PDA

View Full Version : Win7 seem faster? It does to me. Too much Kool-aid?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Pixelsmack
04-28-09, 02:28 AM
I don't know....I am getting super smooth FPS in Crysis, WoW, Far Cry 2. Better than my Vista experience any how.

Q
04-28-09, 07:35 AM
I suspect its part truth, part placebo, and part fresh install of Windows. Most people forget about that last part.

mailman2
04-28-09, 07:46 AM
Windows 7 is the truth.

weevil
04-28-09, 08:20 AM
Win7 is Vista

That's how they're selling Vista now, re-branding exercise

mailman2
04-28-09, 09:27 AM
Win7 is Vista

That's how they're selling Vista now, re-branding exercise

its not Vista. Vista isn't even close. Someone is bitter about buying Vista.

hell_of_doom227
04-28-09, 09:54 AM
Windows Vista = Windows 7. Optimisation they did on Windows 7 on i7 with 6+GB of RAM and bad ass HDD setup does not matter, cause hardware runs it insanely fast anyway.

I don't see a damn difference between Vista x64 and Windows 7 RC 7100 on my machine.

Eliminator
04-28-09, 09:55 AM
Windows Vista = Windows 7. Optimisation they did on Windows 7 on i7 with 6+GB of RAM and bad ass HDD setup does not matter, cause hardware runs it insanely fast anyway.

I don't see a damn difference between Vista x64 and Windows 7 RC 7100 on my machine.
except maybe ram usage.... supposed to be way lower on 7

mailman2
04-28-09, 10:40 AM
From another thread I posted in -

Windows 7 has solidified its position on my laptop (1gb ram max, 2.4Ghz P4) and Netbook (that shipped with useless Linux). Windows 7 runs great on both machines even though their system specs aren't even close to my desktops. Vista barely ran on my laptop and I never even tried on the Netbook though I doubt I would've been happy.

However, on my laptop maxed with 1GB ram Windows 7 idles using between 250 - 300 MB of ram. Thats amazing that a new OS with the same look as Vista can run that efficiently. On the flip side my desktops idle using over 1GB ram with Vista SP2 on them. The bugs Windows 7 has are minor and most like Punkbuster will have to be fixed by the software manufacturer's anyways.

I'm glad to see Microsoft finally put forth an OS worthy of replacing Windows XP.

Vista and Windows 7 look alike, but thats where the similarities end. Windows 7 is much faster, has alot lower memory footprint, boots and shuts down quicker. Runs great on machines with1GB ram - even on my netbook before I upgraded it to 2GB ram, Win7 ran ok with 512MB ram. Try that with Vista....its no contest.
__________________

kazna
04-28-09, 11:02 AM
Windows Vista = Windows 7
And...

Windows 98 = Windows 95
Windows XP = Windows 2000

Your point? Windows 7 has brought a huge number of improvements.

Significantly smaller footprint.
VASTLY improved performance on lower end hardware.
Better out of the box device compatibility. I have yet the need to install a third party driver for my peripherals.
A bunch of UI and search tweaks that make using the OS way more comfortable.

Optimisation they did on Windows 7 on i7 with 6+GB of RAM and bad ass HDD setup does not matter, cause hardware runs it insanely fast anyway.
And what % of PC users have those specs? Seriously? I'm typing this on an eeePC 1000he running RC1 and it runs just as fast as XP did even with aero glass enabled. Considering its based on a 6 year old chipset and IGP that is incredible.

Of course you don't see a performance improvement with hardware that is bleeding edge, but how about the improved UI and device support? The fact is you dislike it because you HATE EVERYTHING. I've never seen a constructive post from you. You just hop into threads to tell them how terrible something is without even making a logical argument.

So thats fine, live in your blind hate bubble. The rest of us will enjoy a new OS that was done right with proper feedback from the consumers.

To the OP:

I haven't seen any difference in gaming performance between Vista SP1 and RC1. But I've been using windows Vista drivers.

Punkbuster will have to be fixed by the software manufacturer's anyways.
Yeah, punkbuster is the only reason I'm keeping my vista installation around.

six_storm
04-28-09, 12:19 PM
And what % of PC users have those specs? Seriously?

+1

I'm glad I have a rig like that at home AND at work. :rolleyes:

Sazar
04-28-09, 12:35 PM
except maybe ram usage.... supposed to be way lower on 7

RAM usage in Vista is high because of the way the OS works.

If you NEED memory for some other item, it is made available.

This has to be one of the most persistent myths on the internet and it just won't go away.

XP, if it used a lot of RAM, yes, you basically started to run out and experienced slow-downs.

Vista uses RAM to speed up a lot of processes but if you NEED extra memory, the system will not slow down, resources will be freed up or re-dedicated. It's the way the OS works and it's why it FEELS and performs faster than XP.

As for 7, I am waiting for the RC to drop on MSDN so I can try out the RC and see how much different it is from the first public beta (nana2)

Eliminator
04-28-09, 01:28 PM
RAM usage in Vista is high because of the way the OS works.

If you NEED memory for some other item, it is made available.

This has to be one of the most persistent myths on the internet and it just won't go away.

XP, if it used a lot of RAM, yes, you basically started to run out and experienced slow-downs.

Vista uses RAM to speed up a lot of processes but if you NEED extra memory, the system will not slow down, resources will be freed up or re-dedicated. It's the way the OS works and it's why it FEELS and performs faster than XP.

As for 7, I am waiting for the RC to drop on MSDN so I can try out the RC and see how much different it is from the first public beta (nana2)
do you mean that just because of superfetch or whatever that thing is called that preloads stuff into RAM?... its one of the first things i disabled... i have about 32 processes on startup and vista eats like 800MB of ram

Slammin
04-28-09, 03:42 PM
Been running Win 7 on laptop and desktop for quite some time now and I never did a reinstall. I upgraded the laptop from Vista32 and upgraded the desktop from Vista64. Upgraded at least 3 betas so far and currently running Win 7 build 7100 on both and I can say without a doubt that it is faster than both Vista32 and Vista64.

Sazar
04-28-09, 04:03 PM
do you mean that just because of superfetch or whatever that thing is called that preloads stuff into RAM?... its one of the first things i disabled... i have about 32 processes on startup and vista eats like 800MB of ram

Why disable it?

It works wonders for me. Granted I have 8GB on my main system, but even on my HTPC, I never experience a slow-down due to running out of memory, only because I have an older processor some some tasks.

And the performance is much smoother using Vista than under XP which WOULD slow down due to memory.

jcrox
04-28-09, 04:24 PM
its not Vista. Vista isn't even close. Someone is bitter about buying Vista.

:rofl

actually, Windows 7 is very, VERY close to being nothing but Vista with a service pack.

BelligerentBill
04-28-09, 04:25 PM
Don't post here often, so this should count for something.

I'm a pretty advanced PC user (IMO), I'd been running Vista x64 since February of 2008 without any problems whatsoever ... at least directly related to the OS *cough*Creative*cough*

I installed Windows 7 7100 as soon as I got done downloading it the other day and it is now the only OS on my computer (no dual boot) and as far as I can tell, Microsoft will be earning my first purchase since I bought Windows 95 back in the day. This is truly a slick piece of software and long overdue.

kazna
04-28-09, 04:37 PM
actually, Windows 7 is very, VERY close to being nothing but Vista with a service pack.
By this reasoning XP was nothing more than a service pack of 2000, right? Because they were based off the NT 5 Kernel. Windows XP refined it and it became Microsoft's most popular OS to date.

Windows 7 does exactly what Windows XP did, it refines the NT 6 Kernel from Vista. Which is awesome as there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Vista, it just had a poor launch.

XDanger
04-28-09, 05:35 PM
Microsoft will be earning my first purchase since I bought Windows 95 back in the day.

(lee)

Q
04-28-09, 05:41 PM
Windows 7 does exactly what Windows XP did, it refines the NT 6 Kernel from Vista. Which is awesome as there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Vista, it just had a poor launch.

This statement is SOMEWHAT true AFTER SP1, but there are STILL significant I/O issues with Vista. You won't see it in all environments, but XP64 still whoops Vista64 SP1 when you're doing VM work.

mailman2
04-28-09, 07:39 PM
:rofl

actually, Windows 7 is very, VERY close to being nothing but Vista with a service pack.

Its Vista ....but fixed and able to run on mid range machines and <1GB machines (and every XP machine that cannot run Vista). That doesn't make it Vista, not even close. :headexplode:

If you said it was what Vista should have been I'd agree with you, but in its current state (SP2) Vista is about 20% the OS Windows 7 is in beta.

ragingWS6
05-06-09, 03:31 PM
I didn't put Win7 on my gaming rig yet, but I put Win7 7100 x86 on my Dell Latitude D820 that I use for work. Just a Core 2 Duo T5500 with 2GB RAM and an 80GB 7200RPM SATA drive and Quadro NVS 160m 512MB video card.

I can say this, I had Vista Business x86 SP1 on that laptop before and minimizing windows and opening certain programs seemed to be pretty sluggish. Start up time was pretty bad on the machine as well. After loading Win7, RAM usage has dropped on that machine (and I did an in-place upgrade, so all the same settings and programs starting up were there...only did that because I had a ghost image of the machine already and thought I'd see how it went before I blew it away), there isn't that sluggishness that there was under Vista. Load time of the OS is a little faster but nothing really worth bragging about (took 8 seconds less to get to the login screen). Only thing I had to do after the in-place upgrade is reinstall my Cisco VPN Client. That's it. I think about all the in-place upgrades I tried in the past just to see how they went and NONE were this smooth. Overall upgrade took 1h 40min to complete.

My gaming box is running great right now and I just rebuilt it and I was too lazy to do it again. So, it will wait for the official release or the next RC (because I will NOT do an in-place upgrade on that baby).:D

zoomy942
05-06-09, 03:41 PM
+1

I'm glad I have a rig like that at home AND at work. :rolleyes:

what? no more linux?

a12ctic
05-06-09, 03:41 PM
Kernel wise, Windows 7 and Vista are very simular, add a couple optimizations. Interface wise however, Microsoft has done an incredibly good job. The overhaul of the taskbar and the new space management features are just so nice. Compared to XP or Vista, its just so much more enjoyable to use. It almost is as usable as gnome+compiz for me honestly. Not quite, but its a big step in the right direction.

ViN86
05-06-09, 05:04 PM
By this reasoning XP was nothing more than a service pack of 2000, right? Because they were based off the NT 5 Kernel. Windows XP refined it and it became Microsoft's most popular OS to date.

Windows 7 does exactly what Windows XP did, it refines the NT 6 Kernel from Vista. Which is awesome as there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Vista, it just had a poor launch.

Agreed.

Sazar
05-06-09, 05:41 PM
:rofl

actually, Windows 7 is very, VERY close to being nothing but Vista with a service pack.

Come on now :)

I've had SP2 on my 2nd system (till I wiped it and put 7 on there) and it looks nothing like Windows 7 :)

Win 7 has improved and changed a LOT of things but mostly on the underlying code. The overall look is something that Microsoft is going for and I like it.

But then again, the majority of people who are looking to trash Windows 7 on forums and blog posts and what not appear to not have used Vista in first place so I can't and don't really care about what they think :)