Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Operating Systems Software Portables Power Hardware Technology

Windows 7 vs. Windows XP On a Netbook 397

Posted by timothy
from the all-battery-life-claims-are-lies dept.
Justin writes "Many in the industry are counting on Windows 7 to bring the netbook market to the next level. Having netbook manufacturers ship netbooks with 7+ year old Windows XP pre-installed surely deterred some from joining the ranks of households with the small, light and portable netbooks. It seems Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP. Legit Reviews has the full scoop of battery life and performance tests pitting Windows 7 against Windows XP on the ASUS Eee PC 1005HA Netbook." I'd like to see a follow-up with a few different Netbook-friendly Linux distros, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 vs. Windows XP On a Netbook

Comments Filter:
  • Lighter weight Windows XP - now that is a contradiction in terms!!!
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by scorp1us (235526)
      Well, what about a lighter weight windows 2000? I mean that's what XP is.. 2000+bloat. Until games "required XP" (in fact, only 3 DirectX DLLs, copied easily enough from an XP system) I was plenty happy with 2000. But now one must worry about security updates which don't happen anymore. I'm leaning towards Linux these days. Same basic stuff, without the bloat. Plus the MS agreements where you don't own rights to the software in your computer are becoming an issue. If I can't use software in the approved wa
    • by Absolut187 (816431) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:50PM (#28873229) Homepage

      Well, Microsoft reports that the minimum disk space required for Windows XP (32bit) is 1.5 GB (but as others have pointed out, can be reduced to ~500MB).

      The minimum disk space required for Windows 7?

      16 (Yes, SIXTEEN) gigabytes.
      Or 20 for the 64-bit version.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Microsoft_Windows_versions#Hardware_requirements [wikipedia.org]

      Oh, and you are required to have a 128MB video card... to run your so-called "OPERATING SYSTEM."

      But hey - it comes with built-in handwriting recognition, so take my money and sign me up!

      • by Draek (916851) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @04:18PM (#28873715)

        From experience I can tell you that Windows 7 (64-bit version) can be installed on a 10 GB partition. Barely, but it does work.

        If you want light, Minix still can't be beat but I don't see anyone using it as a desktop OS. I wonder why.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mgblst (80109)

          Good point, if there was only some way we could balance things, rather than going to the extremes. Unfortunately, we all know the law, forcing us to adopt either the biggest or smallest OS footprint.

  • So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LeinadSpoon (1602063) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:50PM (#28871057)
    I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.
    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wowsers (1151731) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:55PM (#28871127) Journal

      The point of installing Windows 7 is to keep Linux OFF a netbook!

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by PPH (736903) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:36PM (#28871783)

        If your whole point in installing Windows 7 is to not run something else, then just think of the money you could save by just not buying a netbook. Or a PC. Or a broadband or dialup Internet connection.

        I choose my O/S based upon what it does run.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Anonymous coward would like to point out that you've missed the point entirely

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by pushing-robot (1037830) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:56PM (#28871163)

      DirectX 10, silly!

      Seriously, though, Vista changed quite a few things under the hood. The only reason you don't see more Vista-only software yet is because it was, well, a flop.

      If Windows 7 catches on, it won't be long before you run across software that refuses to run on XP.

      • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Absolut187 (816431) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:06PM (#28871315) Homepage

        If Windows 7 catches on, it won't be long before you run across software that refuses to run on XP.

        Which is necessary to Microsoft's survival, being their own biggest competitor and all.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          If Windows 7 catches on, it won't be long before you run across software that refuses to run on XP.

          Which is necessary to Microsoft's survival, being their own biggest competitor and all.

          It could be necessary for progress in general. Although, maybe I'm mistaken and you'd prefer to retro fit your gasoline engine powered vehicle with a pair of oxen? I'm just sayin, at some point the past "version" becomes so obsolete you may no longer wish to support it. It may also be that the costs of maintaining support for said obsolescence is simply higher than abandoning it.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          It's within a company's best interest to cannibalize their own products. It was somewhat of a failure in this situation in that the market share previously held by XP wasn't overwhelmingly overtaken by Vista. Instead, of that segment of Vista non-adopters, the market share went to Apple or Linux or, more often than not, back to XP.
    • Well XP isn't going to be sold forever, and as it is now you need to pay a premium to get the Vista Business edition with the XP downgrade, so this article is actually quite good in promoting the confidence of consumers to buy Windows 7 for their netbook instead of looking for some hacked method to get XP on their shiny new netbook in the upcoming year.

      TL;DR: When XP is no longer available to buy, I won't worry about putting Windows 7 on the netbook.

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wjousts (1529427) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:02PM (#28871253)
      Security for starters. Vista changed a lot under the hood to improve security. So if your netbook is only for accessing the internet, there is actually more, not less, reason for dumping XP.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by LeinadSpoon (1602063)
        I've ran XP for years and never had a security issue. Standard practices such as not opening attachments from people you don't know and keeping everything updated do wonderfully. Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.
        • Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by clang_jangle (975789) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:30PM (#28871691) Journal
          My experience supporting XP users is that even if I train them not to click blindly on just anything they still get personal email from their luser friends and family who are malware-infected, so it's just a losing proposition. Much as I'd love to see everyone adopt Linux, realistically I am sort of looking forward to win7 being society's default OS. So far, my testing appears to indicate it will be a lot easier to supporrt than XP has been.
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Hurricane78 (562437)

            It will. Because I will not support it at all. I started with Vista, which I personally never touched. I told them that I can't help them on that. If they actually *bought* Vista, I entirely stopped talking to them. Now it's nice and quiet, and the only questions I ever get, can be solved by ssh access to a bash shell.

            I won't ever give that up. ^^

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sancho (17056)

          Yes, not everyone follows them, but maybe after a few security problems, they'll learn.

          I wish I could mod you "naive".

          Besides, there are still drive-by vulnerabilities to worry about. Vista+IE actually does a lot to mitigate and prevent vulnerabilities in the browser (Vista+Chrome also does a pretty good job.)

      • by Thaelon (250687)

        Or, you could just not run as an administrator and get most of the same security.

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by basementman (1475159) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:15PM (#28871459) Homepage

      The point of netbooks is to use them for whatever the fuck you want. Just because they are called "netbooks" doesn't mean I'm only allowed to access the internet with them.

      On my netbook I can browse the internet, write an essay in OpenOffice, watch 720p movies, run an FTP client, play CS:S. Upgrading to Windows 7 makes all of these things faster.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Vexorian (959249)

        On my netbook I can browse the internet, write an essay in OpenOffice, watch 720p movies, run an FTP client, play CS:S. Upgrading to Windows 7 makes all of these things faster.

        Nope. See the numbers in the article, everything is really quite the same performance-wise. So '7 it is a huge improvement since vista, but not that much since XP (In fact in many places XP is still faster, slightly faster, but there we go, speed is not a good reason...)

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:20PM (#28871551)

      I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.

      7's ~0.5 second sleep and awake times are a nice boost over XP, and on my Mini with 2 gigs of ram Firefox opens under 7 in 1/2 the time it took to open in XP. Also, when I boot up I can start opening programs as soon as the desktop loads, where in XP the whole system would freeze for seconds at a time during the 60 seconds after a boot, possibly because of the JMicron controller in my SSD. I'm not sure how I generally feel about the new taskbar in 7 at its default settings (i.e., OSX Docklike), but on the tiny screen of a netbook the reduced taskbar clutter is great. Windows management features like mouseover-full size Window previews make me feel a lot less claustrophobic in the tiny netbook world, as well.

      • by jo42 (227475)

        You need to do a clean, minimal, from scratch XP install on your Mini. I did that with mine and don't see any of the things you say you are. Turning off all the pointless XP eye-candy crap really makes it feel snappy.

    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Funny)

      by gparent (1242548) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:27PM (#28871647)
      Windows 7 is better and faster. It'd be kinda like using Ubuntu 9.04 instead of 6.06.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Enderandrew (866215)

        Faster than XP? I've seen benchmarks, but a clean install of Windows 7 was slower than my old install of XP x64. 7 may be faster than Vista, but not XP.

