Well, another Windows 7 beta build is out [really alpha], and ZDNet had the great idea of benchmarking it.
Do they pull out the time-demos for games? No.
Do they try iterations of common tasks in programs like Excel, Photoshop, or even MP3 encoders? No.
Do they even try the basic “copy a bunch of files and see how long it takes” test? No.
They decided to go with some benchmark tests, and the ever popular, and helpful, boot time test.
Originally, the tests pitted Vista 7 beta against Vista 32-bit, however, they did update the test to compare against XP SP3 also.
The conclusion…
Well, it seems that 7 is faster at booting. Or, at least it is faster going from the BIOS screen to a desktop, now whether or not you can do anything right then, or you have to wait until the hard drive quits thrashing itself is another question.
Oh, and it is better at both Passmark and PCMark Vantage benchmark testing. Wow, that is like saying… hell, I have no good analogy. I guess I am trying for something like proclaiming that changing the color of your car can make it faster.
These are benchmarks, and there are, of course, problems with them. So, you would expect a reputable company such as Ziff Davis Publishing to use more then them. No. Now, the results give me some huge question marks.
First, a previous series of ZDNet tests all showed SP1 being RTM. Some of those tests even showed a disparity between benchmarks, including the same ones used here, and real world scenarios. Why is it, that ZDNet continues to use the same flawed tests?
Second, while ZDNet is a little slim with direct Vista SP1 to XP SP3 testing, I found this test at Extreme Tech Which showed SP3 neck and neck with SP1, and both pulling ahead of Vista RTM.
So, we have synthetic benchmarks that ZDNet has shown to be contrary to real-world numbers, but they are still touting them when it comes to show that the latest offering from Microsoft is going to be better than sliced bread.
ZDNet, grow a pair and really test that baby.
Something witty, part deux 
Leave a Reply