WIN7 Performance

[LenL]

I keep seeing WIN7 updates/maintenance that says they improve performance, make things faster and yet I see no performance improvement. Obviously someone at Microsoft is aware of the need to get this software running better but so far I see no results. As an example IE9 is not any faster than IE8 as far as I can tell.

 

[unifex]

Actually, after installing SP1 my system feels a bit faster, in particular file copying times have improved. A web browser depends also on the web sites and the network, so it will perform differently at times.

 

[Wallonn7]

I keep seeing WIN7 updates/maintenance that says they improve performance, make things faster and yet I see no performance improvement. Obviously someone at Microsoft is aware of the need to get this software running better but so far I see no results. As an example IE9 is not any faster than IE8 as far as I can tell.

Hi and welcome to SF ever!
Improve the performance does not necessarily mean that things will flow more quickly. They may, however, flow without the drawbacks on which the update applies. At most, a good part of the changes are imperceptible. I could cite for example the case of an ATI HD 5870 with 1GB of RAM and a HD 5870 with 2GB: in most scenarios where you use them will not see very significant changes between a VGA and another ... It is worth considering also the speed with which our brain assimilates a new situation. Finally, I do not see what Microsoft would gain by "creating" false improvement that you may be considering as fallacies. But I respect your considerations.

 

[fseal]

Heh, well you are discovering the lie in the advertising of browsers. (There is some core lie to the advertising of every product there is, see the thread on advertised vs actual harddrive space )

Sure it IS faster at rendering content or running programs /once they have been downloaded/. It can actually be "10 times" faster but you may never actually notice. Because BY FAR the biggest bottleneck on all browsers is your internet connection and the responsiveness of the web server you are connecting too. And in comparison to that, the speed differences between the browsers or browser versions is virtually meaningless.

You need to know exactly where and when to look for speed improvements to actually see them :/

So untill everyones net speed to 10x what it is today and all web servers actually serve their content in a highly responsive way all the time (Most web servers are barely adequet to handle their average loads and are frequently onverloaded), web browsing is not about to get any faster in reality in the near term...

 

[DeaconFrost]

Those improvements aren't always something you are going to see or measure. It could be the speed of background processes, or performance in a certain situation, with a certain config that doesn't apply to your computer.

 

[pparks1]

Well, generally speaking Windows 7 is a pretty speedy OS on it's own. Most of the MS updates stuff are all behind the scenes like mentioned above....they are hard to quantify by you, the end-user.

With browsers, everybody is passionate about their browser and who is the fastest. I find them all to be nearly the same speed. Some might feel a bit snappier than in other areas, but I am just talking fractions of seconds.

I think you have set your expectations too high.

 

[gregrocker]

What exactly are you experiencing that is slower than you need?

 

[LenL]

I'm not saying anything is slower (although I still think Win XP is superior speed wise to WIN7). Just saying since I installed Win7 there has been many updates that I have seen that when I look at the content they have indicated improved performance and speed of processing. I just used IE9 as an example. As others have said, there may have been improvements that can be measured with benchmarks of some kind etc. However from simple observation it is not noticable to me the end user.

 

[LenL]

Other Points - Performance

While I do use the internet a lot, I am also a heavy user of Word, Excel, and Access. I am not impressed with Office 2010/Win7 processing.

I guess I am still loving my old WIN XP/Office 2000 system much better in terms of perfomance, intuitivemess and simplicity. Oh and need I mention it ran better with less memory and CPU power. It also connected easier to my home Network and other computers on it.

That being said, I now have the latest and greatest OS from MicroSoft so I will just have to get used to it!

Don't mind me...I got little sleep from watching March Madness last night! A little grumpy today.

 

[pparks1]

XP on the same hardware is going to be faster, it's much smaller, simpler and has far fewer features. However, when you compare modern machines at the time of the XP release to the modern machines at the time of Windows 7 release, Windows 7 runs very very nice.

 

[DeaconFrost]

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 frankly, 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.

 

[Wallonn7]

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!

 

[unifex]

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.

 

[LenL]

I guess I don't have the right computer. It has an AMD sempron 140 processor 2.7 GHz and it had 2 GB of memory and 250 GB primary SATA drive with a 500GB secondary SATA drive. XP Pro 32 bit ran lightening fast. I added another 2 GB of memory and WIN7 64 bit. The system runs almost as well but I got to the internet faster with XP pro and IE8.

I guess I am in the minority but I think the best thing that can be done with a new OS is make it run faster and simpler. I personally see Microsoft just adding more bloatware with each new release that bogs down the system, hogs more resources and requires more juice to do the same tasks. Why do I need more CPU and memory to Word, Excel, Access and surf the net? I really don't need more juice to have 8 tabs running on IE9.

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.

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.

 

[pparks1]

I guess I don't have the right computer. It has an AMD sempron 140 processor 2.7 GHz and it had 2 GB of memory and 250 GB primary SATA drive with a 500GB secondary SATA drive. XP Pro 32 bit ran lightening fast. I added another 2 GB of memory and WIN7 64 bit. The system runs almost as well but I got to the internet faster with XP pro and IE8.

Well the Sempron is the budget version of the AMD processor, just the same as the Celeron for Intel. Semprons can be fine, I use one in my file server at home, which also used to run my Linux desktop. But it's not a powerful CPU by any means. When you put a load on this CPU, you certainly can tell.

I guess I am in the minority but I think the best thing that can be done with a new OS is make it run faster and simpler. I personally see Microsoft just adding more bloatware with each new release that bogs down the system, hogs more resources and requires more juice to do the same tasks.

See, I would disagree with this. It seems that Windows 7 has made big improvements with start up times of stuff and delaying certain service starts and running things in parallel. Back in the old days of Windows XP, you often built the OS and then went it and did all kinds of tweaks and such to get it to run a lot faster. These days, these tweaks don't seem necessary with Windows or lead to any faster performance. People today expect more and more out of their computers and their operating systems. To give them a stripped down OS that did next to nothing and required you to add in support for everything that you wanted to use would be a nightmare for most average home consumers.

Why do I need more CPU and memory to Word, Excel, Access and surf the net? I really don't need more juice to have 8 tabs running on IE9.

You didn't need more memory to do this stuff, if you would have run 32bit Windows 7 on 2GB of RAM, you likely would have seen the same performance that you saw with 64bit and 4GB of RAM for such small tasks.

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.

Microsoft didn't force me to put anything on my computer. I built a new computer and I needed a legal OS license. I purchased Windows 7. For my wife's computer running Vista, it's fine and works great, not going to spend a dime to upgrade Windows on that.

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.

Good luck on that, I use both Windows and Linux. I support Linux professionally in my job and have been using it since 1999 and got certified in it in 2003/2004. It's a great platform and offers quite a few really cool things. But I'll be honest, knowing Linux very well has not made it so I don't still have a Windows computer at home. Both have the pros and cons. For most home tasks and gaming, Windows is a much better fit (for me).

 

[DeaconFrost]

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!

 

[unifex]

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.

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".

 

[gregrocker]

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.

 

[Wallonn7]

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!

 

[LenL]

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.