-
The scheduled forum maintenance has now been completed. If you spot any issues, please report them here in this thread. Thank you!
- Status
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
[citation][nom]iam2thecrowe[/nom]win 7 is resource friendly? lmfao. You mean compared to.....windows server 2008.[/citation]
Runs like a dream on my 6 year old laptop, how's that for resource friendly?
Runs like a dream on my 6 year old laptop, how's that for resource friendly?
Wow, that's a lie... A vanilla install of retail Windows 7 has way more processes than what they're saying it does, when they have to disable their own bloatware for the sake of making a comparison, you know it's going to be bad.
The job of an OS is not to get in the way of your applications, and Windows 7 definitely gets in the way more than XP does, Windows 8 looks to continue that trend. I guess they're trying to say that Windows7 was less-worse than Vista, and Windows 8 will be less-worse than 7, but probably still not as good as XP.
The job of an OS is not to get in the way of your applications, and Windows 7 definitely gets in the way more than XP does, Windows 8 looks to continue that trend. I guess they're trying to say that Windows7 was less-worse than Vista, and Windows 8 will be less-worse than 7, but probably still not as good as XP.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]moricon[/nom]Not to old mind you. one or the requirements is WDDM (Windows Display Driver Module) Some early DX9 chips do not conform, such as Intel GMA 900.[/citation]The "chip" (the hardware) isn't the part that doesn't conform. It's the software - Intel refuses to make a WDDM driver for it. Their logic is that it is so slow and crappy, that it will not run Aero Glass smoothly, so they feel it is a waste of time to make new WDDM driver.
Honestly, I can't really blame them, but AMD and Nvidia have WDDM drivers even for their oldest crappiest DX9 parts. Granted they might be old legacy drivers, but they would work.
Honestly, I can't really blame them, but AMD and Nvidia have WDDM drivers even for their oldest crappiest DX9 parts. Granted they might be old legacy drivers, but they would work.
alextheblue
Distinguished
- Apr 3, 2001
- 3,078
- 106
- 20,970
[citation][nom]darasen[/nom]Are they really touting that something can run on a machine that is only three years old? Is that supposed to be a relic of some sort?[/citation]It's a slow-as-nuts Atom netbook that was a relic when it was new. For it to run Windows 7 is a miracle, for it to run Windows 8 even better is pretty impressive.
DRosencraft
Distinguished
- Aug 26, 2011
- 743
- 0
- 19,010
I ran through the entire beta process for 7 on my old laptop that ran XP. It was a great OS. Unfortunately, as some have noted, 8 won't neccessarily do much for PC sales. Consumers don't tend to get all that pumped about OS. Even if 8 turns out to be marvelous, it won't be realized for so long that it'll be a while after its release before any real traction is seen in the market in terms of new PC sales. It might do well for MS in terms of upgrades from 7 or XP, not likely from new PC sales.
Automation and resource friendliness is great from a consumer standpoint; stuff starts costing me less. But you've gotta realize that for a company that needs continuous sales it's not that great. If 8 is great, resource friendly and all that, it could be the next XP, sticking around long after the next OS cycle because there isn't a definite need to upgrade. Programs aren't likely to become much more resource greedy than they are now, so there isn't going to be a lot of incentive to upgrade unless you are like us here of Tom's who rank among the enthusiast crowds. As an enthusiast i'm excited about 8, as someone thinking about the future of the PC industry, i'm a bit more worried.
The answer to the PC sale conundrum? PCs need a new gimmick. Hate the word gimmick, but PCs need soemthing to really get people excited, more than the technicals that we enthusiasts like. Somehow minimizing the startup time to rival that of the instant-on function of phones and tablets would be a nice touch, but even that i'm not sure is something to get people all that giddy. They could also go the more unsavory route and just stop supporting old tech quicker, forcing people to upgrade because they simply can't use their old tech.
Automation and resource friendliness is great from a consumer standpoint; stuff starts costing me less. But you've gotta realize that for a company that needs continuous sales it's not that great. If 8 is great, resource friendly and all that, it could be the next XP, sticking around long after the next OS cycle because there isn't a definite need to upgrade. Programs aren't likely to become much more resource greedy than they are now, so there isn't going to be a lot of incentive to upgrade unless you are like us here of Tom's who rank among the enthusiast crowds. As an enthusiast i'm excited about 8, as someone thinking about the future of the PC industry, i'm a bit more worried.
