Mannnn I can not wait for Chrome 94. ;)

Performance in Windows 7 is much better than Vista. I can actually use hibernate without it taking a year to work. That's the best part for me!

What horrible news! Taskbar is now a quick-launch toolbar. What a waste of valuable pc resource. W7 is less secure than Vista thanks to the dumbing of UAC. I even hear that gaming has less FPS with W7 than Vista. The more I learn about W7 the more I know I will stay with Vista.

You must be retarded. Cause everything you said was total lies.

"Lean, simple, fast" is what I want.

There is only one type of performance that actually matters to users and that is the perceived performance by the end user or in more technical terms the responsiveness of the system. In this category Windows 7, is much more responsive than older windows OS ( and MACs). End of story.
In addition, I have seen noumerous reports on how, for example, IE or Excel performs on various Windows versions. However, none on how the OS performs when running multiple appllcations concurrently. Windows 7 is a big imrovement in this category as well.

Why are you comparing the responsiveness of Windows 7 against networking?

My perceived performance after installing the upgrade over Vista was delightfully enhanced. The installation was smooth. All my programs worked. The system seems a lot more stable.

I did miss the quick launch toolbar and you can make one following the instructions here:
http://www.howtogeek.com...he-taskbar-in-windows-7/

Dude...

The entire taskbar is now a quick-launch toolbar. :p

Heh...

Pin. To. Taskbar. =)

Once it's there, right-click to see the Jump List... or alternately you can left-click and drag up. Pretty groovy.

I am not comparing against networking. I am comparing responsiveness Vs raw performance. What I am saying is that even though some OS may be faster than another, it may also be less responsive. Usually, reports measure performance, but fail to account for responsiveness. As an end user, I care less if, for example program X, loads 0,01ms faster in XP than Win7. Win7 is much more responsive than XP or Vista. It does not freeze as much (almost never), switches between applications faster etc, UI is super...

Scott M. Fulton, III, ARE YOU OHKY?? PLEASE WAKE UP...PLEASE DON"T 'DRINK' Before Writing article @ Betanews.

"If that were true for everyone besides a few folks for whom the notion that stuff doesn't matter really, really matters, then Windows 7 really would be "Vista Service Pack 3" (it is, after all, internally numbered "Windows 6.1")."

In changing a service pack of Windows, MS bumps the build number and the service pack number, not the Major and Minor version number.

Windows Vista was Windows 6.0, build 6002, Service Pack 2. Windows 7 is Windows 6.1, build 7600.

When a new named version of Windows is released, that's when they bump the major and/or minor version number. For example, Windows 95 was Version 4.0. Windows 98 was Version 4.1. Windows ME was Version 4.9. And, YES, is does matter.

Good point, John, and thank you.

-SF3

I moved from Windows XP Pro to Windows 7 recently, on the same hardware (skipped Vista completely, so I don't want to bash about something I don't have any experience with).

I am honestly delighted with Windows 7. GUI is beautiful and snappy, it boots/hibernates fast and all my applications launch almost instantly. I'm confused, don't know what "performance drain" this guy is talking about, seriously...

I'm not sure if they're writting about same Windows 7 that i was testing. Because from my experience it's really beautiful and fast OS. I mean i was running Win7 on netbook with Atom N270, 1GB of RAM and GMA950. And it worked really fast plus i could use full Aero interface.
On my main system with Core i7 920, 6GB of RAM and HD4870 it just flies like rocket.
So i really have no clue wat you guys at BetaNews were using, but it sure wasn't Windows 7...
How fast IE or Chrome start is just irrelevant, because it all boils down to how it's coded. IE and Firefox need some time to start, Chrome is very fast. But that's how it is, i don't care all that much, except on netbook where it takes even longer and i'd prefer to use Chrome. But just not yet...

A lotta wind blowing through these comments, but I think I can distill it down:

The site is called BetaNews. It deals with a lot of software actively being developed. Therefore hard-core performance data is fully within its purview. When a major piece of software used by hundreds of millions is noticeably impacted by various factors that is also news.

Most people probably don't care about performance until it truly impacts their user experience: pages that take half a minute to load, games that stutter and stammer, or endless drive thrashing are good examples of things that get people annoyed.

