Scot’s Newsletter Blog

Last week I published this blog to Kindle. If you have a Kindle or an iPhone with the Kindle app installed, check it out: Scot’s Newsletter Blog (Kindle Edition).

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

A quick update to my ongoing Windows 7 RC1 performance assessment: It’s faster than Beta 1. It’s not just faster on high-end Vista hardware in 64-bits. I installed the 32-bit version of RC1 on my 64-bit hardware: Fast! More importantly, I installed Win7 RC1 on my circa-2006 Dell Inspiron notebook with a 2.0GHz Core Duo and 2GB of RAM. Again, it was fast. Not as fast as XP, but noticeably faster than Win7 Beta 1. Vista runs only so-so on this particular piece of older hardware.

I have a Lenovo 2.0 GHz Core Duo that’s even slower than the Dell. I’ve had Vista on that machine both in beta and in the final version since it shipped. That’s my next Win7 victim.

For me, Win7 Beta 1 was a performance disappointment compared to how other reviewers raved about it. It was clearly slower than the earlier Preview release.

I have sometimes found the shipping version of Windows code to be a little slower than the last RC. I felt this was the case with Vista, for example. So I want to caution that it’s not a done deal yet. True performance testing should only be performed on gold code. And I’ve only reported impressions so far.

But I’m optimistic, now, that Windows 7 is going to be a positive experience.

I’d even go so far as to say that in my subjective testing, Windows 7 RC1 is faster than the PC World benchmark that I blogged about a couple of days ago would lead you to believe. Hands on, RC1 tests out closer to XP than to Vista. If that winds up being the case, it’s the single most important factor for Windows 7 — and Microsoft will have achieved its first real win in quite some time.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

Since Windows 7 Beta 1, I’ve written several times right here in this blog that Windows 7 is only marginally faster than Windows Vista. Finally, some independent lab-based testing from PC World that supports me on that point:

Speed Test: Windows 7 May Not Be Much Faster than Vista - PC World

– Scot

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

I’ve been working with the Windows 7 RC1 (release candidate 1) for about a week and a half now. Barring unforeseen bugs, I doubt at this point that Microsoft is more than four months away from the release of Windows 7.

Not based on any information from the software giant, my bet is that Microsoft will release to manufacturing (RTM) some time in August. Microsoft is going to want to prime the pumps as early as possible for the holiday season this year. The earlier it ships, the more time it gives OEM PC makers to put together an array of Windows 7 models that are well designed for the new operating system.

In fact, RC1 is so put together that a late July release is not totally outside of the realm of possibility. If the economy begins to pick up even a little this summer — as some economists predict — PC makers may see some pent-up demand for new computers begin to reveal itself. Microsoft has a much better chance to compete against Windows XP and Macs from the lower end of the model lines with Windows 7 than with Windows Vista. So if the economy shows any real signs of improving, expect Windows 7 to get hustled out the door. But I hope Redmond sticks to its guns and gets Windows 7 as right as possible. Even an early September RTM is not the end of the world, but I doubt it will go that late.

I have so far installed Win7 RC1 on only Vista-class hardware, but I will soon be installing it on older hardware to make the XP comparison. In case you missed my earlier assessment, Windows 7 is hands-down better than Vista. But what if you want to clean install a much newer version of Windows on fairly powerful XP-era hardware? I think that’s something more people may be considering than was typical in the past. So I’m going to assess that (as I have done with earlier releases of Win7). But that will have to wait for a later post. I’m working on it.

Zoom in on RC1

Usually when we get to the second major release of a new version of Windows, most of what I’d be writing about is features, features, features. But Windows 7 isn’t really about features. It’s about fixing what’s wrong with Vista and a general refinement of the operating system that appears to be XP-like in its attention to detail. Please be clear, Win7 isn’t really much like XP. That’s not what I’m saying. But Microsoft spent a lot of time getting XP right, and rather than adding lots of features, Microsoft has been focusing on getting Win7 right. This is what reviewers mean when they say that Windows 7 is what Windows Vista should have been.

For those of you who want to know in some detail what’s new in Windows 7 RC1, you’re in good hands with my friend and colleague Preston Gralla, who was among the first to release an indepth review of Win7 RC1. As you’ll see when you read that story, the what’s-new quotient is not that impressive — in my book, that’s not only okay but preferable. The last thing needed is any more bloatware. What Vista needs most is to go on a diet and follow a workout regimen aimed at getting smaller, lighter, faster. Windows 7 doesn’t go as far down that path as I’d prefer, but it’s very clearly a large step in the right direction.

There is one surprising new feature recently announced for Windows 7, the Windows XP Mode add-on that will be offered in the more expensive business- and geek-oriented versions of Windows 7: Professional, Ultimate, and Enterprise. This feature is a version of Virtual PC that comes with Windows XP that will be specially crafted to work as invisibly as possible in Windows 7. Its purpose is to allow business users to install apps that might not be compatible with Windows 7 in an XP virtual machine that appears to be running in Windows 7. Although it has not been released yet and is not part of Win7 RC1, Microsoft has created some web pages that give you a visual sense of Windows XP Mode.

I doubt that Windows XP Mode will be installed by default. It’s being developed, in part, by a different team at Microsoft and a version of it will probably be an optional add-on that might not even be part of the Win7 installation process. Of course, OEM PC makers might choose to pre-install it. But by developing it that way, Microsoft will not slow down the release of Windows 7. Microsoft will need some way to update it, as a result, and update it selectively based on version of the OS you purchased. Perhaps that method is Windows Update, and if so, I could be wrong about it not being an installation option. The key point: As a fairly late add-on to an otherwise minimalist version of Windows from a new-features perspective, Microsoft will likely not have lots of test data on this feature by launch date. So expect early updates.

The addition of XP Mode is a smart move, even so. It gives Microsoft a ready answer to the software compatibility issues that Vista faced. I’d like to see the same type of creativity applied to hardware support.

Hands-on RC1

The Win7 RC1 experience has been, well, uneventful for me. I clean installed the product on my 64-bit Sony Vaio notebook, and there’s really very little to note. With one exception, everything I’ve tried — including networking — is working at least a little bit better than Beta 1 did. The installation process is still the best one Microsoft has ever devised. It’s not really fast, IMO, but it has been designed to minimize user input and run automatically all the way through once that input has been entered. I’d have to rank the Windows 7 installation process as easier and better than that of Apple’s OS X 10.5 operating system, which requires far too much user input.

The one sticking point I’ve had is with the hardware pack. For whatever reason, Windows 7 doesn’t properly recognize and install drivers that support power management functions specific to my Sony Vaio’s chipset. The computer runs fine without this driver. And in Beta 1, I was eventually able to get Windows 7 to find and install the right driver from Windows Update (though this took several days). After more than a week, Windows 7’s Troubleshoot control panel was finally able to detect the problem and identify the name of the Sony support driver that I needed to download and install. Unfortunately, Sony’s support drivers block installation on anything but the OS they were originally designed to work with — in this case, 64-bit Windows Vista Home Premium. I tried using Windows 7’s OS-version spoofing tools (right-click the file to be run or installed and choose Troubleshoot Compatibility) but Sony’s installer wasn’t fooled. In fact, the entire proprietary system hardware pack that Sony offers with this Vista-based Vaio will not install under Windows 7. I was willing to risk a toasted Windows 7 installation. Sony was not willing to let me. This isn’t Microsoft’s fault. But why doesn’t the driver pack have this basic stuff in it? Sony is a top-tier PC maker.

This is the kind of stuff that Microsoft needs to get right in Windows 7. Beta 1 was able to solve the same problem without my having to download anything from Sony; RC1 was not. Preston Gralla experienced a similar backslip of hardware support on a video driver. On the flip side, Windows 7 is pre-release software, so I can’t be too hard on Microsoft for a relatively minor hiccup. The reason I’m making a point of it is that the theme of hardware becoming less well supported in the late phases of the development cycles has occurred in every version of Windows since Windows 98 Second Edition. Hardware support gets worse, not better. That was certainly true of Windows Vista.

