 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
Windows 7: How low can you go? | |
|
||
| Time: 10:34 EST/15:34 GMT | News Source: ComputerWorld | Posted By: Andre Da Costa | ||
|
Linux has long been the preferred operating system for rejuvenating older PCs for three reasons: It's lighter weight than Windows, it's secure enough to let you sidestep CPU-hogging anti-virus programs, and it's free. Windows 7 may shake up that thinking, being the first version of Windows that, judging from widespread reviews from beta testers, runs faster than the prior one. While the minimum specs Microsoft outlined for Vista were lower than Windows 7's (see breakout box), Vista was so bloated that it ran poorly on many PCs. Think of Windows 7 as Vista after an extended stay at the weight-loss spa -- trim, buffed and Botoxed. Even netbooks can run it. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 12 of 12 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 8556 (173.27.241.123) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 11:49:07 AM |
| Windows 2000 will run rings around Windows 7 on old machines with less than 1-GB of RAM. |
| #2 By 2960 (72.196.201.130) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:31:13 PM |
|
It needs too. All that spyware takes POWER to push around !!!
:) |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:40:03 PM |
| Now I'm really confused. All the bloggers say that WIn7 is faster, yet the actual benchmarks have it on par with Vista and slower than XP. Now Win7 is the saviour of netbooks, whether you want it to be or not. |
| #4 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 01:10:07 PM |
|
#3, You are right to be confused. Vista, since performance enhancements that pre-dated SP1, largely "fixed" the majority of performance issues manifest at Vista RTM running many hardware configurations, provided a great user experience - reasonable baselines for Vista were always there and used by many enterprises and builders.
The natural maturation of driver coverage and applications compatibilty followed Vista's RTM and far more quickly than it had for any previous Windows release, erased most performance and compatibilty issues - HP mini's for example, ran Vista Business as well as Windows 7 does (once they were fully loaded). Yes, Windows 7 benefits from a lot of new development and tuning and does boot "slightly" faster and it does use less RAM initially, but this is largely due to loading less than Vista does from SuperFetch and by removing certain processes like sidebar.exe, etc... In many cases, Vista performs better than Windows 7 - especially on more modern hardware where more mature drivers specifically designed for Windows Vista are available. This will change as 7 ships and evolves and yeah, I know the driver interfaces are the same, but the issue is much more complex than that and this space is way too small to cover those differences well. Cont.... |
| #5 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 01:17:01 PM |
|
From #4 above,
Also, "all these bloggers...." are as naive as Latch seems to be about Windows Vista and 7 (based upon Latch's most recent posts at this site). I maintain that their perspectives were shaped by many influences and most of those influences and motivations were not based upon actual use of Windows Vista. Windows 7 is new to them - fresh and seemingly great, because it is - because it reflects three years of work built on top of Windows Vista. Both Vista and 7 are going to be just slightly slower than Windows XP on older hardware in particular - in part because of the way synthetic benchmarks are written, tuned and executed and partly, because Windows XP does not do nearly as much as Windows Vista and 7 do in many contexts - everything from security to communications. *****Since so many systems use some sort of Marvel or Intel on-board network interface, do yourself a favor and Vista, or 7 (does not matter) go out and get the latest NIC driver for your machine (Marvel has a great unified driver now). Install it and watch how your Vista machine feels like new and some sort of magic has been applied... then laugh, and perhaps shake your fist, because all the new driver is doing is LESS. Yes, LESS - it is getting out of Vista's way and letting the new stack do its job!!!!! |
| #6 By 20505 (216.102.144.11) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 04:21:05 PM |
|
ketch,
I'm using both Win 7 and Vista regularly. Win 7 is just flat out faster for general use (I don't game on 'em). Benchmarks haven't meant squat for some time now. Compared to Win 7, Vista feels like my old 2000cc Fiat Spyder next to my friends 2002 BMW. On the track there may not have been much difference but I assure there was most assuredly a difference. |
| #7 By 23275 (24.196.4.141) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 06:53:10 PM |
|
#6, I'm more worried about how the benchmarks are run and by whom, than I am some of the software in them. This is especially true of comparisons between Windows versions.
Also, as 7 matures, I am sure you will see additional performance gains. Drivers mature and will improve the new OS quickly. I'm not surprised at all that large numbers of users are going to have better experiences on 7. There has been a lot of support for it and with nearly (in huge air quotes) identical drivers, a lot of support is going to be there out of the box, or as updated during the install. Did you do a clean install, or over the top of Vista and I am assuming you are running RTM bits? |
| #8 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:38:30 PM |
|
Hurry-up and buy Win7 before Win8 is released.
People who bought Vista know that pain. <_< |
| #9 By 8556 (173.27.242.53) at Tuesday, August 11, 2009 10:44:25 PM |
| #2: TL, if you haven't installed Spyware Terminator on Win 2000 you are missing out on some fun. The darn thing works well as a install blocker and with integrated ClamWin makes W2k better than ever. |
| #10 By 274593 (94.23.244.108) at Friday, December 11, 2009 07:01:46 PM |
|
hello guys
I am hungry to be here at this directors. It's a nice region to be. |
| #11 By 274594 (94.23.244.108) at Friday, December 11, 2009 07:01:46 PM |
|
hello guys
I am ardent to be here at this ship aboard. It's a outgoing place to be. |
| #12 By 283152 (94.23.244.108) at Saturday, December 19, 2009 03:52:01 PM |
|
Hi everone
If you ever wanted to give your children and loved one or some one staying far from you, that special surprise christmas gift then here is the chance. If you are in USA or Canada then Just go to http://bit.ly/4Qbrs2 and you can order custom made gifts delievered to you by Santa :) Happy Christmas to you all. Have lots of fun. :) |
