Is there a reason people assume Windows 7 is hardware-heavy?

[pantsaregood]

I've put Windows 7 on two older PCs:

P4A (533 MHz FSB Prescott, Socket 478) 2.8 GHz, Geforce FX5200, 768 MB RAM
Celeron (400 MHz FSB Willamette) 1.7 GHz, Integrated Graphics, 1.125 MB RAM

The former has absolutely no problems, even if Aero is running. I'm sure serious multitasking could give it trouble, but it's fine otherwise.

The second runs well with all of the eye canding disabled. The integrated graphics, unfortunately, push the processor a bit further than it would like to go. I'd put a dedicated PCI GPU in it if I knew one with low power requirements. I tried to put a PCI 8400 GS (or something of the sort; cheap nVidia PCI card), and it would POST, but failed to boot.

I've installed Windows 7 on a Duron 800M with 512 MB RAM and integrated video before, but I didn't attempt to run it. I have a feeling that it would run fine if it wasn't for the integrated video.

Why do people assume Windows 7 is very demanding? Anyone have any ideas on a low-power video card for the Celeron?

 

[computerboy2063]

probably because it is windows..... xp was demanding but no where near as bad as the suck hole known as vista. vista made me change to mac, i couldnt find a battery for my last apple notebook so ended up with this compaq cq56-115dx with windows 7 and windows 7 is a huge improvement, its still not apple quality yet.

 

[WolfSoul]

Vista was hardwareheavy.. 7 isn't, Ive seen plenty of people say they installed it on old hardware and it worked well

 

[computerboy2063]

outside of having to run an antivirus/antimalware program and having to install a huge amount of microsoft updates and updating the antivirus software windows 7 is a really good os, all microsoft has to do is eliminate the need for av software like mac and serioulsy cut down the number of updates and it may just be perfect. never ran an av on my mac and never had issues...

 

[WolfSoul]

About the graphics card.. you have to give more info bout your system

 

[wds7]

Vista was hardwareheavy.. 7 isn't, Ive seen plenty of people say they installed it on old hardware and it worked well

Well ...you have to define "worked well" .....?
Sure, wds7 can run on old ..slow system ..like celeron+integratedGPU ...
but to me ..it's slow like HELL .....i mean ...HELL .....:devil:
You need at least something like Intel Core2Duo ...to see it fly ...

 

[pparks1]

People like to overreact and make things seem work than they really are. Also, I think people assume that the new version has to be more heavy than the previous version and they remember how demanding Vista was on hardware. What they fail to consider is that Windows 7 is a polished Vista with lots of performance improvements and tweaks along the way.

I generally don't consider Windows 7 to be much more demanding than XP...expect in the graphics department with the Aero interface.

 

[KazeNoKoe23]

probably because it is windows..... xp was demanding but no where near as bad as the suck hole known as vista. vista made me change to mac, i couldnt find a battery for my last apple notebook so ended up with this compaq cq56-115dx with windows 7 and windows 7 is a huge improvement, its still not apple quality yet.

Anyway, every later version of every OS, be it Windows, Mac OS, or Linux, has heavier requirements than the version preceding it.

 

[James Colbert]

outside of having to run an antivirus/antimalware program and having to install a huge amount of microsoft updates and updating the antivirus software windows 7 is a really good os, all microsoft has to do is eliminate the need for av software like mac and serioulsy cut down the number of updates and it may just be perfect. never ran an av on my mac and never had issues...

The need for AV has nothing to do with paltform and everything to do with mainstream use. Quite simply, the vast majority of computer users run Windows. Why bother writing viruses for Mac, etc. when Windows gives you worldwide coverage?

James

 

[pparks1]

The need for AV has nothing to do with paltform and everything to do with mainstream use. Quite simply, the vast majority of computer users run Windows. Why bother writing viruses for Mac, etc. when Windows gives you worldwide coverage?

James

I don't completely agree. While desktop market does have an impact, the fact that almost all Windows users used to run with full admin controls makes it a cakewalk. And no offense, but Windows is just too easy sometimes. Users don't typically just wing it and get a Linux machine working. They have to do some reading and homework up front and in the end, they are often a bit wiser and more aware of the things that are going on with their machines. Unfortunately, almost anybody who has used a Windows desktop can click around in the server GUI and get it working....but that doesn't mean they should

 

[mjf]

I generally operate out of a standard user account. A click away to elevate and a little more to enable hidden admin if needed.