But with that, you have my sole criticism of Windows 7 RC1. And I suspect that Sony will eventually resolve the issue in my case by releasing Windows 7 versions of its drivers and software utilities.

My assessment of Windows 7’s ability to get Microsoft back in the game remains the same as it was when I assessed Beta 1: On 64-bit Vista hardware with 3GB or 4GB of RAM, thumbs up! When I compare XP on fast XP hardware and Windows 7 on 64-bit Vista hardware with more than 2GB of RAM, I would take Windows 7 over XP. What remains to be seen is whether I would buy a copy of Windows 7 for decently equipped XP hardware. I made the decision to skip Vista as a general upgrade to all systems on that hardware. I was not in favor of Windows 7 Beta 1 on my circa-2006 Dell Inspiron with an Intel Core Duo processor, 2GB of RAM, and a video subsystem that has no problem displaying Aero. Beta 1 did not seem noticeably faster than Vista to me, and XP is the clearly the better option. But will RC1 change that outcome?

More on that to come when I’ve had a chance to do the requisite research.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

This story was significantly updated with added detail during the first 2.5 weeks after it was launched. Those additions did not fundamentally change the thrust of any of the original points I made. They were aimed at clarity, added support for points made, and the addition of new details as I’ve continued to use Windows 7 Beta 1.

If you’ve been reading Scot’s Newsletter of late, you’re probably aware that I’ve been giving Windows 7 a close look. Several of my stories have been about Windows 7 performance. Since I’ve been more critical than most on that point — using what I consider to be typical hardware for Windows XP users (the vast majority of Windows users) — I decided that I needed to approach the question of Windows 7 performance from a different perspective.

To gain that perspective, I bought a new Windows 7 testbed. I selected the Sony Vaio VGN-SR290, a notebook that is very similar in many ways to Apple’s new MacBook in size and features. It came with the P8400 Core 2 Duo running at 2.26GHz, 3GB of RAM, a 250GB hard drive, ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3470 with 256MB of adapter RAM and an HDMI port, 13.3″ LED display, Firewire 400, DVD/RW drive, two USB 2 ports, and so on.

Perhaps the most significant difference between the late-XP era hardware I’ve tested with in the past and the notebook PC I just bought is that the new one is an x64 machine with 64-bit Windows Vista Home Premium. I upgraded the Vaio’s RAM to 4GB shortly after I received the computer.

The first thing I noticed about the Vaio is how fast and stable Vista was on it. This is the only good Vista performance experience I’ve ever had. Even before I upgraded from 3GB to 4GB, 64-bit Vista felt as fast to me as 32-bit Windows XP does on lesser hardware. I don’t consider that to be Vista vindication, to be honest. Other OS makers manage to deliver new versions of their operating systems without requiring significantly better hardware. By the time Windows Vista shipped, most of the best advances that Microsoft had touted during the Vista development process had been stripped out. The value proposition wasn’t good for me and many others. There wasn’t a sufficiently compelling reason to invest in new hardware to support Vista properly. But it’s good to finally run Vista the way Microsoft hoped it would operate.

To test 64-bit Windows 7 Beta 1, I split the disk into two partitions using Partition Manager 9 from Paragon Software, backed up my Vista partition using Acronis TrueImage Home 2009, and installed Windows 7 cleanly on the second partition.

[Note: I was forced to use the "recovery disk" versions of both Partition Manager 9 and Acronis TrueImage Home 2009 to carry out these tasks. TrueImage Home worked fine with Vista but doesn't support Windows 7. I believe both products use a Linux-based UI offering their program functionality when booting from a disc. The Acronis boot-disc software is especially well done. I wasn't able to discover why Partition Manager required me to boot from disc to work with Vista. I presume there's an issue with 64-bit Vista, although incomplete contact with Paragon Software implied that might not be the case.]

The installation of Windows 7 was uneventful and complete. It’s the best Windows installation experience Microsoft has produced to date. Several of the Vaio-specific hardware functions (such as trackpad scrolling) weren’t properly configured, which was to be expected. Even so, Windows 7 is running well, and the forthcoming OS did a good job of configuring the Vaio’s specific Intel mobile chipset and some of the Sony stuff on its own. Although few hardware makers, such as Sony, offer any Windows 7-specific drivers yet, Windows 7 does a better job of managing driver issues than any previous version of Windows.

I’m going to endeavor to test this more objectively, but my initial impressions of Windows 7 performance on the Vaio are both very much the same and very different. Windows 7 startup and shutdown times — a trouble spot for Vista — are subjectively faster than Vista’s. But in all other aspects, performance of Windows Vista and Windows 7 on this machine seems to me to be about the same. Remember, I raved above about how well Vista runs on this hardware, so I’m not damning Windows 7 with faint praise. But I’m also still not noticing a significant performance difference between Vista and Windows 7 on up to date hardware.

The way my initial impressions are very different is that, compared to how well Windows 7 runs on XP-level hardware, 64-bit Windows 7 runs lickety-split fast on brand new 64-bit hardware with 4GB of RAM. It is easily as fast as XP is on the hardware of its era. Overall, taking in the entire user experience, I’d choose Windows 7 running on this hardware over XP. In case you hadn’t noticed, that’s high praise from me.

The caveat is that I had to pay $1,200 to get this hardware, not including the cost for commercial software that I need. In my case, that means Microsoft Office. That also doesn’t include the RAM upgrade. The specific Vaio I purchased was also discontinued a couple of weeks after I bought, so it was on sale at a lower price than its replacement, the VGN-390.

For a couple of years now, we’ve seen thousands of debates on forums and in blog and article comments about Vista vs. XP. Vista is a pig! It runs great for me! In the end, it appears to me that both sides are correct. Vista is a pig on XP-class hardware — even on high-end XP hardware. But that’s not apparent on 64-bit hardware properly designed and equipped to run Windows Vista Home Premium or Ultimate.

Based on what we know now, Windows 7 is likely to be a more compelling upgrade than Vista was. Time has marched on, and two-plus years later, Windows XP, approaching eight years in age, is getting long in the tooth. There are fewer negatives, such as UAC, with Windows 7. I think we’re all ready (whether we know it or not) for a new Windows operating system. Security issues alone drive that consideration. So even though Windows 7 is not a significant features upgrade over Vista, new features aren’t what we’ve needed anyway. What many Windows users have craved is a leaner, less annoying, more usable Vista. Based on 64-bit Windows 7 Beta 1, that’s what Win 7 is. Let’s hope the final version of the new Windows stays on track.

I still think Windows 7’s performance and reliability improvements over Vista are modest at best. A lot of this is about the 64-bit versions of Windows, which can address more RAM. It means new hardware for most people, which may cost a bit more than 32-bit hardware (it certainly makes sense to grab at least 4GB of RAM). But for those who jump through those hoops, it looks like a solid, enjoyable Windows experience awaits. And the overall experience is better with Windows 7 than with Vista.

Finally, if you’ve been following the problems that I and others have experienced with Windows 7’s HomeGroup, there’s some good news there, too. When I ran the HomeGroup initialization on the Vaio, I started by turning on my Dell Inspiron Windows 7 test machine and placing it next to the Vaio. The Dell already had HomeGroup running on it (which had earlier been unable to connect to a virtualized installation of Windows 7 on yet another computer). The Vaio found the Dell’s HomeGroup right away and I was able to connect with it exactly as Microsoft intended. The result was pretty dramatic too, all Mac and Windows computers on my network (a lot of machines) were immediately visible in the network browser on both Windows 7 machines. I haven’t tested this extensively yet. I need to spend a couple hours checking every connection against every other connection to draw hard conclusions. But I am finally able to see HomeGroup in operation. And it does hold some promise.

