Windows 7

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToyotaNSaturn

Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
11,283
Location
Spring HIll
So far, I've used Windows 7 on a few different computers, all of which ran BETTER than XP...

System 1) Win 7 32bit, Dell Optiplex GX620 desktop/mini tower, P4 3.8Ghz, 2GB RAM, nVidia add-in board, 500GB Seagate .12 series drive.
The entire experience is noticeably faster. Java apps that took up to 15 seconds to load (that weren't in memory cache) took no more than 5 seconds. MS Office 2007 runs like it should and doesn't lag like it does on XP. This computer really surprised me as I thought it would be a 'dog' for performance. Remember the days of using Windows 95 on a 486 with 8MB of RAM? That's what I was expecting. The opposite results happened: it was faster than XP.

System 2) Win 7 64 bit, Dell Optiplex 745 desktop/mini tower, 2.4Ghz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI add-in video, 500GB Seagate .12 series drive.
Performance of this is on-par with a brand new system. While this computer is 2 1/2 years old, it feels brand new.

System 3) Win 7 32 bit, Dell Inspiron 1720 laptop, 128GB Patriot SSD, 4GB RAM. Sure, a good SSD will speed things up. Why buy a new laptop when this 2 year old unit is as fast as, or even faster, than a brand new unit?

System 4) Win 7 64 bit, HP Pavilion mini tower, Quad-core Q6600, 4GB RAM, nVidia video, WD 1TB disk drive. I thought moving from a dual core 3.0ghz with Vista 64 to a quad-core 2.4ghz would be slower. Nope. It's faster. Everything is faster and feels faster. I'm glad to see that Microsoft has gotten out of their own way.

System 5) Win2008 Server R2 (Same as Win 7 64 bit), AMD 5200+, 4GB RAM, ATI video, 750 Seagate Hard disk. Noticeably quicker than Win2008 server. Boot times are less, things just work right out of the box.

Worthy to note: ALL systems feel faster than anything I've used with Vista 32/64. The GUI is substantially more lightweight and usable. Apps load faster across the board.

As for RAM footprints, around 300-400MB for the OS to boot & load. While that is far greater than a lean Linux distro like Ubuntu, the extra memory footprint is used in a manner that makes us all happy: it works well. 1GB of total system RAM is adequate for performing basic tasks, unlike Vista. 2GB RAM vs 4GB...I can't tell any difference in performance for generic tasks.

Lastly, do NOT purchase a system with the intent to use Windows 7 Starter. The base GUI does not include the enhanced/accellerated video. Play back of DVDs stutters terribly & overall usability is compromised. Make sure you upgrade to Home Premium on any system, even low-end netbooks if you plan on using Win 7.
 
I hope it stays that fast... But like all MS operating systems that start out fast, they eventually become incredibly slow because of all the Service Packs and Hot Fixes that need to be applied. This forces most users into a new computer and/or a new O/S which then this nonsense repeats itself.

Pardon my trust in Microsoft but I have been using there "Code" for far to long.

I think my next O/S is going to be a flavour of Linux, I've had it with the headaches and constant upgrading necessary to keep there O/S's a float. Plus why pay for something when you can get an O/S IMO which is far superior for free, that I can install on as many computers as I want for free, with really great support, and that allows me to modify it the way I see fit?

Sorry MS, you have lost me after this run on Vista.
frown.gif
 
Last edited:
I found Vista got faster after SP1, and the raw 7000 build beta of Windows 7 worked better than most final releases do, and it has only been improving since.
 
Are you using the RC or the RTM version?

I've tried the RC (7000) build in 32 bit and it is relatively nimble - by itself.

Where some bogs can occur is on older single-core systems a little light on ram when you start piling on more intensive apps. But still manageable.

It's a world better than Vista, which is a resource hog, to put it mildly.

I don't like the networking setups of either, however. Too many hoops to jump and adjustments to make to play nice with XP peers. I'm sure this is by design.
 
TnS - thanks for the review. I didn't go for the pre-release Win7 but it looks good ... maybe down the road if it can be found for ~$100 I'll go for it.
 
My primary system uses the 64 bit Win 7 RC-1 build. Runs excellently, much better than vista.
Intel Core 2 Duo E7300 @ 3.6Ghz
4GB Patriot Memory DDR2-800
Gigabyte GA-EP43-DS3L
Powercolor Radeon 4670 (512MB)
Western Digital 640GB SE16 SATA
Sound Blaster Audigy SE
 
Originally Posted By: ToyotaNSaturn
As for RAM footprints, around 300-400MB for the OS to boot & load. While that is far greater than a lean Linux distro like Ubuntu,


Ubuntu is a lot of things, and it is a great operating system, but "lean" it ain't. Being a beginner-friendly distro, it's one of the more bloated out there. As far as heft and bloat are concerned, I know of only openSUSE and maybe Fedora that'd be heavier in terms of memory usage and installed footprint.
 
Im running 7100 32bit on my system. Runs perfect.
Pentium 4 HT 3.2GHz
2GB DDR2-667
500GB Seagate 7200.11
nVidia 9800GT 512MB
Creative SB Live 24-bit
NEC 24" LCD & Generic 15" CRT.
 
Performance issues aside, how do you W7 users like the way W7 is laid out? Do you find W7 to be more user friendly than Vista (which I've never really had a problem with)? Overall, what are your impressions of USING W7 vs. Vista?
 
W7 has a leaner, more efficient user interface compared to Vista.
It takes less effort to get things done with the former, and it is slightly more intuitive.
W7 is the best challenge yet to Mac OS ergonomics and presentation, and doesn't miss by much.
 
What I don't like about W7 is the upgrade policy.

Unless you are running Win2k, I understand it kills dead the old OS from further reactivation. To those who sprung for retail XP to avoid the OEM trap, you can't move XP around to another system as intended.

I'm glad I kept all those Win2k disks laying around.
 
Is there something in writing that says that? I find that hard to believe, but it's MS. I guess that windows 95 disc might come in handy :)
 
Originally Posted By: Buffman
Is there something in writing that says that? I find that hard to believe, but it's MS. I guess that windows 95 disc might come in handy :)


Sorry, no upgrade for anything before Win2k - full W7 version only. And it must actually be installed on the HDD (no CD checks), even though W7 will force a clean install on all but Vista setups. Waste of time.

Because Win2k does not require online activation, MS can't retire it on their activation server with the W7 upgrade. MS isn't supporting Win2k all that much anymore, so it's not much of a celebration. But it saves a retail XP disk from sacrifice.

If you dig around the W7 site and its fora, you'll find all this information.
 
I am hoping the upgrade disk permits a reinstall on an unactivated clean install, like Vista does.

Hopefully MS will not kill this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

1 SX
Full upgrade of a old windows laptop.
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
researcher
A
Thinking of getting a larger hard drive for my desktop
6 7 8
Replies
159
Views
6K
Hermann
L
Windows 7 Questions
2 3 4
Replies
66
Views
3K
Lubener
B
  • Locked
Bought a Desk Top PC for $30!
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
BikeWhisperer
OVERKILL
  • Sticky
Windows 10 Upgrade Guide
4 5 6
Replies
111
Views
12K
dguzzi
Back
Top