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

[lxskllr]

I just make sure I install quality apps, from quality devs. My Vista box is as fast today, as it was when I installed it.

 

[Maximilian]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Agreed, the OP is being wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to hostile to those that disagree with him/her.

@ the OP:

The biggest reason Win 7 is faster on low powered hardware is this! Please watch the 45 minute video if you truly want the technical details why Win 7 is faster on low powered hardware. Do us a favor and please chill out on Mem. This community is going to side with him first on this one.

Well if he had actually posted something useful i would have been less hostile :roll: as it stands i have zero interest in his or anyone elses views on vistas ram usage, this thread is about windows 7, read the OP...

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: Maximilian
Well if he had actually posted something useful i would have been less hostile :roll: as it stands i have zero interest in his or anyone elses views on vistas ram usage, this thread is about windows 7, read the OP...

Windows 7 and Windows Vista's RAM usage are both relevant to the question you asked in the first place. I gave you a link to the technical reasons why Win 7 uses less RAM. To get a grasp on those changes you have to discuss how Vista uses RAM. Win 7 is Vista with a few tweaks, so it's RAM usage is very much on topic.

Just because you start a thread does not give you the right to police it. That is the mods job, and if you don't stop being rude and continue to tell people to GTFO, I will report you for violating posting policies and let those who it is their job to police this thread. This is a public forum and Mem, or anyone else has the right to post their opinion. If you don't like it, start your own forum and then you can police it any way you like.

 

[4537256]

If anyone want to understand the technicals as to what W7 vs Vista is so you dont speak out of your rear...then view this video

http://channel9.msdn.com/shows...vich-Inside-Windows-7/

and this
http://channel9.msdn.com/shows...-vs-ServerCore-HyperV/

 

[zerocool84]

I want an OS that you need nice new hardware to run it. I didn't spend all this money on nice components to run trimmed down stuff. Vista64 runs great on my system and have never had any problems. I want an OS that takes as much advantage of my hardware that it can and use it's resources to the max to maximize my experience. If you want something that runs on a netbook or something of similar speed, get the proper OS for it. No reason to try to run new programs on outdated hardware and bash it for being slow.

 

[BD2003]

I'm completely baffled by how some can appear to like Win7, yet at the same time can't resist the urge to continue to fight over how bad vista supposedly is. With something better on the horizon, what's the point of continuing to argue?

I still doubt anyone could tell the diff between vista and win7 in a double blind test in a PC with enough memory.

I just hope Win7 isnt as outrageously priced as windows has always been before it. Sigh...one can dream.

 

[tommo123]

havent microsoft admitted they made a mess of vista (kinda - although i bought it since i liked it tbh)? i hope vista users gets a cheap upgrade to win7

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: BD2003
I'm completely baffled by how some can appear to like Win7, yet at the same time can't resist the urge to continue to fight over how bad vista supposedly is. With something better on the horizon, what's the point of continuing to argue?

I still doubt anyone could tell the diff between vista and win7 in a double blind test in a PC with enough memory.

I just hope Win7 isnt as outrageously priced as windows has always been before it. Sigh...one can dream.

You mean if they were skinned to look the same and all of Win7's additional little features were turned off?

I think that there are enough little changes to Win7 in terms of usability and 'niceness' that you could tell the difference between them quite quickly.

Hell, just look at the system tray.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: TheStu
You mean if they were skinned to look the same and all of Win7's additional little features were turned off?

I think that there are enough little changes to Win7 in terms of usability and 'niceness' that you could tell the difference between them quite quickly.

Hell, just look at the system tray.

I don't think he was disputing that part. There are a number of people, including on this forum posting how horrible the performance of Vista is and how well Win 7 runs, when both are essentially the same at their core and run equally on good hardware. On low RAM machines and older/slower hardware, there is no doubt that Win 7 is a huge improvement over Vista. On mainstream hardware there is very little difference in how well the two run.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: Maximilian

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Agreed, the OP is being wayyyyyyyyyyyyy to hostile to those that disagree with him/her.

@ the OP:

The biggest reason Win 7 is faster on low powered hardware is this! Please watch the 45 minute video if you truly want the technical details why Win 7 is faster on low powered hardware. Do us a favor and please chill out on Mem. This community is going to side with him first on this one.

Well if he had actually posted something useful i would have been less hostile :roll: as it stands i have zero interest in his or anyone elses views on vistas ram usage, this thread is about windows 7, read the OP...

Whoa now hold on a second. The very first word of your OP is 'Vista' yet you are blasting others for talking about Vista? How else are we supposed to discuss Win7 without talking about it's predecessor?

What is your problem with Mem? His posts are well thought out and on topic?

 

[zerogear]

Originally posted by: 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:

I've gone to 7.8GB of use But thats with 2 VM OS running, plus encoding

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: zerogear

Originally posted by: 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:

I've gone to 7.8GB of use But thats with 2 VM OS running, plus encoding

I actually ran right up to 8GB once myself, while running screencapture at excessively-high quality settings in Windows Media Encoder 9 Series.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: TheStu
You mean if they were skinned to look the same and all of Win7's additional little features were turned off?

I think that there are enough little changes to Win7 in terms of usability and 'niceness' that you could tell the difference between them quite quickly.

Hell, just look at the system tray.

I don't think he was disputing that part. There are a number of people, including on this forum posting how horrible the performance of Vista is and how well Win 7 runs, when both are essentially the same at their core and run equally on good hardware. On low RAM machines and older/slower hardware, there is no doubt that Win 7 is a huge improvement over Vista. On mainstream hardware there is very little difference in how well the two run.

Right. But to be honest, on the older low ram machines, I didnt find it to be much better than Vista at all, (which wasnt as bad as people make it out to be). I really think this perception of it being a huge improvement is due almost entirely to priming and placebo effect.

People said Vista was buggy and slow, and people perceived it to be buggy and slow. I found it to be fast and relatively stable once it matured a few months and drivers caught up, but that perception was already out there for the masses.

People are saying Win 7 is faster and better than Vista, and its not buggy like vista was. I've seen some journalists say its ready to be release now. I'm finding it just as fast as Vista, but the explorer is so buggy it crashes daily and requires a reboot. My laptop just straight BSODs every couple of hours. But apparently, Win 7 is the second coming of the windows jesus, here to resurrect our old machines from the grave. Even the most vehement Vista haters think Win 7 is great.

I dunno how they managed to manipulate everyones impressions so damn well. They must have some black ops PhD psychology marketing team out there...I thought that mojave experiment was pretty brilliant too. Maybe its just as simple as getting off on the right foot and make a good first impression.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: BD2003

People said Vista was buggy and slow, and people perceived it to be buggy and slow. I found it to be fast and relatively stable once it matured a few months and drivers caught up, but that perception was already out there for the masses.

People are saying Win 7 is faster and better than Vista, and its not buggy like vista was. I've seen some journalists say its ready to be release now. I'm finding it just as fast as Vista, but the explorer is so buggy it crashes daily and requires a reboot. My laptop just straight BSODs every couple of hours. But apparently, Win 7 is the second coming of the windows jesus, here to resurrect our old machines from the grave. Even the most vehement Vista haters think Win 7 is great.

I dunno how they managed to manipulate everyones impressions so damn well. They must have some black ops PhD psychology marketing team out there...I thought that mojave experiment was pretty brilliant too. Maybe its just as simple as getting off on the right foot and make a good first impression.

First off, look at Vista on release day vs W7 in beta, not only driver compatability but general issues. it took 6 months to correct alot of problems and many continued to deal with problems and performance issues up to SP1. Even Dell wanted to use XP for its OEM computers, It should now be obvious why so many disliked Vista.

now look at Vista's performance on minimal spec vs W7 performance on even less (slower/older) specs. W7 performs more like XP, no question about it. Vista cannot except in some situations on much higher spec hardware.

that is why W7 gets alot more applause and its not even RTM. 6 years was spent on Vista and the kernal is 4 gigs vs W7's 500 megs. W7 is a better OS, having that kind of time spent on vista also yeilded higher expectations. the real question for vista users like me is w7 worth the price now that vista is alot more stable and working fine on decent hardware.

Mojave was a controlled experiment using specific hardware and Vista with all the updates and solid drivers, they did not show all the people in the experiment who disliked it or were indifferent of the OS. If any of us enthusiasts were in the experiment, we would likely complain that it looks just like Vista! They gathered people who never even used Vista and there is some question of those in the experiment comming out saying they were cohersed and some sites claiming hoax, but thats debatable..either way, the experiment was poor cause they did not diversify the experience of those doing the test.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: 4537256
First off, look at Vista on release day vs W7 in beta, not only driver compatability but general issues. it took 6 months to correct alot of problems and many continued to deal with problems and performance issues up to SP1. Even Dell wanted to use XP for its OEM computers, It should now be obvious why so many disliked Vista.

Absolutely...for the first few months, Vista was best left to enthusiasts. It wasnt a complete disaster, but it was FAR from perfect.

now look at Vista's performance on minimal spec vs W7 performance on even less (slower/older) specs. W7 performs more like XP, no question about it. Vista cannot except in some situations on much higher spec hardware.

I have looked at it. On the low end PCs I own (~1GB ram machines), Win7 is only very slightly more responsive than Vista. It's nowhere near XP territory. Not even close. I want Win7 to be as fast as it can be, but it's not as massive a difference as people are making it out to be.

that is why W7 gets alot more applause and its not even RTM. 6 years was spent on Vista and the kernal is 4 gigs vs W7's 500 megs. W7 is a better OS, having that kind of time spent on vista also yeilded higher expectations. the real question for vista users like me is w7 worth the price now that vista is alot more stable and working fine on decent hardware.