        It should be noted though that the Windows 7 MS is hyping for netbooks has MANY services disabled, where as they are comparing it to an XP that hasn't be similarly optimized.

      • Re:So what? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Enderandrew (866215) <.enderandrew. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:46PM (#28872003) Homepage Journal

        Um, I just went through the article and XP was faster in basically every bench mark.

        What feature does 7 provide you that is a huge benefit over XP, especially on a netbook?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by gparent (1242548)
          Okay, maybe I worded it wrong (the stupid anti-MS trolls still rated me funny, but whatever).

          It's faster in the sense that it does more things than XP *and* manages to go at the same speed (the microbenchmarks were very slightly favorable towards XP as you've said, but nowhere significant).

          However, by going for Windows 7, you get a better sound solution (Mixer, for instance), increased security via UAC, a non-IE dependant Windows Update, virtual store, etc., then on top of that you get a lot less reboots
    • Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)

      by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:49PM (#28872055)

      I thought the point of netbooks was to have a computer for accessing the internet and that's about it. Last I checked, XP could access the internet. I don't see the point in putting Windows 7 on your netbook at all.

      Well, let me play devil's advocate and throw out some ideas for you...

      1) Security, there truly is a major level of security between XP and Win7. This goes from the built in malware tools, to even IE running in protected mode so it is technically more secure than running Firefox or Chrome, as the browser doesn't even user level rights. (This is why the Flash and recent IE exploits you have read about (that can even affect OS X and Linux are IMMUNE on Vista or Win7 when running IE.) - I know, this is hard to hear and I hate saying it myself, but is true.

      2) Network features. Running through the airport and having the new Win7/Vista networking stack features is freaking awesome, as it not only does really good at just hooking into the WiFi, but also remembers. So that if go back through Denver it knows not only how to connect (which all OSes should do), but it also knows how to classify the network and flips on the Firewall on the fly and correctly sets all sharing settings based on the profile of the network there.

      3) 3G features - Networking Again - 3G if you have the latest drivers from most manufacturers, and you have a 3G netbook, or even a 3G phone that you are tethering, the Network connection is treated more like a WiFi connection, and gives you instant information from the same interface, with Bars, Speed, etc, and again automatically just hooks you into the network and again applies the level of firewall security and sharing crackdown that you have specified.

      4) Resume from Standby or Hibernate - Set your Power Button to hibernate and you can flip the netbook on and off as fast as you can open your phone. The speed differences in resume from standby are good, but the hibernate resume features are fast, and when you are trying to rebook flights running through an airport, you appreciate these little things.

      5) Then add in 1000 other new features over XP, from better application boot times via Superfetch, to pulling up tons of information from a simple search. There are also the nice corporate features that work better and are handy from newer ways it deals with Offline files and access remote servers, to even NTFS features that do a bit extra to keep previous versions of your documents with you at all times, without even having to back them up every hour.

      And this could go on and on and on, as the full list of several thousand features were contrasted between Win7 and XP that really do make things easier and work better than an 8 year old OS. (From bluetooth to even having the right printers appear based on what network I'm roaming on at the moment, just little things that are nice.)

      ----

      Finally, netbooks are NOT ONLY for just browsing the internet. They are low power computers, and you seem to discount that there are users running Office, and Photoshop, and Corel, and Illustrator, and even playing games on these computers. There is a difference between getting a crap Web inteface to my documents when at the airport, and actually opening the application they were created in and just editing them.

      You can also find 'geeks' like myself playing an MMO on netbooks, and sure it isn't 60fps, but 20-30fps on a device isn't bad, and ironically, most of the games that the Netbooks can actually run, hold their own and often run faster under Win7, as it does a better job of silencing background processes.

      There are also the times, I just want to read an eBook, watch a movie, listen to a book, or listen to music, and then the Netbook becomes the ultimate PMP, and you will find me with headphones on and my Netbook is shoved in my briefcase. (Oh and on flights where space is tight, again, they work quire well for movie viewing, you are getting a 8-10" screen for you and anyone you travel with and about the same battery life as a gen

    • A Netbook is a system with a very low powered single-core CPU. Everything you can do to move things off the CPU makes everything else faster. Windows 7 can offload GDI, window compositing, and many other effects to the GPU (even one as relatively weak as in Netbooks), saving a ton of CPU performance. And thus making everything else faster, even if it's just looking at a web page that's running some Javascript or Flash.

      I just upgraded my kids' Dell Mini 9 (1 GB RAM) to Win 7 RTM from its OEM XP config, and it's remarkably snappier even just doing web browsing, even with a GMA 945.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7#Desktop_Window_Manager [wikipedia.org]

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Spliffster (755587)
        So, if I understand this right: 7 is faster than XP because it offloads things to the GPU XP doesn't do (window compositing)? -S
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Doom 2 versus Quake 2 on a 386.

  • by snarfies (115214)

    "Having netbook manufacturers ship netbooks with 7+ year old Windows XP pre-installed surely deterred some from joining the ranks of households with the small, light and portable netbooks."

    Who, exactly? Anyone who doesn't know what they're doing will blindly buy anything. Anyone who DOES know what they're doing will install any OS they like.

    Or was the submitted actually suggesting that netbook buyers were actually LOOKING for Vista?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @01:55PM (#28871143)

    Vista jokes aside, the fact that people are willing TO PAY EXTRA to get their computer with windows XP is a very good indicator.

    Most people/companies are not interested in the new features offered by Vista. They just aren't that compelling.

    Then add the fact that Vista is new, slower, compatible with less hardware, some of your current software won't work on Vista, and many people find UAC annoying.

    Not a lot of upside, and a big downside for many. The value proposition just isn't there.

    Microsoft pulled XP from the retail market to avoid Vista looking like a flop.

    • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:20PM (#28871549)

      Most people/companies are not interested in the new features offered by Vista. They just aren't that compelling

      Most people anyway, have never sat down in front of a Vista machine for long enough to get used to it.

      Compatibility, seriously? That hasn't been a problem for literally years. Any computer you buy off the shelf today is going to have compatible hardware and I bet you'd be hard pressed to find individual pieces that are worth buying that aren't compatible.

      UAC? Can be turned off in about 5 mouse clicks.

      I can't say much about performance except that my $600 laptop has enough power to handle it easily, I know that doesn't capture the netbook market at all, but if you're buying an off the shelf desktop or laptop I highly doubt you'll see any issues. It's true that there isn't a whole lot of big changes to make the transition worthwhile, certainly there's nothing that would make me upgrade an XP machine to Vista.

      OTOH, if I were buying a new machine and had the choice, I would, in all honesty, take Vista for the little things if nothing else. Being able to control the volume on a program by program basis is very nice. Being able to search the start bar and individual folders, including things like the control panel is also nice, just to name a couple. The single largest problem with Vista was it's launch, for what it's worth running Vista is actually quite enjoyable for me.

      (Please don't blow this post off just because it's not anti-Vista, I run XP at work, Vista on my laptop, and Ubuntu on my Desktop. All have the pluses and minuses, I'm just trying to dispel a bit of the bad reputation that Vista (unfairly IMO) has.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by hyades1 (1149581)
        Re: "Most people anyway, have never sat down in front of a Vista machine for long enough to get used to it."

        I don't have to cook and eat a pork chop to figure out that it's rotten. The smell is enough of a clue.

    • I would agree with you, but people would pay sometimes twice as much for Advil as Ibuprofin, despite the fact that they are exactly the same thing. People pay 20% more for 'Amplified Wheybolic Extreme protein' as for 'Wheybolic Extreme protein' at GNC even though from a practical standpoint they provide the same results. People buy bottled water when a purifier will taste just as good (in some cases of course bottled water is slightly more convenient, but not all).

      People are willing to pay for somethin
  • Intel describes a netbook as a platform for playing media and a notebook as a platfrom for creating media. So what Windows 7 is aimed for? Play or create media? If you put both for a netbook, you just waste lots of cpu power for bloat you add in order to create new media.

    One of the biggest strenghts of Open Source is to give opportunity to tailor systems for a specific needs. That's why Moblin or Plasma mid and couple of other products aimed to play media only and not bother creating any will succeed in n
    • Intel describes a netbook as a platform for playing media and a notebook as a platfrom for creating media. So what Windows 7 is aimed for? Play or create media? If you put both for a netbook, you just waste lots of cpu power for bloat you add in order to create new media.

      It's marketing drivel. Don't give it anymore consideration than that. I use my Acer Aspire One to do video encoding, and I don't give a damn what the marketing people say.

  • Windows 7 betas have been greeted with remarkable positive press. "Of course," said Steve Ballmer, "the betas preview the 'champagne and hookers' edition, which would be way too much for netbooks and explode users' brains. Imagine thinking those little things are computers! So we're releasing what we call Windows 7 Dumbass Edition(tm). It lets you log in and look at the shiny. Even Spider Solitaire has the ribbon toolbar! And you can buy an upgrade to the version that runs programs! It lets you do that!"

    Dumbass Edition(tm) comes with pre-installed viruses to make the computer part of the Storm, Conficker and FBI botnets. "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

    "Some manufacturers were going to release netbooks with ARM processors, which would run Linux or Chrome OS at twice the speed, half the heat and ten-hour battery life, but wouldn't run Windows 7. Microsoft assures us this is a crushing blow for ARM," said Michael Silver of Gartner. "ARM didn't have anything to say to that, just a guffawing sound down the phone. Obviously they're upset and hysterical."

    In future news, Microsoft Corporation has announced a limited one-off extension of availability of its Windows XP operating system to April 2101 after criticism from large customers and analysts. This is the fifty-sixth extension of XPâ(TM)s availability since 2008. "Windows XP is currently in the extremely very prolonged super-extended support phase and Microsoft encourages customers to migrate to Windows for Neurons 2097 as soon as feasible," said William Gates V, CEO and great-grandson of the company founder. "Spare change?"

    Illustration: Steve Ballmer's joyous expression [today.com] when announcing seeing the latest Microsoft quarterly figures.

  • Really? (Score:5, Informative)

    by TheNetAvenger (624455) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:11PM (#28871383)

    Ok, the article isn't off the scale in terms of inaccuracy, but when you see comments like this, how can you trust anything they do or say?

    Aero is automatically disabled when unplugged in battery saver mode which makes sense

    Aero is NOT disabled when unplugged; instead, translucency is turned off. (The Blur/Glass effect)

    Aero itself remains enabled. I know people confuse 'Glass' and 'Aero' and 'DWM' and what the OS, but come on this is a technical review right, shouldn't they get the basic facts that you find on Wikipedia correct or at least maybe, just maybe have a clue themselves?

    There are other more subtle errors in the article, and even though it basically says Win7 is doing fine. However, do you notice it forgets to mention that Win7 is performing as well as XP while having search, defender and many other 'heavy' features working properly and still performing as well as XP on a very modest CPU and GPU platform.

    Going to leave it here...

  • ... is probably the same one running their web-server. Holy Slashdotting, batman!

  • by basementman (1475159) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:13PM (#28871419) Homepage

    Having run Windows XP, Ubuntu and Windows 7 on my MSI Wind U100 I can say Windows Seven has by far been the best OS. XP ran fine, but it wasn't particularly pleasing to the eye and had some issues running multiple programs at once. Ubuntu looked marginally better but performance wise it was terrible, I couldn't watch a flash video without it seizing up. Windows Seven looks pretty, runs faster than XP and is just better overall.

    • by gravos (912628) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:27PM (#28871663) Homepage
      That's Adobe's problem, not Ubuntu's. Videos in every player other than Flash will work fine.
      • by s7uar7 (746699) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:42PM (#28871925) Homepage
        It might not be Ubuntu's fault, but it's Ubuntu's problem.
      • by PRMan (959735) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:48PM (#28872029)

        Actually, many open-source drivers do not have hardware support for playing video on the graphics chip.

        Regardless of the reason for this (and it may be impossible to fix if they are closed up), Ubuntu is very poor at playing Flash video depending on the chip. On one machine at home, they emulate hardware speedup in the driver using software, but Flash actually does better with it turned off.

      • That's Adobe's problem, not Ubuntu's. Videos in every player other than Flash will work fine.

        And that is what is wrong with Linux.

        Last time I checked, if you want to surf the web and watch videos, most of those videos are going to be in Flash format (Youtube, etc.).

        So why would I want to run Ubuntu on a netbook when you can't watch videos on arguably the most popular website for online videos?

      • But to the users, its not Adobe's problem. Adobe works fine on their windows machine, so it must be Linux's fault that they can't watch their favorite video's on Hulu.

        Its a nasty double edged sword, since Adobe won't care till it hits a critical mass of users, and it won't hit a critical mass, if its crap. The only decent solution is an Open Source project http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/ [gnu.org] , so that others, who do care, can fix it, but while its coming along nicely, last I checked, wasn't quite as good a

      • But it is a valid reason to say that Ubuntu didn't run as well during normal operations.

        I have the Flash issue even on a dual core laptop running Ubuntu 9.04. It's annoying. Every time I mention it, though, the same answer comes up: it's a problem with flash, not Ubuntu. That may be true, but it's still making it much more annoying and difficult to watch Flash videos, no matter whose fault it is. Average User (tm) is not going to say "Oh well. I can live without being able to watch youtube videos easily

  • Strange conclusions? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by William Ager (1157031) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:17PM (#28871505)

    So, in my interpretation, the Windows 7 netbook had slightly shorter battery life, and performed slightly worse in all but two benchmarks. One of those two was dealing with "next generation gaming performance" that really isn't point of netbooks, and the other was essentially identical to the XP performance.

    And the conclusion the reviewers take from this is that Windows 7 is good? Just because it isn't as bad as Vista, and isn't too much worse than XP?

    With these sorts of results, XP is going to be with us for a long time. Why is it so hard for Microsoft to make something comparable?

    • You would have a hard time convincing me that security can be implemented at no CPU cost and running IE in a sandbox has huge advantages.
      So what's not to like?

    • by CannonballHead (842625) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:04PM (#28872331)

      Yes, that's good, isn't it? A 7 year old OS vs. a not-yet-released OS running on current hardware... and the not-yet-released OS performs almost just as well as the 7 year old OS?

      I'd say that's pretty good. Typical idea is that older OS's will run faster since they were smaller and HAD to run on .. less hardware. Hardware is better, so OS's can plan on using more of it. An OS that is able to run almost as well as a 7 year old OS on CURRENT hardware is doing pretty well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by master811 (874700)

        Bare in mind that netbook hardware is most certainly anything but current. Performance is roughly equivalent to a 5 year old Pentium M. The only difference is that it has been shrunk and power consumption reduced to the point where 5 year old mid class laptop has been reduced significantly in size.
         
        Running Win 7 on a modern mobile (Core 2 Duo) CPU would give a much better comparison, and really show the true benefits it has.

  • why use old RC (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jupiterssj4 (801031)
    Should have used the RTM that came out... the RC is months old... lots of stuff has changed
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:35PM (#28871759) Journal
    It is a game invented by Microsoft. Some start up creates a product. Looks like the product has some legs. Microsoft feels, that product could threaten its monopoly or it feels it wants that piece of the market also for itself, or it thinks sabotaging that product would somehow strengthen its position. All it used to take to kill it would be a press release. "Microsoft is planning to release a competitor in the next release Or would make the functionality part of Windows." That is it. Venture capital would evaporate and the product would never see the light of the day.

    Now Microsoft is facing the same game from the other end. Very carefully timed announcement by Google that all the OS you would need to run a netbook is coming soon. Vendors do not commit wholeheartedly to Microsoft. Device driver writers do not just hack something that will work in Windows alone and be done with it. Consumers also do not rush out to buy the latest and greatest. Corporations add another action to their evaluation. "What about Chrome OS?". That buys some time. Most vendors cite Chrome OS and demand hefty discount for Win7 in netbook market. Microsoft is forced to sell its OS at bargain basement prices in the fastest growing segment of PC market.

  • Footprint? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by argent (18001) <peterNO@SPAMslashdot.2006.taronga.com> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:35PM (#28871765) Homepage Journal

    Let's see... a bunch of hardware benchmarks, which would be expected to result in negligible difference between different versions of Windows. Does Vista REALLY come out significantly worse than XP on these kinds of benchmarks?

    How about something relevant to netbooks? What's the memory footprint? Disk footprint?

  • What a Joke! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @02:40PM (#28871881)

    Microsoft has addressed most of the pitfalls of Windows Vista on a netbook by increasing battery life and performance to be very close to that of the lighter-weight Windows XP.

    What a fracking joke! That the new product is almost as good as the 7 year old one that it replaces.

  • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@b[ ].org ['eau' in gap]> on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @03:32PM (#28872881)

    All this astroturfed media about how great Win7 is and how it is going to kick butt on netbooks. Funny.

    They always forget the one critical problem. Price. The only way XP clawed market share away from the penguin was by Microsoft basically giving it away. They aren't planning on giving 7 away so there is going to be a five tiered price structure on netbooks and that is about three too many.

    1. ARM Netbooks/smartbooks will be the hot new low cost item this Xmas. They will be at or below where ASUS introduced the EEE PC 700. And just maybe they hit the $200 price point ASUS originally aimed for and missed. Does anyone think WinCE will be the big winner in this market? Ok, maybe they can horn their way in by Xmas '11 but the rumormill hasn't been talking WinCE it has been Android and a little Ubuntu with most trying to roll their own.

    2. x86 based machines running Linux. Go look at the HP Mini Mi 110 if you want to see how low x86 hardware can get without the Microsoft tax. I have seen em as low as $249 but they have crept up a bit lately.

    3. x86 hardware with an XP preload. Seem to run at least $30 more than a penguin and usually $40-50 more.

    4. x86 hardware with Windows 7 starter edition. Hasn't shipped yet but we can assume it will cost at least as much as XP. Odds are it will be mostly useful as a platform to harvest the customer's credit card to upgrade to a more complete edition.

    5. x86 hardware preloaded with Windows 7 Home. Either Microsoft gives up on the idea of profits or this puppy boosts the sticker a full $100 over a penguin preload. x86 netbooks have already crept up a hundred or so in average selling price and now Microsoft expects customers to pony up another portrait of Franklin? In this economy? Hello? Anyone remember why the netbook revolution got started in the first place? Wasn't price as big a factor as the form factor?

    Ok, so how will the marketplace solve the 'too many SKU problem'? Starter will probably get ditched as a customer relations nightmare. Linux on x86 will probably finish its vanishing act from retail although a few online sellers might continue if the sales are there. That gets from five to three. So it will depend on how many customers think Win7 is worth a premium likely to exceed $50 over XP. If most pay XP dies, if not....

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Wednesday July 29, 2009 @05:25PM (#28874715)

    I kmnow this is off-topic but...can anyone confirm if the following has been fixed in Windows 7?

    Vista's copy progress dialog doesn't even tell you the name of the file you're copying any more. It only tells you part of the path it comes from. XP gives you the filename and full path.

    If you move a folder containing files to a different place that already has a folder with the same name, XP merges them properly. Even with UAC turned off, Vista comes up with a supremely annoying dialog to confirm each file in turn, and even after a succesful move, the source folder is left behind.

    If there's even one file in a folder that Vista thinks might be a media file, it presents the file list of the whole folder with media attributes instead of 'all files' attributes by default. It does this every time you create a new foler and you can't turn off or even force it to use a particular profile.

    Vista's DRM means it can't play some of my media that XP can play without problem.

    Vista still forgets window settings even if you set "remember each windows settings". This is a problem way back to Windows95 I think.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Shados (741919)

      I just tried for kicks... if I move a folder to another that contains a folder with the same name, it pops the message asking me what I want to do, and then at the bottom there's a tick box "Do this for the following X conflicts". Click that, popup doesnt happen again.

      Thats with a folder with a very complex directory tree and thousands of files (I tried with a backup, basically)

      The source folder does stay behind (though empty), however.

      You're right about the file copy progress though. It gives you the entir

10.0 times 0.1 is hardly ever 1.0.

Working...