Windows 7 XP vs Vista vs 7: Resources + More

[Kyle]

Okay, so there's been a lot of talk about which is better, which runs leaner, which takes more space, etc.
So I decided; Hey! Why not test them all, in a controlled environment, allowing them the exact same treatment to get as accurate a result as possible? Good Idea?

I think so too. So here comes Kyle's Windows XP/Vista/7 Resource Test + More!


Environment

First things first, the environment I used.
Core 2 Quad Q6600 @ stock (2.4 GHz, I reset the clock to get an accurate test)
3 GB System RAM (800 MHz DDR2)
ATI Radeon HD 3450 256 MB @ Stock (Again, reset)
Asus Motherboard
Integrated 10/100/1000 LAN connection
Windows 7 Build 7000 Ultimate x64 as the base OS


Then, I installed Microsoft Virtual PC 2007 (64 Bit installer) on that platform, with nothing running in the background.
I then allocated 1 GB of RAM for the Virtual PC
I then set up three disks, One 10 GB disk for XP, and two 20 GB disks for Vista and 7.
The virtual machine itself only uses one core, so I let it have the full 2.4 GHz core.
I then installed each OS (Using XP Pro SP3, Vista Ultimate SP1, and The Windows 7 Ultimate Beta, all 32 Bit OS')
Then, I booted into each separately and ran the First boot memory tests.



Memory Test Results:

Windows XP Professional SP3 Results:

No Optimization (Untouched): Link Removed

Optimized (All unnecessary processes and services disabled): Link Removed


Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 Results:

No Optimization (Untouched): Link Removed

Optimized (All unnecessary processes and services disabled): Link Removed


Windows 7 Beta (Build 7000) Results:

No Optimization (Untouched): Link Removed

Optimized (All unnecessary processes and services disabled): Link Removed


---------------------------

Conclusion:

That's it so far, showing that (obviously) XP SP3 has the lead in RAM usage (76-82 MB), followed by 7 Beta (288-320 MB) and Vista SP1 (295-347 MB). Overall XP also has the least bloat, with 6.3%, followed by Seven with 10% and Vista bringing up the rear with 15%.

---------------------------


Hard Disk Space Test:

Windows XP Professional SP3 Results: Link Removed

Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 Results: Link Removed

Windows 7 Ultimate Beta Results: Link Removed


---------------------------

Conclusion:

Again, XP comes out on top, its clean install footprint only being 3.68 GB. Second place is 7 Beta, with 6.09 GB, and Vista comes in last with 7.34 GB. Seems like Vista has the most bloat on the hard disk as well. As for direct comparison, if XP = 100%, 7 Beta comes in at just over 65% more bloat, and Vista brings up the rear with over 99% over-sized.

--------------------------

More tests coming soon, suggestions?
They can't be graphic based, due to the limitations of a virtual machine, but any other test I can administer easily.

.

 

[Highwayman]

I am interested in the following tests:

1. Bootup
2. Shutdown
3. IE8
4. Launch Word Processing
5. Launch Spreadsheet
6. Search for one specific file on disk


Thanks

Seriously bootup and shutdown speeds have no relivance to the OS's operation...and can be easily tweaked to suit anyway, although to answer your question regarding launching Word and Excel....under 2 seconds, as for file search thats again subjective since depends on indexing, how much ram is assigned and is being used, as well as how many files are on the driver being searched...plus drive type, speed and cache....which varies on many systems since Solid State HD's are lightning fast compared to SATA and IDE.

The only true benchmarks worth a damn are ones that show security holes and obviously gaming benchmarks that test the rig to it's limits.

 

[Radenight]

Hello,

The meaning of W7 is an answer to Vista, ubuntu is totaly different en XP is an totaly different lokking and working OS.
So wen you look Vista-W7 you see that W7 is a good following of Vista.

Silas

Windows XP really doesn't work that much differently then Windows 7.. In some areas, yes it does but overall they are very similar functioning OS's in my opinion..

I think Windows 7 is just plain good.. Mainly because it just works.. I don't compare it to Vista as I find that is an unfair comparison for multiple reasons..

 

[03hdfatboy]

I think Windows 7 is just plain good.. Mainly because it just works.. I don't compare it to Vista as I find that is an unfair comparison for multiple reasons..

I totally agree.

 

[stueycaster]

I used XP home and XP pro x64 a lot and was happy with them for years. Then my wife's new laptop came with Vista. She hated it so I fixed it up to dual boot XP home too. Then while she was at work I played with Vista on it. I never did learn much about using it though. The only things I didn't like about it was that it took so long to boot up and find the network and it shut down slowly. Other than that it was fine. I was kind of resigned to the fact that the UAC was overly zealous. It didn't bother me that much.

Then I got the W7x64 Beta and dual booted it with Xp x64. After I sorted through the initial problem it had with my USB inputs I learned to like it a lot. It just did almost everything right. Then when I got the RC I installed it over my beloved XP x64 and now I don't miss XP a bit.

