E-Mail:

Windows 7 vs Windows Vista SP1 – An Observation

As I previously mentioned I have installed Windows 7 on my test box which happens to be an older AMD 2800 with 2 G of RAM. I also mentioned that Windows 7 seemed quick, but I attributed this to a clean install. This morning I tried another experiment. On the same system I did a clean install of Windows Vista SP1. Here is what I found.

Where as Windows 7 installed in under 30 minutes, installing Vista took a whopping 1 hr. and 22 minutes. At first I thought the install had gone bad. But I rode it out until the install finally finished. This is when I noticed something that others have mentioned.

Windows 7 performs a lot quicker in everything it does. It boots faster, opens applications faster and shutdowns faster. Since both Windows 7 and Windows Vista SP1 were clean installs on the exact same system, there are no outside influences that could alter the results.

So it does appear that Microsoft has done something under the hood to speed Windows 7 up.

Share your thoughts and opinions with us.

Comments welcome.

11 Comments

Good observation, I don’t have windows 7 yet but I will, so thanks for the updated.

Think about the many fewer software packages that the beta is installing – it should take less time.

About the other items, yes, it has been improved. It would be tremendous if they had simply allowed those of us who wished to keep the bulk of the older interface. I would have signed up for at least 5 copies of it.

Does this mean that I have to get another
Machine….
I have . 1 . Just sittin arround

I Guess I’ll . Do
1 ~ XP ,, 1 ~ Vista ,, 1 ~ windows-7

Maybe thats Microsofts . Thinkin . Too ?

[...] Windows 7 vs Windows Vista SP1 – An Observation ~ The Blade by Ron … As I previously mentioned I have installed Windows 7 on my test box which happens to be an older AMD 2800 with 2 G of RAM. I also mentioned that Windows 7 seemed quick, but I attributed this to a clean install. … The Blade by Ron Schenone, MVP – http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/ [...]

Hi Den,
If you like Vista, as I know you do, you should enjoy Windows 7. :-)

[...] Useful New UI Change [Windows 7] Windows 7 Background – Did You Get It? Windows 7 Tips and Tricks Windows 7 vs Windows Vista SP1 – An Observation Wisconsin Girl Cancels Online College Courses Thanks To A Mind Blown By Her Ubuntu An [...]

Microsoft has taken the core of Windows and minimized it into something they call MinWin. It allows fewer processes to be running while Windows 7 is up and allows faster bootup and shutdown times as well as application opening and closing times.

In comparison with Windows Vista, Windows 7 is much much faster and extremely more stable. I have both on a tri-booted laptop (Ubuntu is the 3rd) and Windows 7 runs everything that Windows Vista will. It is compatible with everything Vista is. It is pretty much just a really really nice update to Windows Vista and I would be happy if I had to run only Windows 7 on my laptop (Yet I would be sad to have to give up Ubuntu).

One question…
How did you get it installed in under 30 minutes??? It took me about 40-45 minutes on mine but for some reason my brother’s laptop (exact same model as mine…) wouldn’t start the installation process until around 20 tries and 8 DVDs later. Maybe it’s because I burned the ISO in Windows Vista for him and I burned mine on my Mac? Who knows :) Either way it went faster than when I had to re-install Vista… 3 times… :) (I ran over it with Ubuntu the first time I tried installing it lol)

Well good to hear others are taking advantage of Microsoft’s beta release! I had a previous “leaked” release (oh noes!) I believe it was 69xx (xx is two numbers i forget lol) and 7000 doesn’t seem to be much different, maybe it’s the back-end being changed again. Nevertheless, 7000 (milestone 1) is a perfect OS even if it’s a “beta”.

Hello Gavin,
Thanks for the comments here and on other articles.

Yeap – 30 minutes. Others have reported a similar experience.

Regards, Ron

I will attest to the fast install time. I am running Win 7 via Sun VirtualBox on a 2.6GHz P4 and was amazed at both how fast it installed and how quickly it responds — even in a virtual machine.

I installed Windows7 on a spare partition with XP. To my amazement the install took under 45 minutes. It figured out my network correctly, and found the drivers for my cheap Brother all-in-on on the other PC. It nailed all my cobbled together hardware correctly. The whole system worked perfectly on first run, including two versions of Word Perfect, Macro Virus (well, there was that missing DLL file, but I had the same problem with XP). Real, Adobe, you name it. And it’s fast to boot up and shut down
My only gripes with it are:
1. You can’t use a classic Windows look – I defy you you to copy 75 files from various folders on drive C to other folders on Drive D, for example in any reasonable time. But there’s been so much bitching on their technet forum, they may have to restore the option for the old interface.
2. DVD43 and 1ClickDVD Copy don’t work. Never mind what I’m copying. If DVD43 won’t work, Microsoft won’t get my money.
3. I am unable to get the OTHER PC on my network to read the Windows7 (allegedly) shared files. I think that is just my ignorance so I withhold judgment.
4. I wonder if, when they go live, they’ll let me do a clean install of an upgrade version with a Win98 disc for upgrade validation – since all my XP discs are also upgrades. We shall see.
Windows7 in my book is a winner. If they allow some flexibility in the GUI to placate dinosaurs like me and price it right, they’ll have a lot of conversions.

Hi Vilma,
Thanks for sharing your experience with us.

What Do You Think?

 

Posted Recently