More to come as soon as I find more time to test various aspects of Windows 7. I’m also looking forward to testing Windows 7 RC1 when it’s released.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

SNB reader John Volborth wrote to me with a Firefox problem. My solution worked for him, so I thought I would pass it along:

Question:

I haven’t used Firefox in a while because of a problem I’ve been having. It won’t let me gather any apps. This is the error message:

Could not initialize the application’s security component. The most likely cause is problems with files in your application’s profile directory. Please check that this directory has no read/write restrictions and your hard disk is not full or close to full. It is recommended that you exit the application and fix the problem. If you continue to use this session, you might see incorrect application behaviour when accessing security features.

Is there any help you can offer me? Thanks.

Answer:

I’m not clear on what you mean when you say “it won’t let me gather apps,” but more than likely you have a corrupt Firefox user profile. To solve the problem, you’ll need to delete every file in your Mozilla installation and do a clean install of the latest version of the browser. Some of these files hide in places you might not think to look, so it’s important to follow directions on how to fully remove profile.

If you’re concerned about losing your bookmarks, etc., I recommend installing Foxmarks (if Firefox will let you install it). Foxmarks synchronizes bookmarks and Web-related logins and passwords among different browsers on one machine as well as on browsers installed on multiple machines. The product and its server-based service, is currently free. And it supports Firefox, Safari, and Internet Explorer. By using Firefox to back up your bookmarks and other user info, you should be able to reinstate that information on your cleanly installed Firefox installation.

Here’s a summary of steps you should take to solve your Firefox problem. This solution will work with Windows, Macintosh, and Linux installations of Firefox:

1. Install Foxmarks and synchronize your user data with the Foxmarks server. You might also want to explore synchronizing your bookmarks with other browsers on your machine or other machines you use. Foxmarks is about to undergo a major upgrade. The product and service is in the process of being renamed Xmarks, with new features and functionality.

2. Download the latest version of Firefox (3.0.7 at this writing) and then uninstall Firefox from your computer.

3. Follow these MozillaZine instructions for removing your Firefox user profile and fully uninstalling the browser.

4. Windows users should restart their machines.

5. Install the new version of Firefox.

6. Install Foxmarks in the new Firefox installation, and use it to resynchronize your bookmarks, ensuring that you use the server-based bookmarks to overwrite your local Firefox bookmarks.

This should solve your problem, and may also make Firefox run faster and/or begin performing other functions that may have also stopped working.

To avoid experiencing a corrupt user profile again, I recommend that you cleanly install every major version of Firefox. In other words, when Firefox 4.0 is released, follow these steps again. You can allow upgrade installations of incremental releases, such as the forthcoming Firefox 3.5 — unless, of course, Mozilla recommends otherwise.

What browser is Scot using?

For those of you keeping score, I reviewed Firefox 3.0 from a Macintosh perspective in this Computerworld story: Firefox 3 for Mac: Is it time to switch from Safari? Among other things, the article didn’t reach a hard conclusion about whether I’d be switching from Safari to Firefox on the Mac. (On Windows, I remain a confirmed Firefox user.) I also talked about why bookmark synchronization was important, and I didn’t select Foxmarks at that time, since it didn’t support Safari at that time.

So let me update those two points:

Safari vs. Firefox: These words from the earlier Computerworld story are the salient ones; they sum up the reason why I have remained a Safari user on the Mac:

There is one downside to Firefox 3, however. The first time you launch it after starting up OS X, Firefox 3 takes 5.5 seconds to open a blank page. By contrast, Safari 3.1.1 takes about half a second for the same task. It’s a noticeable difference.

Bookmark synchronization: Foxmarks offers some of the features of Apple’s MobileMe, and it works with IE, Firefox, and Safari on Windows, Mac, and Linux. MobileMe is a Mac-specific synchronization tool that works very well. It’s also able to synchronize a long list of data on Macs, such as the calendar and address book. I’m a MobileMe subscriber, and I will continue to be. But Foxmarks lets me extend bookmark synchronization to all my Windows machines. For that reason, it is installed on at least half a dozen of my computers. I recommend it highly to anyone who works with multiple computers. It may also be a valuable took to those who regularly use multiple browsers on the same computer.

