Windows 7: Epic Failure

First, please see:
Test Center Benchmarks: Windows 7 Unmasked

Yes, you heard it right, Windows 7 is a slow letdown, just like Vista.

No matter how many articles we write, No matter how many times we give clear feedback,
No matter how many sales you lose because novice X heard from grandma Y who heard from computer expert Z that Vista is very slow.
No matter HOW strongly the message is impacted world-wide.
No matter how many billions of dollars are left to focus on this bare minimum,

Microsoft just doesn't get it.
A completely out of touch corporate bureaucracy that doesn't have a smart enough leader make a fast operating system.

You could have won us over this time.
But instead, we're going to have a field day about 7's performance problems. The world will know.

Let me make this very clear to you.
DO.
NOT.
SHIP.
US.
A.
NEW.
OS.
UNLESS.
IT.
IS.
AS.
FAST.
OR.
FASTER.
THAN.
WINDOWS XP.

Period.

Have we not made that very clear, the world over?
Do you get it? Emphatically, no.

If I was CEO of Microsoft, or in charge of the Windows project, I would make it be known that a company priority is a fast operating system. There would be posters on the walls that say: IT BETTER BE FAST. By simply choosing this as a real concept, a goal which must be met, it would materialize into reality.

Let me explain it another way, very simply:
If Bill Gates made an announcement that a new focus for Windows is that it must be faster than Windows XP, and gave executive order to all of his men-in-charge to make whatever changes or motions are required in order to ensure that scenario, lest Windows not ship,
Do you really think it would be possible for Microsoft to *NOT* pull it off?

*Of course* you could.

It is apparent now that with Ballmer at the wheel, there will not be a fast Windows.
It's because he doesn't have a technical mind, and hence doesn't understand what I'm saying in a deep-gut kind of way.

When users repeatedly spread rumors that a product will do something it was never announced to do, it means that they very much so desire that feature. It's their hearts speaking through their imaginations. People keep speculating about "Minwin", because it's what they really want, an imaginary way to have a fast windows.

My WindowsXP "PF Usage" is 41 MB of ram at boot time (nLite). All drivers are installed. All programs work.
Here I am, happily writing you this post: 7_is_slow.


Another irrelevant Windows release,
Again, you let us down,
- Windows 7, Epic Failure



Edit:
Before you post about how fast your Vista is, please note:
1) Vista is slow.
2) My post is realism, whereas your post about how Vista is fast is based on your emotions.
3) 7 is the same core as Vista, same performance for all intents and purposes.


Update 2:
To those who claim 7 is somehow going to get faster at release, you need to understand indications of the OVERRIDING PHILOSOPHY of the release: 100 processes.
See here.
"Looking first at the kernel, both Vista and Windows 7 M3 (Milestone 3, the other name for the pre-beta) featured 97 to 100 processes.  The system process also consumes a similar amount of memory to Vista,"

So many letters and, wow, even words!...

I'd rather have an OS that's more useful OS than XP than one that reaches some magical "faster than XP" benchmark, but hey, maybe that's just me. Also, your picture doesn't work.

Fortunately, Vista is faster than XP. And from my (very) limited experience, Windows 7 is faster than Vista.

So I think we've got it covered.

Also, somebody at Infoworld is benchmarking something that isn't even a beta yet. Epic fail indeed.

I stopped reading after the author displayed that he had no understanding of OS kernels or MinWin whatsoever though, so maybe he covered that in a later page.

Sven Groot said:

Fortunately, Vista is faster than XP. And from my (very) limited experience, Windows 7 is faster than Vista.

So I think we've got it covered.

Well it uses a slightly modified Vista kernel. I wasn't expecting it to be super fast.

Amazed nobody has thought of this reply yet

"f--k off"

Sums it up pretty well to me, don't instil a false sense of reality and argue on top of that as if its a given fact.. makes you come across as a nutcase..

Oh good grief....

Microsoft have specifically said that the pre-beta build is not to be performance tested. There's a reason for this - IT'S PRE-BETA and most of the performance improvements haven't got into the thing yet.

Sheesh - anybody with half a brain cell knows that you don't performance test prebeta software, especially operating systems.
What next? Why not perfomance test checked/debug versions of Vista and complain that the performance tests suck?!

.... idiot.

OrigamiCar said:

Oh good grief....

Microsoft have specifically said that the pre-beta build is not to be performance tested. There's a reason for this - IT'S PRE-BETA and most of the performance improvements haven't got into the thing yet.

Sheesh - anybody with half a brain cell knows that you don't performance test prebeta software, especially operating systems.
What next? Why not perfomance test checked/debug versions of Vista and complain that the performance tests suck?!

.... idiot.

Umm your avatar speaks alot about you TROLLLLLLLLLLL !

Honestly, I have been using the CTP version of Windows 7 for the last week. On 2 sepeparate 6 year old machines this new Windows 7 works amazingly fast and is so performant . (and its only a CTP so alot of improvement to come) 

Machine 1 - 7 year old HP Desktop 1.8 GHz 1 GB ram Intel graphics card
   - boots under 15 seconds
   - memory footprint 400Mb


Machine 2 - 6 year old Sony Vaio Laptop 1.86 GHz 2 GB ram Intel graphics card
  - boots around 16 seconds
   - memory footprint 450Mb


This greatly reved OS is blindingly quick ... these two systems were never able to previously run VISTA, Vista would refuse to work on them....

And don't get me started on the UI, Im in love with it cause from first hand usage of the new system I definetely feel that im more productive. It really is how Vista should have been when it went out 2 years ago.


GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE COMMENTING, YOUR COMMENTS MAKE YOU SOUND STUPID CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVENT EVEN TRIED OUT THE NEW OS!

Kill him

Dovella said:

Kill him

LiquidBoy said:

Umm your avatar speaks alot about you TROLLLLLLLLLLL !

Honestly, I have been using the CTP version of Windows 7 for the last week. On 2 sepeparate 6 year old machines this new Windows 7 works amazingly fast and is so performant . (and its only a CTP so alot of improvement to come) 

Machine 1 - 7 year old HP Desktop 1.8 GHz 1 GB ram Intel graphics card
   - boots under 15 seconds
   - memory footprint 400Mb


Machine 2 - 6 year old Sony Vaio Laptop 1.86 GHz 2 GB ram Intel graphics card
  - boots around 16 seconds
   - memory footprint 450Mb


This greatly reved OS is blindingly quick ... these two systems were never able to previously run VISTA, Vista would refuse to work on them....

And don't get me started on the UI, Im in love with it cause from first hand usage of the new system I definetely feel that im more productive. It really is how Vista should have been when it went out 2 years ago.


GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE COMMENTING, YOUR COMMENTS MAKE YOU SOUND STUPID CAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVENT EVEN TRIED OUT THE NEW OS!

Essinivleevlelo said:

LiquidBoy said:

*snip*

400 - 450 MB memory footprint is a joke.
That's ten (10) times my XP.

LiquidBoy said:

Essinivleevlelo said:

*snip*

ummm you get a 40mb footprint on XP?? That's impossible! The mandatory services amount to atleast 300 mb!