just copied and pasted), with no clue as to what you’re even arguing about.
At its best, PC World’s benchmarking shows that W7 is, if you concentrate really hard, maybe perceptibly slightly less slow than Vista(10%). But the speed increase falls below the realm of perception(<= 7%) on average. How are you going explain away those pitiful scores, Astroturfer Boy? Is it another conspiracy? Or are do you think iolo and PC World are in on it together?
If YOU concentrate really hard, and crack open that thick skull of yours, ignore your pathetic little biased corporate fanfare for once, maybe…JUST MAYBE you might learn a thing or two. I bursted your small, insignificant bubble above, no need for conspiracies. I’ve also provided all reasons, technical and logical, to explain to you just why Windows 7 is so well received in the community. But what is reason and logic to you, if it doesn’t fit your perfect Apple pie world?
Interesting. I wonder how I can be a “Mac Zealot” when I’ve used and maintained Windows systems for many more years than I’ve sparingly used the Mac OS, less than a year of which has consisted of OS X(sadly). Maybe it’s like some funky metaphysical thing?
By the way, I wouldn’t talk about laughingstocks if I were you. Microsoft flaks are kind of like the court jesters of Mac sites. You’re good example of why.<i>
Frankly, your two-section reply had absolutely nothing of substance. You couldn’t even directly respond to my points, except a rehash of that PC World article of which I’ve showcased your ignorance (yet again). You’ve wasted time and space to prove only that you still don’t know what you’re talking about, as if you have this need to cry back even when slapped in the face with proof. <i>
Windows 7 is Vista. Just for fun, let’s dial back the clock to see what you would have said nine years ago: “Right off the bat Windows ME was developed differently from 98SE. How dare you suggest it’s no better. How dare you.” Although in the case of W7 vs Vista, the differences are even more negligible.
What kind of BS response is this? Let’s dial back the clock? How about you just admit you damn don’t know what you’re talking about? Everything I stated was FACT concerning Windows 7 open development, and COMMON KNOWLEDGE. If you didn’t know that, ADMIT it, instead of posting that really stupid response that makes YOU look foolish. As far as I’m concerned, this just PROVES how hard-headed Mac idiots like yourself are when thier ignorance is exposed.
Let me repeat it again. Windows 7 development was open from beginning, unlike Vista/XP/2000, etc.. This was in direct response to the failure of Vista. Please, if you’re really not aware of this well-known facet of Windows 7 development, don’t take my words:
http://ostatic.com/blog/windows-7s-upcoming-impact-and-microsofts-more-open-developme nt
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/how-vista-mistakes-guided-changes-windows- development-890
Oh, although it should be obvious, it would help if you actually read those articles.
Corrected links:
http://ostatic.com/blog/windows-7s-upcoming-impact-and-microsofts-more-open-development
http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/how-vista-mistakes-guided-changes-windows-development-890
You were talking about Defrag, oh fountain of intentional comedy. Disk fragmentation is the root source of file fragmentation. It is, infact, the primary goal of disk defraggers to defrag data. I.e., files. It’s nice that Microsoft is trying to avoid disk fragmentation in W7, but like the registry, it’s hardly the magic bullet that will stop Windows from degrading over time. The real culprit is its own impenetrable nightmare of a codebase, and that isn’t going to change without a complete rewrite from the ground up. By programmers far more competent than the ones Microsoft likes to hire.
You know, this is the THIRD time I’ve tried to make this point with you, but it keeps going over your head. Let me be more blunt this time: WHAT “CRUD” DOES WINDOWS 7 ACCUMULATED OVER TIME? Ignore my other questions concerning specifics of how it avoids Windows 7 self maintenance services, or my challenge as to who you know wipes out Windows 7 every 6 months. I’m actually curious as to just how you’ve seen Windows 7’s codebase to make such an informed remark, but that’s a question to ask later. No, JUST ANSWER the damn question for once, insteading of making yourself look more and more like a fool with every off tangent about disk defragmentation.
Just to repeat myself, Windows 7 improves over Vista’s superfetch and more efficient data block writing to avoid file fragments. This was in response to your ignorant claim about Windows slowing over time (which was a blanket statement of course, since you know nothing about Windows 7). This has NOTHING to do with DEFRAG, OK? It’s an algorithm built into the way Windows 7 handles files. YOU GOT THAT? Now go answer the question I asked about “crud”, genious.
It wasn’t exactly a glowing review, but Walt certainly wasn’t bashing Vista. Unless you consider his overall impression that it was the best Windows yet to be “bashing” it.
Ah yes, you can tell by his article title “Vista Largely Unexciting” that he was full of praise for that operating system. Maybe it’s my ability to comprehend what I read, but that sentence you keep clinging to, “best Windows yet”, is a subjective comparative against an older, aging operating system that was Windows XP. I don’t see the issue with that, and it certainly didn’t stop him from branding Vista as luckluster overall. I suppose if you’re not intelligent enough to read and comprehend, you would want to use that sentence even though the rest of the article didn’t support your biased notion, just because it has the words “best windows ever”.
His Windows 7 preview was in stark contrast of his Vista article. I don’t know how else to point this out to you, other than to quote specifics, but if you can’t read and understand in the first place, what’s the point? And like I said before, ignore the man if you don’t like his praising article. There will be plenty more articles of the same vein as October 22nd approaches, as there are already. Sorry, MDN won’t have a free ride with Vista bashing this time around with Windows 7.
Hah. You have no idea how perfectly that sums you up.
Do I really need to go there? I think I’ve ravaged your make-believe “Windows always sucks, even though I never used Windows 7!” world long enough. Don’t take my word for it though, there are tons of other glowing previews/reviews of Windows 7. The rest of world seems to have embraced it as well, as Windows 7 already “outsold” Vista SIGNIFICANTLY in pre-order sales:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8151342.stm
http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/news/2009/07/15/Windows-7-Pre-Order-Sales-Soar/p1
There you have it. As I said, Windows 7 is shaping up to be a decent release.
This booting slower that Vista is stupid. I have Windows 7 RC installed on my Mac Pro. It is still Windows. So if you machine is doing something taxing like rendering with all cores, and you want to view video like in Hulu, the performance of the video is bad. This does not happen in OSX. That said, it is the best version of Windows that I have ever used, that that is good enough for 75% to 85% of users. So I think it’s going to be a big hit.
MDN can have its opinion, but I’m using an Enterprise version of W7 at work, and so far I’m really enjoying it.
Sure, I still love my Macbook (despite its flaws), but W7 seems to be a solid release. I might even buy a PC as my next laptop, instead of an MBP. We’ll see.
I’m a happy camper with both W7 and Snow Leopard.
@Yaakov, we will see how the new OS stands the test of time. But so far, I am with you. It is actually very usable. You can still tell it’s Windows, like when you instal programs you get a lag with no progress bar and you are left uncertain if the instal is actually taking place. You still need to run all sort of extras to keep it safe and reliable. It can’t dance and chew gum at the same time like OSX ether, but at single tasks, it is probably better and faster then OSX.
exposed,
you really need to calm down. boot times are important (32 seconds on my MBP, thank you) BUT not in the context of using windows day to day. MS could give W7 a 10 second boot time, and that would be incredible, but it doesn’t affect the actual use of the OS, which is much more important. If it took 5 minutes to boot OSX, I’d still use it.
Fast start ups are nice, but don’t help at all when having to actually interact with the OS.
W7 might be ‘better than vista’ but REALLY now…”cardboard tastes better than horse s*it!”