Benchmarks: Windows 7 RTM versus Vista, XP

Benchmarks: Windows 7 RTM versus Vista, XP

Summary: Microsoft cannot afford a repetition with Windows 7, and so has optimized all of the OS's major system components. From startup to login, everything in Windows 7 is faster. ZDNet used Build 7600.1685 to test the performance of Windows 7 against Vista and XP on various platforms.

SHARE:

Now that the final version of Windows 7 has been released to manufacturing, it's time to find out how much of an improvement or not it will make over its predecessors, Windows XP and Windows Vista. Kai Schmerer of ZDNet Germany put all three operating systems under the microscope and here's what he discovered:

Windows Vista's less than stellar reputation and poor uptake are due in large part to the heavy demands it makes on system hardware. When Vista appeared in the autumn of 2006, PCs and notebooks were less powerful than today's machines. But even with modern hardware, anyone using a Vista-based system soon senses that this is an operating system suffering from the software equivalent of having the handbrake left on.

Microsoft cannot afford a repetition with Windows 7, and so has optimized all of the OS's major system components. From startup to login, everything in Windows 7 is faster.

Read also: Special Report Windows 7 at the finish line

Ed Bott: Windows 7 first look

Microsoft has now finalized Windows 7 and announced its Release To Manufacturing (RTM). Build 7600.1685 has been chosen for the RTM, and ZDNet used this version test the performance of Windows 7 against Vista and XP on various platforms.

Test platforms

Next -- >

Startup and shutdown

The time it takes an operating system to start up is not crucially important for performance — after all, you usually only start up once a day. However, it provides a first indication of the OS's speed. The same is true for the shutdown process.

Before testing got under way, all available updates were freshly installed on the operating systems. To maximise disk performance, AHCI mode was enabled in the BIOS.

On our high-end test system using a PM800-series Samsung solid-state drive (SSD), Windows 7 takes just 12 seconds to bring up the desktop. XP takes 14.1 seconds and Vista 14.5 seconds.

However, experienced Windows users know that the time it takes for the desktop to appear and the full launch of the operating system are not the same thing. So we took a second measurement, stopping the clock at the launch of Internet Explorer 8 and the Bing search homepage. This gives an idea of how long it takes before you can use an Internet-based application.

To judge by this measurement, Windows 7 gets to work quickly. After the appearance of the desktop it takes only a further 2.5 seconds to display the Bing homepage. The whole startup process for Windows 7 up to the appearance of Bing takes 14.5 seconds. Vista takes 18.5 seconds and XP 23.7 seconds.

Windows 7 also shuts down quicker than its two predecessors, taking just 4.5 seconds compared with seven seconds for Vista and 6.5 seconds for XP.

Startup on the low-end system naturally takes longer. The launch of Windows 7 on a system with a 1.6GHz Intel Atom N330 processor and a conventional hard disk took 44 seconds. Windows 7 connected to the internet after a further 3 seconds, compared with 57 seconds for Vista and 55 seconds for XP. On the low-end system, shutdown is fastest under XP at 8.1 seconds, against Windows 7's 9.1 seconds and Vista's 10.3 seconds.

Overall, the startup and shutdown timings show that Windows 7 performs best, regardless of the specification of the system it's running on. However, updates and application installations may alter those timings.

Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.

Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.

Timings in seconds: shorter bars are better.

Next -- >

Memory management and cache usage

With Vista, Microsoft introduced a new technology called SuperFetch for caching applications and speeding up boot times. This feature preloads frequently-used applications into memory, so they can be accessed quicker when they're needed.

For conventional magnetic hard drives, this technology makes sense. But if an SSD is used for mass storage, it's better to turn SuperFetch off. The superior access times of SSDs mean they launch applications much faster than magnetic drives, so SuperFetch makes little difference.

Microsoft indicated in a blog entry in May that Windows 7 would disable SuperFetch on systems using SSDs. The company also said that other features such as Defrag and ReadyBoost would not be used under Windows 7. However, in the RTM version (7600.16385), only Defrag is in fact inactive for SSDs — SuperFetch and ReadyBoost start just as they would with a magnetic disk.

