madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

Windows 7 build 7048 vs. Windows 7 beta 1 vs. Vista vs. XP performance shootout - which is best?

By | March 10, 2009, 5:41am PDT

Summary: How does the latest leaked build of Windows 7 (7048) compare to the beta 1 (build 7000), Vista SP1 and XP SP3 in terms of performance? According to my Hardware 2.0 inbox, this is a question that you want answered. Let’s see if I can answer it for those of you who are interested!

Special Report: Windows 7

How does the latest leaked build of Windows 7 (7048) compare to the beta 1 (build 7000), Vista SP1 and XP SP3 in terms of performance? According to my Hardware 2.0 inbox, this is a question that you want answered. Let’s see if I can answer it for those of you who are interested!

Note: Before I go any further I feel I need to make a point, and make it clear. The builds I’m testing of Windows 7 (build 7000 and 7048) are beta builds, and as a rule beta builds are usually more geared towards stability than performance. That said, the performance of this build should give us a clue as to how the OS is coming along.

Important note: I have on several occasions contacted Microsoft for feedback on benchmarking Windows 7. At this point the company is not ready to discuss performance testing.

Rather than publish a series of synthetic benchmark results for the three operating systems (something which Microsoft frowns upon for beta builds, not to mention the fact that the final numbers only really matter for the release candidate and RTM builds), I’ve decided to put Windows 7, Vista and XP head-to-head in a series of real-world tests to find out which OS comes out top.

Let’s look at the test systems and the tests …

Next –>

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Microsoft Windows 7, Performance, Microsoft Windows XP, Operating System, built-In, Microsoft Windows Vista, ISO, Beta, Microsoft Windows, Iso standards, Process Improvement, Network-Attached Storage (NAS), DVD, Consumer Electronics, Operating Systems, Software, Quality, Business Operations, Storage, Hardware, Personal Technology, Home Entertainment, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

Talkback Most Recent of 278 Talkback(s)

  • Although I'm not a fan of pre-release comparisons...
    ...it's interesting to note that W7 does indeed appear to be a very effective OS.

    As for the 64 bit question, with Quad Core largely becoming standard I think the focus needs to be here although MS obviously need to cater for their legacy market too.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Sleeper Service
    10th Mar 2009
  • Tell the applications vendors
    We're locked into 32 bit by software apps that aren't compatible, not by MS issues. MS does "cater" to legacy as best they can, but there is only so much they can do.

    The obvious answer is to switch to apps that don't have these problems, which we've done for hundreds of apps migrated to web services and not dependent on 32/64 bit compatibility, or even Microsoft compatibility for that matter.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    terry flores
    10th Mar 2009
  • Many apps don't NEED to be 64-bit
    What's the point of a 64-bit Notepad? Or Paint? Or Media Player? Or Tax Prep' app? Or Word Processing app? Or Order Entry System? ...

    Only apps that need > 2GB RAM for themselves will benefit from being ported to 64-bit. Note that 64-bit apps carry an additional overhead of increased pointer and many integer data sizes, so if an app doesn't need > 2GB RAM, then there's no benefit in porting it to 64-bit.

    HOWEVER, many people need a 64-bit OS. Why? If you run several apps simultaneously, each requiring several hundreds of megabytes each, there's a very good chance that all running apps combined will consume > 2GB RAM, thus forcing the OS to page infrequently used memory pages to/from disk, considerably slowing down your machine.

    If you have a 64-bit OS on a machine with 4GB RAM or less, then the OS can map most of your hardware's address allocations to addresses above the 4GB mark, freeing up 500-850MB of addressing space within your RAM's address space. Thus, the 64-bit OS gets access to RAM that a 32-bit OS would not. If, on the other hand, you have a machine with > 4GB RAM, you *must* have a 64-bit OS in order to access the full complement of RAM.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023
    10th Mar 2009
  • Yes they do need to be 64 bit
    or at least compatible. My home computer crashed and it was cheaper to buy new than fix/upgrade old. EXCEPT that all the new computers are 64 bit Vista. Of the programs I use most on my home computer, my email ap, Paint Shop Pro UX2 were the only 2 that were compatible. I had to purchase an upgrade of Office, and Photoshop-and those were the only 2 upgradable. That made it MUCH more expensive - especially given that no one had any idea whether the aps I was using previously were compatible with Vista anything to start with. Yes, I should have built my own system - but I didn't have the time; this was THE worst possible time to have my home computer crash. I'm only running a sideline business.

    Imagine if my livelihood depended on that computer? If you have to buy new hardware, you are most likely stuck with Vista 64, unless, perhaps, you intend to run a netbook.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    library assistant
    10th Mar 2009
  • not my experience...
    I am certainly not friend to Vista and I have found all sorts of software and hardware that isn't compatible, but whether it was 32 or 64 bit Vista has been completely irrelevent in my experience.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    kathygnome
    10th Mar 2009
  • 32 bit apps run fine in 64 bit windows
    Drivers are a different story.

    But the previous poster is correct. Many apps can remain 32bit and some probably will for some time.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    DevGuy_z
    10th Mar 2009
  • Really?
    Funny that the apps don't feel that way. For instance, SQL Server/Office interop code breaks in spectacular fashion. You'd think that Microsoft might have thought about the millions of lines of code out there that reads/writes data directly from SQL Server to Excel files. From a SQL stored procedure, you used to be able to easily peer into an Excel file to read data or write data out to an Excel file. Every single bit of that code breaks the moment you move from SQL Server 2005 on a 32 bit Windows machine to SQL Server 2005 on a 64 bit Windows machine. That's just one example of something I know for a fact to be broken going from 32 bit to 64 bit.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonp@...
    11th Mar 2009
  • what do you call an "app"
    Since when is SQL Server an app? That's a server product.

    Apps are: Office, Trillian, Firefox, GVIM, Puty, Picasa, Adobe Reader, Visual Studio, Snagit, FeedDemon, Quicktime, Flash, etc.

    Server products are: Exchange, SQL Server, BizTalk, MOSS/SharePoint, etc.

    For the most part, all the 32-bit apps run fine on a 64-bit OS.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    whallify
    11th Mar 2009
  • change that to MOST 32 bit apps work fine
    in 64 bit. But no not all by any means.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    tech_walker
    11th Mar 2009
  • Of course they do...
    except for the ones that don't.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    jasonp@...
    11th Mar 2009
  • Sorry but you didnt load it properly...
    since i also loaded SQL to check performance as well as several other engineering and office apps as well as dedicated lab software and had no problems. I had none of the problems you expweriencedwith excel data so since i ran the tests on 4 different systems and it worked perfectly every time i can only conclude that you made mistakes in your test or your code was flawed to begin with. Please be sure you know what you are talkin about before you start talking about a supposed issue, it is stupid mistakes like that that give people unfounded fears about upgrading to a better and much more stable system.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    rbslack@...
    11th Mar 2009
  • Several aps install a basic version of SQL
    There are several aps that install a basic version of SQL on your computer as part of their install routine.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    Dr. John
    11th Mar 2009
  • And whose fault...
    ...is that?

    Any time you write software that ducks around the API for a little extra speed, you run the risk of getting shafted when new hardware comes out.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    fairportfan
    11th Mar 2009
  • 64 bit now
    I was using XP Pro 32 bit, with Office 2007. I upgraded my system to Vista 64 but, I still can use all my Office 2007 apps. I haven't found much of anything that doesn't work, then again, I'm still waiting for all those crashes and problems with the machine, every one talks about.

    I find myself using Intrepid Ibex almost exclusively, but when I need to get in my Excel or Access files, I have no problems. Vista is not that trouble prone, but I find that Ubuntu is a much faster system. I will probably wait to see what the cost of the Windows 7 will be before I commit to spending money on an O/S that I shouldn't have to.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    mjolnar@...
    11th Mar 2009
  • That's interesting. Because my SQL stuff works fine in 64 bit.
    That's interesting. Because I run several applications that have snuck in some SQL or SQL lite version, and they're all running fine on my 64 bit Vista machine.
    ZDNet Gravatar
    CobraA1
    11th Mar 2009
View More Comments

Talkback - Tell Us What You Think

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
Click Here

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources