How Windows 7 Beta compares to Vista SP1 in terms of stability?

[Mem]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: gevorg
Since Windows 7 is better and more optimized than Vista, I'm wondering if its Beta is good enough for general home use like internet browsing, MS Office, music & movies. Or it still prone to lockups, unexpected errors and instability?

This is a joke right?..Win7 beta is buggy(to be expected at this stage being beta) and Vista has been solid now for ages in my gaming and general usage.

I don't know why you are comparing a stable retail OS thats been out awhile to a beta OS,makes no sense.

It's because Windows 7 is basically a refined version of Vista. They are basically building off Vista. It uses the same kernel. One has to think that MS is simply working existing Vista kinks out. There aren't really any new features in 7 to speak of. It's just like Win98SE.

IMO this beta of Windows 7 is far more stable than Vista was upon its full release.

I already know Win7 is supposed to be a refined Vista thats not what I was asking,as to stability hmm had two BSOD already in Win7 plus a few things not working (I'm not blaming Win7 because its beta) but to say its more stable then Vista at this time is a joke,you still can't compare a beta OS to a full retail product no matter what it is because as beta it will go through changes before general release to the public (for the better).

Never had any stability issues in Vista ,you normally find 99% of those issues are caused by other things,I had Vista on release too and it was fine in general(once drivers were released) and right now Vista is pretty mature. I know I had less issues with Vista both in software and driver and installation wise then I have at the moment in Win7 beta...anyway thats besides the point since if you check the title he is asking about Vista SP1 to Win7 beta again its no way as stable or mature enough for general usage,even the most died hard Win7 beta fan will say there is still need to fix a few bugs,refine Win7 before its considered good enough for final or retail use.

It'll be interesting to compare Vista SP2 to Win7 retail....I still want my Win8 and I miss the good old DOS 6.22 days

One has to think that MS is simply working existing Vista kinks out.

I disagree,personally I feel they made Win7 for those with low specced PCs,there's still a lot of users out there with very old systems,even now Vista is two years old and by time Win7 is retail I hate to think how old those systems will be, however those users should be happy.

 

[flexy]

>>>
I disagree,personally I feel they made Win7 for those with low specced PCs,there's still a lot of users out there with very old systems,even now Vista is two years old and by time Win7 is retail I hate to think how old those systems will be, however those users should be happy.
>>>

I sometimes wonder how and why people (you) say things like that.

Look, after spending years w/ XP on my old AMD 1 core i built a kicka$$ PC w/ the latest motherboard, quad core 4 GB ram and..OF COURSE Vista 64 in the assumption that this PC will be the fastest every built.

After installing Vista64 the whole system was lagging, unresponsive ("unresponsive" probably the best best term to describe it). This is a PC which should be overall faster than the majoity of consumer PCs out there (Anandtech etc. overclockers aside), 4x 3.5Ghz core, overclocked, stability tested, nice video card.

There are still people implying that performance issues of Vista are MERELY an issue of insufficient H/W...but that's just not the case.

Vista has several flaws (i don't want to go into details now) and saying that W7 is the OS for lower specced system is just a little...excuse me, ignorant.

I also constantly see SOME people giving statements like "Vista performs bad - So it must be PEBKAC" <--- or people complaining about bad Vista performance must be a) stupid b) have a low IQ c) are ignorant in terms of PC/OS knowledge and similar.

I personally am convinced that MS themselves are very aware of the flaws of Vista, and W7 is certainly not primarily planned as "the little OS for weaker computers who cant run Vista"..a la "Vista runs bad, so you must be a retard or your PC must suck"-philosophy

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
I disagree,personally I feel they made Win7 for those with low specced PCs,there's still a lot of users out there with very old systems,even now Vista is two years old and by time Win7 is retail I hate to think how old those systems will be, however those users should be happy.
>>>

I sometimes wonder how and why people (you) say things like that.

Look, after spending years w/ XP on my old AMD 1 core i built a kicka$$ PC w/ the latest motherboard, quad core 4 GB ram and..OF COURSE Vista 64 in the assumption that this PC will be the fastest every built.

After installing Vista64 the whole system was lagging, unresponsive ("unresponsive" probably the best best term to describe it). This is a PC which should be overall faster than the majoity of consumer PCs out there (Anandtech etc. overclockers aside), 4x 3.5Ghz core, overclocked, stability tested, nice video card.