The SuperFetch feature in Windows 7 differs significantly in approach and cache usage from its counterpart in Vista. Under Vista, the caching of applications starts immediately at launch. As the graph below shows, after three minutes just over 1GB of memory has been allocated. In Windows 7, SuperFetch starts after five minutes and after 10 minutes a little more than 600MB has been allocated. By that point, Vista's SuperFetch has allocated more than 1.5GB.

Even without SuperFetch turned on, Windows 7 makes fewer demands on cache. For operating system-related functions, it uses 333MB, while Vista without SuperFetch uses 519MB of cache.

The new implementation of SuperFetch under Windows 7 has a positive impact on performance. Windows 7 clearly makes do with fewer resources, so its cache usage is significantly lower than Vista's. SuperFetch also starts much later, so the hard drive is not tied up immediately after the launch of the operating system. That means you don't have to wait while the operating system monopolizes system resources for its caching tasks.

Next --v >

Application performance: PCMark Vantage

PCMark Vantage tests system performance by benchmarking the applications that are integrated into Vista and Windows 7. The benchmark is divided into several usage scenarios, with the default PCMark Suite simulating everyday PC usage. Here's a list of the individual tests:

  • Memories: Four tests check the speed of Windows Photo Gallery and Windows Movie Maker when handling photos and video.
  • TV and Movies: Plays and converts high-definition video in four separate tests.
  • Gaming: Measures the performance of the graphics card and estimates the loading speed of compressed game data.
  • Music: Converts WAV music files to MP3 and WMA Lossless formats and adds music files in Media Player.
  • Communication: Tests include web-page rendering, CNG AES CBC encryption, Windows Mail Search and audio transcoding.
  • Productivity: Tests include text editing, search in Windows Contacts, analysis of the boot process and web-page rendering.
  • HDD: Disk performance is measured using Windows Defender, Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Movie Maker, Windows Media Center and Windows Media Player. The disk's speed when launching the operating system and applications is also measured.

More information about PCMark Vantage is available in this white paper. We used the 64-bit version with default settings, running the tests three times and presenting the average values.

The graphs below show that the integrated applications in Windows 7 perform better than their Vista counterparts. This result is even more pronounced on the mobile platform (single-core Acer Timeline 3810T notebook) than the high-end system (Core i7-based desktop). The mobile platform shows an average performance increase of 35 percent under Windows 7, while the high-end desktop is 20 percent faster.

The music applications benefit most from the new operating system, showing a 64 percent performance improvement. The individual tests reveal that the conversion of WAV files to WMA Lossless is now three times faster.

It would be unwise to conclude that every application will work 20 percent faster under Windows 7 on average. Remember that PCMark Vantage is only testing the integrated Windows applications — Windows 7's performance advantage over Vista, if any, will depend on the mix of applications you use.

Other tests such as Everest, 7-zip, 3DMark Vantage, Cinebench and Paint.Net suggest that Windows 7 is not faster than Vista. Even so, an increase in the performance of the integrated applications in Windows is not a trivial advantage.

Next -- >

Conclusion

Windows 7 performs better than Vista and is also faster than XP, although XP remains more capable for devices with limited memory and outdated graphics.

Subjectively, the change from Vista to Windows 7 is like releasing a car's handbrake. This significant increase in performance has several causes: faster system startup and shutdown compared to XP and Vista; improved parallel processing; and faster loading of drivers and operating system components. Enterprise users will also appreciate the faster login to a domain.

Microsoft has also thoroughly revised the SuperFetch feature, which results in quicker operational readiness after startup. Anyone migrating from Vista will notice a reduction in disk activity after startup, because SuperFetch spends less time loading applications into memory in Windows 7, which means less waiting for the system to be ready to use after launch.

Windows 7 is more cache-frugal thanks to improved display drivers. No matter how many windows are open, the memory usage of the Desktop Window Manager (DWM) remains constant, the video card's memory taking on the load of opening of additional windows. However, under Windows 7 this load is half what it was with Vista. Windows 7 also introduces Direct2D, which further speeds up 2D graphics rendering. However, the standard WDDM 1.1 driver is required to enjoy the improved 2D graphics performance. For graphics cards containing ATI and Nvidia chips, this is not an issue, since a driver has existed for a long time. However, these drivers are not yet available for older Intel graphics chipsets.

