Windows 7 - The undisputed king... and it ain't even finished yet :)

lathode said:
Who went from 3.1 to 2000?
Click to expand...
Quite a few.

But to humor you, here it is redone.

TechieSooner said:
Windows 95 to Windows 2000:
100Mhz to 233Mhz CPU 233% Increase
8MB to 64MB RAM 800% Increase
50MB to 2GB Disk 4000% Increase

Windows XP to Windows Vista:
300Mhz to 1Ghz 333% Increase
128MB to 1GB RAM 800% Increase
1.5GB to 40GB Disk 2667% Increase
Click to expand...

It STILL isn't the massive jump in system requirements. Overall, Microsoft is still decreasing the system requirements yet you still have people bitching about it.
 
I have to admit I am thinking that this could be a successful product (well I guess it already is).

I installed this on an older PM 1.4 w/1gb of ram and Radeon 9000 32mb graphics. I have to be perfectly honest, the thing seems like it's running just as well as it did with XP Pro.

I'm going to play around with it for a while but overall I think they have something here if this OS can load, install all drivers for such old hardware (circa 2003) and function as well as it does. Granted, it doesn't have the windows Aero interface but it's still quite functional. I would not clasify this as slow by any means.
 
This OS rocks. I just loaded it up side by side with my Vista System, same applications, both using "Ultimate" version. Both have Kapersky Antivirus, and Diskeeper as the only applications loaded.

Total Memory Useage after clean bootup, no virus scans running or anything:

Vista 1.11 GB
Windows 7: 537 MB
 
That's not a fair comparison and you damned well know it. That Vista installation has been there awhile and Superfetch is using some of that memory footprint to give Vista the appearance of "hogging more memory" soo...

People, you can't use the amount of memory consumed as a "rule of thumb" for comparison anymore. By default Windows 7 will use less because it's tuned more tightly than Vista is at this stage, and it'll get even tighter when it's RTM, but... you can't use the RAM thing anymore as a point of contention.

So cut it out. :D
 
Typically the "Cached" amount in Task Manager is *roughly* accurate in terms of what the system is caching, but from what I understand there has never been a specific counter that can tell you "Superfetch is using <xxx> amount of RAM when this reading is being taken" or anything like it.
 
hasoos said:
Is there some way to determine how much superfetch memory it is using?
Click to expand...

Just go to Task Manager to the Performance tab and looked at the "Cached" amount. That is the amount of memory superfetch cached.
 
Lazy_Moron said:
Just go to Task Manager to the Performance tab and looked at the "Cached" amount. That is the amount of memory superfetch cached.
Click to expand...

As I just explained, the "Cached" amount is not just Superfetch because that figure has been around in Windows since Windows 95 - the OS itself caches data files and other items, so that one figure is not just Superfetch hence me saying it's *roughly* accurate, a ballpark figure if you will. If it says 1500MB (1.5GB then you can safely assume Superfetch is probably using the majority of it... but not the entire 1.5GB.
 
hasoos said:
This OS rocks. I just loaded it up side by side with my Vista System, same applications, both using "Ultimate" version. Both have Kapersky Antivirus, and Diskeeper as the only applications loaded.

Total Memory Useage after clean bootup, no virus scans running or anything:

Vista 1.11 GB
Windows 7: 537 MB
Click to expand...

Come back in two weeks and give us those figures. Superfetch needs time.
 
dragontales said:
Are you running Vista with 1gb ram? Running it with anything under 2gb ram is a b1tch! That min. spec crap from MS is nothing but bull and we all know that by now. So doing that % thing is a bit misleading. Heck, I need 4gb ram on Vista just to be comfortable.
Click to expand...

Running Windows XP with only 128mb of memory is also a "b1tch".
 
AbJ32 said:
Running Windows XP with only 128mb of memory is also a "b1tch".
Click to expand...

That's my point. Using MS data in regards to min spec is just misleading. What's the point of running the OS if it's crawling like dog sh1t right?
 
Joe Average said:
If it's not seeing the disk, it's not a chipset thing, it's more likely a need to get the appropriate hard drive controller drivers. I had that issue myself once: the drive was "seen" just long enough to format it, but as soon as it did so, then it "disappeared" and wasn't there anymore. Talk about frustrating... and it was an Nvidia chipset/VIA hard drive controller too, so I learned the hard way...
Click to expand...

Disregard my post...turns out I had a hard drive on its last legs. (This is a cursed computer...lightning somehow took out its integrated LAN ports last year)

Win7 x64 on an Socket 939 nForce2 board, posting from it right now!
 
dragontales said:
That's my point. Using MS data in regards to min spec is just misleading. What's the point of running the OS if it's crawling like dog sh1t right?
Click to expand...

The point is that Microsoft's minimum specs are the only ones that are "benchmarked" so to say. Otherwise anything else is opinion ;)
 
hasoos said:
This OS rocks. I just loaded it up side by side with my Vista System, same applications, both using "Ultimate" version. Both have Kapersky Antivirus, and Diskeeper as the only applications loaded.

Total Memory Useage after clean bootup, no virus scans running or anything:

Vista 1.11 GB
Windows 7: 537 MB
Click to expand...

Are you strapped for RAM? I have a whole box of PC133 around here.. maybe I can send ya a couple 256MB sticks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top