Windows 7 is Slow...

[cheez]

Not that it's an user error or anything. I would like to make a statement that the Windows 7 is slow operating system.


With Server 2003, my PC flies. It's so fast it knocked my socks off.

With Server 2008, both R1 and R2, it's so fast they both knocked my socks off about the same as it did with Server 2003. Well, maybe Server 2003 a tad faster? but really close.


With Windows 7 it's slow as hell. It spends most of time cranking my hard drive. All I hear is the hard disk activities. Yep, Windows Protection (system restore) is OFF.


All this is happening with my Sony VGN-SZ110 laptop that has 1GB RAM & Core Duo Intel chip.

 

[Barfo]

Of course it's going to be slow with your crap laptop.

 

[cheez]

With Server 2003, my laptop runs like a system with 8GB of RAM. It's so fast it's not even funny.

My laptop isn't crappy. It was released back in what.. 2002? It was cutting-edge back then. It still performs well and everything is functioning. Talk about solid product. Windows 7 is very inefficient.

 

[TheStu]

With Server 2003, my laptop runs like a system with 8GB of RAM. It's so fast it's not even funny.

My laptop isn't crappy. It was released back in what.. 2002? It was cutting-edge back then. It still performs well and everything is functioning. Talk about solid product. Windows 7 is very inefficient.

If it is a Core Duo then it was released back in 2006. 1GB in 2002 would have cost... god I don't even want to think about it. I think I paid $300 for 1GB of RAM in 2004.

 

[Barfo]

Not sure if trolling...

Just because your laptop runs fast with an old OS doesn't mean it runs like it had 8 GB of RAM. 9 years is a LONG LONG time regarding computers so your 2002 laptop is pretty antiquated by today's standards, so no, you can't expect it to run an OS from 2009 as it does one from 2003.

My 486DX2 was top of the line back in its day and it runs Windoze XP like crap, it's so inefficient *grumble grumble*.

 

[Red Squirrel]

lol 1GB of ram is pushing it even for XP. Put Ubuntu or something more lightweight on there.

 

[Modelworks]

If the laptop was made before windows 7 went retail it could be the laptop or drivers. I have a laptop that when I installed windows 7 onto it, it started to perform awful. It worked okay for the first hour but after that was like molasses. It turns out that windows 7 and my laptop bios do not communicate well and windows 7 was turning off the cpu fan. No fan, the cpu heats up and the bios clocks it down to prevent burning it up. I still haven't resolved the issue , instead I use a program called notebook hardware control to override the windows 7 default settings. Hp doesn't provide much of the way of options in their bios for fan control unlike desktops where you can set your own temps and speeds. They also don't provide a bios upgrade for the laptop because it was designed for vista and they don't officially support windows 7.

http://www.pbus-167.com/

 

[jhansman]

Who runs a 21st century OS on 1 GB of RAM? Of course it's thrashing the HD. Sigh...

 

[cheez]

If it is a Core Duo then it was released back in 2006. 1GB in 2002 would have cost... god I don't even want to think about it. I think I paid $300 for 1GB of RAM in 2004.

It's Core Duo IIRC, not Core2Duo. IIRC, it's a processor after Pentium M. I got superPi@ 29 sec out of this laptop, and I remember buying this back in 2003. So take back what I said about 2002. I paid $2000 for this little 13.3" screen Sony laptop. It was cutting edge man.. cuttin' edge!

I checked the system properties and it says Intel CPU T2400 @ 1.83ghz.

 

[cheez]

1GB for win XP is pushing it? lol 512MB will suffice if you got fast system and tweaked up the OS. At one time one of my sticks died on me on my main HTPC that's running Server 2003 and was running off 1 stick of 512mb and it still ran fast bat out of hell.. I couldn't believe how aggressive it ran. My 4 raptor drive raid0 was really working hard and delivered that superb performance. Did amazing job for 512 I must tell ya. Amazing.

 

[RedString]

Begone troll! Begone!


Butforealtho, more features = more tasking on resources. What's the problem?

 

[gmaster456]

Even if your laptop is from 2006, its still considered old, and your expecting a 2009 OS to perform as well as Sever 2003. Windows 7 doesn't like anything less than 2 gigs.

 

[gmaster456]

lol 1GB of ram is pushing it even for XP. Put Ubuntu or something more lightweight on there.

Ubuntu has actually gotten quite resource heavy. I ran 10.10 on my old desktop with a pentium D 820 and 512mb of RAM and it was very sluggish. Maybe it will be differen't with 1 gig.

 

[SimMike2]

Windows 7 can take a little time to fully optimize your files so it runs faster. Not as bad as Vista, but same principal. If you want faster, get more ram, and or an SSD drive.

 

[gmaster456]

lol 1GB of ram is pushing it even for XP. Put Ubuntu or something more lightweight on there.

Ubuntu has actually gotten quite resource heavy. I ran 10.10 on my old desktop with a pentium D 820 and 512mb of RAM and it was very sluggish. Maybe it will be different with 1 gig.

 

[Zaap]

Windows 7 isn't slow. In my experience it's even speedier than XP was.

I run it on decent modern systems, but also some pretty old hardware as well- like a Motion Computing LE1600 tablet, and a few 2006 vintage desktops.

Sounds like -as said- your laptop is a piece of crap OP. For one thing, open that POS up and put the max amount of RAM in it already. Being so miserly with RAM is one thing, but then don't complain when your OS runs like crap. And you've also probably got some ancient 4200rpm POS hard drive as well.

 

[spherrod]

Run it with 2GB of RAM and that would make a world of difference

 

[dphantom]

These are minimum requirements:

If you want to run Windows 7 on your PC, here's what it takes:

• 1 gigahertz (GHz) or faster 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
• 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit)
• 16 GB available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)
• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

If you want performance, add memory at a minimum.

 

[sm625]

Turn off aero.

 

[bigi]

Turn off aero.

You are an idiot. Really!

Play nice, guys.
-ViRGE

 

[Zorander]

It's Core Duo IIRC, not Core2Duo. IIRC, it's a processor after Pentium M. I got superPi@ 29 sec out of this laptop, and I remember buying this back in 2003. So take back what I said about 2002. I paid $2000 for this little 13.3" screen Sony laptop. It was cutting edge man.. cuttin' edge!

I checked the system properties and it says Intel CPU T2400 @ 1.83ghz.

The T2400 was released in 2006. There is no way a 2002/2003 laptop will sport a Core Duo CPU. The P4-M and, later on, Pentium-M were the norms in those years. You must either be confusing the year of purchase or a different laptop you purchased.

And everyone knows a cutting-edge technology remains cutting edge for a few months only. Your laptop is old hardware now and that 1GB memory is just not enough for today's applications.

 

[JimmiG]

lol 1GB of ram is pushing it even for XP. Put Ubuntu or something more lightweight on there.

128MB of RAM was considered the minimum for XP and few systems had more than 256MB at the time. It's a very, very old OS.

 

[silvan4now]

128MB of RAM was considered the minimum for XP and few systems had more than 256MB at the time. It's a very, very old OS.

not really; i remember installing and XP clean version on a 512 RAM PC and believe me, even paint was a challenge.

 

[funboy6942]

OR you can go into msconfig and turn of all the crap that doesnt need to start up when you turn your pc on

 

[Chapbass]

128MB of RAM was considered the minimum for XP and few systems had more than 256MB at the time. It's a very, very old OS.

Keep in mind, Windows XP SP0 and windows XP SP3 are very different. even things like Windows Firewall and Security center didn't exist in SP0 and SP1...all of which take up RAM.