Windows 7 is overrated - No difference in terms of performance compared with Vista

Who are these idiots that did this "research", did they not understand the memory model in Win 7 is very different than XP and the concept of unused memory is wasted memory?

But this one line sums up exactly how STUPID these so called researchers are:

"Barth acknowledged that XPnet's data couldn't determine whether the memory usage was by the operating system itself, or an increased number of applications, but said that Devil Mountain would start working on finding which is the dominant factor in increased memory use."

Couldn't determine? You have got to be kidding. If they couldn't determine that they have no business writing the rest of what they said in the article. This is just pathetic.

Gary

 

Computerworld is one of those filled with Apple-obsessed tech writers I was talking about. Their writers really will jump on any old dross about MS / Windows - in that way they're a bit like Randall Kennedy - but opportunities to talk positively about Apple will also be seized upon just as readily, in either case regardless of merit. At least those such as the Reg bares a sarcastic tooth at everyone.

 

Someone should start a poll. I doubt many are running at such high loads here unless they were doing this before too. Ialso would think if there were resource issues we would have seen complaints by now somewhere on the net by users..........

 

I agree. Apart from the uninformed drivel around their numbers, I also doubt the numbers themselves. If I would venture a guess without any real data whatsoever, I would say that the large majority of machines running Windows 7 will have a full 4GB of memory, and such machines typically use around 1-1.5GB of that right after boot. After that, I would again guess that very few people will use more than another gig or so for applications for any substantial amount of time, which means that a typical memory load for modern Win7 machines should be around 50% or so. I may be off by 10-15% on this, but I simply cannot imagine average memory commits above 80%. In addition, even beyond typical memory consumption, I doubt that any significant number of people ever experience Win7 having to go to the page file at all.

I think these guys are simply full of it.

P.S.: I just looked at the website of the outfit (Devil Mountain Software) that produced this nonsense, and their own charts show that the Windows 7 machines, on average, come with somewhere between 3 and 4 gigs of memory installed, confirming my estimates above.

 

All the Windows 7 computers I've seen so far run around ~50% after starting up (usually more if it has less than 2GB of RAM), and a lot don't go past 3GB used at all.

I can't even get it to go past 3GB used without trying (except for when I'm playing GTA IV). I've even seen it only use ~60% on a friends computer and he only has 1GB (but i'm sure that you could hit the wall pretty fast on 1GB with any OS these days).

 

Said this a couple times, but Windows 7 doesn't seem to be that much more in terms of performance better than Vista by huge margins, if it is, it's by very little (<1%). What 7 did do for me, is give me better productivity options, with Aero Peek, Aero Snap, and Jump Lists. But in reality I think Vista had a lot of the same, but just "half baked" just as many people when 7 came out saying "this is what Vista should have been when it first came out." Honestly, if I didn't get 7 for 30$ I wouldn't have gotten it, and even though I'm using it now, I don't think I'd be missing much if I didn't get it at all. I think 7 is really what Vista should have been, not that it's a different operating system from Vista.
In regards to ram usage, that I see is being discussesd towards this end ot the thread. Compared to my former Vista install, 7 is reporting 100MB less than I had on Vista (reporting, not using).

 

SDreamer, you probably use Vista 64-bit. Sadly OEM's where obsess with 32-bit Vista, treating Vista 64-bit like XP 64-bit edition, even though the idea was supposed to be the contrary. Vista 32-bit was a last minute decision by Microsoft. Vista 32-bit was a half baked Vista 64-bit in term of quality.

I, like you, was one of the few who used Vista 64-bit and really enjoyed Vista. From my observation on many systems, Windows 7 is faster for any non-gaming system at the time of Vista. I had (still have and using it today), a Janurary 2006 gaming desktop computer (see signature), Vista was super smooth (when it was released), for non gaming system (1GB of RAM, GPU slower than a Geforce 6600GT with 128MB of VRAM, <2.0GHz CPU) Vista was unable to run smoothly. I was able to install Vista on a P3 800Mhz with 512MB of RAM, but well it was unusable until you disable virtually every service, and use Windows Classic UI... and even then.

Widnows 7 on the other hand, run much faster on lower end rigs to a point that i tried it the P3 computer mentioned above, and it's actually fully usable WITH Aero basic, and no system tweaks needed (other than disable superFetch due to the extra low memory).

More on that crappy report by Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...tm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss
Ars says in short: the person who did this research is a moron.

 

Well, well, well. We were right. The story and its author are a fraud!

Look at the content of the article now:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9158258/Most_Windows_7_PCs_max_out_memory?source=rss_news

At the top the Computerworld editors have added:

and

http://www.infoworld.com/d/adventures-in-it/unfortunate-ending-357

Gary

 

Win 7 is much less taxing on hardware, hence it should run better on most pc's and most people will see some sort of gain in usage.

 

"Much" less is probably not the way to go about saying it. Sure it "seems" lighter or slimmer, but in reality it's not a huge difference.

Win7 and Vista generally feel the same, in terms of smoothness and what not.

 

Ehm...are a load of posts deleted or something?

 

You are correct. A bunch of off topic posts were deleted.

 

Thank goodness. I was ready to stab the next person that quoted that ridiculous article.

 

Yeah- windows 7 really is (or isn't?) overrated. Err- which stance do you have again? Kinda got lost in the Apple grumblings

 

X2, I have run all 3 XP, Vista SP1, 7 on this Latitude laptop, and never had issues. Really. I almost prefer Vista over 7. Vista reminds me of XP, but modern. Speed while, i really cant tell a difference in-between the 3... Benchmarking, might show a little speed increase, real world performance does not tho, Not for what i do..

Also, i have installed W7 on the 7+ year old dell dimension, and it runs just OK.... I cant find a W7 graphics driver for the ATI 9250, so it disabled all the neat looks. It runs decent, but you can tell W7 is installed on pretty old hardware.. Windows XP will be installed back sooner, then later for the dimension...

 

I beg to differ, from my point of view and experience with both Vista and Windows 7, the latter is more resource-effective and not as much of a performance-hog as the former.

I am currently running Windows 7 on a laptop that cost $400 from Wal-Mart, 3 years ago, it runs just fine on it, albeit, a little on the slow side, previously, I had Windows Vista installed on it and it was sluggish which made me downgrade it back to Windows XP.

On my Clevo D901C, both Vista and Windows 7 ran on the sweet-spot of perfection, however, the performance difference was noticeable on Windows 7, the laptop completed tasks in a shorter time and the resources taken by the Operative System were, in fact, less than the resources than Windows Vista would, even after severe tweaking and configuring. (72 MB RAM taken by OS, Much less services than default, 9 System Processes taken by Vista).

This is my point of view and opinion, I have Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit / 32-Bit and Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit / 32-Bit.

 

How did you measure your RAM usage?
You know that Win7 doesn't report the RAM used for Superfetch in the TaskManager because people whined about Vista's RAM usage?

 

I had Superfetch disabled on both Vista (The data that I wrote in my post was about tweaked Vista, the above post reflects this now) and Windows 7, it was simply not worth it with the performance of RAID-0; I did use Task Manager to measure the memory usage.

 

Brilliant... you break function that are intended to IMPROVE performance and then moan about performance...

 

First off, I am not "moaning" about performance, do not twist my words, I was merely giving a fair opinion from my own point of view after using both Operative Systems.

Both Windows Vista and Windows 7 were on equal grounds, both with Superfetch disabled (thus, there were no errors on the raw memory usage of both Operative Systems).

Superfetch only affects the speed in that commonly-used programs load up, as far as my case goes, I would rather have the space on my laptop's memory free (I know that Superfetch automatically frees up the memory that it is using if any other process or service requires to use it), especially because the performance increasement was right next to negligible.

I rest my case.

 

Well, you were complaining that Vista was too slow on an old computer and going on about how Win7 is so much faster...

And the part I marked in red - on a SSD you won't notice much of a difference, on a HDD you do.
(Especially with large programmes and its very noticeable - it was very noticeable on my old 5400rpm HDD) - so if you didn't notice any improvement you just had no fixed usage pattern.

 

I do not recall ever writing so much faster in my post, I wrote "Just fine, albeit a little on the slow side.", Windows 7 ran better than Windows Vista did on it, but not by a mind-blowing margin.

Perhaps I should elaborate my posting more and be more specific about the machine that I ran both Windows Vista Home Premium 64-Bit and Windows 7 Ultimate on, the laptop was sporting three Toshiba HD's, with capacity for 200 GB each, running at 7.2K RPM and on a Triple RAID-0 configuration. (Attached a HD Tune benchmark test result, not recent.)

You are right about that I did not have a specific pattern, I used the laptop to game on most of the time along with running Image Edition programs such as Corel X4, sporadic Office Work and Benchmarking, I merely posted my experiences in this thread without claiming to have done so under a controlled enviroment, ran specific tests or under specific conditions.

I must say, though, I am glad that you are pointing out the flaws on the posting that I wrote. +1

 

3 HDDs - that was a desktop though, not a laptop, isn't it?
And the usage pattern is important.

 

It was my Clevo D901C laptop, Intel Matrix RAID sporting RAID-0 and a Desktop Quad, the Clevo D900K (predecessor to Clevo D900C / D901C) sported an actual RAID Controller reaching speeds well within SSD standards with only 2 drives on RAID-0.

I agree with that, otherwise the probable results and conceptions would not hold as much value as tests done under certain conditions, rule-sets and control.

 

Are we comparing 64 bit systems with 64 bit systems?

I mean, its not fair to take hardware designed to maximize 64 bit and compare it with 32 bit.

32 bit will likely have less issues with driver compatibility, but 64 bit should scream with plenty of ram, SSD drive and quad core.

But if you compare windows 7 64 bit with XP 64 bit that would be a more interesting conversation.....
XP is smaller, lighter, of which the hardware could muscle around like flicking a fly off the counter... whereas windows 7 is newer, better optimized, but takes much more horsepower to push.

I would think as long as hardware is plenty to drive both, that XP would only utilize a portion of the hardwares abilities, and windows 7 would utilize more.

With that being said, it would seem with an adequate system, win 7 would excel hands down.

Has anyone noticed a big difference between 32 bit and 64 bit?

This "has" to be part of the conversation if your going to compare apples and oranges..... even when comparing win7 with Vista.

 

It doesn't have to do with performance, ok well it does but it's not the prime thing. XP is optimized for very old system. Remember 2001! Thanks to SP2 and SP3 it supports system until 2005. But anything after that, and even some high end system of 2005, XP can't handel it. People like myself, had no choice to use XP until Vista came out, and this is where everything changes. Where my system under Vista 64-bit had a big boost in performance, and things worked like they never worked before. Windows 7 made the system even better.

I tried both. There is a visible performance difference in running Windows Vista/7 32-bit and 64-bit. I gain battery life on my laptop with 64-bit OS, and gain even more with 64-bit ready applications and codec,such as Shork007 codec pack 64-bit, and Office 2010 Beta. Nothing major per say, but visible, and anything helps, well, helps.

 

XP 64Bit was a TEST OS.

And comparing 32Bit with 64Bit - why not?
The majority of all users with a 64Bit OS will not see any difference at all - simply because they bought a preconfigured computer and the most CPU intensive task they'll ever do is watch a Flash video on Youtube.

64Bit ONLY has clear gains when you have access to 64Bit software that will benefit from 64Bit because it needs to process large amounts of data - an example is Photoshop.

 

Not true. People that run may apps, even 32 bit ones, can benefit from a 64 Bit OS as well.............

 

I would think running a 64bit OS environment which is the platform the the 32bit program you may have installed would still give it an edge simply because the foundation it rides on will be so fast.

But I"m just speculating.... I've have avoided 64 bit OS until now because I haven't been impressed with compatibility and backwards 32 bit software compatibility... but I'm finally ready to make the jump....I think the whole architecture has matured enough to not be so buggy like it used to be.

 

I had Vista installed on my computer when I first got my laptop, I liked it enough to use it until I got 7. I have been using 7 for a long while now and I like it better than Vista in some areas. The one problem with 7 that I am having is that the games I install on my computer are not tested or designed with 7 in mind. It seems to be EA Games and Sports that I have the most problems with (Madden 08, Battlefield 2, others), the optimum settings is usually on low with the lowest resolution selected. I have to go in the settings and manually put everything on high. Vista usually did that for me and I didn't have to mess with the settings. Madden 08 is giving me difficulties, because the game won't play in full screen.

 

Yepp, if you need to open that many programmes so that your RAM is full (at 32Bit - excluding the pagefile as its not good for performance for an active app) which makes me ask what you do in the first place.

32Bit software on 64Bit or 32Bit will not make a difference.

 

Maybe that is why Microsoft will have a 128-bit CPU support on Windows 8 (if it doesn't get cut)

 

If 128 bit CPU's do materialize it will not be driven by address space concerns. It will be to support multiword/larger word instruction sets.

Gary

 

That, of course, is nothing but a silly legend, perpetuated only by those who are completely and utterly clueless as to what "128-bit CPU support" could even possibly mean. There is not and was never planned any support for (non-existing) 128-bit CPUs.

 

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/ne...g-128-bit-versions-of-windows-8-windows-9.ars

We don't have at the consumer market 128-bit CPU's, and it won't be any time soon either. The simple fact that Microsoft (if true), looks into it, is interesting - I don't expect to get a 128-bit disk version of Windows 8.

My guess, is that Microsoft knows that by then, their will be A LOT more computer users, and a lot more computer enthusiasts like us, so that makes the switch between such architecture easier. Already 64-bit has a hard time, let alone switching OS.

 

I do not understand that logic. Just because an app is open and taking up memory does not mean it is at the time eating CPU cycles or other I/O. You could have say photoshop open with an image yanking out 3 gigs of your ram but you may have a 32 bit 3D text maker or other app you want to hit that needs just that extra bit of ram. Where a 32 bit OS is relegated to hitting the swap file a 64 bit OS isn't. This is just one of many examples and not meant to be the only reason.

This especially will become more true with i7Q cpu's that can run 8 threads seamlessly. People will be more tempted to just leave applications running in the background whilest they do their work.

Now if you only have 3 gigs and never plan to upgrade then the 32 bit is the way to go.......

 

I am not thrilled with Win 7. I thought it would feel much quicker than Vista but in my experience it doesn't. The only real helpful performance improvements have been connection to my Wifi(which wasn't bad in Vista but is lightening fast in Win 7) and the fact that the harddrive is not hammered as bad as it was in Vista, but still does get hit quite a lot. 7 is the newest OS and came with my laptop, but I don't find it anything special.

 

An OS really should just not get in the way.

For example, I find OS X to get in the way because of the way it tries to simplify things. I'm not a mac hater, but I simply can't get used to the OS (tried for months). My workflow is simply better on a PC (also Word on Mac is terrible.. they hide everything useful!).

As long as your OS doesn't frustrate you, that's a good thing. I find XP to be aging, which is why I'm looking forward to my Envy coming soon with Windows 7

 

What version are you running fire snake... 32 or 64 bit and how much ram do you have....... 32 bit can only utilize 3.25 gig of ram.

The main reason I chose 64bit Win7 is because I hear its better than Vista once you get past the learning curve and it will utilize the 64 bit architecture of the processor and all the ram I have "8 gig".

 

Hi windstrings. I am using Win 7 Pro x64. I have only 2GB of RAM. I want to upgrade to another 2GB. I am trying to find a cheap 2GB DIMM. I don't think it is worth it for me to go for more than that since the 4GB DIMMS are too expensive for me. I have looked in task manager under memory usage and I frequently see it using more than 50% of my RAM, even when I am not doing any intense things. So I think I need another 2GB. Another problem I have is my HD sucks. I have a 160GB 5400rpm drive. I want to upgrade that at some point to a Intel SSD, but they are too expensive for me to warrant it for my uses.

But overall I am kind of disappointed with the performance. Some of the eye candy is nice like the transparent window borders, rotating backgrounds etc, but I was expecting something much more streamlined. It just seems like Vista with a SP to me. XP is dated but seems much more no-nonsense "lets get down to work" to me. And whats with all the harddrive trashing with Vista and Win7? I know about Superfetch, but nothing seems to load any quicker with it. Instead the harddrive is just hammered everytime I start the machine. I mostly hibernate my machine, but if I do a restart it takes a painfully long time for the system to boot and load the startup programs.

 

With only 2GB of RAM, using a 64bit OS can actually slow your performance, especially if you aren't using any 64bit programs. 64bit does use a bit more memory than 32bit.

With the hard drive thrashing, you'll get that for a little while until things are indexed and such, and then it will settle down. Give it a week or two, and leave your machine on overnight if possible, let it do it's caching and searching thing.

 

i agree, You need a minimum or 3GB of RAM for 64-bit WIn7 to see Win7 running smoothly.

Remember that your laptop only has 1 or 2 RAM socket. So check the the laptop specification before buying. If you have 2x 1GB of RAM in your system, you need to bye 2x 2GB of RAM (well a package of 2 stick that gets you to 4GB), and replace both sticks. If you have 1 strick of RAM, but also have another socket free. Then you add another 2GB stick of RAM onto teh system.

I see you are in the U.S: check out Newegg.com, they have great prices and good service. They are specialized in selling computer parts. Make sure that your memory specification is supported by your laptop.

 

Yeah, I need to upgrade my RAM. I have 1 2GB DIMM and one slot free, so no problem there. I have had the machine for atleast a month, and the harddrive thrashing hasn't stopped or slowed down. It never did with Vista either.

 

I had no problems running Windows 7 RC X64 with 2GB RAM, 120GB 5400RPM HD. I didn't notice any HD thrashing or slow up. But I upgraded to 4 GB of RAM now with Win 7 RTM X64.