Users can employ the built-in Windows 7 DirectX 11 interface to access the graphics power of the GPU (Compute Shader) using appropriate graphics hardware. This feature could prove particularly useful to those who provide video-encoding tools. However, there are still no third-party products that support this new standard.

In Windows 7, Microsoft has succeeded in providing an OS that's likely to meet the performance requirements of consumers and business users alike. The early signs are that Windows 7 will enjoy a much better take-up than Vista. Of our three test platforms, only the low-end Intel Atom-based system is not really suitable for Windows 7. But even a single-core processor such as a 1.4GHz Core 2 Solo is sufficient to deliver smooth performance under Windows 7. High-end systems with quad-core processors also benefit from Windows 7, because many of the operating system functions exploit the computing power of multi-core chips.

Topics: Software, Hardware, Microsoft, Operating Systems, Windows

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

272 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Why are results for XP missing from multimedia tests?

    are we just supposed to take it on your word? Well, here at zdnet, no one does benchmarks like Mr. Adrian. I wonder why did he not repeat a usability benchmark for RTM like he did with one of the earlier builds of Windows 7.
    iravgupta
    • Well...

      I think it's pretty clear Win 7 is faster... at pretty much everything.

      Why spend all the extra time to compare Win 7 application performance to a nearly 10 year old OS, when the rest of the results shows it was already faster everywhere else.

      I have compared all three, and frankly even XP comes up slower in almost all cases against Win 7.
      ShadowGIATL
      • XP SP3 Released April 2008

        I keep hearing the "XP is 10 years old" piffle and shake my head. XP SP2 was okay, but XP didn't really come into it's own until SP3 was released. I mean the original XP came out with raw sockets open; with SP3 XP is everything most users need.

        After I downgraded from Vista Sp1 to XP SP3 I wondered why I struggled as long as I did. win 7 is pretty with a slightly new UI, but it's still mostly Vista underneath.

        XP SP3 just works, why would I consider anything else?
        cpt_slog@...
        • XP SP3 didn't change the underlying OS

          It's still XP SP2 + fixes. As i recall, there was no gain in performance.

          As for Vista underneath, of course it is. But then for most people, there's nothing wrong with Vista.

          If you're good with XP, then stick with it. Personally, I prefer Vista over XP (and generally like 7 more than Vista).

          notsofast
          • Actually

            Windows XP did change the underlying OS. It wasn't in terms of performance gain per se, but it did have an impact on the system. It caused more bugs and errors and created a truckload of problems that were absent in SP2. I used XP from RTM straight up till SP3 on the same machine for 6 years straight. 256MB ram, 60GB hard drive, 2.0 pentium 4 processor. I got the system in 2002 and it broke for good in late 2008. SP2 had less problems than SP3. Even on my new desktop which runs XP SP3 there are problems that simply did not exist before in SP2.

            Also Windows 7 is indeed faster than Vista but people seem to forget *why*. This is because Windows 7 lacks a COMMAND LINE. You know when you say "open Internet Explorer" by double clicking on it? It actually does that straight. In windows 7. In windows Vista go DOWN straight back till Windows 95 (because I believe all windows before that was simply a command line), it doesn't do that. It runs in the background (like your antivirus) a command line, enters the prompt for your action, then it processes said prompt and you see the result. No command line means less waiting which means faster.

            Windows 7's lack of a command line causes instability with some programs. All rootkits that aren't specifically modified for windows 7 will never run. Lots of games that use punkbuster and those things won't let you go online because you're liable to be a hacker since the anti hacking software doesn't work. There are other instances as well.

            Windows Vista is an excellent Operating System, and any machine with over 2GB of ram will plow through it. Do not use Vista Basic. Test Ultimate alone. If not ultimate, settle for nothing less than Home Premium. Not even Business.

            And yes, there is nothing wrong with Vista. People used Vista pre-SP1 and they used Home Basic which should be named Home Disaster. Companies were lazy bringing out new hardware drivers, partially because Microsoft didn't test Vista long enough. But in the end that's what happened really. People remember hardware not working, and tried running vista on horribly old and slow machines compared to the standard set at 2006.

