So why does windows 7 use less memory and run faster?

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Smilin
Is system cache being reported the same?

Vista itself doesn't use that much memory it just pre-caches the sh1t out of things to make them run faster when you actually go to use them.

Dont you work for MS smilin? I think you should ask the windows 7 team and see what they say

 

[Intexity]

Originally posted by: hans030390

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
I don't think it actually uses less memory. It just gets more performance out of the same hardware. Kind of like...

Video games which are released at the end of a console's life cycle. Just better coded to take advantage of the same silicon.

Vista isn't dog slow. If you've got an i7, 8 GB of RAM and two 15,000 RPM drives in a RAID0, Vista flies... It's just too bad the average user's computer isn't the average computer for someone who works for Microsoft.

I agree with you up until your last statement. Vista runs fine on a P4, 2Gb RAM, and an old 6600gt (or even less, for that matter).

Hmmm weird I installed Vista 64 Ultimate with the stats in my signature and my idle was 1.3 to 1.5 on ram and 20-35% on my cpu. Right now with Jet Audio, AVG Free, Trillian, YPops, Ultramon, and Diskeeper 2008 my ram is at 722 mbs and my cpu is at 0-1% I did spend 3 days tweaking Vista and wasn't able to bring it down. Maybe the Vista version??

edit-or could be diskeeper too....

 

[JimKiler]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Originally posted by: Brazen
XP also outperformed Windows 2000 on equal hardware.

Actually, it didn't:

Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client. Our testing also suggests that companies determined to deploy Windows XP should consider ordering desktop systems with dual CPUs to get the most out of the new OS. -- XP significantly slower than W2K

I am glad you said something, I remember XP being slower because of all the added functionality. maybe if you can turn it all off. I know I turned off a lot of the eye candy features in XP.

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

Idle shouldn't be anywhere near 20~35%, even the E2140 Vista 64 PC in my house idles at 0~2%. Are you using DreamScenes? I hear they can use a lot of CPU power if the video is high-resolution. It's definitely something that's running and not normal for Vista to use that much CPU power.

 

[mb]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Its pretty cool considering no major OS release has ever outperformed its predecessor before, or at least thats what the vista fans used to say when people bashed it.

It has been widely reported/known/whatever you want to call it, that OS X for example has almost always yielded more performance on the same hardware when you upgrade.

That's bull. For one, there hasn't been a major OS release from Apple since ~2001. Going from 10.X to 10.Y is not a major release, no matter how you spin it.
Second, OS X ran like crap when it was released on the same hardware that ran OS9. I know because I was high school when it was released and my school put OS X on all the Apples and it ran horribly slow and crashed like crazy.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: mb

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Its pretty cool considering no major OS release has ever outperformed its predecessor before, or at least thats what the vista fans used to say when people bashed it.

It has been widely reported/known/whatever you want to call it, that OS X for example has almost always yielded more performance on the same hardware when you upgrade.

That's bull. For one, there hasn't been a major OS release from Apple since ~2001. Going from 10.X to 10.Y is not a major release, no matter how you spin it.
Second, OS X ran like crap when it was released on the same hardware that ran OS9. I know because I was high school when it was released and my school put OS X on all the Apples and it ran horribly slow and crashed like crazy.

Well, they certainly aren't service packs, and neither is Windows 7. If Windows 7 can be a major release, then so can 10.2.

And you are right, 10.0 did suck something fierce. That was why it was out for almost exactly 6 months before 10.1 was released, for free to 10.0 users.

 

[phantom404]

I think microsoft was in a rush to get vista out therefore it wasn't optimized. I never had any problems with it and I like windows 7 even better. I think you can compare the 2 with Crysis, it ran like crap but looked freakin awesome. The expansion came out and looked even better but was optimized so it ran better, even on old machines.

 

[Maximilian]

Ok then i think its safe to say nobody knows why windows 7 is faster Well when its released i guess the in depth reviews will shed light on this.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Ok then i think its safe to say nobody knows why windows 7 is faster Well when its released i guess the in depth reviews will shed light on this.

How much detail are you looking for? Basically, they did a lot of low level work on its kernel, a lot of performance testing and optimizing, a lot of optimization of the DWM, and a lot of work with paring down what it loads on startup. Nothing has actually been taken out to my knowledge.

MS's theory has always been to focus on just getting it to run - people will want the OS for its features, and the hardware will catch up to compensate for any lack of optimization. That was true up until Vista - the problem there being that many people were satisfied with XP, and werent willing to take the performance hit even if their hardware could handle it. It's also pretty unprecedented for the industry to take a turn towards lower end hardware like netbooks, rather than faster and faster PCs.

So they knew they had to optimize it in order to sell it, and so they did.

I personally dont find it to be that huge of a difference, my PCs were snappy under Vista, and theyre still snappy under Win7. But its clearly gone in the direction of being faster rather than slower, and thats nothing but a good thing.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Ok then i think its safe to say nobody knows why windows 7 is faster Well when its released i guess the in depth reviews will shed light on this.

How much detail are you looking for? Basically, they did a lot of low level work on its kernel, a lot of performance testing and optimizing, a lot of optimization of the DWM, and a lot of work with paring down what it loads on startup. Nothing has actually been taken out to my knowledge.

MS's theory has always been to focus on just getting it to run - people will want the OS for its features, and the hardware will catch up to compensate for any lack of optimization. That was true up until Vista - the problem there being that many people were satisfied with XP, and werent willing to take the performance hit even if their hardware could handle it. It's also pretty unprecedented for the industry to take a turn towards lower end hardware like netbooks, rather than faster and faster PCs.

So they knew they had to optimize it in order to sell it, and so they did.

I personally dont find it to be that huge of a difference, my PCs were snappy under Vista, and theyre still snappy under Win7. But its clearly gone in the direction of being faster rather than slower, and thats nothing but a good thing.

Sweet, so a that little ntoskrln.exe file being updated is behind a good chunk of it being faster. Thats all i wanted to know, i read in a few places that windows 7 was going to use the exact same kernel as vista so a performance increase seemed unlikely, although i read this quite a while before any beta was released.

 

[nerp]

My impression is that Vista SP2 will bring the same core optimizations to Vista that are in 7.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Originally posted by: iFX
LOL @ the "Vista is bloatware" comments.

Stupid people always use that line to bash Vista. Listen you turkeys, Vista doesn't have high ram usage - the stupid shit you load on your PC does. I use Vista Business 64 every day on my work PC and I rarely get over 700MB usage. My Vista machine idles at around 450MB. Guess what? My Windows 7 box bahaves the same exact way!

Vista and Windows 7 have very respectable ram usage - it's the stupid shit programs you load up which sends the usage sky high. Complain to those companies who made your shitty applications if you have a problem with ram usage.

Same here, and + for calling people turkeys.

:thumbsup:

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: iFX
LOL @ the "Vista is bloatware" comments.

Stupid people always use that line to bash Vista. Listen you turkeys, Vista doesn't have high ram usage - the stupid shit you load on your PC does. I use Vista Business 64 every day on my work PC and I rarely get over 700MB usage. My Vista machine idles at around 450MB. Guess what? My Windows 7 box bahaves the same exact way!

Vista and Windows 7 have very respectable ram usage - it's the stupid shit programs you load up which sends the usage sky high. Complain to those companies who made your shitty applications if you have a problem with ram usage.

You'll find lot of problems to do with most operating systems ie 2K/XP/Vista etc is not the OS but the user,they use any excuse to blame the OS,I have seen it so many times now over the years its quite sad.Some of the current comments about Vista is a prime example.

Yep.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Vista is a memory hog because it does a lot right? Theres 53 processes on my current vista install, its usually around 60 odd but this is a clean install. Its using 1.5 gigs of my 4 gigs of ram.

You are mistaking the fact that Vista uses up as much memory as you have available to pre-load commonly used applications so that it doesn't need to read them from the disk, and instead, just executes them right from memory.... Things actually run faster that way, not slower. What is the point to having 4GB of memory if the system never takes advantage of have those 4GB? I mean, heck, you can load up DR-DOS if you want, but you will only ever use 256k of memory...

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Fallen Kell

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Vista is a memory hog because it does a lot right? Theres 53 processes on my current vista install, its usually around 60 odd but this is a clean install. Its using 1.5 gigs of my 4 gigs of ram.

You are mistaking the fact that Vista uses up as much memory as you have available to pre-load commonly used applications so that it doesn't need to read them from the disk, and instead, just executes them right from memory.... Things actually run faster that way, not slower. What is the point to having 4GB of memory if the system never takes advantage of have those 4GB? I mean, heck, you can load up DR-DOS if you want, but you will only ever use 256k of memory...

Heres my task manager the red square shows the cached stuff, the 2.60GB is what vista is using, yeah ive got other stuff running, company of heros namely, it dosent ususally use that much but that bar showing 2.60GB still shows more memory being used even when nothing is running when compared to windows 7. Windows 7 used around 400MB, vista uses more, even with the same startup programs which are utorrent, steam and xonar U1 audio centre. Cached memory aside vista still uses more, cached stuff isnt counted in that green bar, otherwise it would be close to full all the time.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: Fallen Kell

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Vista is a memory hog because it does a lot right? Theres 53 processes on my current vista install, its usually around 60 odd but this is a clean install. Its using 1.5 gigs of my 4 gigs of ram.

You are mistaking the fact that Vista uses up as much memory as you have available to pre-load commonly used applications so that it doesn't need to read them from the disk, and instead, just executes them right from memory.... Things actually run faster that way, not slower. What is the point to having 4GB of memory if the system never takes advantage of have those 4GB? I mean, heck, you can load up DR-DOS if you want, but you will only ever use 256k of memory...

Heres my task manager the red square shows the cached stuff, the 2.60GB is what vista is using, yeah ive got other stuff running, company of heros namely, it dosent ususally use that much but that bar showing 2.60GB still shows more memory being used even when nothing is running when compared to windows 7. Windows 7 used around 400MB, vista uses more, even with the same startup programs which are utorrent, steam and xonar U1 audio centre. Cached memory aside vista still uses more, cached stuff isnt counted in that green bar, otherwise it would be close to full all the time.

And you point is?....this reminds me of those people that swear by 3DMark and get a high score and think their games will be faster rather then testing the game, using real applications is more important then whats going on in the background,personally I can't really tell the difference between Vista and Win7 on a decent PC speed wise,its only when you use an old PC that I see any difference,mind you its a crime in my books to use a very old PC with a future OS like Win7.


Another factor is remember there have been changes in Win7 so you can't really compare apples to oranges.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: Mem

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: Fallen Kell

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Vista is a memory hog because it does a lot right? Theres 53 processes on my current vista install, its usually around 60 odd but this is a clean install. Its using 1.5 gigs of my 4 gigs of ram.

You are mistaking the fact that Vista uses up as much memory as you have available to pre-load commonly used applications so that it doesn't need to read them from the disk, and instead, just executes them right from memory.... Things actually run faster that way, not slower. What is the point to having 4GB of memory if the system never takes advantage of have those 4GB? I mean, heck, you can load up DR-DOS if you want, but you will only ever use 256k of memory...

Heres my task manager the red square shows the cached stuff, the 2.60GB is what vista is using, yeah ive got other stuff running, company of heros namely, it dosent ususally use that much but that bar showing 2.60GB still shows more memory being used even when nothing is running when compared to windows 7. Windows 7 used around 400MB, vista uses more, even with the same startup programs which are utorrent, steam and xonar U1 audio centre. Cached memory aside vista still uses more, cached stuff isnt counted in that green bar, otherwise it would be close to full all the time.

And you point is?....this reminds me of those people that swear by 3DMark and get a high score and think their games will be faster rather then testing the game, using real applications is more important then whats going on in the background,personally I can't really tell the difference between Vista and Win7 on a decent PC speed wise,its only when you use an old PC that I see any difference,mind you its a crime in my books to use a very old PC with a future OS like Win7.


Another factor is remember there have been changes in Win7 so you can't really compare apples to oranges.

My point is simple, windows 7 uses less memory than vista caching aside. Yeah i dont care either i have 4 GB of ram, but not everyone has that luxury and im glad to see windows 7 caters to those who arent sitting on a pile of ram. People with older PC's are giving positive feedback using windows 7, google around, it runs better on old hardware than vista ever did. So those who clung to XP for that reason might wanna upgrade.

 

[Mem]

My point is simple, windows 7 uses less memory than vista caching aside. Yeah i dont care either i have 4 GB of ram, but not everyone has that luxury and im glad to see windows 7 caters to those who arent sitting on a pile of ram. People with older PC's are giving positive feedback using windows 7, google around, it runs better on old hardware than vista ever did. So those who clung to XP for that reason might wanna upgrade.

Why should I google?....I already said that its nippier on older systems,FYI I'm testing it on an old nforce 2 motherboard setup with 1GB.


I just hope they sort out the installation setup/drivers and compatibility with some well known software,so far I have not been impressed in that department,I'm hoping its sorted by time it goes retail,however I'm trying to hold out until Win8 gets here.

Vista was designed for modern hardware,unfortunately lot of users with older hardware did not want to upgrade their hardware for whatever reason,Win7 addresses those issues.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: Fallen Kell

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Vista is a memory hog because it does a lot right? Theres 53 processes on my current vista install, its usually around 60 odd but this is a clean install. Its using 1.5 gigs of my 4 gigs of ram.

You are mistaking the fact that Vista uses up as much memory as you have available to pre-load commonly used applications so that it doesn't need to read them from the disk, and instead, just executes them right from memory.... Things actually run faster that way, not slower. What is the point to having 4GB of memory if the system never takes advantage of have those 4GB? I mean, heck, you can load up DR-DOS if you want, but you will only ever use 256k of memory...

Heres my task manager the red square shows the cached stuff, the 2.60GB is what vista is using, yeah ive got other stuff running, company of heros namely, it dosent ususally use that much but that bar showing 2.60GB still shows more memory being used even when nothing is running when compared to windows 7. Windows 7 used around 400MB, vista uses more, even with the same startup programs which are utorrent, steam and xonar U1 audio centre. Cached memory aside vista still uses more, cached stuff isnt counted in that green bar, otherwise it would be close to full all the time.

Its a lot more complicated than that, just because youve closed every open program window doesnt mean everything you once loaded is immediately unloaded, so dont rely too heavily on the task manager. Memory management is waaay more complicated than just used/free.

Last time I checked, memory was like $5-10 a GB. At this point, I could hardly care if one or another OS uses a few hundred more MB.

 

[tcsenter]

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/default.aspx

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

My point is simple, windows 7 uses less memory than vista caching aside. Yeah i dont care either i have 4 GB of ram, but not everyone has that luxury and im glad to see windows 7 caters to those who arent sitting on a pile of ram. People with older PC's are giving positive feedback using windows 7, google around, it runs better on old hardware than vista ever did. So those who clung to XP for that reason might wanna upgrade.

A significant part of it is that they upgraded the DWM to use Dx10, which reduced the RAM and GPU resource requirements by about half for Aero in Windows 7.

I think most of the people who are giving it glowing reviews on older pre-Dx10 hardware either were running RC or early RTM Vista with shitty drivers or simply never actually ran Vista at all.

 

[aka1nas]

Double Post

 

[mechBgon]

I have 8GB of RAM. It was ridiculously inexpensive. So even 500MB one way or the other is sort of an academic question until I've exceeded ~7GB in use, and if I'm going there routinely, it's time for the 16GB setup

edit: yeah, what BD2003 just said :thumbsup:

 

[4537256]

Windows 7 can run good on NETBOOKS!! Vista barely runs on them. I have read users putting it on Pentium 3 hardware and running good...now thats an OS and bout time they made something more on par with Ubuntu Linux.
now if MS would make it so you can run Live CD for testing/troubleshooting, would be very nice indeed

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: FHDelux
Windows 7 = Vista SP2.

Try them both for a while, since both betas are available to the public, and then get back to us. My experience so far is that they're quite different, and I don't even get to play with the really important goodies like enterprise deployment features.