First off, the kernel is nowhere near 4GB for Vista, nor is it even close to 500MB for either Vista or Win7. If you're talking about how much memory each OS uses on boot, then Win7 surely uses less. But give either system some time after you've run your programs, and theyll end up about the same. The 4GB Win 7 system I'm using now has been up for a few hours, and when I close every window, it idles back down to 1.5GB in use (just like Vista). People place WAAAAY too much emphasis on how much memory an OS uses on boot, when its actually fairly meaningless measure once you start opening some programs.

Besides, all the work that went into Vista went right into Win7. W7 is not a rewrite of vista, its a refinement - like XP was over 2000.

It boils down to this - the reason Win7 is fast and stable now is because Vista is fast and stable now. Its virtually the same codebase with relatively minor under the hood improvements.

Mojave was a controlled experiment using specific hardware and Vista with all the updates and solid drivers, they did not show all the people in the experiment who disliked it or were indifferent of the OS. If any of us enthusiasts were in the experiment, we would likely complain that it looks just like Vista! They gathered people who never even used Vista and there is some question of those in the experiment comming out saying they were cohersed and some sites claiming hoax, but thats debatable..either way, the experiment was poor cause they did not diversify the experience of those doing the test.

But the point was that people's expectations of it clouded their judgment before they even used it themselves. It seems like the absolute reverse is happening with Win7 - people are imagining it as to be much more improved than it actually is. It all makes sense psychologically speaking, it just seems to odd to see the complete opposite reaction.

I've spent quite some time trying to convince people that Vista isnt as bad as they think it is, and now it seems like I'm spending more time trying to convince people that Win7 isnt as special as they think it is. It's good, clearly an improvement, but its not magical.

 

[dman]

Does WinSXS directory exist in Win7 and does it still grow forever w/ no management options?

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: dman
Does WinSXS directory exist in Win7 and does it still grow forever w/ no management options?

Yes, it does. And WinSXS is completely misunderstood. Straight from microsoft:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archi.../11/19/disk-space.aspx

The Windows SxS directory represents the ?installation and servicing state? of all system components. But in reality it doesn?t actually consume as much disk space as it appears when using the built-in tools (DIR and Explorer) to measure disk space used.

While it?s true that WinSxS does consume some disk space by simply existing, and there are a number of metadata files, folders, manifests, and catalogs in it, it?s significantly smaller than reported. The actual amount of storage consumed varies, but on a typical system it is about 400MB. While that is not small, we think the robustness provided for servicing is a reasonable tradeoff.

Its things like this why you are not to trust the wisdom of the internet when it comes to tweaking windows.

 

[Ketchup]

Originally posted by: FHDelux
Windows 7 = Vista SP2... I would have rather Windows 7 be a completely new monster, but instead all i got is just a name change and a service pack i will have to pay 400 bucks for, nothing more.

From a marketing standpoint, Windows 7 is a smart move for Microsoft. 7 has some nice new features, and most importantly, it doesn't have the word "Vista" in it. About 90% of the time I sell a new computer, people tell me about the problems they have heard about with Vista. I am finding it amusing really, because I always ask what problem the person they are talking about is having, and that person had also heard it third hand.

Windows 7 will give Microsoft a fairly clean slate in the eyes of those people, and from my experience with 7, I think we techies will be fine sticking with Vista unless we just really want 7. I personally plan to upgrade my desktop from XP to 7 but will just leave Vista on the desktop.

 

[Ketchup]

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. Did windows 7 drop some services that vista had or something? It barely used over 500 megs when it was installed.

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.

Pretty cool indeed, but don't hold your breath. This is a beta after all, and Microsoft could very well find some more processes they need for the final release. And don't forget what Microsoft did to XP. I still remember how well XP SP1 ran with 256 MB of ram, but I think XP SP3 runs like crap on less than 1 gig.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: BD2003

I have looked at it. On the low end PCs I own (~1GB ram machines), Win7 is only very slightly more responsive than Vista. It's nowhere near XP territory. Not even close. I want Win7 to be as fast as it can be, but it's not as massive a difference as people are making it out to be.

All different PC configs will vary. you know that. W7 is as fast as XP on my 2.4ghz P4 HP computer and some games do run faster. i had 3 apps that opened faster by a hefty 4-5 seconds. That isnt a gurantee for everyone and any test would vary rig to rig. i didnt mean to imply otherwise.

