WIN7 Performance

DeaconFrost said:

Before we go down yet another dangerous path, in which you'd be flamed and this thread highly derailed, let's clear up a few things:

1. Please don't bring up the memory usage. If you are going to complain that W7 uses more memory, then they shouts to the heavens that you have no idea how W7 works, why it is superior, and why that memory usage is a good thing. If you don't follow what I'm saying, stop ranting about it, and take a few minutes to read about W7's advantages.
2. Too many people can't get it through their heads that W7 is not XP, doesn't work like XP, and shouldn't be held to the same preconceived notions of XP.
3. Networking in W7 is by far, the easiest of all Windows versions. If you need it done the hand-held, Fisher-Price way, it can do that. If you learn to network devices properly, it hasn't changed since Windows 2000, and doesn't involve any real learning curve. Either way, it is a non-issue.
4. If you aren't seeing a more efficient OS, especially under a load, that tells me you either are missing some crucial drivers, you have too many third-party apps running in the background, or you have a very old system.
5. IE9 is clearly faster than any previous versions, even without using benchmark software, due to two words: hardware acceleration. Pages render much faster, they stutter less when interactive content is being loaded or displayed, and when dealing with 8-10 tabs, switching between them is finally instantaneous.

Now, you finally said something positive, accurate, and telling in your second to last line. You do have to get used to it, as all new things have some kind of learning curve. Too many people make the ignorant mistake of assuming new+learning curve=bad. I truly hope you don't fall into this category.

I realize I'm coming across harsh, but franly, I'm frustrated with all of the ridiculous threads and rants about how something with Windows 7 sucks, just because the person either expects it to be exactly like XP, or is too lazy to try it and get used to it. When you buy a new car, you have to get used to it and adjust to it...but that doesn't mean it's a worse car.

Now that I got all that out, if you have some questions or concerns, or want me to expland on anything I said, please ask. Windows 7 is a wonderful OS, and I find it painful to go back and work on an XP system. Myself and many others will be very willing to explain, troubleshoot, or do whatever else is needed to help you get the most out of Windows 7.

I agree with every word!

DeaconFrost said:

IE9 is clearly faster than any previous versions, even without using benchmark software, due to two words: hardware acceleration. Pages render much faster, they stutter less when interactive content is being loaded or displayed, and when dealing with 8-10 tabs, switching between them is finally instantaneous.

Benchmarks notwithstanding, I do not see any noticeable speed increase after changing from IE8 to IE9 RC (yes, I still have the RC, waiting for the final release to appear on Windows Update). Compared to Firefox and Minefield, 32 or 64 bit, the speed with the sites I am using often, including sevenforums.com, is basically the same. Some sites are slow, some sites are fast, but which browser to use?

If anything, there are some compatibility problems with IE9, like lately I saved a web page to my Desktop and IE9 can't open the saved page, while Minefield has no problem.

Now, don't get me wrong, I have no complaints regarding Windows 7, I do think this is a wonderful OS. As an end user I don't see a whole lot of a learning curve in using it as well, it's not so different from XP, maybe under the hood it is, but on the outside, the difference is nothing major in my opinion.

Performance-wise, it seems more stable than Vista and maybe a bit faster as well. I can only say that since this PC came with Vista and then got upgraded to 7. So I can compare. I never had XP on it, so I would not know how XP runs on the same hardware. That said I do not know why would I want an old OS here. Likewise, I doubt I will upgrade this machine to Windows 8. It will probably come with a new machine.

To me the OS is a tool. I don't see any point in getting emotional about it. And I don't usually buy the marketing statements of "greatest", "fastest", "easiest" and so on, since all these adjectives should really be comparative, not superlative, given that anyone's personal experience may vary and depend on lots of factors, many of them much more important than the particular software being advertised.

The AMD Sempron line is dog slow no matter what OS you throw at it. That's rather shortsighted to blame Microsoft for not making a brand new OS as "snappy" on old, outdated hardware, as compared to your 11 year-old-OS. If you can't understand that, and are surprised that an old Sempron runs a little slower, you aren't going to be able to wade through the Linux world...not at all.

If that's how shortsighted you are going to be, no amount of fact or reasoning is going to bring you to the truth.

In the future, please don't insult us by assuming we just do whatever Microsoft tells us to. If you truly believe that, I have one word for you. Vista.

Don't blame us or Microsoft to cover up the fact you haven't bother to upgrade your system. And I'm not saying you have to. If you want to use old, outdated hardware, then you should pair it up with an old, outdated OS.I just blows my mind you'd spend money on more memory, expecting that to somehow speed up the system, instead of addressing the real problem. For $150, you could have a new combo that would run circle around your current computer, and show you what Windows 7 is really like for the rest of us. You don't have to spend $1000 to get a computer capable of running Windows 7...but dear god give it some power!

LenL said:

No need to respond as you folks made it clear you love WIN7. Thats fine and puts Microsoft in the position to keep giving you a bloated OS in the future.

I am not sure what was it that you expected. Let's face it, you have a relatively old and relatively slow hardware. Did you think Windows 7 would magically make it run faster? It just does not work that way.

LenL said:

This will be my last Windows OS as LINUX is where I will be heading next. I have dabbled with LINUX enough to know that WINDOWS used to be great and Microsoft is losing direction.

Let me give you an example. I have an 13-year old Dell, with Pentium-III in it. It runs Windows 2000. Compared to my 3-year old Dell running Windows 7 that old machine is very slow, very limited in resources, and the OS that 10 years ago seemed almost perfect, now looks cumbersome and lacking in tools and controls.

So, will I ever upgrade it to Windows 7? Of course not! I am not sure Windows 7 will even be able to run on it, and even if it were, it would certainly not run any faster. Moreover, it's not the OS itself, it's the programs you use that are important. I still can type texts and read email just fine on that old machine. If that were all that I am doing with computers, I would not even bother buying new PCs.

However, once I read that Linux would run well on older hardware. So I went ahead and installed Ubuntu on that old Dell. What a mistake! The thing was so slow, it would take me so long just to copy files to and from my USB flash drive, that I gave up on it rather quickly. Not to mention almost complete lack of user-friendly programs for typical home tasks. Granted, that was a few years back, maybe the situation is better now, but why would I bother wasting my time on it again? Windows works well. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it".

Many of us were Win7 beta testers who watched over a year's time as all the tweaks and fixes we had used to improve performance in XP and Vista were gradually made unnecessary in Win7, which is as lean and optimized as an OS for the masses can possibly be.

Had it been otherwise, we would have complained as loudly as with early Vista. But MS learned their lessons and gave us much more than improved Vista, or a worthy successor to XP. Win7 is the best OS that can be imagined. All that's left now is using the bare hands in midair, and they have touchscreens that do it already.

Choices ... choices ... choices ... they are what make up the life of each one of us. I used XP for two years - good headaches. Despite the overwhelming campaign made ​​against Windoiws Vista, it were three years of personal tranquility and peace at work, since I am a computer technician.Windows 7 kept me in the condition I was with Vista, with good and notable improvements. What I realize is: you have created expectations for Windows 7, like a shy person who feeds Platonic desired by the most beautiful girl in school ... In the end, you discovered that the girl was not for you because she did not speak the same language as you, and neither would conform to your lack of willingness to evolve with her. Your expectations were not met and you blame the girl for your lack of vision. Soon, you turn your eyes to another girl less targeted by most of us ... More Platonism ... more misconceptions ... same disappointment ... I think it's time you start looking at life with less romance and more objectively! Good luck and come back whenever you need it!

You folks are funny!

First let me say I'm sure you are all far more expert than I am. I am just your ordinary PC user. I just wonder why I have to upgrade to WIN7. What does it give me? With Win XP my system ran fast. It never crashed. Word, Excel, Access and internet were great. However it came to my attention from a friend that Win XP was no longer going to be supported down the road and I should upgrade.

I have a home network with 3 computers. As I said they all were running great and connected well.

So I took the plunge. I ran the windows software that told me what I needed to upgrade so WIN7 would run on these computers. They were ALL upgraded to meet the requirements AS TOLD TO ME BY MICROSOFT! In fact they have even more memory and cpu power than the minimum AS RECOMMENDED by MIcrosoft software!

The home networking was a disaster. To Share files you have to do more stuff that should not be necessary like setting up a home group, or credentials. What has happened is another layer of complexity was added to home networking.

As I said My XP computers ran better faster, simpler etc...and with upgrading them to meet and exceed the minimum requirements for WIN7 as TOLD to me by Microsoft my computers don't run as fast. Plus everything is more complex, cluttered and busy looking.

By the way I have loaded Ubuntu, Debian, and Fedora (the only 3 I have tried) on my XP configured computer and they blow XP and WIN7 away for speed. Maybe you folks can blast Linux and think I would believe your issues with it. The only reason I am not on a Linux distro is I have an Access application that I maintain for an organization and I don't have the time to rebuild it for Linux.

I suppose if you are a gamer, or like to surf the net and have 8 or more internet sites open at once Win7 is your cup of tea. Enjoy.

MY wife wants to kill me for putting Win7 on her computer and you know what....I think she has a very good reason to do so.

Maybe over the next 5 years when there is NO support for XP and I upgrade my computers again to 6 times their current power, WIN7 will look good. But as I work on a basic Excel spreadsheet I may be asking my self why do I need a computer with all this power to do something so simple.