the easier it is to see where, and when, you have been hoodwinked. One of the sayings i grew up with (because in my family, we lived and died by truisms) was, “Figures don’t lie, but any liar can figure”.

Now, some of the worst fears of Microsoft may have been exposed. System tune up software seller Iolo Technologies has released a statement that, when you look, seems as though they are proving that Windows 7 has not done the seemingly impossible, which is to add features, and (supposed) safety, and become faster than Windows Vista.

The story from Tech Connect tells the tale –

Microsoft has been heavily making claims that Windows 7 is a faster operating system than its predecessor, and until now the objections have been few and far between. Iolo technologies, however, has stepped up to the plate with a stopwatch and challenged Redmond’s pride and joy. Iolo are the developers of world famous tune-up software System Mechanic, and they claim that Windows 7 is in fact slower than Windows Vista, with a boot up taking 1:34 on Windows 7 and 1:06 on Windows Vista.

How did they reach this conclusion? Well, they say that the boot shouldn’t be to where the desktop appears, but rather to where the machine becomes usable, and the stop watches are only tripped when the PC sits “with CPU cycles no longer significantly high and a true idle state achieved”.

Interesting, but is it not possible that the distributed load of a boot means that you can get to the information/applications you want faster, regardless of how long it takes the Operating System to settle? What Iolo also fail to recognise is the number of machines that were before incapable of running Vista that have successfully been upgraded to Windows 7 – with the compatibility and stability of the new system software being far from anything that Vista can touch.

They do admit that Windows 7 did outperform Vista at the three-month and six-month old machines. But it “trailed the older version significantly” in its earlier boot-up tests. Iolo plans to release more details on its findings and methodology next week.

Though I have not compared Windows 7 to Windows Vista, for I abandoned Vista long ago for the speed and sensibility of Windows XP, I can honestly say that through several revisions of Windows 7, the Beta, the RC, and 2 later builds that were leaked, Windows 7 never came close to being a speedy as XP on the same hardware (single core AMD64, 2.2GHz, 2GB RAM, large 7200RPM hard drive with 16MB cache)

So, if you are swayed by feel, and the fact that you see the working desktop earlier in the boot process, then Windows 7 could be faster than Vista. If you do the tests the way that Iolo did, then I guess it is not. But again, if you’re willing to wait for results, I guess you’ll be happy in 90 or more days.

I really don’t care about the Vista to 7 comparisons, it is the XP to 7 comparisons that bother me. I haven’t seen, in my gear, Windows 7 exceed the speed of Windows XP on any test I have undertaken. It also doesn’t ‘feel’ faster to me.  What I really don’t understand, is why these ‘journalists’ make outlandish speed claims, when in fact, they should be concentrating on features, ease of use, and things that can be argued effectively.

While I really expected this, what gets my hackles up is the continuing hyperbole of thinly-veiled-fanboys-posing-as-journalists like Ed Bott swearing up and down that Windows 7 is faster than Windows XP. They should know that it casts a dismal shadow on anything else that they say, as far as I am concerned.



New Coke vs Classic Coke, Windows 7 vs Windows Vista, the battles go on…


Opera, the fastest and most secure web browser