3 ms·

I'm a Mac guy but Windows 7 has impressed me. They've made the speed on par with XP and made the interface much less cluttered and non-sensical.

steverb 17y ago
I read the last word as non-sensual and was wondering WTH you were takling about. I need more sleep.
axod 17y ago
>> "They've made the speed on par with XP" That's impressive? :) being comparable to an 8 year old OS?
- gbookman 17y ago
  Being able to keep speed the same after adding tons of features is very impressive for any software, let alone an OS.
  - kqr2 17y ago
    Yes, but computing power + memory has also increased dramatically over the past 8 years.
    - ZitchDog 17y ago
      So has the speed of Windows XP.
  - axod 17y ago
    I'm interested. Can you name some OS features (Not UI effects) that take a lot of CPU that have been added? :/ What are some of the 'tons of features'?
    - gbookman 17y ago
      Walt Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal explains it pretty well: http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20091007/a-windows-to-help-you-forget/ http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20091007/a-windows-to-help-you-f...
      - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
        I admit that I've only skimmed the article you cite, but while there are a few GUI features mentioned there, and I'm sure they're pretty and help to manage windows, etc, none of them seem to be particularly CPU hungry. It's still a question of where 7 spends its CPU money compared with XP.
    - lionhearted 17y ago
      I installed the Beta version of Win7, and am running the Release Candidate now. The visible improvements are minor evolutionary things that won't sound huge, but lead to a generally faster and better experience. Like Vista, it has the search bar built into the start menu. The taskbar is improved - you can pin icons onto it in a way that makes them easy to click and load into. It speeds things up quite a lot for commonly used things. The Taskbar also uses icons now instead of words, which works surprisingly well. There's a new library feature where anything you save in different folders can be viewable in the same library. So, you can have all your financial spreadsheets organized by month in each folder, and then have a library that shows them all next to each other. For people that do certain kinds of work with lots of files and folders, this is a godsend. For instance, people who take a lot of pictures can have all the pictures feed into one library - makes it much easier to find things instead of hunting for them. There's some added security which is good, and they stripped out their bloat. It loads fast and doesn't lag. Crashes less. There's some other under the hood improvements. It's a solid OS overall, I quite enjoy using it. You get all the benefits that Vista had, new benefits, and performance is comparable to XP. Not sure about the status on drivers - I've had a couple older games not work, so that sucks. If you run some slightly more obscure and older hardware and software that runs on XP, you might not want to upgrade to 7. If you're using a more mainstream set of applications, Windows 7 is fantastic.
- weaksauce 17y ago
  I was hoping that they made it faster than XP. Change some fundamental data structures or disk format that would make it operate an order of magnitude faster. The real problem with XP is the slowing down of the OS over time. It seems commonplace for people to just give up and reinstall after x amount of time. I hope they can continue to keep it as fast as a fresh install of XP.
- electromagnetic 17y ago
  Agreed, we're not dealing with cars here. The advancements in computers are radical and happen quickly, hence Moore's law. I have to agree, a comparison here is 4-doublings of processor power, meaning Windows 7 can be 16 times more CPU intensive than XP and appear to be the same speed, because it still only occupies say 5% of the total CPU usage. The comparison here is between the Model T and a new Mustang, not between a '02 model and a 2010 model.
nexneo 17y ago
Come back and say same when installation 6 month old. ( If you don't reinstall meanwhile )

steverb 17y ago

I read the last word as non-sensual and was wondering WTH you were takling about. I need more sleep.

axod 17y ago

>> "They've made the speed on par with XP" That's impressive? :) being comparable to an 8 year old OS?

gbookman 17y ago
Being able to keep speed the same after adding tons of features is very impressive for any software, let alone an OS.
- kqr2 17y ago
  Yes, but computing power + memory has also increased dramatically over the past 8 years.
  - ZitchDog 17y ago
    So has the speed of Windows XP.
- axod 17y ago
  I'm interested. Can you name some OS features (Not UI effects) that take a lot of CPU that have been added? :/ What are some of the 'tons of features'?
  - gbookman 17y ago
    Walt Mossberg from the Wall Street Journal explains it pretty well: http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20091007/a-windows-to-help-you-forget/ http://ptech.allthingsd.com/20091007/a-windows-to-help-you-f...
    - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
      I admit that I've only skimmed the article you cite, but while there are a few GUI features mentioned there, and I'm sure they're pretty and help to manage windows, etc, none of them seem to be particularly CPU hungry. It's still a question of where 7 spends its CPU money compared with XP.
  - lionhearted 17y ago
    I installed the Beta version of Win7, and am running the Release Candidate now. The visible improvements are minor evolutionary things that won't sound huge, but lead to a generally faster and better experience. Like Vista, it has the search bar built into the start menu. The taskbar is improved - you can pin icons onto it in a way that makes them easy to click and load into. It speeds things up quite a lot for commonly used things. The Taskbar also uses icons now instead of words, which works surprisingly well. There's a new library feature where anything you save in different folders can be viewable in the same library. So, you can have all your financial spreadsheets organized by month in each folder, and then have a library that shows them all next to each other. For people that do certain kinds of work with lots of files and folders, this is a godsend. For instance, people who take a lot of pictures can have all the pictures feed into one library - makes it much easier to find things instead of hunting for them. There's some added security which is good, and they stripped out their bloat. It loads fast and doesn't lag. Crashes less. There's some other under the hood improvements. It's a solid OS overall, I quite enjoy using it. You get all the benefits that Vista had, new benefits, and performance is comparable to XP. Not sure about the status on drivers - I've had a couple older games not work, so that sucks. If you run some slightly more obscure and older hardware and software that runs on XP, you might not want to upgrade to 7. If you're using a more mainstream set of applications, Windows 7 is fantastic.
weaksauce 17y ago
I was hoping that they made it faster than XP. Change some fundamental data structures or disk format that would make it operate an order of magnitude faster. The real problem with XP is the slowing down of the OS over time. It seems commonplace for people to just give up and reinstall after x amount of time. I hope they can continue to keep it as fast as a fresh install of XP.
electromagnetic 17y ago
Agreed, we're not dealing with cars here. The advancements in computers are radical and happen quickly, hence Moore's law. I have to agree, a comparison here is 4-doublings of processor power, meaning Windows 7 can be 16 times more CPU intensive than XP and appear to be the same speed, because it still only occupies say 5% of the total CPU usage. The comparison here is between the Model T and a new Mustang, not between a '02 model and a 2010 model.

nexneo 17y ago

Come back and say same when installation 6 month old. ( If you don't reinstall meanwhile )