Windows 7 Netbook Performance

Q

quadnad

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,656
Hi all, just thought I'd give some quick thoughts on my fresh copy of Windows 7 RC 1 installed on my Lenovo S10 netbook (w/2GB of RAM), just in case others are looking for impressions on a low powered PC. So far the only comparisons I've read were about Vista vs. Windows 7, and on a netbook, that's pretty irrelevant.

I've spent a while now reading all sorts of information on the new features of Windows 7, and finally decided to give it a shot (on my netbook). Not knowing how it would perform, but knowing very well how sluggish Vista performed on such low specs, I expected a slideshow. Having said that, I installed Windows 7 via a flash drive and was up in running in no time. Installation was painless.

Performance: absolutely fantastic -- I find this snappier than XP, with many additional features and enjoyable extras. All the features of 7 work perfectly, with all drivers either included in the initial installation or automatically installed after the first windows update ran its course. Aero performance, even on this slow video subsystem, is ideal. Transparency, soft effects, etc. are all nice and smooth and controlled. Had someone shown me this performance without telling me the underlying hardware, I would never have believed it was running on a 1.6 ghz Atom.

Cliffs: If you're concerned about performance on a netbook, don't be; not only does RC1 feel world's better than Vista, but it's also significantly better than XP. Given the additional GUI tweaks and such, installing Windows 7 is a no-brainer.
 
Agreed, and I only have 1GB of RAM in my AAO.

I have tried all the "netbook remixes" of various Linux distros, as well as their full blown counter-parts (Ubuntu 9.04, Fedora 11, Mint 7, etc..) and they all feel incredibly laggy and bloated in comparison.
 
I've been running the RC on my Dell Mini 9 since it was released on technet.
I've got the 8GB SSD so the Win7 install used a little over 6GB leaving me 1GB of free space.
I also have 2GB of ram and am very pleased with the performance of Win7 on my netbook.
 
I don't know how anyone can use "Linux" and "bloated" in the same sentence.. especially when compared to Windows based operating systems :\
 
criccio said:
Slow, laggy, lethargic... None where as fast and snappy as Win 7.
Click to expand...

You're certainly correct here -- Linux may have the potential to be slimmer and faster, depending on the distro you're using, but Windows 7 so far has proved to be excellent. Given that this is only a release candidate, I'm getting excited for October.

I'm loving the Aero Peek feature...
 
I installed it on my laptop as well and its running fairly smoothly. All the drivers worked out of the box as well! I ordered another GB of ram for it to give it 2 total, but it probably wasn't needed.
 
It runs great on GMA 950 netbooks, but Windows 7 wasn't that good on my EEE 701. Intel and MS refuse to release Vista/Win 7 WDDM drivers for GMA 900/Intel 915. :(
 
Last night I installed win7 on my aunt's Aspire One with 1gb. So far she likes it
 
This got thread-necroed by a spammer, but still relevant.

I run my S10 at 50% cpu when on batteries. Thats 800 mhz. Win 7 handles it pretty well, granted I've turned off a lot of services. The extra battery life gained (I've got a 3-cell) is really nice.

I wouldn't go so far to say Win 7 runs faster than XP on the S10. A tweaked XP install is light and quick. With the current drivers available for the S10, its about a 10% difference at most. I've still got both installed to test.

7 of course has a new feel and new convenience features, so its nice to use.
 
Ritorix said:
This got thread-necroed by a spammer, but still relevant.

I run my S10 at 50% cpu when on batteries. Thats 800 mhz. Win 7 handles it pretty well, granted I've turned off a lot of services. The extra battery life gained (I've got a 3-cell) is really nice.

I wouldn't go so far to say Win 7 runs faster than XP on the S10. A tweaked XP install is light and quick. With the current drivers available for the S10, its about a 10% difference at most. I've still got both installed to test.

7 of course has a new feel and new convenience features, so its nice to use.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I wouldn't say it runs faster, but it feels at least as good in my opinion -- given the improvements in the UI, XP feels archaic in comparison. Out of curiosity, which services have you chosen to disable?
 
If you are disabling services you are doing it wrong... There is absolutely no need.
 
Ritorix said:
I would give a list but certain people on this forum would have a heart attack. ;)
Click to expand...

Probably everything short of basic IPv4, and anything Firefox relies on.. I have a batch script to do that for me when I feel like just running FF on Jazz.
 
criccio said:
Slow, laggy, lethargic... None where as fast and snappy as Win 7.
Click to expand...

Oh please. Try comparing Win7's performance to a real linux distro such as Arch. It will blow Win7 out of the water any day of the week. And it will use 10 times less memory. Oh and its free! :p
 
criccio said:
If you are disabling services you are doing it wrong... There is absolutely no need.
Click to expand...

See, even the hint of it gets them out of the woodwork. This from the guy complaining about how slow Ubuntu is these days. How do you think it got that way? Arch and Mint are awesome btw, I've ran both of them on the netbook at some point.
 
I need to look into Mint.. I have yet to actually play with that one. Arch I tried ages ago and really didn't like it.. I should probably give it another shot. I personally really like OpenSuse, though it is pretty bloated at the moment.

criccio said:
If you are disabling services you are doing it wrong... There is absolutely no need.
Click to expand...

Disabling services is just a method of control preferred by some power users who like to know exactly what is running, and why. It also reduces the memory footprint of the system, and keeps anything you don't use from taking up cycles. Yes, that may not matter to most, but when you actually use a system you build, and constantly have it's resources almost maxed out, that little bit can mean the difference of being able to surf the web while waiting for a compile, a couple VM Installations, some package installs in another VM, and a DVD Rip to complete...
 
jrdonnaruma said:
I need to look into Mint.. I have yet to actually play with that one. Arch I tried ages ago and really didn't like it.. I should probably give it another shot. I personally really like OpenSuse, though it is pretty bloated at the moment.
Click to expand...

Mint is based off Ubuntu. So if you've tried Ubuntu, then you pretty much have tried mint. If you want real performance try Gentoo or Arch.
 
ModBoyzz said:
Mint is based off Ubuntu. So if you've tried Ubuntu, then you pretty much have tried mint. If you want real performance try Gentoo or Arch.
Click to expand...

I've been wanting to take the time to build a Gentoo install. Really don't have very much free time these days though. Not enough for a Gentoo install anyway.
 
aldamon said:
It runs great on GMA 950 netbooks, but Windows 7 wasn't that good on my EEE 701. Intel and MS refuse to release Vista/Win 7 WDDM drivers for GMA 900/Intel 915. :(
Click to expand...

Even if Intel decided to release updated drivers for their 915 chipsets Aero would either run very poorly or not at all. Yes, the i915 is DX9 compatible and even supports advance features like PixelShader 2.0, however, a critical entity, known as the Hardware Scheduler, is absent from the chipset and is required according to the WDDM spec. More here from Intel.

I agree that it is a crying shame and I do believe that it was wrong for Intel to declare their 915 as a DX9 chipset. It would have been nice if MS offered an Aero tier in between "Basic" and "Glass" in all versions of Vista (similar to "Aero Standard" in Home Basic), so those with the "crippled" 915s or even DX8.1 hardware could experience the buttery-smooth Aero interface sans some of its bells and whistles, i.e. Winflip 3D, Glass, Shadows. In reality, it would over-complicate things for Microsoft, developers, and probably even the end-user. Hell, look at AIGLX/Compiz-fusion that the Linux folk use. Easy to set up in Ubuntu and Debian but probably the buggiest piece of software I've ever come across because it tries to cater to nearly every video card that has hardware 3d acceleration, not just a subset of cards that use DX9.

/rant
 
jrdonnaruma said:
Disabling services is just a method of control preferred by some power users who like to know exactly what is running, and why. It also reduces the memory footprint of the system, and keeps anything you don't use from taking up cycles. Yes, that may not matter to most, but when you actually use a system you build, and constantly have it's resources almost maxed out, that little bit can mean the difference of being able to surf the web while waiting for a compile, a couple VM Installations, some package installs in another VM, and a DVD Rip to complete...
Click to expand...

The idea of somebody trying to do all that concurrently on an underpowered netbook doesn't really make me think [H]ard. Instead, it kinda makes me think oftcock [D]ickhead! Same principle applies for underpowered older desktop rigs. There's a difference between pushing the envelope and being an unrealistic idiot.


In truth, there is negligible benefit to be gained from services disablement, in any situation whatsoever. It's really just an exercise engaged in purely for the sake of the exercise. And the 'reasons' people trot out for it are simply exercises in self-justification, rather than indications of genuine 'need'.
 
jrdonnaruma said:
Disabling services is just a method of control preferred by some power users who like to know exactly what is running, and why.
Click to expand...

lol... You'll realize how retarded that sounds when you have been here for longer. That is a blatant Windows 98/XP mindset.
 
That doesn't exactly make the mindset wrong. I personally like to know how everything I use works, including everything that runs in my computer. I run disassemblers on just about every application I run (there are a handful that I havent gotten around to), so i can see how it interacts with the rest of the system. I try to keep up with even the security updates from microsoft, to see exact what they change and see how that affects system security. Just because you dont like to use your time to learn everything possible about what you are using, doesn't mean the mindset is wrong, just that it isnt for you.
 
ModBoyzz said:
Oh please. Try comparing Win7's performance to a real linux distro such as Arch. It will blow Win7 out of the water any day of the week. And it will use 10 times less memory. Oh and its free! :p
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Did you just compare Arch to Windows 7? Hahahahahahahaha. No.
 
ModBoyzz said:
Oh please. Try comparing Win7's performance to a real linux distro such as Arch. It will blow Win7 out of the water any day of the week. And it will use 10 times less memory. Oh and its free! :p
Click to expand...

This ^^. I wasnt gonna say it cause i don't wanna start a flame war, but he's right.
 
heh heh....

FFS! Comparing something like Arch to a fair dinkum OS installation is kinda like comparing a shedful of spare parts to a brand new car driven out off the showroom floor!

:D
 
Catweazle said:
heh heh....

FFS! Comparing something like Arch to a fair dinkum OS installation is kinda like comparing a shedful of spare parts to a brand new car driven out off the showroom floor!

:D
Click to expand...

Not to be rude, but did you miss what was first said?

criccio said:
Agreed, and I only have 1GB of RAM in my AAO.

I have tried all the "netbook remixes" of various Linux distros, as well as their full blown counter-parts (Ubuntu 9.04, Fedora 11, Mint 7, etc..) and they all feel incredibly laggy and bloated in comparison.
Click to expand...

I think what Modboyzz was saying is that if you're going to try a linux distro on a netbook, try a real linux distro
 
Yep, read it all. the initial comment, and the initial counter-comment...

ModBoyzz said:
Oh please. Try comparing Win7's performance to a real linux distro such as Arch.
Click to expand...

.. where the direct comparison to Windows 7 was made.

Doesn't matter how pointedly a fanboy/zealot type description such as 'real linux distro' is used, that's still a comparison between a full blown out-of-the-box-functionality OS installation and what is, essentially, a hobbyists kit!

The descriptor "real" is, in context, considerably misplaced!
 
Catweazle said:
Yep, read it all. the initial comment, and the initial counter-comment...

.. where the direct comparison to Windows 7 was made.

Doesn't matter how pointedly a fanboy/zealot type description such as 'real linux distro' is used, that's still a comparison between a full blown out-of-the-box-functionality OS installation and what is, essentially, a hobbyists kit!

The descriptor "real" is, in context, considerably misplaced!
Click to expand...

Arch is a hobbyists kit? If you think that, you need to use linux more or something.

My full arch install on an old Inspiron B130 is 2.3gb. gnome, java, flash, firefox, all the "normal" applications. Hardly a hobbyists kit..

..it's just not bloated like windows products
 
Oh FFS!

From the Arch Wiki:

Arch vs Ubuntu


Ubuntu is an immensely popular Debian-based distro commercially sponsored by Canonical Ltd., while Arch is an indepedently developed system built from scratch. If you like to compile your own kernels, try out bleeding-edge CVS-only projects, or build a program from source every once in a while, Arch is better suited. If you want to get up and running quickly and not fiddle around with the guts of the system as much, Ubuntu is better suited. Arch is presented as a much more minimalist design from the base installation onward, relying on the user to customize it to their own specific needs. In general, developers and tinkerers will probably like Arch better than Ubuntu, though some Arch users claim to have started on Ubuntu and eventually migrated to Arch. Ubuntu moves between discrete releases every 6 months, whereas Arch is a rolling release. Arch offers a ports-like package build system, ABS, while Ubuntu does not. The two communities differ in some ways as well. The Arch community is much smaller and is strongly encouraged to be proactive; a large percentage contribute to the distro. In contrast, the Ubuntu community is quite large and can therefore tolerate a much larger percentage of users who do not contribute to development, package or repo maintenance.
Click to expand...

A distro such as Ubuntu seeks to serve as a 'competitor' for the 'just install and go' product which windows is. In comparison Arch is a distro gered toward and designed for 'tinkerers'. Hobbyists, in other words!


Your 'full install', which includes GUI, browser, apllications, etc etc etc? That didn't come 'out of the box'. Your initial install gave you only a core installation, with kernel, shell, and a few libraries etc. All the rest you had to add in yourself, manually and afterwards!



If you seriously can't comprehend that as a hobbyist/tinkerer/enthusiast pastime/activity then I guess you have genuine problems comprehending the real world surrounding you!





Edit:

Oh! And lets not forget that the context here is a 'what's suitable for netbooks' context. A bloody wee little el-cheapo machine primarily and basically designed for web connectivity and simple applications usage, which the people buying them almost inevitably just want the bloody things to "work!"

:p
 
Catweazle said:
Oh FFS!

From the Arch Wiki:



A distro such as Ubuntu seeks to serve as a 'competitor' for the 'just install and go' product which windows is. In comparison Arch is a distro gered toward and designed for 'tinkerers'. Hobbyists, in other words!

Your 'full install', which includes GUI, browser, apllications, etc etc etc? That didn't come 'out of the box'. Your initial install gave you only a core installation, with kernel, shell, and a few libraries etc. All the rest you had to add in yourself, manually and afterwards!

If you seriously can't comprehend that as a hobbyist/tinkerer/enthusiast pastime/activity then I guess you have genuine problems comprehending the real world surrounding you!

Edit:

Oh! And lets not forget that the context here is a 'what's suitable for netbooks' context. A bloody wee little el-cheapo machine primarily and basically designed for web connectivity and simple applications usage, which the people buying them almost inevitably just want the bloody things to "work!"

:p
Click to expand...

And your Windows 7 install came with Java, flash, firefox and an IM client? I didnt think so. You had to get the applications and stuff too! Just like i did! Installing Arch and installing stuff takes about the same amount of time that it does to install Windows 7.

Also, why the stereo typing about "most people just want them to work?" That's not true. Might be for you, but not for everyone
 
criccio said:
(disabling services) That is a blatant Windows 98/XP mindset.
Click to expand...

Microsoft has really changed. They are now super-efficient and take into account battery status for all running services, no matter which dev team wrote them. They would never waste battery power or cycles on a blazing-fast netbook.

Nope, that was bloated and nasty Win XP. That piece of garbage barely ran on any hardware; it had a ton of garbage services enabled by default. It needed tweaking. Not like our beloved Win 7. And how dare anyone tweak Win 7. It came to us whole and perfect, from a virgin birth, unblemished by sin or bloat. Its so good that it doubles battery life and so fast that it runs smoothly on hardware that could not even run XP. Praise its name.

:rolleyes:

And to get serious...netbooks to me exist for mobility and battery power. They are mobile Firefox. When plugged in its a different story; then you have unlimited power and can run full-steam-ahead and compile your VMs or whatever the hell people do.

If you want to take the million-dollar netbook challenge, unplug it and type 'powercfg /energy' then leave it alone with no window in focus. It produces an energy usage report (a great new feature of win 7). Look at the timer resolution, see if its default or lower (1ms being the fastest and drains about 10% more power, 15.6ms is default). Look at the CPU use when idle, powercfg breaks it down by running process and module. Look at the other things that can be tweaked for battery life - screen brightness, wireless power, other devices, etc.
 
Last edited:
GushpinBob said:
Even if Intel decided to release updated drivers for their 915 chipsets Aero would either run very poorly or not at all. Yes, the i915 is DX9 compatible and even supports advance features like PixelShader 2.0, however, a critical entity, known as the Hardware Scheduler, is absent from the chipset and is required according to the WDDM spec. More here from Intel.


/rant
Click to expand...

I know why Aero is not supported but I'm not interested in Aero. I just wanted video acceleration to work correctly. I found a compatible XDDM driver that gave me proper video acceleration, but I lost resolution control and it broke other things. No good solution for 915 and 7, for regular computer usage, so back to XP for me.
 
illuminate said:
And your Windows 7 install came with Java, flash, firefox and an IM client? I didnt think so. You had to get the applications and stuff too! Just like i did! Installing Arch and installing stuff takes about the same amount of time that it does to install Windows 7.

Also, why the stereo typing about "most people just want them to work?" That's not true. Might be for you, but not for everyone
Click to expand...

One a pre-installed machine that stuff is step up. But sure, on a build it youself rig you have to install stuff. Not a big deal, do the the web sites and click a few button. Not automatic, not a big deal.

And to be honest its takes a LOT more time getting a Windows machine setup, because theres SO much SOFTWARE to install. So yeah, getting a basic surfboard up and running in Linix is faster. That said so what? If all people want were surfbaords Linux on the netbook should have been a huge hit. Not so much.
 
heatlesssun said:
If all people want were surfboards Linux on the netbook should have been a huge hit. Not so much.
Click to expand...

XP was a hit on netbooks due to licensing deals between system builders and Microsoft. It was damn near free and linux obviously has little name recognition with consumers. If system builders wanted to compete in the hot new netbook market, they had to stick with the safe option. For its part, MS cant allow another OS to get a toehold or name recognition, its already bad enough with macs.

The catch with near-free XP was it had to be within certain hardware specs. Theres a reason so many netbooks come with exactly 1 gig of ram and a 160 gig hard drive (32 if SSD). Its also why this laptop, for example, comes with vista instead of XP. The memory and HD exceed the netbook spec for XP licenses provided by MS.

The policy definitely worked, kudos to MS (from a business perspective). Check newegg now and theres 1 linux netbook, 70 vaguely identical XP netbooks and 10 vista netbooks with slightly higher specs and price. When netbooks were new there were more linux varieties. So MS managed to push a competitor out of that market.

Its continuing with Win 7 Starter edition for netbooks, the specs are already released. You are about to see a whole generation of exactly equal to or lower than 1gig ram, single core 2ghz CPU, 250g harddrive (64g if SSD), 10.2'' screen netbooks with Starter. Anything beefier will come with Home.

Netbooks are awesome though. Two S10's in my house - one for me and one for my fiancee. Two very different usage patterns. I dont mess with hers, she doesnt mess with mine :)
 
Last edited:
Isn’t Linux supposed to be free? And even if Linux doesn’t have name recognition you’d think that somehow the word would have gotten out that “XP is old crap! This hot new Ubuntu is so slick!”

Bottom line, people didn’t want Linux on their netbooks.
 
illuminate said:
Also, why the stereo typing about "most people just want them to work?" That's not true. Might be for you, but not for everyone
Click to expand...

The comment made was "most people" not "everyone". It's got nothing to do with either me OR you, and it ain't an exercise in stereotyping. It's just the simple, factual truth!

:p
 
Catweazle said:
The comment made was "most people" not "everyone". It's got nothing to do with either me OR you, and it ain't an exercise in stereotyping. It's just the simple, factual truth!

:p
Click to expand...

heatlesssun said:
So you are saying that you think most people get a machine wanting it NOT to work?:confused:
Click to expand...

You both caught me when i was posting late, remind me not to do that. I didnt think out what i said before i posted it. lol

But with everything said, there's an OS for everyone. 7 for most of you, arch for me and many others
 
angelicvoices said:
I don't know how anyone can use "Linux" and "bloated" in the same sentence.. especially when compared to Windows based operating systems :\
Click to expand...

Seriously?! :rolleyes:

Linux is very modular, designed that way. Linux is a kernel, everything else is just there than runs on it. If you want the same functionality and apps as Windows, its there for you. You want a simple UI with basic programs or a distro to fit your needs, Linux is the way to go.

But, I've seen Linux distros that are MUCH more bloated than Windows could ever be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top