Comments on: InfoWorld, Windows 7 and benchmarks: a trio of trouble

By: Dave Lindhout

Dave Lindhout — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 07:25:20 +0000

@B. Factor: The article you link to was written by Randall Kennedy from InfoWorld, saying PC World has substantiated InforWorld’s claims is a bit miss leading. I found value in Randall’s, however.

By: B. Factor

B. Factor — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 22:39:51 +0000

PC World has substantiated the Infoworld claim that Windows 7 is Vista: http://www.pcworld.com/article/153624/under_the_hood_windows_7_is_vistas_twin.html

By: BRYAN B

BRYAN B — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:57:53 +0000

This is not directly related to your article, but this article from Computerworld may have some value to your testing and exploration of Windows 7 http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9119918&intsrc=hm_list

By: tino

tino — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:26:21 +0000

I meant to say “I really doubt it will be faster THAN XP on a MSI Wind.” on my previous comment erh!

By: tino

tino — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 08:21:47 +0000

I am sure it’s faster than Vista but I really doubt it will be faster on a MSI Wind. Since I don’t see any blogger bother to do the comparo with a XP.

And waiting for apps like keytweat running smoothly on W7 you know will take a long time.

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 18:40:40 +0000

James, no business is going to run an alpha build of an OS on production machines so any article that benchmarks that build is worthless. Surely you can appreciate the futility of an article like this.

Even if businesses are deliberately avoiding Vista as you suggest, they will not be evaluating Windows 7 based on an alpha build.

Anyway, I didn’t think anyone bothered with Infoworld after that stupidly pointless save XP campaign they ran.

By: tech001

tech001 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:57:21 +0000

People should remember InfoWorld was the only place that gave Win7 negative comments a couple of weeks back. I seriously doubt those people’s intention.

By: bmhome1

bmhome1 — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:40:54 +0000

Win 7 on my creaky old 1.2Gz TC1100 is unquestionably faster than Vista on same, even vLite’d and tweaked for speed.

The vanilla 10GB Ultimate Win 7 uses less CPU, had 40 processes running and was speedier across the board.

CrystalMark 04 gave Vista 30,000 and Win 7 just 22,000. Using THAT as reference would color real experience.

By: James Kendrick

James Kendrick — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:37:24 +0000

I see both Kevin’s and the author of the article’s points and they’re both right. I viewed the InfoWorld article as pointing out valid points for Microsoft. Enterprises have in large part avoided Vista and MS better demonstrate that Win 7 is different than Vista in the areas that the enterprise need it to be. The author was pointing out that in his opinion the current Win 7 build does not do that and that as such the enterprise will have no compelling reason to adopt it.

By: Vance

Vance — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:18:22 +0000

I simply think Microsoft is unable to build an OS that can work both as a mobile system and an all-in-one desktop mega OS. I remember how they said Vista would boot up as fast as a television set. Look how that turned out.

Someday, when notebooks turn on like our cellphones do, we’ll look back at Windows and LAUGH. I don’t have much hope for WIn7 being a truly mobile OS.