[citation][nom]jhansonxi[/nom]I'd like to see how Win7 power management compares to Vista, XP, and Ubuntu or Mandriva Linux with various tasks including word processing, 802.11 and 3G wireless, DVD encoding, and web browsing with Flash. An improvement over Vista isn't saying much.[/citation]
Every improvement over Vista matters since Win7 is to not only replace the Vista damage but also do an extrra step in order to sell. Win7, personally, have me. Loving them
I believe that the test may be flawed. Unless I am missing something, aren't processors designed differently? Think about it, no chips can be the same. In this case, the one running Windows 7 may require less voltage to run compared to the one running on Vista. I'm not trying to argue the fact that Windows 7 is more power efficient, but the fact that even by comparing 2 laptops with similar hardware the result could be flawed.
... so what??? I tweaked and tuned my Phenom 940, till in idle it runs 700mhz, but under load @ 3600... with traytool i underclocked HD4870 GPU 400; MEM 1600, but at load it runs GPU 800Mhz; MEM 4400Mhz... together with 4x2Gb Transdent 5-5-5-15 @ 1066; 3x80Gb Seagate in RAID0; WD7500AAKS; tvcard and X-FI XtreemGamer my system @ idle uses 155Watt with Windows7... at load its about 390Watt... according to my APC... yes... windows7 is a promising OS... and the power saving gains is because it... i can do all my stuff without any hiccups with a 8 month old rig... it is not like intel is doing it... that's because of collaboration with microsoft... and i think, AMD is doing that too... any hardware maker out there are doing it, because microsoft is having the biggest OS market share... but there is two things to consider... 1) is the CPU the 'biggest' part anyway... why? Most of physics and geometry is done by video cards now... YOU can do video with video cards too using nVidia CUDA or ATi Stream technology, OpenCL... so?! 2) if YOU use the new features provided with the new technology, there is pointless to have a expensive CPU just to post some silly comments, like mine... so my conclusion is... intel needs to sell the next generation of cpu's, but they know, that most of the time the cpu's do just simple stuff like mail, internet, media... so the mesage is... wee have most powerful CPU in the world, but it can run like a cheap power saver too... sins catalyst 8.12 i don't use the cpu, to compress video... i use GPU... much faster...
p.s. Where is the larrabee buz gone?
No, to answer your question I don't feel stupid. I learn something new everyday. I don't know everything. I'm learning and will until the day I die. I meant to learn something from my post. Thanx for teaching me something new. Now perhaps someone will teach you a bit on manners one day and you'll not come off like such an ass in the process. Cheers.
[citation][nom]Ubuntu_9_10_Alpha_or_GTFO[/nom]Microsoft also handicaps Phenom II CPUs by over-riding the BIOS TLB fix settings and applying the fix anyways, this is exactly why I'll be sticking with Linux, or XP pro corporate if I absolutely have to have Windows for something...[/citation]
Phenom II has no BIOS TLB fix.
[citation][nom]ejarendt[/nom]There are redundancies to eliminate, code to optimize, getting rid of legacy support (or making it downloadable instead of bundled), etc.[/citation]
Snow Leopard has to support how many hardware configurations? Not many. Therefore the amount of legacy/generic drivers it comes with is minimal compared to Windows. WRT your point about downloading: In many countries people don't have nearly a sufficient enough Internet connection to download drivers for every component in their system, let alone the hundreds of hotfixes M$ already wants you to download. That plus people want things to "just work" and having to download means it doesn't "just work."
Randomizer: Phenom II doesn't NEED a TLB fix, however, XP post-SP3 and Vista post-SP1 enable the fix automatically, even on Phenom II CPUs with no TLB errata, which causes a 10% performance hit. There is a tool called "TLB disable" that fixes this, but the point is that Intel is allowed to help code Windows to run better on their CPUs, where AMD gets shafted by Microsoft when they won't even code a very simple fix to improve performance.
[citation][nom]backbydemand[/nom]To all those who say compare OSX vs Win7, well you can't legitimately have the same OS on the same machine, anytime someone tries to put OSX on PC hardware don't Apple issue a crushing legal attack?Compare MS to MS, Apple to Apple and let all the partisan fanboy bullshit end here.The story was very clear on this issue, Win7 uses less power than Vista. End of.[/citation]
Can't have both on the same machine? What rock are you living under? While it's true that apple won't let you install their OS and anything but a crapple box, MS lets you install Windows on ANYTHING that will run it, INCLUDING macs.
"The blog discusses improvements to multitasking based on "SMT Parking," which provides additional support to the Windows 7 scheduler for Intel Hyper-threading Technology. With Hyper-threading, the operating system sees a single processor core as two cores (i.e., a dual-core chip becomes a virtual quad-core processor), thus potentially improving multitasking--or doing tasks (threads) simultaneously."
Now, if AMD were allowed THAT level of collaboration, surely they would've fixed:
a)that horrendous fix of a non-existant errata
b)Windows god-awful thread scheduler that completely screws Phenom's excellent clockspeed throttling by moving busy threads to throttled cores(AMD had to deliberately break it in Phenom II just to avoid this issue)
please note that other OSs like Linux have a decent thread scheduler that doesn't do that...
[citation][nom]random_seed[/nom]Randomizer: Phenom II doesn't NEED a TLB fix, however, XP post-SP3 and Vista post-SP1 enable the fix automatically, even on Phenom II CPUs with no TLB errata, which causes a 10% performance hit. There is a tool called "TLB disable" that fixes this, but the point is that Intel is allowed to help code Windows to run better on their CPUs, where AMD gets shafted by Microsoft when they won't even code a very simple fix to improve performance.[/citation]
over the past few years, apple has released multiple 500-800MB patches
for each version of the mac os there has been around 2-3 major patches for each OS, the only one that didn't get a giant patch yet is snow leopard because it is new but later on it may get a giant patch also
forgot to add that it is good that these companies are releasing patches, it shows that there actively fixing security problems
also with the price of a mac, it is a given that you will have a broadband connection. so a 500MB patch is nothing
especially since apple has a better updater than the one in windows the mac one is not as annoying, and the one that beats all of them is the updater in ubuntu, it is quick even with large updates and all you have to do is click update and it does the rest