Post by kopachris on Feb 12, 2009 23:17:48 GMT -5
Has anyone seen/used the Windows 7 beta in person? My dad installed it on his computer (I'm not about to install anything by M$ on mine anytime soon (except maybe so I can run Remora's copy of Photoshop)). It's not much of an improvement over Vista. They said they were going to work on the internals instead of the UI, but the most notable difference is the UI. Speaking of the new interface, I just want to mention that I like what I've got going on my Linux system better (GNOME plus Compiz (plus screenlets), if you want to look them up). I have seen some benchmarks comparing it to Vista and Ubuntu, however, and the results look good for the most part. Lemme run the results down for you:
Ubuntu had a shorter installation time in every test, and Windows 7 took the longest out of the three.
Ubuntu also took fewer clicks to install, with 7 compared to Windows's 12 for Vista and 14 for Seven.
Windows 7 takes less disk space after a fresh install than Windows Vista, but Ubuntu only takes about a quarter of the disk space of either of them.
The bootup time for Windows 7 looks good, beating Windows Vista and Ubuntu (of course, you can fix that if you're running Linux (my old dinosaur computer is down to 45 seconds)). Windows 7 took about a minute to boot up.
Ubuntu took less time to shutdown than any of them, and Windows 7 took more time than Vista.
Ubuntu took the cake for copying a bunch of small files from a flash drive to the hard drive, significantly outperforming any of the Windows computers. For some reason, Windows 7 took significantly longer to copy the files than Vista did.
For small files from HD to HD, Ubuntu only won by a small margin. Windows 7, for some reason took over 80 seconds compared to the average 13.
For large files from USB to HD, it was again Ubuntu-Vista-Seven.
For large files from HD to HD, Windows Seven won by a significant margin and it was Vista that took an abnormally large amount of time this time.
Okay, I take back what I said about things looking promising for Windows 7. It looks like it's going to suck. I got the benchmark data from www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7.
Ubuntu had a shorter installation time in every test, and Windows 7 took the longest out of the three.
Ubuntu also took fewer clicks to install, with 7 compared to Windows's 12 for Vista and 14 for Seven.
Windows 7 takes less disk space after a fresh install than Windows Vista, but Ubuntu only takes about a quarter of the disk space of either of them.
The bootup time for Windows 7 looks good, beating Windows Vista and Ubuntu (of course, you can fix that if you're running Linux (my old dinosaur computer is down to 45 seconds)). Windows 7 took about a minute to boot up.
Ubuntu took less time to shutdown than any of them, and Windows 7 took more time than Vista.
Ubuntu took the cake for copying a bunch of small files from a flash drive to the hard drive, significantly outperforming any of the Windows computers. For some reason, Windows 7 took significantly longer to copy the files than Vista did.
For small files from HD to HD, Ubuntu only won by a small margin. Windows 7, for some reason took over 80 seconds compared to the average 13.
For large files from USB to HD, it was again Ubuntu-Vista-Seven.
For large files from HD to HD, Windows Seven won by a significant margin and it was Vista that took an abnormally large amount of time this time.
Okay, I take back what I said about things looking promising for Windows 7. It looks like it's going to suck. I got the benchmark data from www.tuxradar.com/content/benchmarked-ubuntu-vs-vista-vs-windows-7.