Really good Windows 7 article

This article by Randall C. Kennedy does an excellent job, I think, in comparing Windows 7 with XP and Vista. He goes point-by-point over the many elements of the situation, including the history of Vista, the differences in structure and market scene that will determine the success of Windows 7, the considerations for businesses, end users, developers, etc. He looks at key factors such as manageability, security, footprint, and more.

All in all, I think it is a good, informative read. Enjoy!

http://www.infoworld.com/d/windows/windows-7-rtm-revenge-windows-vista-982

 

That is indeed a very comprehensive and enlightening analysis of the still questionable advantages of Windows 7 and the new model it presents over the Vista base. It is sad, but true, that we cannot rely on a new architecture that manages resource usage more optimally. But for what it has improved upon and scaled down in terms of general hoarding, it can truly be praised. Although suggested by the article that Windows 7 is not truly faster than Vista and is not even close to as fast as XP, it is more of a visual perception and real-world performance that measures the speed for the end user.

 

Well, it does show a performance increase over Vista, and mentions that Win7 does have some structural advantages that clearly advance it over XP in terms of performance on increasingly powerful systems and evolving hardware. And it also notes how Win7 requires next to no installation process compared to XP's mad hunt for drivers and patches.

As for your lament about resource management, all I can say is it's nice to dual-boot.

 

This article has issues.
First they only use 1 benchmark tool.
Second, they did not explain the details of that benchmark.. which suggest they just get any benchmark tool they found form a google search and trust it. I am not saying it's a bad benchmark tool, but some professionalism in the article could not hurt.

Third, no mention if they compared Windows Vista/7 32-bit or 64-bit.. this has a BIG difference. And how about the benchmark tool... 32 or 64-bit. My guess is that they went 32-bit, even thus Microsoft doesn't care about 32-bit OS since Vista.

Fourth, memory section problem. They talk about how XP takes less memory, but it's wrong.. as XP puts everything on the HDD, no mather how much RAM you have it acts as if you are low in memory. Windows 7/Vista does not.

Fifth, thread counts. Windows 7 has way more feature than XP.. its normal and is expected to see that.

Six, Superfetch.. was Superfetch taken in consideration when benchmarking, or they just executed the benchmark once.

Seven, OS and hardware configuration, what was the system configuration? nothing was mentioned. Also, did they do like Vista benchmark where they butchered the Vista and cut it's limbs as they think they tweaked the OS for greater performance but rather actually did the contrary. For example, a popular bad tweak: disable Superfetch.

This article is not all bad.. but they are many unanswered questions, and some fault. It should taken as a grain of salt.