Windows 7 Slow?

[Deleted User]

Simon_B wrote: »

its going to be more resource hungry

Is it?

Simon_B wrote: »

and require newer hardware than previous versions of windows and its not even finalised yet .

Are you sure on this...

TEDDYRUKSPIN

I can't stop laughing that we are all getting ripped off again. Vista has only been released recently and now we are mean't to go out and purchase number 7.

As the above goes, as things go, the OS will be more power hungry as the years go by.

XP could run on 512mb ram fine but faster with 1gb.
Vista runs better with 4gb ram but slowly with 2gb.

So I guess with statistics in order for Windows 7 to run fast you will need the following:
8gb RAM DDR2 or something along the lines of that.
Some harddrive which is pumping way faster than 7,200rpm on a SATA cable.
CPU wise, definitely way above 4ghz and probably dual core with 2.6ghz and above.
Graphics card will have to be independent as well.

So can you see how power hungry it will be?

Fancy having that on a laptop! The battery will be drained in 1 hour. LOL.

[Deleted User]

TEDDYRUKSPIN wrote: »

I can't stop laughing that we are all getting ripped off again. Vista has only been released recently and now we are mean't to go out and purchase number 7.

As the above goes, as things go, the OS will be more power hungry as the years go by.

XP could run on 512mb ram fine but faster with 1gb.
Vista runs better with 4gb ram but slowly with 2gb.

So I guess with statistics in order for Windows 7 to run fast you will need the following:
8gb RAM DDR2 or something along the lines of that.
Some harddrive which is pumping way faster than 7,200rpm on a SATA cable.
CPU wise, definitely way above 4ghz and probably dual core with 2.6ghz and above.
Graphics card will have to be independent as well.

So can you see how power hungry it will be?

Fancy having that on a laptop! The battery will be drained in 1 hour. LOL.

Given how soon MS have released Windows 7 after Vista they've realised they need to ensure it's not going to be more power hungy than Vista so it'll run fine on Vista compatible hardware.

If you're going to say it's more power hungy, down with MS, then at least cite tests, reviews, comparisons etc. and not simply assume it will be.

4743hudsonj

read an interesting article yesterday, it said all about the benchmarks between vista and win 7 and yes it is just as bad maybe slower technically.. but its the way it processes multiple tasks, instead of one hungry program being able to bottle neck everything, they all run independently so it feels faster and snappier, also its better suited for dual and quad cores as a result so i think that running 7 on a single core will undoubtably be slow but 2 or 4 cores and your cruising.

ive had no problems on a intel centrino dual core T6400, not the fastest processor around by any measure.

anudeglory

Is anyone actually running Windows 7 in this thread other than nirelandguy? It seems like the usual blowing of smoke and anti-microsoft vitriol to me without any substance.

I've got the Windows 7 RC1 running on a variety of machines. It's on my Dell Inspiron 6400 which has 2GB of RAM and my main machine with 4GB RAM and a quad core and my OH has it on her Dell too. It runs fine with 1GB ram also.

Both run just as well with Win7 RC1 as they did with XP SP3. However, I think I prefer it a lot, startup I think is much faster but that's trivial as I don't turn the machines off very often.

One thing I did notice was that doing a system cleanup (Start-->Accessories-->System Tools-->System Cleanup) cleaned up a huge amount of disc space, well over 8GB for me, of cached files and crap left over from installs etc.

Baldur

I'm running the RC (won't call it 'RC1', as it's slated to be the only RC) on an old P4 640 (HT rather than dual-core) with 4GB RAM and an Atom 330 (dual core) with 2GB RAM and it runs very nicely on both systems (neither of which is anywhere near state of the art).

RobTang

Running it on a few systems

Quad core desktop 4gb ram ... uses about 500meg less than vista, bit more responsive than vista. the thing is vista wasn't slow at all on this machine so cant really compare.

Dual core tablet 3gb ram... uses 300-400meg less ram, runs cooler and average CPU usage is down 5-10% .

Old PC Athlon 2500+ 1gb ram... runs nicley, aero is a little slow everything else is pretty snappy, never tried vista on this machine

b33r

Im running it on a C2D E6600, 2Gb of Ram with a Geforce 7950GX2 and it runs like a dream, just as fast as XP.

DatabaseError

running the RC on my main PC...as my ONLY OS (I do have backups)...tried most of the builds up til now...only had problems with one of them (7068?)

I can't stop laughing that we are all getting ripped off again. Vista has only been released recently and now we are mean't to go out and purchase number 7.

Don't buy it....nobody will care whether you do or not. New machines will be sold with a copy of it..people will either love or hate it...I don't carfe either way. What I do know is that from personal experience vista after SP1 is a very good and stable OS, 7 is looking to start off that way

trish06

I am using the windows rc

I find it a lot better than vista :beer: