DRAM Growth May Slow as Operating Systems Get Leaner

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]This is insulting to Microsoft.Microsoft has been able to over 30 years to increase memory use (and processor use) without increasing functionality in a seamless and elegant way. They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise. Even the great Jobs has yet to accomplish this act of "I'll tell you the truth, forget what you think you see". It's a common ploy for OS manufacturers to say requirements aren't going up, but then the thing doesn't work quite as well, and recommended requirements are a bit higher. Give Microsoft some respect. Windows 8 will be slower and require more memory without doing anything extra that anyone finds useful. They've done it for years, and to expect otherwise is simply insulting to Microsoft's ability to bloat and slow down. While there's a saying in the industry that Microsoft has sold more processors than Intel marketing, I think it's also fair to say they've sold more memory than any memory makers marketing. Have faith, they will continue to. Taking billions of bytes of memory without added functionality is a talent. Selling it in numbers, worthy of great respect. Don't count them out.[/citation]


Trolling again I see. You seem to be doing this a lot lately.
 
[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]the OS should use as little memory and CPU as possible If companies like Microsoft were to limit their programmers to modern systems that are down clocked to like 200MHz and 512MB RAM, you will see major improvements in system performance, just because modern computers have more memory and CPU power does not mean you need to make the OS more demanding.On my windows xp install, at startup the system only uses about 40MB ram, On windows 7 that memory usage jumps to over 1GB.When loading different things built into the OS, the hard drive light stays on longer under windows 7 than windows xpLoading less data is faster than loading more dataIf microsoft wants a truly successful Os that will quickly gain all of the windows user base. Then make a new OS that has requirements along the lines of windows 98 or windows 95, just with the modern instruction sets A leaner SO always improves performance, for example on a linksys wrt54g if you move from the stock linksys firmware to a lighter firmware such as tomato, the routers simultaneous connection throughput increases along with the max number of connections it can handle with huge performance increase noticed when using peer-to-peer programs such as bittorrent.The main difference is the tomato firmware uses far fewer resources so more memory can be dedicated to handling a larger number of connections and the lower CPU usage frees up the CPU so more CPU resources can be focused on improving throughput on a large number of simultaneous transfers.Even with professional programs the newer versions tend to run faster on older hardware because the developers focus on reducing the resource usage. for example a program like maya, with new versions you will see the main program use less resources allowing for more resources to be dedicated to the more time sensitive tasks such as renderingall OS makers need to focus on reducing resource use so that there will be more free resources that can be dedicated to running the programs that the user wants to run.Your OS should not have the system requirements of half life 2. The job of the Os is to provide an environment for a user to run their programs. If you don't believe me then ask your self, would you use a OS like windows, linux or the mac OS if they only allowed you to run the OS and not install any additional applications?[/citation]

Props on tomato OS, but you seem to miss the point on the rest.

Back in the win 3.1 days windows took a much larger portion of an average computer's resources than win7 on a modern machine. Back then you had to select what programs you really wanted, and often had to swap programs for what you needed for a particular project.

Now what matters is what point things are 'loaded enough' to be useful. Yes, the HDD light says on longer in vista and 7 because it is tooteling around in the background doing things to prepare for application launches, opening files, and recording your habits so that it can do those thing faster for you later. However, unlike XP the computer is responsive before everything is loaded and ready.
Also, the point of the article is that win7 takes the same or less hardware (much less in my experience) than Vista. Win8 (being focused for mobile platforms) may even require less overhead than win7 (unlike some Mac OS's that have recently been introduced).

Personally I think this is the beginning of a cycle. We have come to a point in development where most people are finally satisfied with the feature sets available to them, and now it is a matter of streamlining those features to work on smaller hardware and to maxamize battery life, rather than innovate new features. After a time then we will innovate on features again, and good old bloatware will come back, but I must say that this is a welcomed change.

All that said, there are still some powerful driving forces for memory in the market. I did the test-drive for Premiere CS 5.5 over the weekend, and it ate all 4GB of ram, as well as all 4GB of page file nearly instantly while working with HD video. I was originally looking at 16GB of ram for my hardware refresh this winter, but now I am beginning to think that it may not be enough...
 
[citation][nom]mister g[/nom]Eventually the tech companies are going to put out new OSs that need more and more RAM to function. In my opinion this is a temporary lull and growth would start again many people shouldn't see a reason not to upgrade with RAM prices as low as today.[/citation]

i hope it stays this way, and that companies start taking all the bloat out of the oses and programs.

yes some could use more ram, but how many HAVE to have the ram to run?

[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]This is insulting to Microsoft.Microsoft has been able to over 30 years to increase memory use (and processor use) without increasing functionality in a seamless and elegant way. They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise. Even the great Jobs has yet to accomplish this act of "I'll tell you the truth, forget what you think you see". It's a common ploy for OS manufacturers to say requirements aren't going up, but then the thing doesn't work quite as well, and recommended requirements are a bit higher. Give Microsoft some respect. Windows 8 will be slower and require more memory without doing anything extra that anyone finds useful. They've done it for years, and to expect otherwise is simply insulting to Microsoft's ability to bloat and slow down. While there's a saying in the industry that Microsoft has sold more processors than Intel marketing, I think it's also fair to say they've sold more memory than any memory makers marketing. Have faith, they will continue to. Taking billions of bytes of memory without added functionality is a talent. Selling it in numbers, worthy of great respect. Don't count them out.[/citation]

he says it in a s***y way, but he has a point, look at xp and windows 7, besides ui tweaks and things microsoft "cant" implement into xp, are there more features that are mush have in win 7 than xp? no, and they either hidden or taken out features that i needed, such as cascade tile horizontally and vertically to name a few, and somehow windows 7 feels slower than xp.

i will get downvoted i know, its sad people cant accept that fact and say you are right.

[citation][nom]jsc[/nom]Sure. And we could go even farther back to the days of 8 bit CPU's and an OS (CP/M) that used less than 8K of RAM out of a total of 24 - 32 K of RAM.Of course you lose the ability to use color, the GUI, modern games, modern communications protocols, etc.[/citation]

you miss the whole f***ing point they make don't you... an os shouldn't do ANYTHING BESIDES HANDEL THE SYSTEM, do you want an os to need a quad core and 4gb of ram just to boot? or do you want it to use as little as f***ing possible for you to have more resources to applications, games, and browsing web?

[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]This is basically the truth of the modern work. The more things you want to do the more resources are required to do that.Also guys stop comparing Win 7 to previous OS releases, there was a pretty big change in mentality between NT6 and NT5 and below. In previous installs the OS would only load something into memory on demand, now it tries to preload everything, namely system libraries and executables. It usually results in a faster more responsive system with the trade off of consuming more resources.[/citation]

really, my little brothers computer, which has 4gb ram and a quad core, has win 7, and the whole thing is so unresponsive, that i cant even use in passing, and i cant figure out why.

meanwhile my xp install which went through 3 harddrive failures, a gpu upgrade and brand switch, is preforming flawlessly.
 
really, my little brothers computer, which has 4gb ram and a quad core, has win 7, and the whole thing is so unresponsive, that i cant even use in passing, and i cant figure out why.

meanwhile my xp install which went through 3 harddrive failures, a gpu upgrade and brand switch, is preforming flawlessly.
Click to expand...

Complete bulvine scatology. I have a Athlon 64 X2 2.4Ghz machine with 4GB of memory running Windows 7 x64 flawlessly. 7900GS video card and a 320GB 7200RPM HDD and 1Gbps network connection. Prior to my reloading it this exact HW had Windows XP SP3 installed. Windows 7 is more responsive during actual use, I attribute this to the better file system caching (not superfetch). Otherwise the systems perform identical to each other.

This is not my main system nor my backup system, its just an extra box I keep around for projects and what have you. My other two systems are both running Windows 7 x64 Ultimate.

Stop hating on Windows 7 for no reason, its not the "in thing" anymore. I can understand the demonetization on Vista, especially as it was basically a Beta release.

And for the record, I also have a Windows 98 machine and a Dos 6.22 / WFW 3.11 machine in my home office. These are both used for playing older games that don't work so well on modern systems. Also have CentOS 5 on a development machine and Solaris 10 on my Sunblade 2000. There is no magic happy land of rainbows in the Unix world that has machines magically running better.
 
Windows xp is more efficient. On my PC

Phenom II x4 965 @3.8GHz
4Gb memory
1TB WD black 7200RPM hard drive

Windows xp loads in about 14-17 seconds (10 seconds if I uninstall the nvidia drivers)

While my windows 7 install takes around 30-40 seconds even after tweaking it for a faster startup.

If I open a menu or other window built into the OS the hard drive light stays on longer as compared to windows xp. and this is due to more eye candy needing to be loaded (more data) in order to get the desired result.

this makes windows 7 less responsive. to tell just dual boot windows xp and windows 7 (I do it because some games require dx 10)

i have many of the same programs installed on both windows 7 and XP (simply create a new partition that both OS can share, then through trial and error install all of your apps to the same folder on the shared partition, for many programs both windows 7 and xp can share the same program file folder meaning a install of a program or game (non DRM ones 😉 ) can share the same install folder meaning 2 OS can have the same program but it wont take additional space since they use the same folder)

for many programs the the startup speed is about the same (unless the superfetch does a little time shifting where it loads some of the program into memory at startup (does not same time as the program will always take it's full time to load and all the superfetch does is spends 5 seconds loading a program so you can save like 4 seconds when you actually double click on the program.

Anyway people generally use the OS to run the programs that they like to run, why spend like $100-150 on a OS upgrade just to run the same programs you run now just slower because the OS will hog more resources for it's self

While faster hardware can counter the bloat of windows 7, it is like taking the engine from a Lamborghini and putting it in a van, the van will be very fast but not as fast as putting the engine in a smaller car and not nearly as fast as putting it in frame where you are basically riding the engine

 
While faster hardware can counter the bloat of windows 7, it is like taking the engine from a Lamborghini and putting it in a van, the van will be very fast but not as fast as putting the engine in a smaller car and not nearly as fast as putting it in frame where you are basically riding the engine
Click to expand...

And this is where you admit your bias. Basically this invalidates most if not all of what you said.

Also this line

If I open a menu or other window built into the OS the hard drive light stays on longer as compared to windows xp. and this is due to more eye candy needing to be loaded (more data) in order to get the desired result.
Click to expand...

Is complete and utter bulvine scatology, like one of the above posters your just making sh!t up as you go along. Windows 7 (and Vista) loads all common libraries and other "GUI" function into memory during startup, it doesn't need to read ~anything~ from the HDD for the eye candy as it's already resident in memory. The fact that you would even remotely think Aero was responsible for HDD thrashing just goes to show you don't know whats going on under the hood of the system. And while Windows 7 does have a larger memory foot print, it's not so big that it cripples systems. This just goes to show that people are still under the misconception that more free memory = faster computer, when in actuality more free memory means absolutely nothing and if anything could mean a slower computer if that memory could otherwise be used for something productive. The OS's memory footprint only matters if it's preventing you from doing something else, which Windows 7 isn't.

"Bloat" isn't referring to neither the HDD usage nor the memory foot bring of a particular program, it's about it's necessary CPU cycles used for functions and features you don't want. Thankfully you can disable / turn off most things inside Windows 7 if you really don't want them. Really MS has made leaps and strides in making their OS's more "Unix like" under the hood. And being a Solaris guy I'm pretty happy with how 7 turned out.
 