These two facts are not at odds with one another. If you don't care about the minutiae of browser performance data, please drive through and have a nice day. And in any case, the tendency of many if not most people to want to "rally 'round the flag" reaches its absurd height when it comes to worshiping a piece of software. The only thing worse I can think of is people who say their faith is the only true path.

God bless you, Psycros!

-SF "Oh Wait, You Said Something About Professing Faith..." 3

When you stop talking in percentages and such, these horrific slowdowns just aren't so horrific anymore.

OMFG IE8 starts in .9 seconds?!!! That's effing horrible! Chrome starts in .7! OK, these aren't real numbers because I lost interest a while back, but I think my point has come across.

When hulu takes 10 seconds to load vs. say 1 in Chrome or FF vs. IE, THEN I'll be interested. I think Windows 7 will survive, even if IE is a WHOLE .4 seconds slower than so and so browser.

I just created a batch file that launches all 3 browsers. Amusingly enough...IE was the first one fully drawn....

But then, this article isn't actually about launch times, of which Firefox is likely by far the slowest on my systems (extensions).

That's probably because you told your computer to launch IE first.

Yeah, I am sure it is. That .002 millisecond delay between the three commands would definitely account for that.

No the article isn't about the launch speed of IE vs. the others.

I'm saying that in reference to:

"The company's patches in recent weeks, including the patches to the patches, have resulted in noticeable and easily measurable performance degradation in Internet Explorer, both versions 7 and 8. This means that for a great many users of XP, Windows 7, and the "V-word," who use the platform they're given to run Web applications, they will notice a slowdown of one-third or more.

What's more, as it stands now, Betanews estimates that the performance differences between Internet Explorer 8 on Windows 7 and on Vista are negligible or even negative. That's right -- IE8 on Win7 is slightly slower than IE8 on Vista, at least according to yesterday's tests."

I read that article, and I did'nt' comment...and yes, it's because I'm indifferent, but not because I don't want to ever see articles like that, but because I just don't consider those kinds of performance 'issues', as issues.

"Or not. Because apparently it doesn't matter, as the education I'm receiving from a few of my readers is attempting to enlighten me about. People use what they use, they like what they like, and they'll consume whatever's in front of them. Nancy Pelosi, Pamela Anderson, Lady Gaga, Internet Explorer...it all passes in front of consumers on a treadmill, and they don't pay any real attention to details or facts or arguments or qualitative differences.

Put another way, the argument goes like this: If security truly mattered to folks, then they wouldn't be using Windows in the first place. And if functionality and performance truly mattered, then two-thirds of the world's HTTP GET requests wouldn't come from IE. (And if quality mattered, Lady Gaga...etc.) A few microseconds given away here or there isn't really going to matter to folks whose only interaction with the net consists of waiting for Pamela's picture to download.

If that were true for everyone besides a few folks for whom the notion that stuff doesn't matter really, really matters, then Windows 7 really would be "Vista Service Pack 3" (it is, after all, internally numbered "Windows 6.1")."

If that were true...hmm, because you say so? Most of this sounds like a hissy-fit from an author whose article got a panned review.
I suppose however, that it's indifference that hurts the most because at least people care, sometimes passionately about things they disagree with or don't like....vs. "meh, been there done that", or "bah, don't care".
Some people pay more detail to certain things, that's all. Some people care that Lady Gaga is rumored to have a p****, others don't. Some care about her music, some don't. Some think it sounds good, some dont. Some people care about .2 second performance differences in browsers, others don't. The world isn't going to end.

Vista, I've been saying for a long time....is not a horrible OS. It's a little hoggy and won't run on slower/older computers and that's why it got super bad PR, because people couldn't slap it on their 5 year old HP and get GRRRREAT results. MS learned, cut down some of the more processor and ram gormandizing parts of Vista and voila, happiness.

I really don't think that because some people don't care about THOSE details, that it's fair to generalize and say, "well if everyone thinks this, then that would be so", and blah blah blah.

Different strokes. Don't get so POW! BANG! KABLOOEY! about it.

Yeah, maybe .3 seconds are a huge letdown for some folks, so that would make that information oh so important for them, great. For some it's not a big deal. In a society of 10-60Mbit or more internet, there are way more involving computing experiences to think or complain about than this.

And of course Apple would jump on anything to have a vs. 7 argument. It doesn't make what they say true or reliable. They're the underdogs, they appeal to a certain audience and that audience will now and forever believe what Apple feeds them. That's marketing.

MS only real possible attack on OSX or Apple, is to not allow Windows to be installed on Apple computers or within Bootcamp - and then talk about all the things OSX is missing, but that's illegal.

OSX is the bare bones bicycle with training wheels. Safe, but no tricks for you!
Windows is the bicycle with speed settings and some fun knobs. Fun, can be problematic and you can fall and get hurt, but you can do all kinds of jumps, stunts and tricks you want.
Linux is the self balancing bicycle with a crapload of functions. So many options that you can get confused, but safe enough that you can only really hurt yourself if you're into daredevil-ry.

Even without extensions, Firefox is pretty slow to load. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was the slowest of all browsers for startup time. But it's feature set will keep me coming back for a while yet. I understand Chrome has picked up some ground with Adblock, but it's still not as elegant as the FF solution.

Obviously IE doesn't even rate in this regard.

"Even without extensions, Firefox is pretty slow to load. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if it was the slowest of all browsers for startup time. But it's feature set will keep me coming back for a while yet. I understand Chrome has picked up some ground with Adblock, but it's still not as elegant as the FF solution."

+++

The people who are enthusiastic enough to be first in line to buy Windows 7 already know enough to avoid Internet Exploder. They're using Firefox or Chrome, so it doesn't matter that Internet Exploder is imperceptibly slower.

Windows Vista is safer than Windows XP and those older Microsoft operating systems but ActiveX remains a huge, gaping hole in their security. Since Windows 7 has been opened up for inspection, it's been noted that having UAC disabled in Windows 7 leaves another security problem, which Microsoft refuses to acknowledge.

Everyone who cares (prior to having an exploit take control of their system) has already spoken. They've either secured their Windows system or go to Mac OS X or Linux to avoid the issue.

"The people who are enthusiastic enough to be first in line to buy Windows 7 already know enough to avoid Internet Exploder."

Apparently I don't know enough... Oh, wait, you said "Exploder". Never heard of it. Is it a gmae of some sort?

"it's been noted that having UAC disabled in Windows 7 leaves another security problem, which Microsoft refuses to acknowledge."

Default is enabled. How is the *user* action of disabling it Microsoft's fault again?

Windows Vista and 7 have already been proven to be much more secure than Mac OS X because Windows has address space randomization. When it comes to security Apple is extremely lazy. Nobody wants to hack Mac OS X because it's too easy compared to Windows Vista or 7.

Yeah, what PC_Tool said.

I didn't see any main point of this article, but it seems it's saying Win7 is slower than Vista... Yes IE8 is slow but it's just a browser and we have plenty of replacement for that (those that use IE8 as primary can stand their slowness). My perception -> Win7 is much faster than Vista, enough said. Also, alot of people are having good perception of Win7 (unlike Vista -.- which itself isn't a bad OS at all!). Perception doesn't matter as vast majority of people won't even give a try (let alone - perceive) if they hear the product is bad bad bad.

Nobody wants to hack Mac OS X because there's no profit in it, due to the small installation base.

Today's malware are mostly targeted at generating revenues through advertising, selling fake security products, spreading spam, etc... The day MacOS, Linux or BeOS would get 20%+ of the market, you'd notice an increase in malware targeting that platform.

Today's software has become too complex. The more lines of code you add, the more likely it is you'll get a potential security hole found.

It's invariably user actions that infect the machines anyway.

"Yes, I do want to install Win Antivirus Pro 2009 because it says I have 134 viruses!"

*facepalm*

"Default is enabled. How is the *user* action of disabling it Microsoft's fault again?"

Lolzz...

YES YOU REALLY DIDNT GET THE POINT. THOSE OF US WHO WHERE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SEEMINGLY DAILY ARTICLES ABOUT BROWSER PERFORMANCE WHERE JUST TIRED OF IT.
Sure you have to make a buck. But how many of us really notice that IE is slower then the rest. It doesnt look slower. I've used them all. they all seem to load pages the same. Sure IE might not be the fastest. But i really hate Chrome, interface and all. And i will never use it. I dont like what i like cause i am a chimp. If it was giving me issues or doing something bad i would change. But IE works fine for me. I built my 4000 dollar gaming rig, i know what i want and i know qaulity. I'm not just waiting for pamala anderson to download.
Windows 7 is the right direction. It may not be perfect, but nothing is. My past comments that this speed war doesnt matter cause Microsoft doesnt seem to even want to be in the race have weight. Your own betanews internet speed chart is based on IE 7 on vista as a baseline. That inflats the results no matter what it is. I'm sure many fans of this site have used all the browsers you mention. Yet i am sure we have NEVER EVER noticed in real world surfing that chrome is 20.5 times faster as you chart seems to imply then IE. In the real world the acid test just doesnt matter. Cause I've yet to see a real reason it should matter.
Sure i prefer a slower browser. Cause i am used to it and i really dont notice the slower speed. Not many people would. Must i change cause you Scott Fulton think I'm supid. And really you are upset with the fact some of us are bored with this browser war you created. Move on to another topic for heavens sake. People do just like what they like.

"The fact that Microsoft has not issued its latest patch-to-the-patch as an automatic update but a manual one instead, is an indication that this time around, it's leaving the question of security-vs.-performance to the users and system admins."

BZZT!

Wrong. No existing exploit. Microsoft does not mark an update for auto-install unless it is tagged as critical. Since no threat currently exists....not critical. It has nothing to do with performance and since you entire article is based on this little flaw of assumption vs. fact, well...

Have fun guys.

It's a good think no one in authority has charged you with running a real buzzer. I actually communicate with Microsoft on a daily basis (as recently as last night, on this subject), and that statement was not based on assumption.

-SF3

You're wrong. Microsoft tags updates for auto download if they're either recommended or critical.

I can't top that.

...smarter: That applies only to *some* recommended updates. Not all of them. The assumption that a recommended update should be automatic because "some of them are" is flawed.

But you're right, I worded that wrong. Microsoft does not (by default) tag an update as auto unless it is critical. Some that are not are tagged as such, but the only updates that are such by default are those that are deemed critical.

The reason Windows 7 exists as a brand name at all is because of a Microsoft change of course, a necessary one if the brand is to thrive rather than just subsist:
I think this is a poor statement for TechWriters to continually churn.
Microsoft made a mistake with Vista - primarily in how long it took for it to get to market. And it HAD to change that going forward or risk losing all of the Enterprise BSA(?)'s (Business Software Assurance) Licenses.
I don't see people continually beating the drum that Windows XP is really only Win2K SP3 ?? It is afterall Win 5.1 vs Win2K's 5.0.

I don't use IE.

sjc1963 "I don't use IE."
Perhaps you would like to list all the other stuff you don't use ?

Top of that list? Brains. :)

Sorry, SJ....ya know I love ya. Just couldn't resist.

If people cared about security they wouldnt use windows??? what kind of troll sentence is that?!
Then what in your mind Scott, if people cared about security, what should the world population use? I do agree with many things in that article, but come on!!!

Daddy, I didn't invoke that sentence as an argument on my behalf. I used it as counterpoint to illustrate the nature of the arguments I've been reading and receiving in recent days. _I absolutely do not believe_ that people use Windows because they don't care about security. In absolute point of fact, almost everyone I know who truly does care about security, uses Windows.

-SF3

Scott, this is obviously a troll article. How much programming have you done? Patches change code so obviously it will not work the way it originally did. Windows is the most secure operating system because it does patch the holes quickly, and yes that comes with some performance loss, until a new patch is released that can adjust the code to make it faster again. Your article seems to think that microseconds really do matter to everyone, but if they did our clocks would tell microseconds and not seconds. I do not know your test machines because I have almost stopped reading here because of posts like this, but on my machine Windows 7 is faster than Vista and XP, and continues to be with each patch. It even boots faster than the Linux distro I have dual booting. So please, just give us the facts and not your opinion. You are BetaNEWS, not BetaHEREISWHATITHINK, after all.

SM3, this is a poor article.

:/ that's not good...

gawd21 "SM3, this is a poor article."
Yet another scintillating post gawd21, with you it's just one gem after another.

Awwww are you still sore, about being a moron?

And then there is this class of complaints that comes along as a last resort, when all the arguments are exhausted, when it's impossible any more to overdramatize the issue any further, which boils down to, "You're just a troll."

That said...Windows is indeed secure because its problems are patched early -- earlier than they can be exploited, especially in this recent case -- and because eventually the architecture is repaired and the system is faster. You are quite right about that. If only you had stopped there.

-SF3

gawd21 "Awwww are you still sore, about being a moron?"
See you're still voting for yourself.

My last post should have said SF3 not SM3.

I love most everything about W7, just not IE8. It is like a beta version. Heck even Facebook doesn't work right in it. Every that has an IQ 0f 100+ already knows not to use IE, that it is slow, buggy, and breaks more pages than any other browser. It is no longer the standard! It hasn't been for a while. Damned near every site I visit, clearly, states that best used with FireFox. Not IE!

LMAO Nice assumption!

Well, IE8 with Windows 7 seems faster than IE8 in Vista, thats just from my own perspective and system specs

the KEY here is everyone has varying system specs and you're obviously going to get different results, it ain't rocket science

People 'YAWNed' at the last article because they're sick and tired of hearing 100 updates a week from BetaNews on the latest performance of every build of every browser. Anyone who cared about browser performance aren't using IE in the first place, so the fact that it got slower is not relevant to the vast majority of people who read sites like these.

BetaNews is starting to become a one-trick pony with this browser performance nonsense, and it's time you focus your efforts on more diversified reporting because it's getting stale, fast.

The comments had nothing to do with Windows 7's speed.

The reason it's not relevant that ig ot slower is because nobody REALLY notices...I personally can't tell if my browser loaded a site in 300 milliseconds or 400 milliseconds...and if it loaded it in 400 instead of 300, I really don't care. The amount of time we're talking here is so trivial it's pointless to discuss. If we were talking about waiting 10 seconds instead of 2 seconds then I can see a problem.

@Niro: Bingo. Right now it is functionality and usefulness over millisecond speed difference.

Glonk "Anyone who cared about browser performance aren't using IE in the first place."
I care, and I use IE8, and I use Chrome, and I use Opera, and I use Firefox, and I read betanews. So speak for yourself and not for me, I also enjoy reading about fast cars that can do 0-60 in 5 secs, I'm not likely to buy one, but I do enjoy reading about them. So I suggest when you find a thread that does not interest you, don't read it, and most certainly never, ever post on it.

It's good that you use all of those browsers, but that's inconsequential. This is a Beta News site, I've been a loyal reader since its inception but Scott is wasting all of his time running these inane benchmarks constantly and writing endless articles on them. I also enjoy reading about fast cars that can do 0-60 in 5 secs, but taking those cars out on the test course and writing about the nanosecond difference in each test run depending on what the driver ate is an absurd exercise.

I have to use all of the browsers because I'm a developer, but if you do care about performance and you do use IE, you do need to have your head examined.

As for your last line, if you find a thread you disagree with or does not interest you, don't read it and most certainly never, ever post on it. It's quite clear all you're doing here is posting borderline hostile comments to people who disagree with you.

"if you do care about performance and you do use IE, you do need to have your head examined."

JS Speed is not the be-all-end-all of performance. Usability affects performance. How the pages you visit are rendered by each browser affects usability. How those pages were coded by their developers affects how they are rendered by each browser...Hey! You're a developer, ain't ya?

*grin*

Ok...seriously: The JS bit is true. The sites I use IE on do not use JS, at least, not extensively. Hence? The JS benchmarks are meaningless.

Glonk "but if you do care about performance and you do use IE, you do need to have your head examined". "all you're doing here is posting borderline hostile comments to people who disagree with you"
I'm posting borderline hostile comments, I'm posting them ? What do you call telling me to have my head examined ? A bit of friendly advice ?

"What do you call telling me to have my head examined ? A bit of friendly advice ?"

Well, in your case it applies. ;)

Sorry, feeling a bit evil today. Must be the OS I am using. :p

I'm flabbergasted PC_Tool, and to think that this very day I have been giving all your stuff the thumbs up. I have also been giving all my stuff the thumbs up, unfortunately that appears to have failed somewhat.

It's Microsoft's fault. If I were using an Apple, I'd have been nicer.

You do realize "up" is the new "down", right? ;)

PC_Tool, I was puzzled that the time noted on your post was 5.12PM, and that the time noted on my post was 5.01PM, and I thought that's strange, I'm here in the UK, and you're posting in the USA how could this be ? I then realized that although my post was noted as being made at 5.01PM it was in fact 10.29PM on a Wednesday evening over here, and sanity was restored once again. The reverse historically correct thumbs up/down method of voting is only applicable to threads which concern the Opera browser, that is what probably confused you.

"that is what probably confused you."

Nope, that was all you, man. All you. :)