            They remember the bugs and won't let it go, and refuse to try it again. Nothing's wrong with vista, and until MS corrects the software compatibility issues with Windows 7 (there are more bugs which I won't bother to name), I have to say Vista is still king.

            Windows 7 runs more like a Mac than Windows without that command line. Sad I know.
            D2 Ultima
          • um, "actually",...

            Sorry but this idea about "no command line" is completely wrong. If you look at the shortcuts in Win7 you'll find the "Target" is a command line, complete with /options and so on, just like always. Not that that matters - there has never been any "running a command line in the background"; the "Target" is interpeted more or less directly by the CreateProcess API. If there was a "command line in the background" then you'd see a cmd.exe process for every GUI app you have open, and obviously that does not happen.

            As always, see [i]Windows Internals[/i] (Russinovich and Solomon, MS Press) for how things really work.
            jeh1
          • you're wrong

            on systems where the RAM is used up and things start to slow down, if you try opening something, sometimes a cmd.exe window will flash before it opens. I've seen this many times myself, and heard it taught to my in my A+ course afterward too. Also, MICROSOFT announced that windows 7 would have no command line. There should be no "command prompt" in windows 7. Also, if you really get into computing and find a person who's done a lot, he'll tell you that windows are just GUIs, and Macs are not. Windows 7 is akin to a Mac rather than previous windows versions, because there is no command line active. A shortcut means that it is a link to the application or whatever elsewhere on the computer or even on the internet.

            Applications such as games when opened look in their native folder for the files necessary to run. They will not run if you move the application from its native folder to say the desktop. I've used windows XP for 6 years, Windows Vista for a year and a half and Windows 7 since the RC came out. I've tested each a lot and tried all my common programs with all. Windows 7 had the most problems. If it's truly built on the NT kernel and has a command line basis, then windows XP programs that ran on Vista (which are a lot by the way, without need for "updates"), would run the same on 7. Or should. But it doesn't. It gives problems similar to what I see when people try some things on a Mac.

            Microsoft said no command line, you say it has. If you're right, can you explain all the compatibility problems? And no "it's new" doesn't work
            D2 Ultima
          • @ D2 Ultima: Put the crack pipe down.. Please..

            [b]Microsoft said no command line, you say it has. If you're right, can you explain all the compatibility problems? And no "it's new" doesn't work. [/b]

            All of WHAT compatability problems? Seriously... I've seen all of one app not run under Windows 7. That was an installer that did a version check for XP. It has issues with permissions.

            But the app it installs actually works rather well when run from the network.

            I've thrown all manner of stuff at Windows 7 - and everything I've got just works. Even a rather ancient game known as Castle of the Windws (copyright dated 1993...)

            I don't know where you've gotten your misinformation from but Windows 7 is based on the same kernal as Vista. As such, it still sports a CMD prompt and a command line.
            Wolfie2K3
          • @wolfie2K3

            Umm well since I've USED windows 7 myself and I've found problems with it, and you haven't, can't you just think that i've done things with it you simply haven't thought about? How about this bug, go set your taskbar to expand and not just use icons, it makes it easier to see. Go open Windows Live Messenger. Resize your window and minimize it, then pick one of the TWO open windows for the same program. When you pick one of the two, it isn't resized and it also resets the resize of the other one. See if you manage to get both to stay the same size. I still don't know how I did it nor can I recreate it on my sister's profile.

            I said nothing about "old" software. Get your facts right. I said Windows 7 does NOT run on a command line base. Things that latch onto the OS kernel (like the aforementioned Rootkits, that's the only example I have at my fingertips however there are others I am sure) will not work if it's based on that said line. There's a reason I cannot run gameguard to play 9dragons on windows 7, yet I can run it on Windows Vista, XP, ME, NT, 2000 and even 98. Explain that please, oh and gameguard is a rootkit.

            I have a list of problems I could call out with Windows 7 and I've posted them many times in many different topics here, and to each I've never gotten a reply.

            If you use computers as much as I do you'll find little things about it. Such as when you start the computer it leaves the audio system running, but when you log in it closes the audio service off then restarts it. About 3% of the time the audio service will not restart. Also windows 7 does NOT take internet from a USB cable. I'm part of a beta testing campaign for Bitdefender 2010. I use vista here. The website itself has listed bugs galore that ONLY affect windows 7. Yet XP and Vista don't experience the same thing. If the OS is so similar, why are these things happening? Doesn't that denote a huge difference in code?

            Run windows as the average user. Use Facebook use firefox use AOL messenger use Yahoo use Microsoft Office use Photoshop use VLC use Winamp use IE use Google Chrome use Java-based programs use anti-hacking software built into online games use everything you possibly think that anyone who possibly uses a computer could ever use. You'll find a truckload of problems with every single OS. My point is, against all my "common" programs and *MY* customization of how my windows works, *I* have come across problems that aren't being reported because people who review it do it too professionally. Think about the web surfing teen gamer. Think about the computer enthusiast who does a truckload of crap everyday and will run into brick walls no matter what OS he uses.

            I'm not saying Vista is perfect, but until I see instances where windows XP and Vista fail and 7 truly shines, especially in problem recovery. For example, two hard drives are on my computer. Windows XP was running and windows 7 was on the other, dormant. Power outage. Windows 7 and XP both want to check for consistency. Windows XP finishes and operates as normal. Windows 7 does the check, you cannot choose to skip or cancel as you could with XP, and you cannot stop once it has started short of taking off the computer, and also it will finish and loop and restart and repeat the process till infinity. To this day windows 7 has not finished booting and I refuse to redo the OS on that drive. I'm leaving it as proof. Windows XP win and 7 fails there too. That crash was rather recent as well you should know. Within a month of this writing. And windows 7 wasn't even active at the time.

            I have no problems saying windows 7 is fast and beautiful to look at, and it does get the job done if what you do on it works. But it's not ready to be released to a gaming community, nor to the internet-living-teen. Not to people who live on messenger programs. It's ready for office people and people who just use facebook and watch videos. But that's not enough, and it shouldn't be.

            If you want to tell me windows 7 runs with no problems, try recreating the respective issues I spoke about, and see if it doesn't happen. And if they don't, then I'll say something was wrong with MY copy, and I'll shut up. Until then, you have to shut it, as I have proof of what I speak about. Also the power cord was plugged into a Surge protector, so don't tell me about electrical damage.
            D2 Ultima
          • @D2

            [i]I said Windows 7 does NOT run on a command line base.[/i]

            You are seriously misguided on this one my friend.

            Number one, ALL OS are based on the principles of camman line execution. ALL.

            However, unlike Linux and OSX, Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and Win 7 all use the NT kernel which eliminates DOS and replaces it with an emulator, and therefor executes through the shell and not command line. In programming with UIs you call the shell to launch processes and programs, NOT a cammand line.

            In Linux, the kernel (command prompt) is completely seperate from the windows manager (GUI). OSX intergrates the BSD kernel with the GUI, but it is still BSD which is a flavor of UNIX, which IS command line based.

            That said, all modern OS are based off of command line technology, but none of them actually begin a process through the command line unless you pull up a prompt and call it yourself.

            You should not that CMD.exe in the NT based Windows still exists in Win 7.
            ShadowGIATL
          • @Shadow

            Well if what you say is true, which sounds rather plausible, it doesn't explain why there exist all of those issues there. According to Microsoft's official statement, they were removing the line or the emulator as you call it.

            They explicitly said the main difference between Vista and 7 was that reason. So I just didn't get it if it's a lie.
            D2 Ultima
          • @D2 Can you show us where MS said this?

            I've never heard this and I'm having trouble finding it now. Can you kindly show us where you saw MS make this statement, or at least give us a time frame/venue so I can search more precisely? I would be interested.
            ModernMech
          • @Missing Matter

            When the Windows 7 Beta was first released, it was all over ZDNet about their statements about their new Windows 7. In a good few stories I read they quoted MS saying the first major difference was no command line. I'll admit I went with that, but if I'm wrong about this I can't fully take the blame, because all of us get our information from the same method really; which is reports. If you check back a good few months ago to ZDNet stories, you should see them. Otherwise I must be going absolutely crazy
            D2 Ultima
          • @D2 - Sorry, but yes, you ARE going mad! ;)

            I think you're confusing two things here:

            1) Whether or not Windows has a command-line interface
            2) Whether or not Windows is based on DOS.

