Microsoft does it again with Windows 7

[VooD]

GUI slowness was something I inmediatly noticed the very first time I booted Windows Vista. While XP SP3 was able to draw dialog boxes, menus and buttons at blazing speeds Vista crawled in comparison.

 

Later I learned the source of the problem was the new WDDM (Windows Display Driver Model), which among others thing such as heterogeneous display adaptors completly lacked of 2D hardware graphics acceleration, making all GDI and GDI+ applications to render in software mode which means: slower and with an higher cpu usage.

 

When Microsoft announced Windows 7, and its new driver model (WDDM 1.1) I thought I finally would be able to use Windows at the same speed I was used to in XP since WDDM 1.1 finally was going to get back some hardware accelerated 2D functions.

 

Sadly...it seems those functions are not the ones which make the XP gui so fast in comparison. So in Windows 7 we still are stuck to software render for the gui.

 

Windows 7 has introduced new apis and technologies to build hardware accelerated interfaces...the problem is, 99% of the system application and Windows applications are built around GDI and GDI+.

 

To sum up: Windows 7 GUI is almost 5 times slower than Windows XP SP3 GUI. Which in addition to many other annoyances in general usability and system responsivity means XP still the fastest and more responsive OS from Microsoft.

 

I guess I'll check Microsoft progress again in two or three years with Windows 8.

 

VIDEO DEMONSTRATION:

 

Edit: Video showing high cpu usage in Explorer:

[Diseal3]

Some people are just never happy..

[VooD]

Some people are just never happy..

And some can't see the evidences by themselves.

 

8 years...5 times slower. Good work Microsoft.

[Hoplita]

Hi there,

 

What do you expect with windows xp hardware on a windows 7?

First off all you should consider after windows xp there where HUGE grapichs changes.

Also even if microsoft post the minium, specs this doesent main its recommeded for you and other people.

The windows 7 introduces so many new things even like windows xp simulation so all older program will run on it.

Windows Vista at the beginning was not like we expected but also software companys make mistakes and even the MACOS does have alot things that just enoying. We are in 2009 now and windows xp hardware is from 2002. so again what do you expect?. The Computer world is changing verry fast and also the hardware does. Buy one new pc with windows 7 and come here again to discuss about the performance. If you buyd a pc for windows xp just keep it windows xp and don't upgrade to windows vista /7 becouse it isent build for that.

 

Good luck!

[VooD]

Hi there,

 

What do you expect with windows xp hardware on a windows 7?

First off all you should consider after windows xp there where HUGE grapichs changes.

Also even if microsoft post the minium, specs this doesent main its recommeded for you and other people.

The windows 7 introduces so many new things even like windows xp simulation so all older program will run on it.

Windows Vista at the beginning was not like we expected but also software companys make mistakes and even the MACOS does have alot things that just enoying. We are in 2009 now and windows xp hardware is from 2002. so again what do you expect?. The Computer world is changing verry fast and also the hardware does. Buy one new pc with windows 7 and come here again to discuss about the performance. If you buyd a pc for windows xp just keep it windows xp and don't upgrade to windows vista /7 becouse it isent build for that.

 

Good luck!

 

Lol, you clearly have no idea about computers. Probably you didn't fully understand what I said in my post.

[Hoplita]

The gui is slow you're posting it, Why the gui is slow ? ??

[GenMatrix]

So what exactly does this impact? Your inability to click 5 times as fast? Some example of why this is important would help me understand the significance.

 

Edit: Nevermind, just watched the video and I have to say that this is just nitpicking, trying to find everything they possibly can to smash Windows 7. It's a bit pathetic to be honest and just goes to show that there are people out there that will waste their time with these meaningless comparisons.

