Posted For Information.
"One of the major complaints about Windows Vista was the fact that it was consistently slower than Windows XP.
If Windows 7 doesn't significantly improve that situation, it may fail to convince people to move away from Windows XP."
Speed Test: Windows 7 RC not much faster than Vista(26 posts)
Posted For Information.
Well, I think I kept saying that before. People were drawing conclusions from the Beta which was really a subset system. And when they ship the final release plus people installing their usual packages, I would expect it to run no faster at all - maybe even slower. After all, it is nothing but a camouflaged release 2 of Vista. From what I understood from one of Mark Russinovic's interviews, they did streamline some of the internal kernel processes. But then they also packed more stuff on top. It's like with IE8 - some people were claiming it is twice as fast as IE7. I don't see that. Yes, it seems to be more stable, but in terms of speed, it is marginal - if any.
It might not be much faster than Vista but it´s definately less hungry on resources. Running idle in Win 7 I´m using between 20-22% of my RAM, whereas in Vista it was always around 39%. A pretty big difference considering I´m using 4 GB on an x64 system. Win XP isn´t faster than Vista either, maybe it was in the beginning, but that was due to Vista being full of bugs. SP1 fixed most of those and with SP2 around the corner it will probably get even faster. As for those "still" whinging that XP is a better (the best!!) OS it´s about time they purchased a new PC with a little more RAM, try out Vista then tell me they want to go back to XP!!
Matt, but even regarding RAM you might be comparing apples and oranges. When I reinstalled my Vista and it was still in the "out of the box" state (startups however trimmed as usual), Vista did not use a lot of RAM either. But after I loaded it up with my usual 100+ programs, I end up with more than 1GB of RAM. ScottW also said that he runs his on 500MB plus change. I will probably not know for a while because I do not plan to use W7 as any production system and for playing around with it, I need not install a lot.
Additionally, I does not bother me at all if the system uses a good chunk of the 3 or 4GBs. It's all paid for and no need to keep it idle. I have yet to see all my RAM used - and I hate to waste. LOL.
Rick, I think you can go with W7. That is probably your best option, especially for the people coming from XP. They will find their way around easier than in Vista. Vista is a geek system, W7 is more of a consumer system (I call it "Kinder System" - LOL) - I think.
Thanks; I just didn't want to come up 14 Gigs short of memory in a new a Build.
Looks like I'm going to have to go with a Multi-Processor Motherboard as can't find any singles which support more than 18 Gigs of memory.
Need 32 or 33 Gigs at least.
You are right !!
Win7 64 Bit will be a [ simple ] O/S; Thank Goodness !!
Vista of any flavor was entirely too technical and geeky for folks like me. Couldn't understand it.
It was even hard for me to migrate from Dos to XP. :) :)
Rick, you are lowballing your skills. You could have very well dealt with Vista. If I could do it, you could do it. I knew nothing about PCs before 2007 - just big boxes that filled big data centers.
PS: I don't quite understand why you need more than 18GBs of RAM. What are you building - a multi-OS server?
Better to "Lowball" than to get a reputation as a "know it all" - Yes I can handle anything. (LOL)
Been around much too long. :)
Fridays are "pulling one's leg fun days". (LOL)
This article is a giant stinking pile of crap designed to get pageviews with a hyped-up BS title.
The changes they made in Windows 7 won't actually make your CPU run any faster - that's just not possible. What they did was fix the slow startup / shutdown / sleep speeds, improve the multi-threading for multi-tasking, use less drive space, and tweak plenty of UI features to be faster, feel faster, and just be more slick overall. This test didn't check for Any of those.
An automated test will never show the difference in speed for those types of common user behaviors. You can only write I/O at the speed of your hardware, and any improvement is going to be tiny when it comes to that.
Now if there was a test on how quickly you could infect your system with viruses, XP would win every time, hands down.
Windows 7 is very, very slick.
It IS faster at startup/shutdown that is a fact! Just like Vista, you either like it or hate it which comes down to you either buy it or not.
Me, when it comes out in Swedish will buy it. I think it is a massive step forward, its a pity that there is out there those you just sit and wait for something to moan at. If they actually tried any of thing of what they want to moan about, maybe, just maybe, they would moan a lot less!
Don't understand the LAST sentence in your post above.
Did MS FIX all the bad code in XP which can be exploited ??
Fix the Firewall ??
Just add UAC which will be ignored and turned off by most ??
After looking down the main page, don't see any evidence of how Vista and its Off Shoot Win7 has / or will make the O/Ses any more secure.
NO response needed.
If you are referring to me in your posting, Win7 RC is on this machine right now in dual boot configuration so don't want to here anymore about "trying it and moaning" my friend.
@Rick, in my first post I wasn´t referring to you when I wrote, "As for those "still" whinging that XP is a better (the best!!) OS....!!!" It just gets on my nerves when reading through other forums with people stating the XP is better with no experience with Vista.
Regarding Boot times, yesterday I read in a magazine that Win 7 beats all older OS´s.
Windows 7: 18,83 seconds
Vista SP1 : 25,64 seconds
XP SP2 : 26,12 seconds
XP SP3 : 29,44 seconds
@Wolfgang, regarding the RAM being used, I think Windows 7 adjusts itself automatically on just how much RAM the system has.
For example: Netbook with 512MB - Win 7 can use as little as 280MB with the rest that is needed used from HD (Paging). Slow performance!!
PC with 1GB - Win 7 uses about 450MB (without Paging) and can run two big applications without problems.
PC with 2GB - Win 7 uses about 600MB.
This is based on a clean install!! Matt
Matt, absolutely right. That's exactly what happens. I remember a lady from Portugal on this Forum who was questioning whether more RAM would be needed to solve her "performance problem". She was running Vista Ultimate on a 512MB system and the system said that only 70% of the RAM was used. For her that was proof that there was enough RAM - I guess she did not understand the mechanics behind that. My systems have 3 and 4GBs and Vista populates usually +/- 1GB - sometimes as much as 1.5GB after running for a while. So, that is the same in Vista and W7 - the actual RAM size is taken into consideration. What makes probably more sense is to look into the page file in e.g. task manager where it shows the total size and the populated part.
Ya, I thought that too. On occasion I will check on the wife's laptops that have only 2GBs. But it also matters what you are running and the mix over time. Mine can vary between 0.6 and 1.5GBs.
And this is my current Vista with IE running. But when I called Opera, because this is my Photobucket browser, it shot up to over 800MBs. As I said earlier, it depends what you are running and what is being loaded in which sequence. The more you pile on, the more RAM is being used - in anticipation that you might use it again in the near future. Quite a clever system.
Here´s a snip of my system about 10 minutes after booting. As you can see I have fewer processes running than whs but due to more RAM a lot more is being used. Vista x64, Q6600 and only FF running at the time. Matt
I think what you see is the difference between 32bit and 64bit. Else our systems are equal - same processor and same 4GB RAM. You also see that in the page file sizes. Interesting!
Not certain because there are a lot of other factors - e.g. the startups and their footprint. From the above data we cannot really make an apples to apples comparison - just an approximation. But my guess would be that x64 uses RAM more generously (which is good). That's what probably accounts for the slight performance advantage of x64 on 4GB systems.
PS: I just made a little experiment. I started a few "heavy hitters" like Ghost, Gimp, etc. And now I am around 900MBs although I closed all those programs. So it also depends of what you ran earlier - not only what is running right now. And if you only shut down with sleep mode (and not total shutdown), you keep this historic footprint and build on top of that.
This topic has been closed to new replies.