            To the former:

            Windows always has and always will have a command-line interface. Windows had a command-line interface long before it had a GUI!

            Windows actually has TWO command line interfaces: The "classic" command-line is called the "Windows Command Processor" (which calls C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe). The other is Powershell - a brand new and extremely powerful command-line interface.

            The "classic" command-line interface looks like a DOS box, but don't be fooled - other than it's sytnax, it has absolutely nothing to do with DOS. It isn't a window into a DOS environment and doesn't contain any DOS code! Windows' command-line processor is a 32 or 64-bit application which processes and performs your commands. It generally maintains backward compatability with DOS' command-line syntax because otherwise, the billions of lines of command-line script wouldn't work on Windows.

            To the latter:

            Windows 1.0 was a text-UI on top of DOS.

            Windows 2.0 was a more comprehensive text-UI on top of DOS.

            Windows 3.0 was a GUI on top of DOS.

            Windows 95 --> ME was a GUI partially on top of DOS, but with some "pure" Windows infrastructure underneath it that didn't require or use DOS. This infrastructure enabled 95's 32-bit app support, pre-emptive multi-tasking, PnP, etc.

            Windows NT 3.5 --> Win7 and beyond are not based on DOS, don't include DOS and don't use any DOS code. Windows NT (New Technology) was a fresh clean start - it was designed and built from the ground up, initially run on MIPS CPU's and later ported to the x86, Alpha, PowerPC, Itanium and x64 ISA (Instruction Set Architecture) CPU's.

            NT was willing to forego a certain amount of backwards compatability in order to move forward into the wonderful world of 32-bit and 64-bit processors, gigabytes of RAM, pre-emptive multi-tasking using multiple processor (and today, muti-core) systems.
            de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023
          • @D2Ultima: Yes, Windows 7 has a command line. Here's where to find it

            > if you try opening something, sometimes a
            > cmd.exe window will flash before it opens

            Yes, a few programs (mostly if not all from third parties) will do that. NOT because Windows has to go through cmd.exe first, but because the app itself starts with a character mode "launcher" which either then becomes a GUI process, or launches the GUI process (after which the launcher exits). You see this mostly in apps that can trace roots back to character-mode versions and have never been rewritten.

            ie what you are seeing is not usually a true "command prompt" window. It's a [i]character mode[/i] window. Big difference. (Every command prompt window is a character mode window, but not every character mode window is a command prompt window.) There's no actual command interpreter program (like cmd.exe) there, but rather some other character mode .exe.

            Or... yes, another small set of apps actually do have a shortcut where the target is a .cmd or .bat file... or a shortcut that invokes cmd.exe directly.

            But such apps are rare. For most apps the shortcut goes straight to the GUI .exe. IE certainly works that way.

            And I don't care what they told you to the contrary in an A+ class. If they told you that the command interpreter (cmd.exe) was [i]always[/i] involved in handling shortcuts, they're flat-out wrong.

            (Windows Internals cert. here, just fyi)

            You can prove this easily: Enable event logging for process creation and termination (that's in Group Policy settings, gpedit.msc) and start some GUI apps... then look in Event Viewer. You will see your GUI apps' exe's starting up. But you will find no records showing any cmd.exe's starting.

            If you're seeing a character-mode window, let alone a command window, start whenever you start IE I'd say you have a very strange configuration... possibly some browser plug-in is doing that. Or maybe malware.

            > Applications such as games when opened look in
            > their native folder for the files necessary to
            > run. They will not run if you move the
            > application from its native folder to say the
            > desktop.

            Has nothing to do with whether there's a command line interpreter or not. It's easy to write apps where you can move the main .exe somewhere and they will still find all the other files they need. Lazy devs don't bother but it most certainly can be done.

            > Microsoft said no command line, you say it has.

            Actually MS never said "no command line." That's a myth.

            > According to Microsoft's official statement,
            > they were removing the line or the emulator as
            > you call it. They explicitly said the main
            > difference between Vista and 7 was that reason.

            Where and when did they say that? Please find a reference.

            You can demonstrate the truth very easily: Click the "windows" button, then "All programs", "Accessories"... click "Command prompt". There's your CLI, command line interpreter.

            (You've been testing Win7 since the RC and you've not explored the "Accessories" section of All Programs? Remarkable...)

            Notice that you have a new cmd.exe process showing in task manager as well. That is the command interpreter program.

            Windows-R, cmd will do the same thing.

            Just like on 2000, XP, and Vista.

            Reality check: An awful lot of work gets done that depends on .cmd and even .bat scripts. Heck, I just wrote a couple simple .cmd's yesterday... and yes, they run on Win7. There is no way MS could get rid of cmd.exe; if they did, all of that stuff would break.

            Want to try it? Create a simple .cmd script with Notepad. It need be nothing more than

            [pre]echo Hello, world, I'm a .cmd![/pre]

            put this in a file called hello.cmd. Now create a shortcut with a target of

            [pre]cmd /k c:\wherever\path\it\is\hello.cmd[/pre]

            ...click on it, and watch what happens. THERE is a shortcut that invokes a command line.

            But the command interpreter (cmd.exe) is absolutely not in the path of most apps.

            I have no idea why you're seeing the compatiblity problems you're seeing in Windows 7, but I trust you will now understand that the supposed "lack of a command line" is certainly not the cause.

            > Well if what you say is true, which sounds
            > rather plausible, it doesn't explain why there
            > exist all of those issues there.

            It doesn't have to. A claim of fact doesn't have to explain every issue you can think of to be correct.

            Rather, the notion that the compatibility issues you're seeing (which few other reviewers seem to be seeing, by the way) is caused by a "lack of a command line" is simply specious. As is the notion that Windows 7 lacks a command line.
            jeh1
          • Very good points...

            [i]Reality check: An awful lot of work gets done that depends on .cmd and even .bat scripts. Heck, I just wrote a couple simple .cmd's yesterday... and yes, they run on Win7. There is no way MS could get rid of cmd.exe; if they did, all of that stuff would break.[/i]

            Server logon scripts for automation are a great example. Without CMD, entire enterprises would be crippled.

            ShadowGIATL
          • Stop beating up on the poor kid :)

            He really could stand to learn the basics about operating systems, but D2Ultima is just a case of a A+ trained individual. I have read through a couple of A+ guides and I always amazed at the number of inaccurate representations those books make about how systems work. I have taught college classes in the past and I know how sometimes it is easier to simplify things so people can understand the main point, but sometimes oversimplification makes people believe something is true, that is blatently false.

            Although for clarification. In windows and unix the CLI is not a part of the Kernel it is an interface or "special app" to the Kernel. Likewise the GUI doesn't necessarily have to call to CLI in order to pass instructions to the Kernel.
            echtogammut
          • So...

            ... Looks like I'm wrong then. I would believe being taught badly in a class, wouldn't have been the first time. And I never said the command line was always involved in handling shortcuts, someone else quoted that and I said that wasn't right. I also don't use IE much, but it has happened rarely depending on how much RAM was being used with other programs. I don't know an incredible amount about OSes, but I just know what my testing showed me, and I was going by what I read right here on ZDNet.

            As for the problems I got, I mentioned them to other people while I was at my workplace, and everyone testing the RC recreated the situation where it would occur, and they encountered the same problems. As for the power outage, I don't think that could be recreated easily.

            And I can't go back and find the exact place where I found that "MS said no cmd line etc" to show you, I'm on a fresh computer and I do not have the history or the mails from the months back. I do remember reading it out directly to my boss however, while I was still working, and him saying the same thing I did:

            If there's no command line, that would mess businesses up, because you can't easily do things cmd related. And I remember agreeing with him. If I find the old reports here, I'll post a link. Otherwise I don't know what I could say.
            D2 Ultima
          • Dos emulator in Win7 x64, I wish!

            HI, I still have some old games my friends like to play. I had the old Dos emulator running in XP x32 and Vista x32, but I doubt it will work. If you have the these old OSs just run command.com and see it it signs on to DOS. Don't confuse the with cmd.exe which is not the dos emulator.
            Pyrotech_z
          • Except that with OSX...

            each newer version runs faster and better on horribly old hardware.
            arminw