[blkhockeypro19]

Ok, Microsoft should definitely fix this. I mean honestly the GUI isn't that slow, but it should still be fixed. Honestly though, maybe the benchmarks will say differently, but I find Mac OS X to be FAR worse. Try resizing an iphoto window. Check out that lag. Try dragging a large icon around the screen (large cover-flow icon) and watch it skip as you drag it across. Open a safari or firefox youtube video and click something on the menu bar. Watch that video lag like hell. Anyone play free rider for fun? Try playing that on full screen in Mac OS X, its like playing with a slow motion cheat code it's so choppy, but the same on XP/Vista/Seven and it works perfectly with no lag. I'm a Mac fanboy to be honest but I still see it's flaws. All of this experience came from hackintoshes and Mac Pro's at retail apple stores. (These little glitches annoyed me so much I went to the apple store and tested them on their best rigs) And honestly, they shouldn't be happening even on my hackintosh as I have an 8800GT, same as VooD. These little lags and glitches are found throughout OS X. I think my point is every OS has its flaws, and if your really gonna {censored} about some black artifacts while resizing some windows and your going to stay on an OS that is 8 years old just because of that, I think you have a problem buddy. I still don't like Windows, I think it should be better, but I think most would agree that XP's flaws far far surpass seven's flaws. Leopard has flaws, seven does, vista does (obviously =P) and so does XP.

[VooD]

if your really gonna {censored} about some black artifacts while resizing some windows and your going to stay on an OS that is 8 years old just because of that, I think you have a problem buddy.

 

Let say the black artifacts are an extra, what it really annoys me is the average slowness of both the GUI and the system itself. The fact there are lots of unnecesary features using cpu time, lots of programmed tasks, lots of usability mistakes (lack of up level button for example), an unnecesary cluttered control panel and configuration windows, 20 ways to setup a same setting, lack of classic start menu (the new one is a nightmare for expert users),etc...

 

But, on top of all that, the fact Windows XP SP3 is a lot faster, and 7 doesn't offer any significant improvemente over XP (I can't imagine anything I need to do which I couldn't do faster or easier on XP) is what makes make stay away from 7.

[VooD]

So what exactly does this impact? Your inability to click 5 times as fast? Some example of why this is important would help me understand the significance.

 

Edit: Nevermind, just watched the video and I have to say that this is just nitpicking, trying to find everything they possibly can to smash Windows 7. It's a bit pathetic to be honest and just goes to show that there are people out there that will waste their time with these meaningless comparisons.

 

All I can say is try yourself. I wouldn't call meaningless to have a 8 years old OS performing almost 5 times better than the brand new Windows 7.

 

If you need more info, check MSDN forums, it's not something it suddenly came to me. This problem has been present in Windows since the very first Vista beta, and generated many questions to Microsoft from developers which suddenly found their applications GUI performing a lot worse and using way more cpu than they should.

 

All of us had big expectations with Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to look away as if there were no problems at all and Windows 7 was finally the solution to all Vista problems. Windows 7 have some design problems, and the one regarding GDI slowness is probably one of the biggests.

[GenMatrix]

All I can say is try yourself. I wouldn't call meaningless to have a 8 years old OS performing almost 5 times better than the brand new Windows 7.

 

If you need more info, check MSDN forums, it's not something it suddenly came to me. This problem has been present in Windows since the very first Vista beta, and generated many questions to Microsoft from developers which suddenly found their applications GUI performing a lot worse and using way more cpu than they should.

 

All of us had big expectations with Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to look away as if there were no problems at all and Windows 7 was finally the solution to all Vista problems. Windows 7 have some design problems, and the one regarding GDI slowness is probably one of the biggests.

 

Okay, so it uses more CPU than it should. Shouldn't really be a problem unless you're using a program that is CPU intensive such as gaming/rendering/video editing. And even still when those programs are doing their thing, you shouldn't be trying to pull resources from it anyway. The only group I could see this affecting are with people who have ancient computers with crappy CPU's.

 

When it comes to your "It's been 8 years WTF MICROSOFT" statement, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. I'm not extremely savvy on how making an operating system works, but I'm sure they choose to have the CPU render the GUI for compatibility rather than performance. Either way, you call it a problem yet haven't given a clear cut example like "Oh man, my program fails to function because the GUI renders so damn slow!". So I still find this whole thing meaningless nitpicking.

[ChocolateJeff]

Wow... VooD... I just cannot believe Microsoft...

 

I thought they'll fix the 2D rendering slowness by Win 7 (because I noticed it in Vista too)... but wow.. who? Who the hell IS in charge of Windows 7!!?? or Vista??!

 

I don't know how much this is going to effect me as a Windows 7 user but.. C'MON Microsoft... Get it TOGETHER!!

 

and btw..

 

@ Hoplita..

 

Lol, you clearly have no idea about computers. Probably you didn't fully understand what I said in my post.

 

L.O.L you crack me up..

[FacialTurd]

I have an nVidia 7600; and what is this?

 

FYI: GDI is not used to draw Windows, it is used to draw fonts and other vector graphics.

[VooD]

Okay, so it uses more CPU than it should. Shouldn't really be a problem unless you're using a program that is CPU intensive such as gaming/rendering/video editing. And even still when those programs are doing their thing, you shouldn't be trying to pull resources from it anyway. The only group I could see this affecting are with people who have ancient computers with crappy CPU's.

 

When it comes to your "It's been 8 years WTF MICROSOFT" statement, I'm not exactly sure what your point is. I'm not extremely savvy on how making an operating system works, but I'm sure they choose to have the CPU render the GUI for compatibility rather than performance. Either way, you call it a problem yet haven't given a clear cut example like "Oh man, my program fails to function because the GUI renders so damn slow!". So I still find this whole thing meaningless nitpicking.

 

They choose software render because they found too difficult to combine the new graphical engine with the old one. If you want to learn more about it read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/directx/archive/2009...in-windows.aspx

 

GDI has dozens of functions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd...28VS.85%29.aspx

 

GDI hardware acceleration in Windows 7 using WDDM 1.1 drivers has only these functions hardware accelerated: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd434692.aspx

 

I show in the video how slow is the services.msc window, and the graphical artifacts it has, but it's not the only one. Probably is one of the applications where this issue is more easily spotted but there are many others in a lesser degree depending on how they call GDI functions.

 

Windows 7 has several integrated solutions to circumvent the lack of 2d graphical acceleration...the problem is those solutions require full rewrite of the every single application's gui in order to use the new direct2d and directwrite, including the ones bundled with the os (file explorer, dialog boxes, management windows, etc...) and that's not going to happen in years, not from Microsoft itself, nor from 3rd party developers. I don't see Adobe porting their suite to Direct2D any soon..and anyway, the system will always stay GDI/GDI+ based. Probably until the next Windows version.

 

What I explain in the video is a reality, it have been already discussed for years since Vista was released (the problem started there), and many developers had complaints about. It's definetively not a false statement, and all you have to do to believe it is try it by yourself.

 

All of us had big expectations with Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to look away as if there were no problems and Windows 7 was finally the solution to all Vista problems. Windows 7 have some design problems, and the one regarding GDI is probably one of the biggests

 

We will not see any better results over the time other than the ones related with the improvement in cpu speeds.

 

WDDM 1.1 drivers makes mandatory this new "partial" GDI hardware acceleration. So any driver which claims to be 1.1 is already accelerating as much as it ever will.

 

Too bad, the results I got were based on WDDM 1.1 drivers (both from nvidia and Microsoft itself).

 

So this is all we get. Microsoft had to include this partial GDI acceleration, because those functions were way too slow in software mode, but it seems they thought the rest of them were not.....(which is not correct).

 

About the real world impact. I can clearly see the real world impact of this decision as soon as I boot Windows 7 and start working. There is people who's not able to see the difference between a game running at 60 fps from the same game running a 30 fps. There's also people not able to ear the difference between a 128kb mp3 and a real CD Audio.

 

All I can say is, there is a real difference, a difference you can meter, and at least me and some other people are able to feel in every day Windows 7 use.

 

Probably many people is blinded by the novelty and don't want to accept there are some problems with the new and overrated Microsoft system.

 

I think I will give up trying to make you people see the reality. It's really exhausting trying to demonstrate 1+1 = 2 over and over. The facts are there, I gave you the proofs, Microsoft addmited the problem, many developers complaint about, what else do you need?

 

bye

[GenMatrix]

They choose software render because they found too difficult to combine the new graphical engine with the old one. If you want to learn more about it read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/directx/archive/2009...in-windows.aspx

 

GDI has dozens of functions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd...28VS.85%29.aspx

 

GDI hardware acceleration in Windows 7 using WDDM 1.1 drivers has only these functions hardware accelerated: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd434692.aspx

 

I show in the video how slow is the services.msc window, and the graphical artifacts it has, but it's not the only one. Probably is one of the applications where this issue is more easily spotted but there are many others in a lesser degree depending on how they call GDI functions.

 

Windows 7 has several integrated solutions to circumvent the lack of 2d graphical acceleration...the problem is those solutions require full rewrite of the every single application's gui in order to use the new direct2d and directwrite, including the ones bundled with the os (file explorer, dialog boxes, management windows, etc...) and that's not going to happen in years, not from Microsoft itself, nor from 3rd party developers. I don't see Adobe porting their suite to Direct2D any soon..and anyway, the system will always stay GDI/GDI+ based. Probably until the next Windows version.

 

What I explain in the video is a reality, it have been already discussed for years since Vista was released (the problem started there), and many developers had complaints about. It's definetively not a false statement, and all you have to do to believe it is try it by yourself.

 

All of us had big expectations with Windows 7, but that doesn't mean we have to look away as if there were no problems and Windows 7 was finally the solution to all Vista problems. Windows 7 have some design problems, and the one regarding GDI is probably one of the biggests

 

We will not see any better results over the time other than the ones related with the improvement in cpu speeds.

 

WDDM 1.1 drivers makes mandatory this new "partial" GDI hardware acceleration. So any driver which claims to be 1.1 is already accelerating as much as it ever will.

 

Too bad, the results I got were based on WDDM 1.1 drivers (both from nvidia and Microsoft itself).

 

So this is all we get. Microsoft had to include this partial GDI acceleration, because those functions were way too slow in software mode, but it seems they thought the rest of them were not.....(which is not correct).

 

About the real world impact. I can clearly see the real world impact of this decision as soon as I boot Windows 7 and start working. There is people who's not able to see the difference between a game running at 60 fps from the same game running a 30 fps. There's also people not able to ear the difference between a 128kb mp3 and a real CD Audio.

 

All I can say is, there is a real difference, a difference you can meter, and at least me and some other people are able to feel in every day Windows 7 use.

 

Probably many people is blinded by the novelty and don't want to accept there are some problems with the new and overrated Microsoft system.

 

I think I will give up trying to make you people see the reality. It's really exhausting trying to demonstrate 1+1 = 2 over and over. The facts are there, I gave you the proofs, Microsoft addmited the problem, many developers complaint about, what else do you need?

 

bye

 

I don't need anything. I just wanted a clear cut example of how this adversely affects you and even though you wrote a novel up there, you completely ignored actually giving one and going with statements like "All I can say is, there is a real difference...". My only argument is that you're seemingly trying to smash the new operating system because your windows don't render as fast as XP, and thus make it sound like Windows 7 is obsolete from this issue (I'll call it issue since it doesn't really justify the word "problem").

 

I'll just leave it with what the second poster said.

 

"Some people are just never happy.."

[VooD]

I don't need anything. I just wanted a clear cut example of how this adversely affects you and even though you wrote a novel up there, you completely ignored actually giving one and going with statements like "All I can say is, there is a real difference...". My only argument is that you're seemingly trying to smash the new operating system because your windows don't render as fast as XP, and thus make it sound like Windows 7 is obsolete from this issue (I'll call it issue since it doesn't really justify the word "problem").

 

I'll just leave it with what the second poster said.

 

"Some people are just never happy.."

Do the test yourself, then talk. I have nothing else to add.

[U.C.]

I run 7 smoothly on my Wind. You cant get slower than that and it rocks.

[GenMatrix]

Do the test yourself, then talk. I have nothing else to add.

 

You really haven't read anything I've said, have you? I'm not denying your statistics, I'm saying that they have no impact on anything other the fact you notice it to be slower.

[VooD]

You really haven't read anything I've said, have you? I'm not denying your statistics, I'm saying that they have no impact on anything other the fact you notice it to be slower.

 

It seems you are the one who haven't read anything. Even developers had complaints about this. And if the fact an os 8 years newer has worse GDI perfomance (the api which builds 98% of windows gui) than XP is not something with "impact" I can't imagine what else could be.

 

I have an nVidia 7600; and what is this?

 

FYI: GDI is not used to draw Windows, it is used to draw fonts and other vector graphics.

 

Check again: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd...28VS.85%29.aspx

 

There are lots of GDI functions involved in drawing Windows interface. From blitting to line drawing, color filling, etc...

 

Read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/directx/archive/2009...in-windows.aspx

[FKA]

running 32 bit apps' on 7 x64 is a tad pedestrian !!

 

I'll be interested to see how Final Cut holds up on SL

[VooD]

running 32 bit apps' on 7 x64 is a tad pedestrian !!

 

I'll be interested to see how Final Cut holds up on SL

 

?

[GenMatrix]

It seems you are the one who haven't read anything. Even developers had complaints about this. And if the fact an os 8 years newer has worse GDI perfomance (the api which builds 98% of windows gui) than XP is not something with "impact" I can't imagine what else could be.

 

 

 

Check again: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd...28VS.85%29.aspx

 

There are lots of GDI functions involved in drawing Windows interface. From blitting to line drawing, color filling, etc...

 

Read this: http://blogs.msdn.com/directx/archive/2009...in-windows.aspx

 

They complain that it's slower. Is that all? Is that the only problem they are facing? Because once again you have yet to give any specifics.

[VooD]

They complain that it's slower. Is that all? Is that the only problem they are facing? Because once again you have yet to give any specifics.

 

As I said, some people isn't able to see the difference between 30 or 60 fps, or an audio CD and a 128kbps. Probably you are one of those.

 

Why don't you test by yourself what I show in the video about MMC's windows?

 

Or, why don't you put icon view, then go to c:\windows\system32 and try to scroll up and down while you look at your cpu usage?

 

I'll save you the effort. You'll get nearly 100% cpu usage, bad scrolling response, and the movement isn't any near of smooth. By comparison in XP you'll use about 15% cpu, and you'll get a supersmoth scrolling, the same happen in MacOS X, smooth and responsive scrolling, low cpu usage.

 

Anyway I don't understand why you keep posting here. You think Windows 7 is great? Ok. Then go a create a new topic talking about...I won't write anything there for sure.

 

Bye

[GenMatrix]

As I said, some people isn't able to see the difference between 30 or 60 fps, or an audio CD and a 128kbps. Probably you are one of those.

 

Why don't you test by yourself what I show in the video about MMC's windows?

 

Or, why don't you put icon view, then go to c:\windows\system32 and try to scroll up and down while you look at your cpu usage?

 

I'll save you the effort. You'll get nearly 100% cpu usage, bad scrolling response, and the movement isn't any near of smooth. By comparison in XP you'll use about 15% cpu, and you'll get a supersmoth scrolling, the same happen in MacOS X, smooth and responsive scrolling, low cpu usage.

 

Anyway I don't understand why you keep posting here. You think Windows 7 is great? Ok. Then go a create a new topic talking about...I won't write anything there for sure.

 

Bye

 

I don't think it's great. It's nice, not great. No need to get defensive I was just trying to figure out the logic behind this post and why you call it out like is a serious OS breaking problem. I just realized there is no logic to it and people just like to {censored} about anything and everything. Good research though.

[VooD]

I don't think it's great. It's nice, not great. No need to get defensive I was just trying to figure out the logic behind this post and why you call it out like is a serious OS breaking problem. I just realized there is no logic to it and people just like to {censored} about anything and everything. Good research though.

 

Again, if a GUI system almost 5 times slower than the one in XP doesn't seem a problem to you I don't know what will ever be.

I don't know what do you expect from each new Windows version...but I think most of us expect improvements, and in this area (and some others) the results are MUCH worse.

 

Maybe it's just I expected a much better OS after 8 years of development, and maybe it's you are easily satisfied.