No, the real killer feature of Windows 7 is scalability. Simply put, Windows 7 does a better job of taking advantage of the available hardware resources than its predecessors. This scalability edge manifests itself in the form of better performance under complex, multiprocess, multithreaded workloads.
Given the same number of CPU cores, Windows 7 runs circles around both Windows Vista and Windows XP. In fact, the results aren't even close: In one multiprocess workflow test, Windows 7 outpaced Windows XP by 250 percent -- this on an eight-core (dual quad-core Xeon) HP Z800 workstation.
This is Windows 7's killer feature. It means that, as customers invest in new PC hardware, they'll be better positioned to reap the improvements in CPU, memory, and chip set performance by deploying Windows 7. It also means that sticking with Windows XP -- ostensibly because it is less bloated and performs better -- is a fool's errand.
Times have changed. The hardware landscape is much different than when Windows XP was on the drawing boards. Back then, the concept of a multicore CPU was still just that: a concept. Windows XP was designed for a world of single CPU desktops and the occasional two- or four-way (discrete CPUs, not cores) engineering workstation. It simply isn't smart enough to know how to leverage something as complex as a modern-day Core i7- or E5xxx-series Xeon processor.
I'll be diving more into this topic in an upcoming InfoWorld Test Center article that will serve as a follow-up to my original research on this subject. In the meantime, if you were looking for that killer feature (or catchy slogan) to sell you on a Windows 7 upgrade, here it is:
Windows 7: Smarter where it counts.
This story, "Windows 7's real killer feature," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Follow the latest developments in Windows 7 and Windows at InfoWorld.com.
Get the independent advice and expertise you need to support a virtual workforce.
The increase in Linux popularity has increased the frequency and sophistication of malware attacks. Read this 2 page white paper now to learn how you can protect your Linux environment with real-time protection that is certified by all major Linux vendors.
Download now »
Ensuring acceptable application delivery will become even more difficult over the next few years. As a result, IT organizations need to ensure that the approach that they take to resolving the current application delivery challenges can scale to support the emerging challenges. This handbook elaborates on the key tasks associated with planning, optimization, management and control and provides decision criteria to help IT organizations choose appropriate solutions.
Download now »
A common misconception is that mid-range storage requirements are dramatically different than that of a larger enterprise. Mid-range storage users may require less capacity, but they have similar functionality and management requirements. This ESG paper examines mid-range storage needs and reviews a new solution that adjusts size while retaining value, performance and functionality.
Download now »Read that again more carefully. He said Win7 is 250% faster than XP on the same machine, not that Win7 is 250% faster on an 8-core than a 1-core....
Oh no no no, dear child. As much as it pains me to have to say it, RCK has this one nailed. Thread management IS the killer improvement in VISTA SP3 (I'm sorry W7 is a sham). With NO Applications written as parallel applications and application domains that resist parallization, 250% improvement is phenomenal! Your faith in the Unix stack is misplaced, with the all IO is a stream paradigm, Unix has exactly the same issues. Massive scalability on parallel problems comes with clustering not SMP.
Perhaps I said poorly what I was trying to get across, but when I read what you wrote, it sounded to me, like you agreed with what I meant. You are dead on about different solutions fitting different problems. I just have not found a class of problems Windows fits well, but I am impressed with the improvement in performance VSP3 provides on a mixed load of Windows applications. Human bounded interactive environments are challenging to fit into a parallel paradigm.
I was also gratified you mentioned Solaris. I agree it IS the standard with which to compare 'NIXs. Not only does it's clustering and SMP stand out, but it's virtualization features and amazing files systems support. Sun fanboy I am. But I maintain, that UNIX as a specification, has a fundamental flaw in the "all IO is a stream" concept. This is the point. Parallel processing, at its most efficient, will have parallel IO. Like you said, fit the solution to the problem.
Servers are another story. It's a good thing that Vista/7 shares a lot with Server 2008, because that's where multi-core and lots of memory will pay off. Any extraordinary needs a user might have, can be performed on a server in the cloud. That is, assuming a decent network connection, right Regaug?
I bought a machine with Windows ME on it and tried to go back to W2000. Turns out the registry had changed with ME, and my box would not boot. So I bought XP and installed that. The box worked - I could boot up - but very slowly. I had to clear everything and start over. I decided there and then that I would try very hard not to ever buy another OS from Microsoft again, especially at their highway robbery prices.
Subsequently bought an iMac and wish I had gotten a Mac Book instead.
I haven't seen anything in any releases since XP that would make me want to upgrade. I can see that businesses would need to upgrade for support purposes, but, as an individual, I don't care to pay again for the "MS-Windows premium" on any computer I buy.
Sign up to receive InfoWorld Resource Alerts
220 Recommendations
1 reply