Windows 7: Release Candidate 1 Preview
by Ryan Smith and Gary Key on May 5, 2009 11:00 PM EST- Posted in
- Systems
Networking
The Windows 2000 Driver Development Kit (DDK) includes a useful LAN testing utility called NTttcp. We used the NTttcp tool to test Ethernet throughput and the CPU utilization of the various Ethernet controllers used on the Intel motherboards. We set up one machine as the server; in this test, an Intel X58 system with an Intel EXPI9402PT (PRO/1000 PT) Gigabit LAN card. Intel's Gigabit LAN solutions have a reputation for providing fast throughput and is a logical choice for our Gigabit LAN server.
On the server side, we used the following Command Line as suggested by the VIA whitepaper on LAN testing:
Ntttcpr -m 4,0,‹server IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
On the client side (the motherboard under test), we used the following Command Line:
Ntttcps -m 4,0,‹client IP› -a 4 -l 256000 -n 30000
At the conclusion of the test, we captured the throughput and CPU utilization figures from the client screen.
Our network throughput test indicates how well a particular controller design from Realtek, Marvell, or Intel performs instead of being indicative of true chipset performance. This also holds true for the CPU utilization results, though this test can also be influenced to certain degree by the BIOS code and chipset interconnect design.
The CPU utilization and throughput results slightly favor Windows 7. The good news is that we did not see the horrible networking performance that plagued Vista up until Service Pack 1. In actual transfer tests of various file sizes across the network, Windows 7 was the fastest, with XP Pro x64 very close behind and Vista usually trailing by a percent or two. In practice, few if any users will notice a difference, even if they have the requisite Gigabit hub, as storage performance frequently bottlenecks the actual transfer rates.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
121 Comments
View All Comments
strikeback03 - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
In some things I can understand moving stuff, but there are also some that were moved for no good reason. For example, in XP to get display properties, you right click the desktop and click properties. In Vista there is at least one additional page to click through to get that. Ultimately, it seems to me that MS tries too hard to hide the settings, likely to protect the users who don't know what they are doing, but a pain for the users who do. For the record, I had the same complaint about XP coming from win2000, that whenever you hop on a system that wasn't set to all the classic settings, it is a pain to get around.Jackattak - Thursday, May 7, 2009 - link
But Strikeback you're talking about probably 10% of the users (power users). The majority of Windows users don't give a crap about modification, and that's who they're "protecting" based on your explanation.If you were running Microsoft, wouldn't you find it a small issue that you were "inconveniencing" 10% of your user base by making them go "one page deeper" in order to "protect" 90% of your users?
strikeback03 - Friday, May 8, 2009 - link
Then do like the GPU companies do and have both simple and advanced versions of the interface. Allow them to change one setting to show or hide all the "advanced" stuff across the OS. And put it somewhere easy to find, like the start menu.mathew7 - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
I'm also a XP-lover. Even in XP I'm using it with classic view (2K view).My main problem is removal of old start-menu (cascading menus). I really hate the Vista style-menu.
Also, I prefer UAC disabled and using run-as different user. Unfortunately (in Beta), explorer would not take the new permissions (launch in separate process was enabled for both users), which means configurations had to be done with admin logon. I have not tried this yet in RC. Also, once UAC was disabled, the UAC menu items (with the shield) were still present with no actions (again I don't know about RC).
On the other hand, the new taskbar (with previews) and the multimedia settings are good-enough reason for me to switch.
ssj4Gogeta - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
Start menu is one of the best features that were introduced in Vista. It's great on a netbook or a small monitor. You also don't need to move your mouse, just type in the first few letters of the app name. It also searches your documents for you.And about that RAM issue, what did you expect? I'm surprised it even runs on 512MB. Even netbooks have at least a gig of RAM.
SirKronan - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
I like the revamped start menu as well. Love instant search!But did they add Blu-ray support to Media Center? This has been one of my complaints from the beginning about Media Center. It has to launch a separate program to play Blu-rays & HD DVD's, and I haven't found any way around it short of ripping the movies to a hard disk. I realize there are anti-trust/competitive laws, and I honestly don't mind having to buy PowerDVD or WinDVD to get their decoder, but I want the movie to play back in MEDIA CENTER with all of the interface's great features, like the smooth playback and intuitive controls, guide information, zoom feature (get rid of black letterbox - with 1080p you certainly have enough resolution to scale a tad!), etc.
Have they added that yet? If not, PLEASE, Anand, ask them to for us!
KingViper - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
Archsoft and the newest version of PowerDVD both have plugins for Media Center..from what I hear. Although Media Center itself isn't actually playing the Blu-Ray..it looks like it integrates well. You might try out the trial versions.chrnochime - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
Just because netbooks have more ram(and not every one of them has 1G, some has 512MB), doesn't mean the OS should try to gobble up as much as is available. I don't get why every iteration of their OS just keep getting bigger and bigger, with little discernible improvements to the average user.and this? "Ultimately, with Microsoft throwing Windows 7 RC1 out to the masses, we can't think of a good reason not to try it."
Unless they have ways to export the settings in programs and whatever document users have when they were using W7, it'd be really hard to convince the average user to try out just for sake of novelty.
KingViper - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
"I don't get why every iteration of their OS just keep getting bigger and bigger, with little discernible improvements to the average user. "Many things an OS is responsible for is not necessarily obvious to the average user. Compatibility with almost all hardware available, including keeping the OS as secure as possible. DX10\DX11 and h264 codecs etc. etc. etc. TONS of stuff is added, but it isn't necessarily used everyday. Of course it's going to get bigger.
I don't understand how XP users are about as bitter with Microsoft as Mac users are. Can you just not afford a Mac or what?
mathew7 - Wednesday, May 6, 2009 - link
I also would like to say about W7RC and low-RAM:Windows 7 on 512MB RAM (desktop Intel G45 MB w/laptop HDD) feels to me like XP din on a 64MB RAM laptop years ago. It's good for internet/light work, but even for that you need patience because of swapping.