The answer to the PC sale conundrum? PCs need a new gimmick. Hate the word gimmick, but PCs need soemthing to really get people excited, more than the technicals that we enthusiasts like. Somehow minimizing the startup time to rival that of the instant-on function of phones and tablets would be a nice touch, but even that i'm not sure is something to get people all that giddy. They could also go the more unsavory route and just stop supporting old tech quicker, forcing people to upgrade because they simply can't use their old tech.
I wonder how this will compare with XP on a few old CoreDuo laptops I have. I was thinking of maybe an SSD to do a speed boost and didn't think they could handle Win7, which I thought used about 1.5GB (apparently I was wrong), but this (and Win7) are looking pretty good!
legacy7955
Distinguished
- May 16, 2011
- 437
- 0
- 18,780
The only issues I have ever had with any Windows OS has been a result of the Windows updates, this is puzzling since I usually never have unusual programs and rigorously make sure my system is free of malware. Just a basic system OEM and I also never try to fool with the registry or use any cleaners either.
Actually except for ONE update Win 7 Windows Update has performed well, but i have to say I dread updating my smooth running Win 7 with SP1, as I know a lot of people have had problems with it.
Actually except for ONE update Win 7 Windows Update has performed well, but i have to say I dread updating my smooth running Win 7 with SP1, as I know a lot of people have had problems with it.
legacy7955
Distinguished
- May 16, 2011
- 437
- 0
- 18,780
MS if you see this ...I really like most of what I have used from you Win 98, XP, 7, but please allow people the option of using individual updates in lieu of offering up a single service pack on future OS. Thanks.
razor512
Distinguished
- Jun 16, 2007
- 2,160
- 87
- 19,890
[citation][nom]amk-aka-phantom[/nom]Out of these 20GB, 8GB is a pagefile if you have 8GB RAM and 6GB is a hibernation file. Kill both (disable hibernation, disable pagefile) and you're down to 6 GB with no loss whatsoever.Why do you even CARE how much it takes? Still running a 40GB IDE HDD or something? Of course they'll make the tablet version so that it actually works there. I just hope the desktop version won't suffer because of it.And you're not just beating a dead horse... no, you're raping the bones of that old horse beaten to death by someone else long ago (wow... disgusting analogy. I need help). The topic of shifting from XP (which, as you have stated, has minimum requirements of 300 MHZ to run, though in fact it needs 1 GHz+ to run properly) is SO silly and has been discussed SO many times... if you're using your old PC, by all means, you DON'T need an upgrade, indeed. Just remember that eventually you'll run out of updates. Otherwise, remaining on WinXP is choking your hardware and your user experience. Win7 is NOT made for "common user", disregard MS's claims. It's for people with powerful hardware, who don't care whether it uses 40 or 400 MB... RAM is disgustingly cheap nowadays.[/citation]
While ram is cheap and hard drives are also cheap, it doesn't mean they should make the software more resource intensive and less efficient because the new hardware can handle it.
While windows xp wont run fast on a 300MHz system, it was designed to run fast on older hardware (back when it was really popular, you were lucky to have 2GB memory and a hard drive that can do more than 60MB/s)
(If you want to see slow, install windows 7 in a old hard drive
)
The biggest slowdown in going from windows XP to windows 7, is the hard drive bottleneck, Loading the OS and loading it's various elements are more IO intensive and require more data to be read from the hard drive.
Also not counting the page file and hibernation, (just the system files in windows 7 x64 take up 15GB while in windows XP it takes 2.5 GB)
Because hard drive space and memory is cheap, they took that chance to not be as conservative with the resources.
And while everyone understands that windows XP is old, what needs to be considered is not the age of the OS but instead, it's functionality.
What does the average (majority of windows 7 users)user do on windows 7 that they cant do on windows XP on a regular basis thats productivity related (not many people care about direct x 11)
The reason why windows XP still has such a large user base even when the specs for those systems can easily run windows 7, is the Functionality difference.
While reducing the resource usage in windows 8 is good, microsoft needs to focus a little harder on what the professional application developers such as autodesk are doing.
For a new product to be better than the old one, it must be more efficient. making non relevant components use less resources so more can be dedicated to things like simulations and rendering.
For example, maya 2011 uses less memory than maya 2009 (I can work on much large complex projects and the program remains running smoothly on my system using windows 7 x64 (you have no reason not to use the 64 bit version of maya)Phenom II x4 965 3.8GHz, 4GB ddr3 1600, 1TB WD black with 500GB WD black for cache and storage of textures)
While computers got faster in that timeframe, maya optimized their software to allow me to do more with my 4GB RAM, they improved render speeds also.
The difference is the program is targeted at people where time is money and the less you waste waiting for things to render, or process, the more productive you will be.
Waiting a few extra ms in windows 7 for a menu to load or for a setting window to open because microsoft thought it would be nice to add useless additional graphics is a waste, those few milliseconds could have been better spent doing something else.
If you design a OS to perform well on slower hardware, when you place it on fast hardware, it runs insanely fast. (has anyone tried running windows 95 on a modern PC? (even though it can only see 1 core and around 400MB RAM, it booted in about 1 second and everything responded pretty much instantly.
(PS i know that win 95 is useless for modern systems, what I am getting at is, if you design a OS with slow hardware in mind, it will run very fast on fast hardware.
If they cant give the developers an entirely slow system, then at least make them use use older 4200RPM hard drive, if they can get the OS to boot quickly on a drive that only does 15MB/s and really low IOPS, then it will run extremely fast on a modern hard drive.
While ram is cheap and hard drives are also cheap, it doesn't mean they should make the software more resource intensive and less efficient because the new hardware can handle it.
While windows xp wont run fast on a 300MHz system, it was designed to run fast on older hardware (back when it was really popular, you were lucky to have 2GB memory and a hard drive that can do more than 60MB/s)
(If you want to see slow, install windows 7 in a old hard drive
)The biggest slowdown in going from windows XP to windows 7, is the hard drive bottleneck, Loading the OS and loading it's various elements are more IO intensive and require more data to be read from the hard drive.
Also not counting the page file and hibernation, (just the system files in windows 7 x64 take up 15GB while in windows XP it takes 2.5 GB)
Because hard drive space and memory is cheap, they took that chance to not be as conservative with the resources.
And while everyone understands that windows XP is old, what needs to be considered is not the age of the OS but instead, it's functionality.
What does the average (majority of windows 7 users)user do on windows 7 that they cant do on windows XP on a regular basis thats productivity related (not many people care about direct x 11)
The reason why windows XP still has such a large user base even when the specs for those systems can easily run windows 7, is the Functionality difference.
While reducing the resource usage in windows 8 is good, microsoft needs to focus a little harder on what the professional application developers such as autodesk are doing.
For a new product to be better than the old one, it must be more efficient. making non relevant components use less resources so more can be dedicated to things like simulations and rendering.
For example, maya 2011 uses less memory than maya 2009 (I can work on much large complex projects and the program remains running smoothly on my system using windows 7 x64 (you have no reason not to use the 64 bit version of maya)Phenom II x4 965 3.8GHz, 4GB ddr3 1600, 1TB WD black with 500GB WD black for cache and storage of textures)
While computers got faster in that timeframe, maya optimized their software to allow me to do more with my 4GB RAM, they improved render speeds also.
The difference is the program is targeted at people where time is money and the less you waste waiting for things to render, or process, the more productive you will be.
Waiting a few extra ms in windows 7 for a menu to load or for a setting window to open because microsoft thought it would be nice to add useless additional graphics is a waste, those few milliseconds could have been better spent doing something else.
If you design a OS to perform well on slower hardware, when you place it on fast hardware, it runs insanely fast. (has anyone tried running windows 95 on a modern PC? (even though it can only see 1 core and around 400MB RAM, it booted in about 1 second and everything responded pretty much instantly.
(PS i know that win 95 is useless for modern systems, what I am getting at is, if you design a OS with slow hardware in mind, it will run very fast on fast hardware.
If they cant give the developers an entirely slow system, then at least make them use use older 4200RPM hard drive, if they can get the OS to boot quickly on a drive that only does 15MB/s and really low IOPS, then it will run extremely fast on a modern hard drive.
kinggremlin
Distinguished
- Jul 14, 2009
- 574
- 41
- 19,010
[citation][nom]COLGeek[/nom]Betas always start out this way. Wait until the "good idea fairies" get done adding all of their cool features and then measure resource requirements. Been there, done that, all the way back to NT5/W2K and every version since then.[/citation]
No you haven't. That's the opposite of how software development works. Code optimization is one of the later steps of development. (why optimize code that isn't done and might be buggy?) Early betas are almost always slower than the final release version.
No you haven't. That's the opposite of how software development works. Code optimization is one of the later steps of development. (why optimize code that isn't done and might be buggy?) Early betas are almost always slower than the final release version.
It's a pity that most hardware manufacturers will slap on a bunch of crappy bloatware which, as usual, will nullify the better efforts made by MS. If users know how to get rid of such software, then great. Otherwise they won't be seeing as much benefit at the end of the day. Nowadays, if I see a friend complaining about how slow their new 7 laptop is running, I intervene with a bloatware extermination which can up to 20 processes vanishing. Honestly, I don't think I've ever found a use for the stuff...
Of course, this isn't something which will affect the PC builder, and good onto MS for keeping efficiency a top priority even though hardware continues to evolve.
Of course, this isn't something which will affect the PC builder, and good onto MS for keeping efficiency a top priority even though hardware continues to evolve.
- Jul 16, 2009
- 4,821
- 0
- 22,780
People can harp on about needing to consume less resources that XP in order to buy it, but compare the hardware before you do, at the point XP was released you had 66mb/s IDE hard drives, 400mhz SDRAM and Pentium 4's.
When Windows 8 comes out there will be 16 core Bulldozers, 2500mhz triple channel DDR3 and 500+mb/s SSDs.
I'm sure even if Windows 8 uses a tiny bit more resources than XP, you will still see an improvement.
When Windows 8 comes out there will be 16 core Bulldozers, 2500mhz triple channel DDR3 and 500+mb/s SSDs.
I'm sure even if Windows 8 uses a tiny bit more resources than XP, you will still see an improvement.
For the last 15 or so years I've been bashing M$soft. In the last 2 years though, I've slowly change my mind about M$soft. It starts with the XBOX and XBOX360. As the underdog in the gaming market M$soft created a product channel that wasn't a "bully" but rather a "competitor" and actually served its customers. Currently I have the XBOX 360, PS3, and Wii and of the three systems, the XBOX360 is the best balanced product plus in my use, it's also the most trouble-free.
When M$soft isn't dominating and bullying, they can actually create decent products. With the erosion of the PC market and with strong movement in the mobile market, Windows is now a "competing" product versus a "bullying" product. Hence Windows 7 is damn good these days. I can actually go a few weeks without having to restart my laptop. Remember the days of having to reboot everyday or sometimes several times a day??? Windows 7 is very effective and Windows 8 is going to be interesting.
I definitely agree with a previous poster that while Windows is getting more efficient, other OSs are getting fatter. Man all of the various distros of Linux are all getting so fat and slow these days. I use Ubuntu on my 2nd laptop with better specs than my Win 7 laptop and it's clear that my experience on the Win7 laptop is better. As for browsers I think win IE9 beats FireFox. I've had a lot of problems with FireFox on multiple computers. Looks like things have flipped between IE and FireFox.
Now that Apple is kicking dirt in M$softs face and the mobile market is eating up the entire computing market, M$soft is going to make incredible products for the PC. Unfortunately that's a problem... what they need to do is make an AMAZING mobile OS and just refine Win 7. Win 8 maybe the last OS effort for the PC from M$soft.
FYI - My current daily computing usage is as follows: 50% mobile Android 2.2, 25% Win 7 laptop, 25% iPad 2. With further mobile tech on the line, I can see my usage chagning to nearly 75% mobile with a docking station.
PS. I'm eating my words with all of my iPad bashing over the last 2 years. I bought one for a project and now it's my favorite go-to device. It actually does a better job editing movies than any rig I've worked on. Who would have ever thought that I would actually like an Apple price.
When M$soft isn't dominating and bullying, they can actually create decent products. With the erosion of the PC market and with strong movement in the mobile market, Windows is now a "competing" product versus a "bullying" product. Hence Windows 7 is damn good these days. I can actually go a few weeks without having to restart my laptop. Remember the days of having to reboot everyday or sometimes several times a day??? Windows 7 is very effective and Windows 8 is going to be interesting.
I definitely agree with a previous poster that while Windows is getting more efficient, other OSs are getting fatter. Man all of the various distros of Linux are all getting so fat and slow these days. I use Ubuntu on my 2nd laptop with better specs than my Win 7 laptop and it's clear that my experience on the Win7 laptop is better. As for browsers I think win IE9 beats FireFox. I've had a lot of problems with FireFox on multiple computers. Looks like things have flipped between IE and FireFox.
Now that Apple is kicking dirt in M$softs face and the mobile market is eating up the entire computing market, M$soft is going to make incredible products for the PC. Unfortunately that's a problem... what they need to do is make an AMAZING mobile OS and just refine Win 7. Win 8 maybe the last OS effort for the PC from M$soft.
FYI - My current daily computing usage is as follows: 50% mobile Android 2.2, 25% Win 7 laptop, 25% iPad 2. With further mobile tech on the line, I can see my usage chagning to nearly 75% mobile with a docking station.
PS. I'm eating my words with all of my iPad bashing over the last 2 years. I bought one for a project and now it's my favorite go-to device. It actually does a better job editing movies than any rig I've worked on. Who would have ever thought that I would actually like an Apple price.
amk-aka-Phantom
Distinguished
- Mar 10, 2011
- 3,004
- 0
- 20,860
I pity you... can't even select a decent tablet. Try Transformer. And what was the last rig you were editing movies on, like a P4 with a 14'' CRT screen? 😀 I've tried tablets, and they're all just TOYS, period. Dunno what kind of movies you edit there, but if you're talking any decent resolution, your tablet must take forever to get it done... or you're not really editing anything.
iceman1992
Distinguished
- Sep 6, 2011
- 118
- 0
- 18,680
i remember them saying about a new task manager. the one in the picture looks the same. or am i mistaken??
Wish I Was Wealthy
Distinguished
- Nov 23, 2008
- 937
- 0
- 18,990
Let's hope it really is true,because they always do something in the beta's. When released though,something different is seen in the speed of the operating system.
junixophobia
Distinguished
- Feb 3, 2011
- 124
- 0
- 18,680
Yeah windows 8 might be super efficient that you don't need a new pc.
However, how many other device will be obsolete just because they don't have driver for windows 8 or the freaking manufacturer won't release one forcing you to buy new ones...
However, how many other device will be obsolete just because they don't have driver for windows 8 or the freaking manufacturer won't release one forcing you to buy new ones...
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]While reducing the resource usage in windows 8 is good, microsoft needs to focus a little harder on what the professional application developers such as autodesk are doing.[/citation]
Funny that you mention Autodesk because AutoCAD is getting much more resource hungry with each release.
[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]Waiting a few extra ms in windows 7 for a menu to load or for a setting window to open because microsoft thought it would be nice to add useless additional graphics is a waste, those few milliseconds could have been better spent doing something else.[/citation]
Again have you seen AutoCAD 2011 "additional graphics" compared to older releases?
Funny that you mention Autodesk because AutoCAD is getting much more resource hungry with each release.
[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]Waiting a few extra ms in windows 7 for a menu to load or for a setting window to open because microsoft thought it would be nice to add useless additional graphics is a waste, those few milliseconds could have been better spent doing something else.[/citation]
Again have you seen AutoCAD 2011 "additional graphics" compared to older releases?
Vladislaus
Distinguished
- Jul 29, 2010
- 1,290
- 0
- 19,280
[citation][nom]enewmen[/nom]Even if Win 8 can run 5 year old hardware - it MUST be 100% 64 bit since even 5 year old CPUs had x86-64 bit - Even 3 year old Atoms. Then the PC industry can FINALLY move forward to a world bigger than 2 gigs.[/citation]
No most Atoms 3 years back weren't 64 bits. Only the series 200 and 300 were x86-64 processors. The N200 series, which was the most used atom cpu at the time, didn't supported 64 bits. Still no Atom CPU has a PAE of 64 bits.
Also you can get more that 2GB of memory with a 32bit system. For example windows 32 bits will address 3.5 GB of memory.
No most Atoms 3 years back weren't 64 bits. Only the series 200 and 300 were x86-64 processors. The N200 series, which was the most used atom cpu at the time, didn't supported 64 bits. Still no Atom CPU has a PAE of 64 bits.
Also you can get more that 2GB of memory with a 32bit system. For example windows 32 bits will address 3.5 GB of memory.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
Review Intel Arc B580 review: The new $249 GPU champion has arrived- Started by Admin
- Replies: 59
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram