We're replacing an old computer here in the office and I'm trying to decide if Windows 7 is a good option. I know it's faster than Windows Vista but is it faster than Windows XP.
Typical tasks( -editing video -Virtual PC -Visual Studio (although I may just run that within Virtual PC)
PC Specs - Fairly high end machine ($2K or so) (I'm using a 3Ghz Duo Core Dell XPS with 3 GB Ram)
I'm looking for fairly objective measurements.
Any useful links?
I can tell you I have upgraded 5 PCs from windows XP to windows 7. Everything from a P4 2.8 GHz Single Core to an AMD X2 5000+. In all cases whether running PC games, remote desktop applications or anything in between I haven't noticed any noticeable speed loss. As noted by above posters logically it is not faster, but whereas Vista was noticeably slower 7 is not. Additionally it speeds up tasks like copying large files which could be very useful given the kind of work you do. The test freaks link above illustrates this well. I would highly recommend choosing 7 because while the OS itself might not be faster, the feature set included with the OS should make you much faster at completing work.
No, it's not faster than XP, but then it can't possibly be as there is a lot more going on in the guts of the OS.
For the record, I have tested the beta and RC on a variety of hardware, all the way down to a 1.6 Ghz/512MB laptop, and performance was fine in all configurations. It's a good OS, and if it was 6 months further down the line I would unreservedly recommend it for a new installation. Right now though, perf question aside, I would be inclined to wait until the early adopters have used it in production environments first.
Well the answer is quite clearly no. As win98 was faster than XP, XP is faster than Win7 (which essentially is just a tidied up Vista)
But each generation adds features and Windows 7 is at least looking like the upgrade from XP that Vista was supposed to be.
Seems like the type of work you're doing is fairly RAM-intensive, so with that in mind I'd recommend a 64-bit OS (as long as your software can utilize the added RAM). And I'd for sure recommend 64-bit Win7 over 64-bit Vista or 64-bit XP, just because of the broader hardware support.
Start by looking at the 64-bit capabilities of your software (f.instance if you're using Adobe Premiere for video editing, the CS4 with an update will fully take advantage of 64-bit architecture).
It's not whether the OS is faster on a given hw, it's what makes you go faster.
Clearly, it isn't going to be faster on the same hardware - it is doing so much more than XP. Is it faster than Vista? Not especially, but then again - despite what the nay-sayers claim - Vista wasn't that slow anyway; certainly not when running on Vista-generation hardware.
I can assure you that if you compared XP on 2001 hardware, Vista on 2006 hardware, and Windows 7 on 2009 hardware that you would pick Windows 7 every time.
If you are getting a new machine (particularly a higher-end machine like you are proposing), you should be getting Windows 7 and IMHO it should also be x64. Unless you have a legacy app that says otherwise, there is no good reason to drag your heels when it comes to going 64-bit.
Your new hardware will more than compensate for the extra sophistication of Windows 7 and the extra work that entails.
So i got this old pc given to me with 2.6Ghz absically no ram, about 512 and a rubish g- card. I think it's a nvidia 6 series card with 54mb or something similar.
I like windows 7 on my gaming rig but wondered if it's just best to go for good old xp.
anyway i will also overclock some other pc's i have and see if windows 7 is useable on them.
I will try to remember to update to say how it went.
Ivan