It's running great on my crummy old single core PC with only 2 Gb of RAM. Surely someday people will stop wanting so much of my money and they'll leave me a little so that I can upgrade my computer to a hot multi-core setup like I want.

 

[Tepid]

Surely someday people will stop wanting so much of my money and they'll leave me a little so that I can upgrade my computer to a hot multi-core setup like I want.

Fat chance in Obama Land

 

[Stevo]

Windows 7 is what Vista was supposed to be. I would equate Vista to the old ME in all aspects but especially as to how it bloats. They have really cleaned up the code in 7 making it perform better and fixing many problems that are present in Vista, namely their networking amongst other stuff of course. I don’t think just because HDD’s, RAM, and Video Cards are larger and much faster that coding should not be refined to perform better. Just because you can get away with more slop doesn’t mean that is a good practice, people forget the old days of the 640KB barrier.

To show how well they cleaned up coding in 7 I took an old socket 462 ECS KT600-A(1.0) AMD Athlon XP 2400 platform with ONLY 512MB RAM that was running XP Pro x86 and installed Windows 7 (7600 386 RTM x86) on it and it actually runs faster/better then XP does and I didn’t have to repartition the C: drive for the OS. The only issue I had doing this was I needed to download the “Promise Ultra133 TX2 windows 2.1.0.3 logo drivers” in order to get all of my HDD’s recognized luckily the VIA VT8237 controller was picked right up. My Radeon 7000 didn’t support WDDM so no Aero but after replacing it with a Geforce 6600 all was good.

Vista would have choked if I tried this and the fact that 7 will not only do this but runs as well or better then XP is really something especially since Windows 7 requires 1GB RAM on their x86 platform. XP Mode works pretty well to so you can run some of the programs that you couldn’t before under Vista and they can be launched from the Start Menu in 7. The one big limitation to XP Mode is hardware device drivers if it doesn’t load in 7 you can’t use it in XP Mode. Please note that XP Mode isn't supported on the socket 462 platform as the MB & CPU don't support Virtualization.

For these reasons I think businesses will soliciate moving to 7 where they would not have with Vista. Call me a fanboy but I really like 7!

 

[Tepid]

I like 7 also,,, but Vista is in no way anywhere near what ME was.
Vista is still far better overall than XP, however, it requires proper hardware.

Granted,,, 7 is what Vista should have been. That I do agree with.
But I do not agree with the ME statement, it is completely false.

ME was garbage no matter what system it was run on.

Vista runs extremely well on a system that can handle it. I never had one single problem with Vista.
I also ran Vista from a few days before release till about a month or so ago.
Very Solid

 

[Radenight]

I like 7 also,,, but Vista is in no way anywhere near what ME was.
Vista is still far better overall than XP, however, it requires proper hardware.

Granted,,, 7 is what Vista should have been. That I do agree with.
But I do not agree with the ME statement, it is completely false.

ME was garbage no matter what system it was run on.

Vista runs extremely well on a system that can handle it. I never had one single problem with Vista.
I also ran Vista from a few days before release till about a month or so ago.
Very Solid

Agreed, I love Windows 7.. But I have to agree that Vista is in no way what Windows ME was.. Windows Vista is a pretty good OS now.. It did have a rough launch but has since been polished and works very well now on proper hardware...

That was one of the biggest problems with Vista.. People were trying to run it on the same system they had bought 5 years ago when XP was just getting good.. You can't expect a brand new OS to run just as good as a 6-7 year old (at the time) OS on the exact same hardware.. It just doesn't work that way with Windows.. And rather then upgrade their systems or purchase a new one, people just complained and blamed the OS itself..

3 years have passed since Vista's "failed" launch and a lot of those same people that cursed it have since upgraded their systems or bought new one's.. Resulting in Windows 7 appearing 10 times better than Windows Vista.. When in reality if those people were to install Vista on their newly upgraded or brand new systems they would see that Vista works almost as well as 7 in many ways..

Then you have the group of people that are just plain ignorant and haven't even tried Windows Vista because their neighbour advised them against it.. Or their best friend said it sucked or their computer technician told them it was a waste of money.. I don't even bother arguing with those people because it's pointless when they haven't even tried the OS for themselves..

So to summarize, in my opinion Windows Vista is Good and Windows 7 is Great!

 

[tblount]

I wonder if anyone has tested the time it takes to reboot these versions. With windows 7 it takes 58 seconds (here) from the click on reboot to the hour glass disappears. There is something flakey about the drivers for my sound hardware that have to time out... according to the administrator logn under "Start" "view"

Has anyone else doen a similar test?

 

[Radenight]

The funny thing is there will still be a large number of people complain and say that Windows 7 is no better than Windows Vista simply because of their own ignorance.. They won't upgrade their machines (just like they didn't when Vista came out) and thus won't see Win 7 for the true gem that it is.. Yes, Win 7 does work better on older hardware but mark my words, it will happen.. However, not to the degree that it did with Vista..

 

[cybercore]

The funny thing is there will still be a large number of people complain and say that Windows 7 is no better than Windows Vista simply because of their own ignorance.. They won't upgrade their machines (just like they didn't when Vista came out) and thus won't see Win 7 for the true gem that it is.

With proper respect to that, I feel I partly disagree:

1. For a variety of reasons, not everyone does proper upgrade with every new Windows Version

2. Generally, computer speed can hardly be enough even in very advanced hardware cases, so it's a darn good idea not to waste computer resources if possible

3. To get the most comfort of one's system, a user looks for ways to optimize its performance with the operating system that allows faster execution of games and software

4. Even in a case of a good upgrade, one may not find it worthy enough if the upgraded pc runs with the new operating system the same speed as with older system with older hardware, this can just detract from the sence of upgrade.

So I believe it's not just banal complaining.

Windows XP vs Windows 7 - Who Won?

Windows XP vs Windows 7 - Benchmarks

Link Removed

 

[Radenight]

I'm not arguing the facts Cybercore. I'm simply saying that with every new Windows release there is always a group of people that are just plain ignorant and don't want to be bothered to upgrade their systems in order to actually be able to run the new OS.. They then complain and say that the OS sucks just like the previous one did.. When in truth, they didn't use the previous one at all either for the same reason.. I'm not saying this applies to everyone that doesn't upgrade, it certainly doesn't, but a minute group of people it does and will..

Those are some "interesting" benchmarks..

 

[cybercore]

I'm not arguing the facts Cybercore. I'm simply saying that with every new Windows release there is always a group of people that are just plain ignorant and don't want to be bothered to upgrade their systems in order to actually be able to run the new OS.. They then complain and say that the OS sucks just like the previous one did.. When in truth, they didn't use the previous one at all either for the same reason.. I'm not saying this applies to everyone that doesn't upgrade, it certainly doesn't, but a minute group of people it does and will..

Those are some "interesting" benchmarks..

Thanks and I am not arguing with you either, I just say that people who compare Vista or 7 to XP can have their grounded arguments, that's it.

 

[karachidude]

hello Kyle,


u mentioned in yr first post that "The virtual machine itself only uses one core, so I let it have the full 2.4 GHz core",is
there an option in the VM to restrict the use of CPU,and does it by defaul uses only one core of the CPU??


help would be appreciated.Anybody who can answer is welcome


Thanks

 

[karachidude]

thanks Drew

 

[hd080045]

hallo all togehther!

i have a really important question....

i have windows 7 beta since 2 weeks and now there is a problem..

so my usb doesnt work any more and i can not put a picture on my desktop --- my desktop is always black.

sorry my english is not so god please help me..

wait for

 

[Stevo]

You need to check the Device Manager for dirver problems it sounds like your USB got messed up. Also check all other drivers make sure your chipset drivers are installed for your mainboard. For your Desktop are you able to get to Personlization screen and change themes? What are you doing that you can't browse and select a background for you Desktop or is it that you image is on USB and you can't get to your stick drive or whatever?

IMPORTANT! When installing a new OS it is very important to first install your chipset drivers before updating or installing others since the NB/SB controll many important, critical, devices that everything else relies on.

 

[tanzanos]

A better OS is an user friendly OS. Vista and Win7 and although not an OS; Office 2007 are not user friendly. Navigating with the three mentioned is a nightmare. I do admit that I am using classic start menu on my XP. I am not a moron nor am I uneducated. I know what I want from an OS and what I want is not to waste my time trying to find how to print or where such an application is located. I know where my files are and in what order. All I need is to click on the relevant folder and I have it. With vista and Win7 one needs to constantly type the name and conduct a search every time he needs to open something. This reminds me of the days when we used DOS!
I am happy to have found that applications are available that give win7 and office 2007 the very functional classic menus.
Now all I need is to find a way to have outlook express on win7. Windows live mail is HORRID! It is like playing BF2 with 90% fog

What were they thinking of in MS when they were designing vista, win7, and office 2007? Perhaps substance abuse is to blame?

 

[tblount]

Now all I need is to find a way to have outlook express on win7. Windows live mail is HORRID! It is like playing BF2 with 90% fog

It can be done... but Live mail works fine. You just have to get used to it. And find a few things... for example it apprently is set to default to leave messages on the server. You have to figure out that you have to go to individual accounts to set the default to delet the emails after they are downloaded from the server.

 

[tanzanos]

It can be done... but Live mail works fine. You just have to get used to it. And find a few things... for example it apprently is set to default to leave messages on the server. You have to figure out that you have to go to individual accounts to set the default to delet the emails after they are downloaded from the server.

Instead of making life easier they make it harder. I shall install my Win7 Home Premium only if I can find a way to have outlook express to work with it.
I definitely do not want an web based e-mail programme. Especially Live mail which is so faint that I have a hard time discerning the fonts. It is horrid to say the least!

Also in case someone thinks I do not like new OS' I LOVED XP when I first got it! So it is not a matter of moving ahead but rather making life easier!

Thanks anyway for your reply