There are still people implying that performance issues of Vista are MERELY an issue of insufficient H/W...but that's just not the case.

Vista has several flaws (i don't want to go into details now) and saying that W7 is the OS for lower specced system is just a little...excuse me, ignorant.

I also constantly see SOME people giving statements like "Vista performs bad - So it must be PEBKAC" <--- or people complaining about bad Vista performance must be a) stupid b) have a low IQ c) are ignorant in terms of PC/OS knowledge and similar.

I personally am convinced that MS themselves are very aware of the flaws of Vista, and W7 is certainly not primarily planned as "the little OS for weaker computers who cant run Vista"..a la "Vista runs bad, so you must be a retard or your PC must suck"-philosophy

Not to turn this into a vista thread, but honestly, it's just common sense. You come here, and other than those bringing up specific issues, most people are not having performance issues with Vista. That doesnt necessarily make you ignorant, but you either are having really bad luck, or have unreasonable standards.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>>
I disagree,personally I feel they made Win7 for those with low specced PCs,there's still a lot of users out there with very old systems,even now Vista is two years old and by time Win7 is retail I hate to think how old those systems will be, however those users should be happy.
>>>

I sometimes wonder how and why people (you) say things like that.

Look, after spending years w/ XP on my old AMD 1 core i built a kicka$$ PC w/ the latest motherboard, quad core 4 GB ram and..OF COURSE Vista 64 in the assumption that this PC will be the fastest every built.

After installing Vista64 the whole system was lagging, unresponsive ("unresponsive" probably the best best term to describe it). This is a PC which should be overall faster than the majoity of consumer PCs out there (Anandtech etc. overclockers aside), 4x 3.5Ghz core, overclocked, stability tested, nice video card.

There are still people implying that performance issues of Vista are MERELY an issue of insufficient H/W...but that's just not the case.

Vista has several flaws (i don't want to go into details now) and saying that W7 is the OS for lower specced system is just a little...excuse me, ignorant.

I also constantly see SOME people giving statements like "Vista performs bad - So it must be PEBKAC" <--- or people complaining about bad Vista performance must be a) stupid b) have a low IQ c) are ignorant in terms of PC/OS knowledge and similar.

I personally am convinced that MS themselves are very aware of the flaws of Vista, and W7 is certainly not primarily planned as "the little OS for weaker computers who cant run Vista"..a la "Vista runs bad, so you must be a retard or your PC must suck"-philosophy

Coming from you as a software engineer that can't get Vista running fast with quad says a lot,my humble 3800+ x2 CPU runs it fast,as a beta games tester its been a good OS IMHO in stability and performance so yes m8 its probably PEBKAC,as for Win7 sure you would expect Microsoft to offer more since they want your money and need to do something to convince Vista users to upgrade ,besides its based off Vista anyway,no OS is perfect and every OS has its flaws even after service packs so I don't know where you are going with that.


Btw I'm using Vista on more then one PC and both run fast no quad CPU here,I don't want to turn this into a Vista/WIN7 debate since there are more or less brothers,point being low spec users will get the most out of Win7,for most Vista users with decent PCs it offers little and certainly IMHO not enough to spend the cash for a upgrade even with what Microsoft have done,XP to Win7 yes is worth it....Seriously m8 if you can't get a fast speed out of Vista with quad core and 4GB then its not Vista ,trust me.

Just to be clear I like Win7 but not enough to convince me to upgrade.
Right back to gaming now on my humble 3800+ x2 cpu and nippy Vista x64 .

 

[Fox5]

I run Vista on a 3.33Ghz dual core with 8GB of ram. Vista is fast enough, the only thing really slow is boot up.
That said, Windows XP is still noticeably quicker for general use of the GUI (though slower for program loading and game loading). Ubuntu blows them all away in GUI responsiveness and boot up time, so I stick to Ubuntu for when I need to get work done, Vista for games.

 

[soonerproud]

My 2 cents.

@ Mem

I agree that Vista now is very mature and stable. Once some minor tweaking is done to indexing and you turn off real time scanning in Vista, it hardly uses any more resources than Win 7. Superfetch is a little more aggressive in Vista, but it is not a huge deal for those of us who rarely reboot the PC. However, I see Win 7 as more that a lower powered Vista. There are a ton of new usability enhancements in the GUI (Like libraries in explorer) that really add a fit and finish that is missing in Vista to this day. There is a lot more consistency (Not perfect but a lot better) in the GUI and the Windows Live apps look native in Win 7. ( They look some what out of place in Vista and XP.)

one more thing Mem, there is no comparison at this beta stage between Vista and Win 7. Vista was completely unusable at this stage. (I should know, I beta tested the thing.) Win 7 has a few minor bugs and issues, but is wayyyyyyyyyy more stable and usable than Vista was at this stage. Vista SP1 is a little more stable than Win 7, but not much more stable.

@ flexy

I am just not seeing all the so called sluggishness and performance issues you keep saying dogs Vista. The majority were fixed in SP1 and in terms of speed and responsiveness, Vista is almost as good as Win 7 once some minor things are tweaked, like indexing and Defenders real time scanning is turned off. Memory usage after that is on par with Win 7 from what I can see. I also don't see a big difference in boot times between a tuned Vista installation and a Win 7 installation.

I won't comment on Readyboost, since I don't use the feature because it doesn't help PC's with 2 gigs or more of RAM anyhoo. I suspect some of your performance issues are related to applying too many XP tweaks and messing with things like the page file and turning off Aero. (It may not be these specific things, but many so called experts and enthusiast over tweak Vista and then wonder why it is so sluggish and slow.) Vista is not XP and the tweaks that worked on XP can have a detrimental effect on the performance and experience with Vista.

As Mr MacKay always says "Leave it the fuck alone for best results, Mkay!"

On topic:

You shouldn't expect a beta to be as stable as a mature operating system, op. At this stage in development, Win 7 runs circles around Vista in terms of stability. Win 7 is not and I repeat is not as mature and stable as Vista or XP. If stability is a major concern, stay away from all beta software.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Snapster

Originally posted by: mmntech
I got one BSOD trying to install ATI drivers. Other than that, Windows 7 is as stable as Vista SP1 or XP SP3. Still, it's a beta and it does expire after 8 months so there's not much point in using it as an every day OS. I'm using it now with no major issues. Just 5.1 sound doesn't work properly through my X-FI. Chop that up to Creative's crappy drivers.

Yeh my sound is probably the worst part of my experience so far. Just after I finally got some decent drivers from Creative that work in Vista, the same ones are a mess in W7. I think I might go back to my on-board, they are at least stable. Has not blue screened or crashed on me yet and I am using it as my primary development OS atm.

I was pleased with the results when using the latest drivers from Creative for my X-Fi. I just installed the drivers in compatibility mode and they work/sound fine. I only have a 2.1 setup though, so I can't comment on 5.1.

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: nitromullet

I was pleased with the results when using the latest drivers from Creative for my X-Fi. I just installed the drivers in compatibility mode and they work/sound fine. I only have a 2.1 setup though, so I can't comment on 5.1.

It's probably down the fact that I have an Audigy / 5.1 setup

 

[flexy]

>>
Right back to gaming now on my humble 3800+ x2 cpu and nippy Vista x64 .
>>


Its NOT gaming, its the "working with the OS", having many editors open, MS expression web, PSP, FTP uploads, PHP editor, what not. The whole OS feels "sluggish".

Gaming is fine

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: flexy
>>
Right back to gaming now on my humble 3800+ x2 cpu and nippy Vista x64 .
>>


Its NOT gaming, its the "working with the OS", having many editors open, MS expression web, PSP, FTP uploads, PHP editor, what not. The whole OS feels "sluggish".

Gaming is fine

eeerrr!..I said I was going back to gaming,don't you read ...FYI its still nippy even for general use.

 

[KeypoX]

Im having issues with performance... basically cpu spikes happening

 

[pcgeek11]

Originally posted by: 4537256
stabil? hahaha
maybe for you but not for everyone. you can't say its stable when theres still alot of people with problems, just google it.

i for one have 1 mouse crash and 4 os hard lockups

Curious --- What the hell is a " Mouse Crash "?????????

pcgeek11

 

[raddreamer3kx]

like mentioned above its stable but plenty of bugs, i had to remove it because the the little things here and there were annoying me (expected in beta). Vista is extremely stable and fast for me, i think it needs one more beta and then RTM, cant wait for it though.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: pcgeek11

Originally posted by: 4537256
stabil? hahaha
maybe for you but not for everyone. you can't say its stable when theres still alot of people with problems, just google it.

i for one have 1 mouse crash and 4 os hard lockups

Curious --- What the hell is a " Mouse Crash "?????????

pcgeek11

when you cant move your mouse cursor