Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 104383	2009-10-25 23:34:00	Anthony Doesburg's NZ Herald article is so wrong.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
824190	2009-10-25 23:34:00	NZ Herald (www.nzherald.co.nz) The good news about Windows 7 is that it's faster than its predecessor, Vista. The bad news about Microsoft's new operating system, which went on sale yesterday, is that it is slower than Vista.Which is ?!??! Then he goes on to say Meanwhile, over at PC World's IDG stable mate, Computerworld US, Los Angeles software developer iolo technologies is reported as having timed Windows 7 starting up 42 per cent slower than Vista on a brand new machine. which he then ignored this counter point written in October 12, some 10 days before he wrote his article. On Sunday, I wrote an article which explained that according to tests by Los Angeles PC software maker, iolo Technologies, Windows 7 boots 42% slower than Windows Vista. This was quite surprise for many of us, considering Microsoft claimed the new OS would be faster than its counterpart, Windows Vista. Fortunately, reviewers at CRN Test Center were skeptical and wanted to find out by themselves if iolo’s claims were true. They put the OS to the test using a 32-bit Dell Vostro 22o with Windows 7 RTM, Intel Core 2 Duo 2.53GHz CPU, and 4 GB of RAM and iolo Technologies’ software, System Mechanic, which according to iolo it can “boost Windows speeds up to 800 percent.” Then, they ran tests with and without iolo’s software. The results are not so shocking, contrary to what iolo said yesterday, Windows 7 average boot up time was 53 seconds without iolo’s System Mechanic software installed. Iolo Technologies software actually seemed to delayed boot up time for about 2 seconds. CRN test actually found out that “System Mechanic did not improve the boot time and, in fact, slowed it down.” Vista took an average of 58 seconds to boot up. There you have it, iolo Technologies’ ridiculous claims that Windows 7 took 1 minute 34 seconds to boot up are highly debatable. Until the company releases more details of their test, we might find out why boot up times took so long on their machines. For now, you can relax and breath tranquilly because Windows 7 won’t take almost 2 minutes to start up.source (erictric.com) I kind of think there is a bias at NZ Herald or slack reporting. Here are the overall performance results from PC World's Website, which clearly shows Windows 7 is superior to Windows Vista. No Mixed results here. PC world Article (www.pcworld.com)	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
824191	2009-10-25 23:42:00	The PC world article is saying much the same as the Herald one as far as I can see. The verdict? Windows 7 makes some performance strides over Vista, though in some cases we saw no clear-cut winner, and in one area Windows 7 lagged considerably behind its predecessor.	Safari (3993)
824192	2009-10-25 23:52:00	The worldbench score says different ... no mixed results there.	KiwiTT_NZ (233)
824193	2009-10-26 00:22:00	At least the herald isn't like stuff, where prettly much everything is in Aussie terms.	the_bogan (9949)
824194	2009-10-26 01:33:00	Microsoft reports it "launches" faster than Vista, that is getting you to your desktop where you can launch applications. Another IT Reporting crowd however noted that it sits doing other things in the background upon boot before the CPU settled to idle for longer than Vista did. I've been father unimpressed with NZHerald lately, not to mention a recent one-night visit to the PCWorld.com website, I thought their articles were crap, poorly written, badly researched and literally just words on a page to get paid with little thought put in to the content itself. Nothing more than catchy headlines. At least NZHerald aren't *quite* that bad... yet ...	Chilling_Silence (9)
824195	2009-10-26 01:45:00	Microsoft reports it "launches" faster than Vista, that is getting you to your desktop where you can launch applications. Another IT Reporting crowd however noted that it sits doing other things in the background upon boot before the CPU settled to idle for longer than Vista did. ... Well that's all those machines anyway. Mines no slower than XP. Initially on first install it sat around a bit loading god knows what once it got to the desktop but a few services disables and it soon stopped that.	pctek (84)
1