One feature that might make Foxmarks more useful to some users would be the ability to specify specific parts of your bookmarks to synchronize. It is designed to synchronize all bookmarks. Whoops, I stand corrected. The Profiles feature, which works in conjunction with MyFoxmarks — the server-based version of your bookmarks — does allow you to assign specific bookmarks or bookmark folders to different profile names so as to exclude synchronization of personal bookmarks to your work computer for example, or vice versa. The MyFoxmarks instance of your bookmarks will have the superset of all your bookmarks from all profiles. Thanks to reader Evano for pointing this out.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

In following up my earlier post, More About Windows 7 Performance, I asked Microsoft this question last weekend:

Have there been memory footprint, background services refinement or elimination, or other performance/reliability changes made to the core of the OS that is Windows 7? We’ve been told in the past that the kernel has not been changed from Vista. But Windows 7 is supposed to run properly and well on netbooks. And reviewers all over are saying that Windows 7 is faster. The enterprise guide (online) says that performance is a key tenet for Windows 7. What has been changed in Windows 7 that makes it faster, more reliable, or gives it a smaller memory footprint?

I also asked whether Windows 7 contains “MinWin,” the somewhat romanticized slimmer, componentized version of the Windows kernel, an effort that began with the Windows 2003 Server product. Speculation about the inclusion of MinWin in Windows 7 was fueled by stories like this one in Softpedia.

Microsoft, through its PR agency, released the following brief statement to me as its only meaningful response. The company is gathering information for the press about Windows 7 technical changes and is not prepared to give me an interview on that subject yet. Redmond offered this basic statement about MinWin and the notion of major kernel redevelopment for Windows 7, for now:

“MinWin isn’t anything formal. It isn’t even necessarily a thing as much as it is a design tactic. It is an informal word describing the goal to increase the componentization of the OS through combining common binaries within the core of the OS. This is something that was first mentioned in 2003 and the idea has evolved to present day. So the basic answer is no, Microsoft didn’t create a new kernel for Windows 7. Microsoft is refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. This means our ongoing efforts that started with Windows Vista will increase the independence of individual components without changing the functionality of those components. This makes it possible for Microsoft to make future changes to specific components more quickly than before because the effects of those changes will be better isolated. These changes will increase engineering agility, and keep the user experience intact without application-compatibility issues.”

Here’s how I read this statement: Microsoft’s biggest concern in saying that Windows 7 has a revamped kernel is that enterprises will be concerned about software-compat and even possibly device-driver issues. That was one of the big enterprise sticking points for Vista. The overriding marketing message from Microsoft has to be that Windows 7 will be compatible with software and drivers that run well on Vista. The “design tactic” that MinWin describes is a pretty major revision to the Vista kernel. I applaud the design direction, though. It makes total sense, and it really might reduce compatibility issues. I also believe that performance may well be improved by this “refining of the kernel architecture” in the final release of Win 7.

What’s more, performance has to be a strong underlying design goal for Windows 7. Code bloat and performance slow-downs have been an essential part of the Vista experience for millions of end users — and that has been a large factor in lackluster Vista sales. The word of mouth hasn’t been good. Microsoft has conceded, internally at least, that it has to make Windows 7 perform more like a sporty car than a four-cylinder pickup truck. It’s the message within the message, but it’s more of a consumer message. As such, Microsoft is probably content with the early performance buzz it’s getting from the public beta. But I suspect we’ll hear a lot more about Win 7 performance as we get closer to the ship date. But I would caution you not to be too sucked in by the gee-whiz “reviews” of Windows 7 we’ve seen to date.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

Writing for his ZDNet blog yesterday, Ed Bott’s research on Windows 7 and Vista memory footprints provides some evidence that Windows 7 may perform better in smaller-RAM and 64-bit installations. See his How well does Windows 7 handle 512MB?

Bott’s tests, which were based on comparisons of 512MB-constrained virtual machines, showed that 64-bit Windows 7 Beta 1 (Ultimate) uses both less memory (according to Microsoft’s Task Manager) and less disk storage than Windows Vista Ultimate. He lists the numbers in a chart. He also compared with XP, and not surprisingly, XP uses both less memory and disk storage than either of Microsoft’s newer OSes. The specific memory data points: XP used 150MB, Vista used 299MB, and Win 7 used 216MB. (See Bott’s story for additional details.)

He also compared Vista and Win 7 in VMs limited to 1GB of RAM, and concluded:

“With the extra RAM available, the delta between the Windows 7 and Vista VMs narrowed dramatically, although the 64-bit edition of Windows 7 still used less RAM than Vista. On the Vista system,. this upgrade made a noticeable difference, whereas the Windows 7 system performed about the same.”

My tests of Windows 7 as compared to Vista have been carried out on a machine with 2GB of RAM and a virtual machine configured to 768MB of RAM. I also have not done any formal comparison of performance, which I always leave to gold code.

Bott mentioned that in 2007, he tested Vista with a circa-2002 P4 512MB RAM machine. (I tested it with three different over-the-hill machines in late 2006 and found that video was the biggest hurdle, although RAM was a close second.) I hope he re-runs that test; he somewhat joking says he might. I might do the same, although I no longer have any machines with less than 1.5GB.

The reason I bring up testing with actual 512MB RAM hardware is that I’ve found that virtualized installations of Windows don’t need as much memory as hardware-based installations. That’s the one quibble I have with Bott’s tests. Even so, it’s hard to argue with the numbers in his results. They’re interesting and instructive.

I plan to test Windows 7 on a 64-bit Vista-level machine (as soon as I acquire one). It’s possible that I will see more performance improvement there.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

Microsoft has been quoted as saying that it was not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Anyone who’s ever used any flavor of Linux knows that even small changes in an operating system’s kernel can make for big variations. But apparently there’s a difference for Microsoft between new kernel and refined kernel. Maybe they’re right, but which is it?

I’ve been trying to get actual information for a while now about just what Microsoft has changed in Windows 7 to effect supposed performance changes. This Windows 7 Developer Guide, published in October 2008, while vague, shines more of light on it than the entire Windows 7 Reviewer’s Guide or anything else I’ve read on Microsoft’s Windows 7 site. Here’s a direct quote from page 8 of this guide, which describes the performance changes in Windows 7:

“Windows 7 maximizes hardware energy efficiency and scalability while maintaining high performance. Energy efficiency is improved through reduced background activity and new support for the trigger starting of system services. Windows 7 also offers improvements in the Windows kernel that enable applications and services to scale efficiently between platforms. Performance of many features and APIs is improved in Windows 7 versus Windows Vista. For example, driver performance on servers is optimized by new user-mode and kernel-mode topology APIs. Graphics rendering is considerably smoother and faster. Accessibility performance is also significantly faster than before.”

So let’s translate that:

1. “Hardware energy efficiency …”

Translation: Windows 7 saves electrical power.

2. “Improvements in the Windows kernel that enable applications and services to scale efficiently …”

Translation: The apps that the kernel permits to run have a longer leash.

3. “Performance of many features and APIs is improved in Windows 7 versus Windows Vista.”

Translation: Microsoft finished refining Vista features and the ways in which applications interface with the operating system.

4. “…Driver performance on servers is optimized by new user-mode and kernel-mode topology APIs.”

Translation: I don’t really know, but drivers will apparently perform better on servers.

5. “Graphics rendering is considerably smoother and faster.”

Translation: We get that.

There’s been a lot of talk about “MinWin,” a small core of Windows 7 that according to some reports has been made self contained by changing the way DLLs and APIs are structured. It makes sense, but has it really happened? Microsoft doesn’t appear to be talking about this.

I hope to get a briefing, and if I do, I’ll post about it.

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This 

In a more recent post, I finally got HomeGroup to work — third time is the charm. The fact that I had difficulty with a virtual machine version of Windows 7 is something that I hope Microsoft can resolve. So I think this post is still valid. I will retest virtual installations with later releases of Windows 7.

In an earlier first impression post about Windows 7 Beta 1, I called Microsoft’s new HomeGroup feature brain dead. Well, after further review, I’m standing by that assessment. HomeGroup isn’t working here. The feature feels only partly implemented to me. And, normally I’d forgive Microsoft that foible, given this is Beta 1, except that Microsoft’s top dog for Windows 7 Engineering, Steven Sinofsky, just confirmed that Windows 7 will move straight to a release candidate build, skipping any other betas.

So, why do I say that when so many other reviewers are raving about HomeGroup? Well, here’s my experience.

I started by creating a HomeGroup on my Windows 7 test machine. Then I thoroughly tested networking with several other computers on my network, including a Vista machine, an XP machine, and two Macs. I had no trouble with either Vista or XP, networking the way any Windows user would on a peer network. In that mode, Windows 7 networks exactly like Vista does. All computers, even the Macs, are using the same workgroup name. My Vista and XP machines can file-share back and forth with the Macs quite easily. The Windows 7 machine could not. The Macs can connect to Windows 7 without trouble. Windows 7 sees the Macs but issues a path error when I try to force it to connect to them. I had run into this same Mac problem with my earlier test of Win 7 Beta 1 and the November release of Win 7. Networking is often dicey with beta versions of Windows, so this Mac issue wasn’t a huge surprise.

The only way to test the HomeGroup feature is with two Windows machines running Win 7. Unfortunately, I don’t have another PC available and suitable to be a Windows 7 test machine. So I downloaded Sun’s freely distributed VirtualBox software for the Mac. The hardest part about setting up VirtualBox was locating its Guest Additions (add-on drivers specific to your guest OS). It wasn’t where Sun’s documentation said it was. But there were several variations on the installation directions, and one of them worked. In all other regards, VirtualBox is an impressive product. Anyone who has used either VMware or the Parallels virtualization tools will recognize similarities.

VirtualBox has a pre-configured Windows 7 guest-OS mode, and that made set up easy. It took me only a little over an hour to rig up both VirtualBox and Windows 7 on one of my MacBook Pros.

With the two Windows 7 installations running, I expected to have no problems with HomeGroup. Even though there’s clearly some sort of issue with Windows 7 and Mac networking, the fact that the Macs could connect with Windows 7 left me feeling confident. It’s actually not uncommon for the Mac to have an issue networking with a Windows box while the virtual machine of Windows running on the same Mac has no problems connecting. But if you’re inclined to discount my experience with HomeGroup, this would be the best thing to hang your hat on.

So, with Windows 7 running on the Mac, I proceeded to try HomeGroup. You’re supposed to create your HomeGroup on one machine and then from all other Windows 7 machines, use the Join HomeGroup function. But no matter how hard I tried, the two Windows 7 installations were unable to connect to one another. The Join HomeGroup dialog wouldn’t appear. I tried it in both directions. I also tried creating HomeGroups on both machines and making them use the same password. No go.

Note: It’s possible to change the HomeGroup password after the fact from the Network and Sharing Center or Control Panel. It’s not possible to change the Windows 7-assigned HomeGroup password while you’re initiating HomeGroup.

I probably would have put off posting my less-than-stellar experience with HomeGroup except that I decided to go looking for other people’s experiences, and it was not difficult to find other people having the exact same problems with HomeGroup that I was.

I’m sure that Microsoft will straighten out HomeGroup in most people’s Win 7 installations by the time the operating system ships. I’m sure I will get it to work, too. Although I still sort of doubt that this Windows Networking Wizard on minor steroids will truly obviate the need to fully understand the ins and outs of Windows networking.

One final note: For those of you who read my previous post on Windows 7 and disagreed with me about performance, my MacBook Pro-hosted virtual machine Windows 7 installation seems no faster or slower to me than the other one. Windows 7 feels like Vista to me.

Maybe it just feels faster because you’re not constantly being bombarded with those annoying UAC prompts?

Tweet This  Plurk This  Buzz This  Delicious This  Digg This  Ping This  Reddit This  Stumble This