First off, the kernel is nowhere near 4GB for Vista, nor is it even close to 500MB for either Vista or Win7.

i took that from MS themselves. actually people have different opinions on what aspects they call the "kernal" MS said for w7 it will be around 400 mb's and vista is nearly 4 gig...take it however you want. I'll quote an article as i cant find the original offhand.

article quote:
Server Core is 1.2 GB in size, a "pretty big chunk," as he says. MinWin/7 as we know, will be much smaller. Compare that to the four gigs on disk that the full Windows Vista Kernel takes up."

another article related to the kernal for retail taking up about 400-500 mb's on disk, but define kernal right?

article quote:
"When I say kernel/MinWin, what I'm saying is that the kernel is NTOS kernel, the core of Windows that runs in kernel mode," Russinovich says. "It's got a lot of support components around it ... That includes some system level stuff. "

It boils down to this - the reason Win7 is fast and stable now is because Vista is fast and stable now. Its virtually the same codebase with relatively minor under the hood improvements.

i'm well aware, i was responding to someone, so read that and you see why i mentioned what i did.

But the point was that people's expectations of it clouded their judgment before they even used it themselves. It seems like the absolute reverse is happening with Win7 - people are imagining it as to be much more improved than it actually is. It all makes sense psychologically speaking, it just seems to odd to see the complete opposite reaction.

that happens to many products, but can it be proven? sure but it hasnt and the experiment was flawed in that it was an Ad and not a scientific experiment. they didnt prove or disprove anything.

I've spent quite some time trying to convince people that Vista isnt as bad as they think it is, and now it seems like I'm spending more time trying to convince people that Win7 isnt as special as they think it is. It's good, clearly an improvement, but its not magical.

that goes back to my first paragraph you quoted. Reality is that for Vista, its too late, damage took a hit early and this is the result. few would argue now that Vista sp1 is not stable or a horrible OS. but depends on who looks at XP then Vista and goes hmmm....

 

[dman]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: dman
Does WinSXS directory exist in Win7 and does it still grow forever w/ no management options?

Yes, it does. And WinSXS is completely misunderstood. Straight from microsoft:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archi.../11/19/disk-space.aspx

Its things like this why you are not to trust the wisdom of the internet when it comes to tweaking windows.

So I understand the links explanation, but, it's BS the part about how little space it actually uses. Windows7 SXS starts out at 10GB which is about the same as my current Vista install (both 64bit). I never had a problem (on my or other folks systems) with removing or overwriting old dll's for compatibility reasons so I don't see the need. I guess drive space is cheap so I'm not going to dwell on it, it's here to stay.

I just tried the beta today, it's got a few issues for me on software/hardware that's been running flawlessly with Vista for some time now. Speedwise it seems about the same but I haven't done enough testing to make a fair comparison. It does report more free RAM. I need to find a free alternative to MagicDisc since that's currently incompatible w/ W7.

MediaCenter looks good but I need to fool with it some more, I'm wondering if it supports QAM now too?

Back to Vista for now, not hating on MS or W7, just don't think it's as polished as the hype would have folks believe.

 

[4537256]

Originally posted by: dman


Back to Vista for now, not hating on MS or W7, just don't think it's as polished as the hype would have folks believe.

I cannot imagine why a Beta would not be polished on everyones PC.:roll:

 

[Snapster]

Originally posted by: dman

So I understand the links explanation, but, it's BS the part about how little space it actually uses. Windows7 SXS starts out at 10GB which is about the same as my current Vista install (both 64bit). I never had a problem (on my or other folks systems) with removing or overwriting old dll's for compatibility reasons so I don't see the need. I guess drive space is cheap so I'm not going to dwell on it, it's here to stay.

You understand the links but then say BS on the space it actually uses? They freely admit windows explorer reports the figure wrong when you do folder / explorer properties, how were you measuring it ?

 

[sportage]

All I know is I use W7 64 for my media pc os with W7 media center.
I LOVE it!!!
Media center NEVER has froze up or choked like MC in vista often did.
Running W7 64 as the main os for a HTPC is perfect!
At least that is my experience so far.
I for one can't wait for the official release of W7.
I just hope they dont bloat down the final turning it into
another vista mess.
I say vista mess cause vista complained constantly and was
so picky with your hardware.
With W7, I have installed the 32 and 64 on several machines, flawless.
Soooo Niceeeee!

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Snapster

Originally posted by: dman

So I understand the links explanation, but, it's BS the part about how little space it actually uses. Windows7 SXS starts out at 10GB which is about the same as my current Vista install (both 64bit). I never had a problem (on my or other folks systems) with removing or overwriting old dll's for compatibility reasons so I don't see the need. I guess drive space is cheap so I'm not going to dwell on it, it's here to stay.

You understand the links but then say BS on the space it actually uses? They freely admit windows explorer reports the figure wrong when you do folder / explorer properties, how were you measuring it ?

Some things just boggle the mind.