[citation][nom]palladin9479[/nom]Complete bulvine scatology. I have a Athlon 64 X2 2.4Ghz machine with 4GB of memory running Windows 7 x64 flawlessly. 7900GS video card and a 320GB 7200RPM HDD and 1Gbps network connection. Prior to my reloading it this exact HW had Windows XP SP3 installed. Windows 7 is more responsive during actual use, I attribute this to the better file system caching (not superfetch). Otherwise the systems perform identical to each other.This is not my main system nor my backup system, its just an extra box I keep around for projects and what have you. My other two systems are both running Windows 7 x64 Ultimate.Stop hating on Windows 7 for no reason, its not the "in thing" anymore. I can understand the demonetization on Vista, especially as it was basically a Beta release.And for the record, I also have a Windows 98 machine and a Dos 6.22 / WFW 3.11 machine in my home office. These are both used for playing older games that don't work so well on modern systems. Also have CentOS 5 on a development machine and Solaris 10 on my Sunblade 2000. There is no magic happy land of rainbows in the Unix world that has machines magically running better.[/citation]

little brother has an athlon II 620, radon hd4850 1gb gpu, 4gb ram, wd 250gb hdd either green or blue, i know its not black.

he has firefox, chrome, steam and games, and thats it.

his games play, videos on the internet run.

but it takes well over 5 minutes for anything to be responsive, and even than, just barely. i have NEVER used an os this s***y running that wasn't on failing hardware, and with me booting linux off a dvd on his system to test things, non of his hardware has problems.

i can not for the life of me figure out what part of the os has the problem, what program is running using that much ram or that much cpu that everything grinds to a haul, because i know for a damn fact it was running somewhat good when i built it for him. he also doesn't do crap that gets viruses or adware, i still check for both but find non at all.

the only thing that it comes to is windows 7 is failing as an os, i cant format because he wont let me.

and let me get this straight, i don't hate windows 7 for no reason, they took away everything that i use in the os and everything they didn't, they changed where its located or how its used. i cant go into the os and try and change anything because its my parents laptop and little brothers computer, i cant make it how i like it just to see if i can stand the os. from my year long hour or so a day experience with it, i am thanking god that i have xp on my system and didn't install any version of 7. the only way i would consider it is after i learn more about virtual oses, because than i would run 7 for games, and xp for everything else.

[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]Windows xp is more efficient. On my PCPhenom II x4 965 @3.8GHz 4Gb memory1TB WD black 7200RPM hard driveWindows xp loads in about 14-17 seconds (10 seconds if I uninstall the nvidia drivers)While my windows 7 install takes around 30-40 seconds even after tweaking it for a faster startup.If I open a menu or other window built into the OS the hard drive light stays on longer as compared to windows xp. and this is due to more eye candy needing to be loaded (more data) in order to get the desired result.this makes windows 7 less responsive. to tell just dual boot windows xp and windows 7 (I do it because some games require dx 10)i have many of the same programs installed on both windows 7 and XP (simply create a new partition that both OS can share, then through trial and error install all of your apps to the same folder on the shared partition, for many programs both windows 7 and xp can share the same program file folder meaning a install of a program or game (non DRM ones ) can share the same install folder meaning 2 OS can have the same program but it wont take additional space since they use the same folder)for many programs the the startup speed is about the same (unless the superfetch does a little time shifting where it loads some of the program into memory at startup (does not same time as the program will always take it's full time to load and all the superfetch does is spends 5 seconds loading a program so you can save like 4 seconds when you actually double click on the program.Anyway people generally use the OS to run the programs that they like to run, why spend like $100-150 on a OS upgrade just to run the same programs you run now just slower because the OS will hog more resources for it's selfWhile faster hardware can counter the bloat of windows 7, it is like taking the engine from a Lamborghini and putting it in a van, the van will be very fast but not as fast as putting the engine in a smaller car and not nearly as fast as putting it in frame where you are basically riding the engine[/citation]

i would honestly pay 100$ if they just upgraded xp, you know, but the new features that are usefull in 7, the ssd things, and the dx11, and if possible the 64bit support and way it works. but i wont put an os that i hate on here just because its new. they have to give me something i need.
 

I am not sure exactly what is loading and I don't really care but it doesn't take knowing what exactly is being read from the hard drive to notice when you open a menu or control panel or other OS function and it happens faster on windows XP than on windows 7 and the only difference is on windows 7 it takes more hard drive work to open the same thing.



And while more free memory doesn't automatically mean a faster system it does mean less virtual memory use and less of the issue that comes from if you load a very large program that uses a ton of memory and windows memory management starts moving things to virtual memory to make room, when you close the program it takes a lot more hard drive thrashing to move the needed stuff back into memory.

And I have made my windows 7 install much faster than the default by stripping down a lot of the unneeded crap (startup items services, preboot items, reg edits, overall there is a noticeable performance boost but still not even close to the speed and responsiveness of windows xp)


It is hard to compensate for a lack of something. every MB extra and every CPU cycle extra the OS takes, it's 1 less for the program you want to run to use. And even worst is the more data, the more lines of code that goes into something to provide the same function, the more loading is required which means more time.

And windows 7 does not preload all GUI items and libraries (it would take too much memory, instead what it does is kinda like what windows xp does, certain common files are loaded (fines that microsoft thinks are common), about 200-300MB of memory is additionally used to load bits and pieces of programs that you commonly use (it never loads the entire program as it is too much of a tradeoff to take the full application load time only to have it flushed from memory when you launch a game or other large application. The goal is to have your startup take a few seconds longer so when you want to load the apps you want they take a few seconds less to load (time shifting, if a program takes 15 seconds to load then theres nothing to to make that go faster that windows can do, but it can spend a few extra seconds partially loading the program at startup since most people will often turn their system on and go do something else for a minute.

Adding a SSD fixes some of this additional memory usage. The additional hard drive thrashing is also fixed because it handles the additional reads/ writes fast enough that you just see it as mostly instant. Now if only someone at microsoft can solve the additional CPU hogging and it will be much faster.
 
Sounds plausible. Once SSDs break the 600 MB/s barrier for SATA III and they start to use PCI Express slots, we could see some serious reduction in RAM requirements in the form of pagefile/swap. Perhaps it may even disappear entirely if you think about it. They could develop a single SOC (sistem on chip) with 16 MB RAM that could be used to boot the OS and then start using the pagefile exclusively. You never know.


[citation][nom]Maximus_Delta[/nom]"TA152H : They even convinced people that Windows 7 was faster and leaner than Windows Vista, even though all tests showed otherwise."

I agree with the above, provide your source? Back up your BS with some facts from the get go next time.[/citation]
Actually Microsoft did an experiment where they had Vista renamed as Windows Longhorn (or something like that), where it was pure Vista with a few visual "surface" tweaks, and people liked it more. They said it was much more improved.


You know how to use Google, or haven't learned it yet? Do a search, it's all over the place. Windows 7 in virtually every benchmark is slower than Vista, although only very slightly.
Click to expand...
I think you're running on old information here. Maybe you've seen benchmarks of Vista SP1 vs Windows 7 RC2 (or pre-final anyway) and you're now stuck with this idea that Vista is actually better for gaming or something. Truths change, man. They always do, with enough time.
 
[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]xp is dead get over it, its garbage[/citation]
I use Arch Linux as my main OS but I also use VirtualBox with TinyXP installed in a 2 GB .vdi container, mainly for that 1% of software I can't find an open-source alternative for (ABBYY FineReader, iTunes, etc).

Why would I want to create a 20 GB partition (Microsoft recommends at least 16 GB) when I can run these software programs with as little as 10%? Why bother with dual booting when the virtual session takes around 5-15 seconds to start and close (depending on the RAM usage)? Think about it.
 
[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]really, my little brothers computer, which has 4gb ram and a quad core, has win 7, and the whole thing is so unresponsive, that i cant even use in passing, and i cant figure out why. meanwhile my xp install which went through 3 harddrive failures, a gpu upgrade and brand switch, is preforming flawlessly.[/citation]

My win 7 install was running flawlessly with a q8400 yorkfield processor, 7200RPM HDD and a 9600GT and 2 GB of RAM.

Increased to 4 just for the sake of future proofing (have DDR2) plus dual channel (had 3GB for a while), no probs and it works fine.

Your bro's got a lot of bloat/malware in there or you don't defrag it, clean the registry and perform other regular maintenance ops.

Or alternatively your hardware has issues.

I personally like Windows 7, this coming from someone who resisted changing to XP because he liked Win 98 for some reason (which he can't remember anymore).
 
People need to learn that no one is calling windows 7 a slow OS, even on my system it is extremely fast, the problem is that windows xp (a lighter weight os) is faster on the same hardware.

mainly when loading very large programs and when loading certain objects in the OS, there are things that you load that have a noticeable delay in windows 7 that used to be instant in XP.

There is a reason why windows XP still has such a large market share. Most people who use it have not come across a program or task that requires them to upgrade, and it offers no performance improvement that would make someone want to take a older system that came with XP and want to install windows 7 on it because on older hardware, windows 7 makes things significantly slower across the board.

Most people also buy a full system rather than building one so when that happens they are getting the latest version of windows regardless.

I do tech support and repairs for many small businesses in my area, one of the most popular computers that I see in these businesses is a dell optiplex gx280

Most of what the workers do is listen to some music and process order foroms and other paperwork, as well as type up a few documents.

Tell me if all of these people were to invest in spending a arm and a leg on upgrading all of those systems to windows 7, what would they gain for doing their job?

I have been contacted by some workers about a problem with their personal laptop and it is a lot of work just trying to find out which OS they are using because most of them have no idea which OS version they are using.

The basic user doesn't notice the OS much especially when it doesn't effect what they do on a daily basis, they generally don't care to even find out.

Just because you feel that windows 7 is the best thing on earth doesn't mean it is right for everyone.
 
There will always be plenty of need for more RAM. I had 4GB back in 2001 and many others did too. Honestly, I think this article is flawed as RAM amounts went up very fast in the 90's but haven't really gone beyond the general area of 4-8GB in the last few years. If anything, the migration to much more mainstream 64 bit use should push us over the hump and start driving systems with 16, 32GB and onward in the next few years. That's not to say that nobody has more then 8GB today (I've seen boards support 24GB), but, for the most part 8GB seems to be the upper limit for all but a few (granted, many of the ones who have more probably are here at Tom's). Also, DRAM prices have crashed and the industry is going to need to sell larger RAM modules to get their profit margins up. These IHS people don't seem very good in my opinion.
 
Even if windows 8 turns out to need less memory than windows 7, I will still be upgrading from 4 to 8 GB and if I get more work in doing video editing, I will go with 16GB (needed for working with HD video in adobe aftereffects (4GB = not enough preview to see 1 effect fully)

4GB is not enough to allow me to farm in global agenda while working on photoshop

 
My current system doesn't support more than 16GB. I will upgrade to a new MoBo after Win 8...or if Win 9 is NT 6.3 then when ever Windows X (NT 7.0) arrives. Do I really need this? I'm working in the IT business and I test myself which OS and what amount of RAM is needed. The best OS seems to be (to my customers) Win7-32, 4GB, 4core unless applications need more RAM: Video editing, AutoCad, Acrobat, etc. I will be happy upgrading my own system with a SSD when Win 8 arrives. My customers are extremely happy with a typical affordable 256GB SSD because everything loads about 3xfaster.

Yes...some still use XP, but they are not MY customers.
 


This is a very good reason to use XP over 7. You don't care for the added features nor improvements as your only using it for compatibility purposes. I've done this on my own systems, and you gotta love VirtualBox, one of Sun's better ideas.

People need to learn that no one is calling windows 7 a slow OS, even on my system it is extremely fast, the problem is that windows xp (a lighter weight os) is faster on the same hardware.

mainly when loading very large programs and when loading certain objects in the OS, there are things that you load that have a noticeable delay in windows 7 that used to be instant in XP.
Click to expand...

I believe you called 7 "slow" when you made the various slanderous off handed comments. Then further proved your ignorance by demonstrating you have no idea what makes an OS tick. If you don't know how OS's work on the inside, then you have zero ground to make judgement calls on why one is faster / slower then the other. You've made yourself into the peanut gallery. XP only appears faster at first because it works on the load on demand concept, meaning it doesn't load libraries and executable until you ask it to. Windows 7 (Vista also) was built on the concept of pre-loading as much as possible upfront so that when you go to do something later, it already has most of what it needs loaded in memory. Windows 7 x64 also has a rebuilt system Kernel over Windows XP. They removed all the 16-bit compatibility code and libraries, and completely removed DOS era support. They implemented sand-boxing for all 64-bit applications and then improved WoW64 so that the 32-bit subsystem was sectioned off from the rest of the OS. A 32-bit programing behaving badly can not crash Windows 7 x64, it would just crash it's own environment. Honestly the differences between NT 5 x86 and NT 6 x64 is pretty amazing. Heck the difference between NT 5 x86 (Windows XP) and NT 5 x64 (Server 2003 / Windows XP x64) is significant. So significant that I jumped on Windows XP x64 shortly after it was released, although drivers were insanely hard to come by.

Just because you feel that windows 7 is the best thing on earth doesn't mean it is right for everyone.
Click to expand...

Again your wrong due to your assumptions. I feel Solaris 10 is the best thing on earth, or closest to. Of course I don't expect people to be using Solaris as a home OS, it's archaic but extremely powerful (and free).
 
I know how the OS works but when you load something and it takes longer to load in windows 7 than it does in windows xp and the most noticeable difference is more hard drive IO's then it means that what ever microsoft is doing to optimize the OS is not helping in that case.

You keep explaining that windows 7 pre loads, but I am saying that given that it preloads elements, it still takes longer to open certain things compared to windows xp. When that happens I consider the OS slower in those areas.

Remember terms such as fast and slow are relative, and relative to windows xp there are many things in windows 7 which load slower than on windows xp.

When it takes longer, as I explained before, I don't know what exactly is being loaded while that hard drive light is staying on for a longer time but the fact that it is spending more time to load the same thing shows that the OS is slower in those areas.

When it comes to running your applications compared to windows xp, in windoes 7, theres no noticable difference (the superfetch (time shifting) may make some large programs load faster. Meaning when at the cost of a longer startup time certain programs may load faster.

The areas where windows 7 falls short other than some of it's build in functions taking longer to load compared to windows xp, is the memory usage of the OS it's self takes more memory and not all of it's objects can be unloaded, so it resorts to dumping the data to virtual memory. This causes slower loading for some very large programs as while data is being read to load the program, the hard drive is also writing data to virtual memory.

Not sure if you have noticed but if you have a HDD do a read and write operation at the same time, there is not a even split in speed, you end up with reads going at like 20-30% normal, and writes going at 20-30% normal speed
(don't believe me, get 2 hard drives and copy a large file from HDD1 to HDD2 and at the same time start a transfer of a large file from HDD2 to HDD1)

With windows 7, this slowdown last longer because it has more data to push to virtual memory,
and when you close the large program, you have a longer period of slowdown because it has to now read that info back into RAM and it takes longer.

Before using your fanboyism to defend the flaws of windows 7, test it out and prove me wrong.


I totally understand that there were improvements made in windows 7, but I also understand that some flaws were introduced and I am pointing out the flaws.

and for a basic user, the flaws outweigh the improvements, which is why many businesses have not upgraded to windows 7
 
Lets try something different

lets pretend, you walk into the CEO's office and you are explaining to him or her why the company needs to upgrade every computer in the company to windows 7.

(given info: all of the software needed in the company runs perfectly fine on windows XP. On average the computers are running 3GHz Pentium D with 2GB RAM and onboard intel crap video)

lets start

You the worker: *walks into the office*

CEO: *Looks at you with an angry face because you interrupted him while he was in the middle of smoking a $100 bill and snorting ground up gold coins*

You the worker: *nervous with your job on the line, begins to explain why the company needs to upgrade from windows XP to windows 7*

(continue)
 
[citation][nom]bak0n[/nom]Notice he said solid state HD, not ram drives.[/citation]

Both would be solid hard drives. A ramdrive is a program that uses your installed ram as a hard drive. So he is correct.

@alidan Everytime i see your name come up i know its gunna be a bunch of bs. You get voted down for a reason. And your brothers computer is a pos i have a dual core wiht 8 gigs of ram and windows 7 works on it flawlessly. so did vista. lay off the porn and your insesid ranting posts of "hi i'm an idiot". Why blame the computer and who maintains it when you can blame and os that runs perfectly on less for everyone else. My now almost 10 year old computer with the original dual core and god knows what other aged and almost dead parts works as my LAN server and use to (up untill a couple months ago) my main gaming computer. So you sir are full of shit. Problem exists between keyboard and chair is all i can say. BTW they hating cuz your trollin.

[citation][nom]apache_lives[/nom]xp is dead get over it, its garbage[/citation]

More true words my brother.

@razor I dont think in my entire life i have ever had a menu need to read the hard drive to pop up. Sounds like you have other issues with your system. My cpu currently is running at about 1% at random times when a program needs to read memory. Most the time it sits at 0% unless im actualy doing something other then typing here. i get no thrashing and i get no cpu hogging.

 
@razor I dont think in my entire life i have ever had a menu need to read the hard drive to pop up. Sounds like you have other issues with your system. My cpu currently is running at about 1% at random times when a program needs to read memory. Most the time it sits at 0% unless im actualy doing something other then typing here. i get no thrashing and i get no cpu hogging.
Click to expand...

Personally I think he's making it all up. It makes absolutely no sense that a GUI element would read ~anything~ from the HDD. All of the code and data is already present in memory, there is nothing to read. He just a MS basher like alidan. People like that will say and do anything to bash a company they don't like, regardless of the actual truth.
 
When I said eye candy, I was guessing as 5 times after that I stated that I do not know what is being loaded when the additional hard drive usage is taking place.

If you dual boot XP and 7 try this, in both os, open device manager

open the control panel

open the advanced system settings

open your documents folder or just a blank folder after a system restart where you have waited for all hard drive activity to stop to ensure that the OS if fully loaded

open your My computer (Computer in windows 7)

in administrative tools open computer management

in the start menu, view all programs

there many more examples but you will notice that windows xp does these things faster, in most cases the difference is only a few ms but that doesn't change the fact that it is slower compared to their older OS

if you were to stop calming every post as false and try dual booting both OS and use both regularly, you will notice these differences in responsiveness of the OS it's self, things just aren't as instant as in XP

For you to truly understand this, you have to dual boot both OS. (I dual boot XP and windows 7 and use windows 7 mainly for my dx 10+ games such as just cause 2)

Most of my common programs are installed in both XP and 7 and no additional start up items are present (I disable all of them so there are fewer running processes than a stock install)

I have both my XP and 7 installs much more responsive than they were with their stock settings. Games work perfectly on both OS but for everyday use, I prefer xp because in switching between both OS I more easily notice these performance differences.

As I have said before, this is all relative, you need to use both to notice this difference as without it you wont have the proper frame of reference.

PS when doing these test, make sure all transitions and animation effects are disabled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom