Some Simple Windows 7 Benchmarks

[Tramposch 1]

Well guys, here is a link to the video:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

You May watch it in HD.

Install: 17:24
Boot: 1:08
Photoshop: 11
Firefox: 9
Skype: 4
WMP: under 2 seconds
MCE: 16
iTunes: 10


These were all tested under my computer:

E4300 Core 2 Duo (1.8GHz)
2GB of RAM (dell factory brand)
XFX 8600GT XXX


You may request me to test any program if you would like.

[cemeteryrecords 0]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly are you talking about?

[Tramposch 1]

Windows 7 bet build 7000... just a couple of stats for running programs and booting and installing.

[cemeteryrecords 0]

Oooh. So those numbers: Install: 17:24Boot: 1:08Photoshop: 11Firefox: 9Skype: 4WMP: under 2 secondsMCE: 16iTunes: 10Are like, how long it takes to install them. or run them? And another stupid one: What is Windows 7? I've never even heard of that before.And nice specs with the processer and RAM.

[jlhaslip 4]

How do these numbers compare on the same machine under Vista or XP?

[Tramposch 1]

Im going to test that Jl, im like.. Wow how could i have not benchmarked XP and vista before installing windows 7 over them.. i was just kinda dumb. I might make a partition and install vista and then try, then install XP and then try, i dont wanna do a vmware thing because I wouldn't be getting the full... power that i could usually get.

[buxgoddess 1]

The theory works good but only if you have a monster in your PC. Look at the configuration matched by the thread starter. GOG there is little that you can do for the people who bought their PC in 2008, all their PC will be out dated or too old for such a specification to run on. And why do you need a Windows 7 when your XP works more than ou need now. Just to jump into another failure product from Microsoft called Windows 7 after Windows Vista.

[Tramposch 1]

The theory works good but only if you have a monster in your PC. Look at the configuration matched by the thread starter. GOG there is little that you can do for the people who bought their PC in 2008, all their PC will be out dated or too old for such a specification to run on. And why do you need a Windows 7 when your XP works more than ou need now. Just to jump into another failure product from Microsoft called Windows 7 after Windows Vista.

If you are trying to call the configuration beastly, you are somewhat wrong. That is a normal configuration, and actually not even as good as most baseline computers offered by Dell or HP. I don't really understand the second sentence, but I think you are trying to say that people who bought computers in 08 are out of luck. That is not true, as most computers bought in 08 were made to run Vista, which is more intensive, I think, than Windows 7. So they really aren't out of luck.

Windows 7 provides DRASTIC improvements over XP and Vista. Many parts of the Windows OS were redesigned from the ground up for this OS. And they did a beautiful job. I am not really a fan of Microsoft's OSes, but they did a fantastic job on Windows 7, so far. I am using it right now, and it is great. I got rid of XP for it, actually. This is beta 1, and it is incredibly stable for a beta. Even the pre-beta builds were great. I can't see Windows 7 failing at all. In fact, it should easily beat out Windows Vista and XP sales, possibly even combined. Every company has failures; Vista was Microsoft's. And they are coming back with a bang when Windows 7 is released. I promise that.

[onscreen 0]

Oooh. So those numbers:
Install: 17:24
Boot: 1:08
Photoshop: 11
Firefox: 9
Skype: 4
WMP: under 2 seconds
MCE: 16
iTunes: 10

Are like, how long it takes to install them. or run them? And another stupid one: What is Windows 7? I've never even heard of that before.
And nice specs with the processer and RAM.

Windows 7 is a new OS which is currently released as a public beta. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

[kplow1986 0]

it would better if you can run bench mark for windows XP and Vistai want see the different this 3 operating systems for me , windows 7 just upgrade version of windows vista, so i didn't expect have good performance.every time Microsoft launch new windows, there will be have problem in compatibility of software and hardware. Futhermore, windows 7 sure need much of memory than vistai was a gamer, will going for windows XP.

[Saint_Michael 3]

Well guys, here is a link to the video:
http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

You May watch it in HD.

Install: 17:24
Boot: 1:08
Photoshop: 11
Firefox: 9
Skype: 4
WMP: under 2 seconds
MCE: 16
iTunes: 10


These were all tested under my computer:

E4300 Core 2 Duo (1.8GHz)
2GB of RAM (dell factory brand)
XFX 8600GT XXX


You may request me to test any program if you would like.

Before I continue I have to spam this Pretty Boy ALERT , the female members better watch out for this guy and thus the end of the Pretty boy ALERT .

17 minutes on a beta installaion seems fast you have to remember though that not everything is functioning on that operating system and there is much still that needs to be added. So I would have to say that at final release it could be a 30 minute installation given your specs. As for the boot though it rather seems slow for what I hear the boot is a lot faster then that, but I am not sure if people mentioned it under a minute or under 30 seconds. Heck if it took you that long to load photoshop I expect to see a 1 minute loading with all my stuff on it .

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what exactly are you talking about?

Tramp did Windows 7 speed tests on his computer to see how long it would take to load certain things based on the computers hardware.

Windows 7 bet build 7000... just a couple of stats for running programs and booting and installing.

I think some more computer specs would help out as what kind of computer, custom or pre-built, name of the RAM, company that produce the motherboard, AMD or Intel processor, hard drive specs etc etc.

Oooh. So those numbers:
Install: 17:24
Boot: 1:08
Photoshop: 11
Firefox: 9
Skype: 4
WMP: under 2 seconds
MCE: 16
iTunes: 10

Are like, how long it takes to install them. or run them? And another stupid one: What is Windows 7? I've never even heard of that before.
And nice specs with the processer and RAM.

Windows 7 is the new operating system that Microsoft is making and will be releasing something this year, most likely towards the end of the year.

How do these numbers compare on the same machine under Vista or XP?

Although I doubt tramp did but I hear stories of getting vista installed 30-45 instead of an hour and some change, but it depends on the hardware being used and what not.

Im going to test that Jl, im like.. Wow how could i have not benchmarked XP and vista before installing windows 7 over them.. i was just kinda dumb. I might make a partition and install vista and then try, then install XP and then try, i dont wanna do a vmware thing because I wouldn't be getting the full... power that i could usually get.

Well I never did a bench mark before but I would assume that dual or triple booting the computer might slow the computer down somewhat but not sure on that.

The theory works good but only if you have a monster in your PC. Look at the configuration matched by the thread starter. GOG there is little that you can do for the people who bought their PC in 2008, all their PC will be out dated or too old for such a specification to run on. And why do you need a Windows 7 when your XP works more than ou need now. Just to jump into another failure product from Microsoft called Windows 7 after Windows Vista.

You have your dates messed up, computers built with hardware 2004 and below will have a hard time running windows 7 and vista, but anything built in 2006 might be able run window 7 but not as smoothly but anything in 2007 and now should be able to run windows 7 smoothly since most of the hardware is geared to run resource hog vista as smoothly as possible. As for calling his computer a beast, unlikely, since it would have to be a quad-core extreme, multi TB hard drives, dual graphic cards and so on an so forth for it to be a beastly computer, since tramps specs are pretty much common specs now minus the graphics card which I doubt came with dell unless you got a XPS system.

If you are trying to call the configuration beastly, you are somewhat wrong. That is a normal configuration, and actually not even as good as most baseline computers offered by Dell or HP. I don't really understand the second sentence, but I think you are trying to say that people who bought computers in 08 are out of luck. That is not true, as most computers bought in 08 were made to run Vista, which is more intensive, I think, than Windows 7. So they really aren't out of luck.
Windows 7 provides DRASTIC improvements over XP and Vista. Many parts of the Windows OS were redesigned from the ground up for this OS. And they did a beautiful job. I am not really a fan of Microsoft's OSes, but they did a fantastic job on Windows 7, so far. I am using it right now, and it is great. I got rid of XP for it, actually. This is beta 1, and it is incredibly stable for a beta. Even the pre-beta builds were great. I can't see Windows 7 failing at all. In fact, it should easily beat out Windows Vista and XP sales, possibly even combined. Every company has failures; Vista was Microsoft's. And they are coming back with a bang when Windows 7 is released. I promise that.

Well obviously it was going to be somewhat better then XP speed wise but from what your saying that drastic improvement comment is gear more towards Vista then anything else. Well I doubt you did everything you possibly could to destablize the operating or try to make it crash and stuff like that .

it would better if you can run bench mark for windows XP and Vistai want see the different this 3 operating systems

for me , windows 7 just upgrade version of windows vista, so i didn't expect have good performance.
every time Microsoft launch new windows, there will be have problem in compatibility of software and hardware. Futhermore, windows 7 sure need much of memory than vista

i was a gamer, will going for windows XP.

That is one of the major improvements with Windows 7 and that being able to use less RAM run it smoothly and that is were vista failed completely on. Sure you could run vista on 1 gig but after you turn most everything off and not run Aero, but it needs at least 2 gigs as is with or without Aero on, but it should be interesting how it compares to XP and Vista when tramp gets t up.

[rayzoredge 2]

Those seem like decent figures, Tram, but then again, I believe those times for loading programs would be typical for the hardware you have. (My work laptop with a P4 1.8GHz and 512MB of RAM just opened up WMP in 2 seconds.) What I'd be interested in as far as benchmark figures and tests go for the new Windows OS would include but not be limited to:

1GB of data copied from one internal SATA drive to another (or some interface that wouldn't bottleneck the transfer speed)

1GB of data copied over a network from one Windows 7 machine to another

interoperability/compatibility with other machines running different OS

Basically, the benchmarks that people would be interested in would be OS-dependent to see what and how the OS does with certain, common tasks to compare if XP, Vista, and W7 can do these simple things efficiently. We already know that Vista has a problem with file transfers for some reason (they're insanely slow) and has problems with networking with XP computers (which I guess can't be too bad of a bat to swing at Vista, considering that the OS works with its own rather well), but does Windows 7, seemingly with a Vista core, suffer from the same problems?

 

The boot time is interesting to note for me, considering the fact that Windows XP Professional with SP2 takes my aging P4 3.2GHz with 2GB of RAM a little over two minutes to boot, but then again, I do have a lot of things that run at start-up...

[onscreen 0]

it would better if you can run bench mark for windows XP and Vistai want see the different this 3 operating systems

for me , windows 7 just upgrade version of windows vista, so i didn't expect have good performance.
every time Microsoft launch new windows, there will be have problem in compatibility of software and hardware. Futhermore, windows 7 sure need much of memory than vista

i was a gamer, will going for windows XP.

Windows 7 isnt just an upgrade version of Vista. Its an improved OS based on Vista. My view is based on 64-bit usage and i have to say Windows 7 delivered more than my expectation on my second day of usage and looking forward for more "WOW" impression. The Aero effect is much responsive compared to what it had in Vista and i no longer need to disable the pretty eye candy just to make space for performance.

Hardware support is flawless, like what i respond to your Win7 "bashing" post. It detects anything i plug into and no more reboot required . I update the video card drivers and audio drivers at the same time and no reboot required for the changes to be made.

Mind you, this Windows 7 and Vista thing is like what had happened when Apple release OS X back in year 2002. The first release is so horrible that everyone demand OS 9 to be pre-installed in any new macs for second option. Slowly when Apple came out with OS X 10.1, things started to pick up and up to today, its served every known Mac users happily.

Vista may sucks in many ways but the improved one will not be the same.

[ragav.bpl 0]

The easiest way to banchmark something is to use a bench marking software i suggest...It really gives the accurate results and you can compare many products you can also refer to a site known as systemrequirementlab.com to bench mark software according to your computer.

[Tramposch 1]

WIndows 7 actually needs less specs then windows Vista did.Its realy great, I have had no problems so far at all. and it is still in BETA