Windows 7 Retail -- EARLY REVIEW

[Tessera]

Now that Windows 7 has finally been "officially" released, how does the retail version perform as compared to previous versions of Widows..?

The answer is:

Overall, it appears that Windows 7 is the SLOWEST version of Windows. Do not be fooled by its fast boot-up and shutdown speeds. When it comes to actually running games and applications, Windows 7 is an absolute pig when it comes to resource management and overall data execution speed. In fact, it is only marginally better than its horrible predecessor (Vista). And the insidious DRM, along with the absolutely infuriating User Rights management that was introduced with Vista, continues to be present in all versions of Windows 7. Anyone who was expecting a completely new and wonderful computing experience with Windows 7 is most likely going to be disappointed.

Here are some working examples...


Microsoft Office Suite

Fastest performance: Windows XP (32 or 64 bit edition)
Slowest Performance: Windows 7 (Professional or Ultimate edition)


iTunes Audio Encoding

Fastest performance: Windows XP with Service Pack 3
Slowest performance: Windows 7 or Windows Vista (both score equally poorly)


Full System Boot Time (in seconds)

Fastest boot time: Windows XP with SP3 (40.03 seconds total)
Slowest boot time: Windows Vista (a full 60 seconds total)
Runner-up: Windows 7 64-bit (50.3 seconds total)


Full System Shutdown Time

Fastest system shutdown time: Windows 7 (32-bit version) at 5.1 seconds
Slowest system shutdown time: Windows XP (32-bit version) at 29.9 seconds


SOURCE: http://reviews.cnet.com/windows/microsoft-windows-7-professional/4505-3672_7-33704140-2.html?tag=txt;page

NOTE regarding the above linked CNET review: I strongly advise everyone to beware of paid advertisements masquerading as so-called "reviews." In that article, CNET tries to downplay the significance of their very revealing benchmark tests. Those tests make it quite clear that Windows 7 is substantially slower overall than Windows XP. Also, you will notice that they very conspicuously omitted any benchmark scores showing the performance of modern 3-D games on Windows 7. And yet, despite the very clear evidence of inferior performance, CNET finishes up their "review" by stating "Windows 7 looks like the operating system that both Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for." Excuse me..? Why would anybody be waiting for slower performance (as compared to WinXP) and a $300 price tag (for the full retail version of Win7 Ultimate)..?! And if you poke around on the web, then you will see that the very same phrase (or some variation of it) is being repeated in nearly every single "review" of Windows 7 that you can find on the large, commercial web sites. "This is the Windows that we've all been waiting for." Oh, bullshit. Just do the math, folks... those "reviews" were most likely obtained through payola from Microsoft. They were bought and paid for in advance, in other words. That's not a review -- it's a prepaid infomercial. Why else would the industry show us a series of shitty benchmark scores for Win7... only to turn around in the very next paragraph and tell us about how wonderful Windows 7 supposedly is..?

Anyway... let's get back to the truth here:

As we can see from the above examples, Windows 7 does not perform as well as Windows XP when it comes to overall productivity. However... and I need to mention this to be fair... Windows 7 does outperform other recent versions of Windows (XP and Vista) when it comes to a small handful of 3-D rendering tasks. This might be of special interest to graphics artists (like me) and 3-D programmers (such as game developers). I think this is most likely due to the fact that the core of Windows 7 has been completely overhauled in such a way as to better interface itself with modern graphics hardware. Also, the new DirectX 11 (D3D) libraries might be a bit more efficient than previous versions of DirectX. I have not yet come to any solid conclusions about this, however... mainly because of the horrendous performance that most Windows 7 users have been experiencing when they try to play modern 3-D games (such as Crysis, F.E.A.R., Oblivion, FarCry 2, etc.)

Now... whether or not the new DirectX 11 incorporated into Windows 7 translates into faster FUTURE GAMING still needs to be determined. As yet, there are no games on the market which have been fully optimized from the ground up to work best with DX11. Nor have I seen any conclusive gaming benchmarks for Windows 7, since it is still a very new operating system. I suspect that the answer will be this: older games which run beautifully on WinXP will probably run like dogs on Win7... but they may run a bit more reliably as compared to Vista. Newer games which will be developed with Windows 7 as their platform of choice will probably run faster on Win7 than they will on any other version of Windows (maybe). And of course, all of this will heavily depend on whether or not you feel like purchasing a ton of new hardware, since the latest version of DirectX is only fully supported by the newest motherboards and graphics cards on the market.

Speaking of hardware requirements, there is a "Windows XP virtualization mode" built into several versions of Windows 7. Basically, die-hard XP users will have the option to run Windows 7 as if it were really just Windows XP. This magical trick is accomplished by setting up a "virtual XP machine" and then running the entire computer as if Windows XP was its operating system. Sounds really cool, huh..? There's just a couple of problems with this plan, however. For one thing, the virtual XP environment runs so slowly as compared to "real XP" that it is hardly worth bothering with this "added feature." Also, this "virtual XP" process relies upon having a motherboard which is capable of "hardware virtualization." The fact of the matter is that most motherboards older than about two years or so *do not* have this type of hardware capablility. So once again... if you want to take advantage of this feature in Windows 7, then you will very likely need to build yourself a brand-new computer.

More bad news:

Simple tasks, such as opening normal files or loading up a video, continue to be as slow as molasses on Windows 7. This poor performance is a carry-over from Windows Vista and it is no doubt being caused by such bottlenecks as Digital Rights Management (DRM), User Rights Control and other such "security features." After awhile, these irritating little things can add up to become extremely annoying... especially for power users like me, who want their computer to do what it's told to do RIGHT NOW. I'm not sure how slower performance and irritating "security features" translates into a "newer and better operating system," but then again... I have never understood half of the crappola coming out of Microsoft these days.

Right about now, most of you are probably asking yourselves "Okay... then why the hell should I bother with Windows 7 in the first place..?" My answer is... that I really don't have an answer yet. There is no question that sooner or later, Microsoft and their thousands of affiliates are going to BULLY all of us into installing Windows 7. At least, that appears to be their goal. Companies like nVidia, for example, are already making it clear that all of their future video hardware (and their respective software drivers) are going to be written specifically for Windows 7 operating systems. As a matter of fact, nVidia is already guilty of this sort of proprietary MS-cocksucking. I own a fairly new nVidia GTX285 video card and it often crashes when I run it under Windows XP x64. Yet that exact same video card, playing the exact same game, never ever crashes under Windows 7 Ultimate x64. Do the math... and you will quickly realize that nVidia is in bed with Bill Gates, and deliberately gimping their hardware so that it is only barely backwards-compatible with previous versions of Windows. And if Win7 actually manages to catch on with the public, then we can expect to see more and more of this type of insidious deal-making from the other major hardware manufacturers. Ultimately, Windows XP will be completely pushed out of the way... leaving us with very little choice other than to upgrade to Windows 7.

Or... maybe we can just say "Fuck this entire mess" and move over to Ubuntu Linux. Or a Mac.




Reason for edit: several key bits of information were updated and clarified.

[anariel]

Indeed, seeing how this is developing, if I can't use WinXP anymore I'll swith to Linux and use some kind of emulator.

And of course its "new and improved" SO, Tess. For the corporations against the public user, that is. After all, professional companies uses Unix for they servers, and some sort of WinXP for their terminals, installed in what is little more than a screen, a keyboard, a mouse, a motherboard, some RAM, a hardisk, maybe a DvD reader (but most probably just USB ports) and very little more. The bare minimun to do the job of selling tickets, writing, etc...

[perez007usa]

The problem about Win7 is most or some companies run on XP for their systems like the company I work for. WE have a slew of computers running the machines we use and each one has their own OS. ( right out of the box ) . The main office use it to. AND!! they like it. The main programmer for the company says, its to COSTLY to switch to Win7, can you imagine changing out the whole factory, it won't work because of the old machines(PC's, hardware, example saw's press's punchers etc. etc. etc....) we have, and if we do get a new puter to replace one, the programmer down grades it to XP. If MS is trying to strong arm us into getting their system, they are barking  up the wrong tree. Linux is looking better all the time, and most of the games out there will run on it. Or may be the MAC?   

[Tessera]

At this time, I feel that Windows 7 would be a BAD choice for businesses.

The main reason is because a changeover to Win7 from WinXP is going to require ALL of your users to learn how to use a distinctly different interface. This will obviously translate into a loss of productivity, until everyone becomes proficient in using Windows 7. The file system has changed, Windows Explorer has changed, Internet Explorer has changed, the start menu and taskbar have changed... etc., etc. Everything is different and it will definitely take awhile before all of your employees learn how to navigate their way through a new Windows7 OS.

Meanwhile, I have seen nothing in Windows 7 that offers any real advantages to small businesses. For example, both Windows XP and Windows 7 are capable of running the MS Office suite, but those Office apps will run significantly slower overall on Windows 7... so why bother to upgrade..?

The only real advantage for business users might be to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate edition, because it has Bitlocker hard drive encryption built into the OS. If you are seriously paranoid about data theft, then this feature is certainly worth considering. Also, the Ultimate edition has built-in support for over 30 different languages, which I suppose is a plus if your company does a lot of overseas business. Aside from those two features, however, there is really no advantage in switching over to Windows 7.... therefore, I wouldn't bother with it. And then there's the price tag on the Ultimate edition to consider (well over $300 per PC).

Home users, on the other hand, might want to take advantage of the integrated multimedia features of Windows 7 which... I have to admit... are better than anything in XP. For example, a fully tweaked Windows 7 system, combined with the right hardware (a BlueRay DVD drive, a super high-quality sound card, a digital AV receiver, etc.) would be a decent centerpiece for a home theater system. Of course, you'll also have to put up with the rather invasive and downright draconian DRM that is also built into Windows 7 (don't be surprised if Win7 refuses to play music and videos that you already own, simply because it can't locate the DRM permissions for them). There were thousands of complaints about this issue back when Vista was launched... and the exact same digital rights problems remain fully intact in Windows 7. Even worse, actually.

[mhurley1]

I am running the 64 bit ultimate RC. I am hooked on 64bit and will need to purchase a system soon. I am mainly concerned with the graphics quality for rpg's and gameing speed for fps games. In your opinion what would be the best system for me, 7 or 64bit XP?? If I did get 7 it would probably be the pro version.  My sytem has 8gig of ram and I am running a 4800 plus dual core with an Nvidia 260 gts card and a 24 inch Asus monitor.

[Tessera]

I do most of my gaming on Win XP Pro x64. All of my games except for Oblivion
run perfectly on that operating system. But ever since I bought my new video
card, Oblivion crashes on Win XP x64. It does *not* crash on Windows 7.

Also, my video card sometimes freaks out when I'm playing WoW on WinXP x64.
And once again... it has no such problems when running the same game on Win7.

So ummm... and this is important... it would seem that some newer video hardware
(nVidia in particular) runs poorly on Win XP x64. Gee... isn't that peculiar...

I can only assume that this is by design and at the behest of Microsoft. Assholes. 

[vaynard2]

at this moment DX11 IS more efficient look at tom clancys hawx for ati  in dx10 vs dx10.1 dx11 is suspect to do the same thing and it adds far more eyecandy with less performance hit

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkKtY2G3FbU

thats what DX11 brings if u have the horsepower for it

and as far as ive seen if u disable the gimicky crap in vista it runs just as fast as winxp in gaming.   at this point my gaming is more stable in Vista and my win 7 rc then winxp even games as old as Shogun total war run flawlessly.

and as far as rendering goes the difference between platforms ie win xp vista and 7 are meaningless as Linux destroys in that field. but i will admit its nice having an improvement none the less.

even old school games like Baldurs Gate 2 run just fine surprisingly.

Anyway what u get with Win7 isnt anything better then vista if u tweak and overhaul vista it runs the same. but then again when u average over 140+ fps in every game u own best os tend to take a back seat.

Just use what works for you and the reasons some games dont work on winxp64 is because microsoft botched the 64bit version of that os to begin with. With vista and win7 they got there act together because lets face it apple OSX in 64bit runs far more stable same with linux if u feel comfortable messing with it.

eitherway in 32bit flavor winxp is still king in 64bit win 7 edges out vista barely and both beat xp in terms of compatibility

[Tessera]

the reasons some games dont work on winxp64 is because microsoft botched the 64bit version of that os to begin with

I think you may have misunderstood my meaning.  

It is my *new nVidia video card* which is malfunctioning in WinXP x64.

Prior to purchasing my GTX 285, all of my games ran beautifully on WinXP x64. But when I upgraded the video card, some of my games began to crash under XP... most notably Oblivion and WoW. Those same games do not crash under Win7.

So what does this tell us..?

The only conclusion that I can reach is that the hardware itself has been optimized for Vista and/or Win7. And if you wanna put on a tinfoil hat for a moment, then it is also possible that nVidia has *deliberately* setup their newer hardware so that it will malfunction on WinXP x64 systems. Why would they do such a thing..? Simple... because Microsoft wants to get people to stop using WinXP x64 as their 64-bit OS of choice. And as we all know, nVidia is quite happy to do whatever Bill Gates tells them to do.

Granted, all of that is just speculation. It may simply be a matter of the newer card being internally optimized for a more modern API. Who knows..? But my problems began with the new hardware... not with WinXP x64. Prior to the video hardware upgrade, my OS ran perfectly for three years and played all of my games without a hitch.

[mhurley1]

I have xp pro corporate on a second drive but it's only 32 bit so I can only use 4 gig of my ram. Everything works great on that os just don't have all the memory. Most of my games are on that drive but when I get the new os I want to get them all over to the new system because of the direct x and the additional memory. Right now I am leaning towards win 7 pro 64bit oem. I would really like to get the 7 ultimate 64bit retail as I have been running that system for the RC and have gotten used to it, but I can't justify the cost right now. The RC will expire in february so need the new os soon.

[Tessera]

Actually, Windows 7 Ultimate Edition is a waste of money.


There are two and ONLY two differences between Win7 Ultimate and Win7 Pro:

(1) The Ultimate edition has "Bitlocker" drive encryption built into the OS. Other versions of Win7 do not.

(2) The Ultimate edition has built-in support for over 30 different languages. The other versions of Win7 do not.


Are those two features worth an additional $20 added to the retail price..? Well no, actually... because for one thing, I really don't care about support for 30 different languages. I speak English... and so does most of the rest of the world these days. Also, you can obtain the equivalent of "Bitlocker" drive encryption by installing third-party FREEWARE apps, such as TrueCrypt which is quite excellent. Seriously... there is nothing that Bitlocker can do that TrueCrypt can not do better... and it's free.

So if you plan to purchase Windows 7, then my personal recommendation would be to save yourself 20 bucks and go with the 64-bit version of Windows 7 Professional Edition. It is 100% identical to the Ultimate edition, with the sole exception of the two features which I have already mentioned.

Of course... $20 is chump change these days, so I guess it's no big deal to splurge for the Ultimate Edition. Just keep in mind that the differences between Ultimate and Professional will not be appreciated by most users. Win7 Ultimate might be handy for a multi-national media corporation... but for everyday power users, Win7 Professional x64 should be more than adequate.

[anariel]

There is a "pirate" version of WinXP running around the 'net, something called "Windows XP SC7" or "SV7" or something like that, which people tells works better than the official WinXP. Dunno if it's trojan-free and the like, but it may be an alternative (they even have some kind of patch to use DX10 on WinXP...)

[Tessera]

You can't run DX10 on Windows XP. The XP kernel won't handle it, because DX10 uses function calls and direct hardware addressing (for the shaders) that Windows XP simply does not support.

The so-called "patch" that you are referring to doesn't really enable DX10 on WinXP. Instead, it allows certain DX10-only games to run on XP, by tricking the system into thinking that DX10 has been enabled (even though it hasn't). After that, it simply intercepts any DX10 function calls and remaps them through OpenGL... or some such crappola. What this automatically means is SLOWER performance, lower frame rates and so forth.

If I remember correctly, that "DX10 for WinXP patch" was started by some teenaged kid who called himself "Alky Project." Later, it was taken over by somebody else (I forget who). It doesn't actually work the way most people think it does... and it may even cause crashes on some types of hardware. Definitely not recommended.

The bottom line... unfortunately... is if you want to experience DX10 and shader model 4.0, then you need to install either Windows Vista (yuck) or Windows 7 (almost as bad).

Oh and if it is any consolation... DX10 doesn't look enormously better than DX9. As a matter of fact, I don't like the way DX10 looks on a lot of games. It's somewhat blurry sometimes and that "motion blur -- motion shake" feature in DX10 annoys the hell out of me.

For character models, DX10 adds nothing amazing. They claim that shader model 4.0 looks superior on skin textures, but here... take a look and make up your own minds:




The image on the left was taken in Windows XP x64 with DirectX 9.0c and the image on the right comes from Windows 7 Ultimate RC with DirectX 11. The game itself (Hellgate: London) was optimized for both DX9 or DX10.

To my trained eye (I'm an artist)... the image on the right looks only marginally more enriched than the image on the left. To an untrained eye, the difference is probably unnoticeable. Some people might even prefer the DX9 image on the left, because it looks a tiny bit sharper. So like I said... you can decide for yourselves if having DX10 is gonna make or break your gaming enjoyment. It is 100% subjective.

[perez007usa]

The bottom line... unfortunately... is if you want to experience DX10 and shader model 4.0, then you need to install either Windows Vista (yuck) or Windows 7 (almost as bad).

  I'm not worried about DX10, I,m happy with DX9cc. So what do you mean? Is Win7 good or not. I was given the 6600LE 256mg, and so far my games look MARVELOUS and FAST, and the friend who gave me the card might give me his BFG 8800, because he got the BFG 220 cuda 1gig. He said my rig is very good, it just needs a little nursing, to get it up there.

[Tessera]

So what do you mean? Is Win7 good or not.

That's a difficult question to answer.  

Some parts of Win7 are very good. Other parts are downright annoying.

Performance-wise, Windows 7 is slower than Windows XP x64. That is an absolute fact and every single benchmark that I have ever seen supports that fact.

Stability-wise, Windows 7 seems to be more stable... at the price of overall speed and accessibility.

Also... since future hardware is no doubt going to be optimized for Windows 7 and DirectX 11, sooner or later we're going to be forced to upgrade.

So I guess you need to weigh all of those factors before deciding whether or not to upgrade. I will say that Win7 is an improvement over Vista... but not by much. It's a little faster than Vista and a lot more intuitive, but it still has most of the same flaws that really pissed off Vista users (DRM, UAC and all of that other "security" crappola). You can turn off UAC (User Account Control), but there's no way to disable DRM without hacking the crap out of the system.

On that note... here's a short list of "features" in Windows 7 that most gamers should definitely turn off:

(1) Aero desktop scheme. It looks pretty, but it can burn up as much as 30% of your CPU's power just to give you gee-golly-wow-oh-cool-nifty see-through windows. Just shut it off. Aero is a worthless resource hog designed for n00bs.

(2) User Account Control. This can be extremely annoying and invasive. Basically, anytime you try to modify ANYTHING at all, Windows intercepts your commands and asks for confirmation. Or... sometimes you need to "take ownership" of files on YOUR OWN COMPUTER before it will let you modify them. Fuck that ridiculous bullshit... just shut it off. Only a true paranoid would feel the need for that much "security."

(3) Automatic Windows Updates. Shut this off immediately and just update Windows manually. Auto-update can sometimes start running in the background... whilst you are playing a game... and then automatically reboot the machine without asking for permission first. If nothing else, it just chews up CPU cycles (and internet bandwidth) for no good reason. Gamers should always shut this feature off, no matter which version of Windows you're using.

(4) Windows-managed paging file. Bad idea, unless you enjoy constant defragging and the potential for HUGE lag right in the middle of a gaming session. The best plan is to go into your control panel, and set up a permanent swap file and give it a permanent size, too. Just set the minimum and maximum paging file sizes to the same number. As for how big to make it..? That depends on how much RAM you have. The more RAM you have, the smaller your paging file can be. Ideally, we don't want the system to use the paging file at all... so a good rule of thumb is to make it twice the size of your system RAM, if you have less than 4 GB of system RAM. If you have more than 4 GB of system RAM, then make your paging file the same size or smaller than the amount of RAM. And if you have a crapload of system RAM... say, 6 GB's or more... then make your paging file one half the size of your RAM. Obviously, you'll need to experiment. On my machine, I have 4 GB's of system RAM and a permanent paging file size of 3.6 GB's. Also, that swap file is split across two separate hard drives, effectively doubling throughput whenever the system needs to temporarily page data to disk (which is what a paging file does). All of my games run just fine with that setup. Your own mileage may vary.

(5) Automatically scheduled tasks. Shut off as many of them as you can. A great example would be automatically scheduled disk defragging and things of that nature. If you really need automatic disk defragging before you can sleep at night, then invest in a third-party defragger like Diskeeper 2009. It uses a hell of a lot less resources than the built-in Windows defragger does. It also does a better job, period.


So I guess what I'm saying is that Windows 7 is fine... but only after you deactivate half of the crappy "features" that it has.  

[anariel]

The reason behind the DX10 "working" in WinXP was some games which won't work with DirectX9, because they "need" as a minimun requirement the version 10.

[Cat]

My younger brother has win 7 on his computer and certain games play super fast on it.

[Tessera]

My younger brother has win 7 on his computer and certain games play super fast on it.

Well... it's an improvement over Vista. One of the things that killed Vista was its horrible performance when gaming.

[Cat]

My younger brother has win 7 on his computer and certain games play super fast on it.

Well... it's an improvement over Vista. One of the things that killed Vista was its horrible performance when gaming.

It more like the game plays in fast forward.