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

[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.

 

[DivideBYZero]

They woke up to the fact that people are fed up with bloatware.

 

[TheStu]

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.

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.

 

[KeypoX]

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.

My vista 64 business with multiple words open, about 9 tabs in FF, calculator and some crap running on task bar only uses 1376MB ram...

But windows 7 64bit fresh install on boot nothing open uses a little over 400mb... pretty nice indeed.

 

[angry hampster]

Task manager tells me I've got 42 processes running in Windows7 right now. The only ones I'm actively using are Firefox, uTorrent, Steam, and AIM. It is using 1.5GB of memory.

 

[KeypoX]

Originally posted by: TheStu

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.

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.

LOL i have never heard that... but have personal experience where tiger 10.4 had major issues running on friends macbook g4 (i think this was the spec, like 800mhz)
Forget about running leopard 10.5

I think win 7 uses more efficient kernel.

 

[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.

 

[13Gigatons]

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.

They reduced the amount of window caching for windows not viewable.

 

[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).

 

[Mem]

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).

I'm using x2 3800+ CPU plus 4GB DDR1 ran,my other Vista latop has 3GB both are fast.

I would not say Vista is a memory hog because you have to remember how it handles memory etc..I said before I think Win7 was designed for users with old hardware because its more snappy on older systems,anyway even now Vista is 2 years so hardware at the time is getting dated and by time Win7 is retail even more so.
Think of Win7 for older systems like 10 years ago now that olds,almost a shame to put a new OS on old hardware like that.



Microsoft if you are reading this don't mess up Win8, we have high expectations(at least I do).

 

[tcsenter]

Originally posted by: TheStu
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.

Yes, and now we know how Apple was able to do this, the same way Microsoft is doing it. When your original feature release wasn't all that good to begin with, there is plenty of room for improvement in the 'refinement' release.

Its like when a new chipset improves DDR2 performance over its predecessor. Did the company magically find "more" performance than DDR2 was capable of, or was its previous chipset just not all that good to begin with?

I doubt Apple was finding 'new' ways to exploit fixed hardware capabilities that nobody else seemed to be aware of, including the hardware developer.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: TheStu

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.

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.

XP also outperformed Windows 2000 on equal hardware. I also wouldn't be surprised if Windows 98SE outperforms Windows 95 and/or Windows 98FE on equal hardware.

 

[FHDelux]

Windows 7 = Vista SP2. This is Mojave experiment II and everyone is eating it up, its nuts. Windows 7 has some nice GUI things about it, but theres no real breakthrough features going on there. Why do i still have to reboot the computer for drivers or updates, it doesn't boot any faster than Vista either. The Windows 7 setup is almost screen for screen the exact same as Vista with a few different colors, seriously, its the same OS. Microsoft went from being a company driven by an engineer, to being driven by a marketing madman. Mojave proved that people just associate Vista with bad, when in fact people just say its bad because they heard it was bad.

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.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: FHDelux
Windows 7 = Vista SP2. This is Mojave experiment II and everyone is eating it up, its nuts. Windows 7 has some nice GUI things about it, but theres no real breakthrough features going on there. Why do i still have to reboot the computer for drivers or updates, it doesn't boot any faster than Vista either. The Windows 7 setup is almost screen for screen the exact same as Vista with a few different colors, seriously, its the same OS. Microsoft went from being a company driven by an engineer, to being driven by a marketing madman. Mojave proved that people just associate Vista with bad, when in fact people just say its bad because they heard it was bad.

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.

Next major redesign OS wise is Win8.

 

[ChronoReverse]

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.

Kinda like Vista which featured things like a completely revamped driver architecture for the video card, completely rewritten TCP/IP stack, etc.? The one everyone hated because it was "incompatible"? The one vendors refused to release new drivers for?

Yeah, I sure want another one of those.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: KeypoX

Originally posted by: TheStu

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.

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.

LOL i have never heard that... but have personal experience where tiger 10.4 had major issues running on friends macbook g4 (i think this was the spec, like 800mhz)
Forget about running leopard 10.5

I think win 7 uses more efficient kernel.

The G4 would have been an iBook, not a MacBook. Minor issue, but valid as the terms evoke different specifications (all MacBooks are dual core for instance, and widescreen).

But, 800MHz is too slow for Leopard. Just from personal experience... My friend bought a 12" PowerBook G4, 1GHz CPU, and 768 MB RAM about... 5 years or so ago. It came with 10.3, he then installed 10.4 and was absolutely floored by the difference. Finally it was given to me and I cleaned it up and put 10.5 onto it and gave it to my sister. It runs just as well now, if not better given the improvements in Leopard and so, 5 years later it is running the latest OS (not sure if it will be able to run the next OS, 10.6 since it might drop PPC support) like a champ.

 

[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

 

[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.

 

[HannibalX]

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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: FHDelux
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.

If you paid $400 for Vista, you are a complete fool. If you research, you will find Ultimate OEM can be bought legitimately for around $150 and a OEM copy of Vista Home Premium is less than $99. Expect Windows 7 prices to fall in the same category.

 

[FHDelux]

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: FHDelux
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.

If you paid $400 for Vista, you are a complete fool. If you research, you will find Ultimate OEM can be bought legitimately for around $150 and a OEM copy of Vista Home Premium is less than $99. Expect Windows 7 prices to fall in the same category.

I don't even know why i post on these msg boards, you assume everyone is an idiot and you know it all. Of course i know you can buy OEM licenses for 100 bucks, why the hell would you assume that i am totally inept. When i purchased Vista, it was release day, before they dropped the price on the retail copies. OEM licenses cannot be transfered from PC to PC like the retail copy can be. I swap motherboards at least once a year so the if i bought the OEM license and swapped my hardware out, my Vista license would be toast. I think they changed that rule since then, however, when i bought it, that was the rule. Why would you go and rip into me without even considering i had a reason to buy what i did.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: FHDelux

Originally posted by: soonerproud

Originally posted by: FHDelux
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.

If you paid $400 for Vista, you are a complete fool. If you research, you will find Ultimate OEM can be bought legitimately for around $150 and a OEM copy of Vista Home Premium is less than $99. Expect Windows 7 prices to fall in the same category.

I don't even know why i post on these msg boards, you assume everyone is an idiot and you know it all. Of course i know you can buy OEM licenses for 100 bucks, why the hell would you assume that i am totally inept. When i purchased Vista, it was release day, before they dropped the price on the retail copies. OEM licenses cannot be transfered from PC to PC like the retail copy can be. I swap motherboards at least once a year so the if i bought the OEM license and swapped my hardware out, my Vista license would be toast. I think they changed that rule since then, however, when i bought it, that was the rule. Why would you go and rip into me without even considering i had a reason to buy what i did.

Because paying $400 on an OS is a little silly?

Hell, I run a Mac where every complains about how expensive it is, and makes fun of me for paying for 'service packs' as they call them (going from 10.4 to 10.5 for example). I don't agree with them, but I also don't pay full price. I did the family pack for 10.5 which made the cost of each copy $40.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: FHDelux
I don't even know why i post on these msg boards, you assume everyone is an idiot and you know it all. Of course i know you can buy OEM licenses for 100 bucks, why the hell would you assume that i am totally inept. When i purchased Vista, it was release day, before they dropped the price on the retail copies. OEM licenses cannot be transfered from PC to PC like the retail copy can be. I swap motherboards at least once a year so the if i bought the OEM license and swapped my hardware out, my Vista license would be toast. I think they changed that rule since then, however, when i bought it, that was the rule. Why would you go and rip into me without even considering i had a reason to buy what i did.

It was the tone of your original post and how you imply you were forced to pay $400 for Vista. You were forced to do nothing and made the choice to part with $400 because you made the choice to throw out good hardware once a year. I don't have a problem with those choices and understand that hobbies can be expensive. You just need to man up and accept you chose an expensive hobby and let the water run down your back instead of getting upset because I have a differing view of how to spend large sums of money.

I still think it is foolish to spend $400 on a retail copy of Windows. By choosing VHP, I could install four years in a row Vista alone or move to Win 7 after three years and still spend the same amount of money you did. You want image backup capabilities, DIXML will do it for free. You want to be able to restore files from shadow copies, shadow explorer will do it for free. You want encryption, well guess what, you can find that for free too along with tools to do some of what Group Policies do (Personally, I just edit the registry to do the same exact thing you can do with GP.) So again what real benefit is there to a retail copy of Vista Ultimate?

For hobbiest another real benefit of buying OEM is you can pass the equipment and the license down to family or even good charitable causes. (Tax Deductible, there is some of that money spent back) You could even have a decent backup system if needed. So yes I do think it is foolish to throw away $400, even for those that can afford it on a retail license. The only way it is redeemable is for you is to skip Win 7 until you are done with your fourth build under Vista or just stick with Vista and forget 7 and pocket that money and use it for even better hardware.

I want to clarify, I never called you an idiot. I said it was foolish. Even wise people sometimes do foolish things.