 

[whs]

outside of having to run an antivirus/antimalware program and having to install a huge amount of microsoft updates and updating the antivirus software windows 7 is a really good os, all microsoft has to do is eliminate the need for av software like mac and serioulsy cut down the number of updates and it may just be perfect. never ran an av on my mac and never had issues...

Of course you do not need an AV program for a Mac - who wants to write a virus for the few that are far and apart.

Regarding the /7 resource usage. It is better than Vista but could still be better - compare with Android. The problem is packaging. All those functions that are usefull for large companies are dragged along in our systems which really have modest requirements - especially for those "Appliance users" that only use it for sending Emails to their grandchildren.

 

[James Colbert]

The need for AV has nothing to do with paltform and everything to do with mainstream use. Quite simply, the vast majority of computer users run Windows. Why bother writing viruses for Mac, etc. when Windows gives you worldwide coverage?

James

I don't completely agree. While desktop market does have an impact, the fact that almost all Windows users used to run with full admin controls makes it a cakewalk. And no offense, but Windows is just too easy sometimes. Users don't typically just wing it and get a Linux machine working. They have to do some reading and homework up front and in the end, they are often a bit wiser and more aware of the things that are going on with their machines. Unfortunately, almost anybody who has used a Windows desktop can click around in the server GUI and get it working....but that doesn't mean they should

What you say is true, but the reality is that any OS that had the usage that Windows has would be a target. If it was Linux, they would just work harder, and, as with any technology, the defenses that are written today are overcome by those who circumvent them tomorrow. Unless there is a specific target, those who write and distribute viruses do it because there is a payoff: Circulation. If Mac or Linux gain that magnitude of circulation, we would see viruses proliferated on that platform. Almost a law of nature.

James

 

[pparks1]

What you say is true, but the reality is that any OS that had the usage that Windows has would be a target. If it was Linux, they would just work harder, and, as with any technology, the defenses that are written today are overcome by those who circumvent them tomorrow. Unless there is a specific target, those who write and distribute viruses do it because there is a payoff: Circulation. If Mac or Linux gain that magnitude of circulation, we would see viruses proliferated on that platform. Almost a law of nature.

James

The advantage that Linux and such has is that's its based on Unix and has been a multi-user operating system for"ever"...so it's a pretty solid foundation with years upon years upon years of running as a standard user and keeping the rest of the system locked down. Unlike Windows which started as a single user system where the single user was an admin 24x7...Unix/Linux/BSD started with the concept of a restricted user account which has to elevate.

If Linux were to gain a lot of marketshare, I'm sure there would be more users who would attempt to make things easier and would run as admins all of the time and cause the system to suffer under their lacksidaisical approach.

But the good news here...is that Windows 7...is a much more secure OS and it seems to require fewer resources than most would expect. Gotta like that.

 

[pantsaregood]

Both computers I mentioned are running MSE and Windows Firewall in the background. Neither of them functions poorly; the P4 is actually quite snappy.

As for more information on the computer, it's some old Dell. Has a 180w PSU (it's a slim case), and putting any newer PCI cards in it results in a black screen after POST.

 

[computerboy2063]

i agree that windows 7 is a much better os than any of the previous version of windows otherwise i would have traded the new compaq for a used mac already.... but windows still has alot of advancement to do to make it as good as os x windows 7 is almost there, but the need for av protection and constant updates from ms is the real issue now, not constant crashing like before

 

[Maguscreed]

I generally suggest dual core and ddr2 or better for people wanting to install win 7, but it will work fine on older systems. ...you may not have quite the amount of snap though.

People have unrealistic expectations from windows though, they tighten up security or interface much more and customization gets much more difficult. You also start to run into more problems making games compatible. Which are both issues mac suffers from.

I say it all the time, everything is a trade off and no OS is perfect. Though fanboys would love for everyone to think otherwise.

 

[computertech19]

So far it's ran great for me. It seams to suck more RAM everytime I upgrade my RAM for productivity software. I had 4GB of ram earlier and it took 1200MB of it to run just the OS. Now I have 6GB and it's takes 1500-1700MB's to run just the OS. Don't get it. and my OS is way watered down. With nothing eating the RAM except Windows OS software.

 

[Maguscreed]

So far it's ran great for me. It seams to suck more RAM everytime I upgrade my RAM for productivity software. I had 4GB of ram earlier and it took 1200MB of it to run just the OS. Now I have 6GB and it's takes 1500-1700MB's to run just the OS. Don't get it. and my OS is way watered down. With nothing eating the RAM except Windows OS software.

That's just win 7 making better use of what's available instead of dumping everything directly to page file like previous versions did.

 

[WolfSoul]

I doubt they even make PCI videocards anymore...