OSNews

Sure it uses more RAM then XP, but then again, XP used more RAM then 2k. If you upgrade your software from XP, then it's probably a good idea to upgrade HW as well, a PC from the beging of the XP era wouldnt be much of joy today anyhow..

With that said, I run 7 just fine on a EEE 1005HA-H(atom n280, 1.66Ghz, 1GB RAM), 7 is using about 50% as base after a boot. Havent got any problems with running out of RAM. Ofc I dont have 3 FF windows with 20+ tabs in each, alongside 720p video playback and editing photos in Photoshop. For regullar netbook usage, its perfect!

EDIT: I also have as habit to not shutdown the EEE, mainly using hibernation/sleep, still not any real RAM related problems..

An other point, HW that runns 7 good on the desktop isnt that highend, most HW sold today should manage 7 with areo without probs, 2/4-core cpu, cheap nVIDIA/AMD/Intergreated Intel graphics card with 256-512MB video RAM and 4GB RAM should not be very expensive, and really do you expect to be able to run a modern OS on soon 10yrs old HW? Can you run the latest Photoshop on that old HW? modern versions of anything more advanced than notepad etc?

On a side note, been using 7 for a month or so on the little EEE, and couldnt be more happy, ~8hrs battery, nice UI, Im happy

Edited 2009-10-22 13:25 UTC

I thought Win 7 was meant to be good for netbooks? My netbook came with 512mb of RAM, so basically with Windows 7 it would fill my RAM on bootup.

Vista reportedly used about 400mb on bootup, so things have gone backwards. And sorry to drag out the Linux comparisons again, but I came close to running out of RAM on Ubuntu 9.10 on my netbook - running Compiz, Update Manager, Software Center, Prism, Firefox and Opera (yeah, three web browsers and two package managers, don't judge me!).

So 512mb of RAM used just to display a pretty desktop... that's crazy resource use.

I think he meant Windows 7 uses 50% of whatever available memory you have in your computer. All that "used" memory is actually cached anyway.

Edited 2009-10-22 13:39 UTC

Another myth. All cache .. suree.

The difference between XP and 7 is not all cache otherwise it wouldn't start to swap much sooner on machines with just 512 mb.

7 has a lot of new and cool feature, but they need RAM. The new audio and video layer is very cool and maybe currently the best there is, but they need more RAM.

So stop believing the hype (as I already mentioned )

Check this out (paraphrased a bit):

"Windows 7 needs 1 gigabyte (GB) RAM (32-bit) or 2 GB RAM (64-bit) and 16 GB
available hard disk space (32-bit) or 20 GB (64-bit)

Windows XP Mode (available in Windows 7 Pro editions only) requires an
additional 1 GB of RAM, an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space,
and a processor capable of hardware virtualization with Intel VT or AMD-V
turned on"

So much for an XP replacement! There's no way that's anywhere near acceptable if all you want is XP-level app compatibility.

Have you actually found any software that requires Windows XP Mode? I haven't.

I don't have 7, only Vista, but I know of various things that don't work there.

At home, no, everything I use currently works fine with Vista, so I'm sure XP mode wouldn't be required under 7. However, at work I know of several apps with 16-bit installers that would require XP mode in the 64-bit versions of 7, which is where I think XP mode will be used most.

At home, no, everything I use currently works fine with Vista, so I'm sure XP mode wouldn't be required under 7. However, at work I know of several apps with 16-bit installers that would require XP mode in the 64-bit versions of 7, which is where I think XP mode will be used most. "

You should test those apps natively first if you haven't already. Windows x64 detects some 16-bit installers and substitutes the 32-bit version at runtime.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384143(VS.85).aspx

If someone is really running a shop on 64MB systems, then they have no business trying to Run XP.

In my company, we have a 3 year life cycle on desktops. our old P4 systems have 512 MB of memory. those systems are completely gone as of last month. The current old generation system has 1 gig in it. the system being deployed for the refresh cycle currently has 2 gig. I expect 4 gig to be the next point we go to in the next years replacements.

By the end of next year we will be able, hardware wise, to put windows 7 on 90% of the systems in the environment. Most businesses are probably capable of doing it now. To complain about memory requirements is simply a canard.

Windows 7 is one of the best OSs ever. it is as good as Leopard (snow leopard is actually crappier than leopard) and better than Ubuntu in many ways. Its relative goodness being an opinion, but calling it crap or less worthy, especially when compared to XP is just foolishness by any metric.

No it adjusts to whatever specs you have.

Not in 2009 it's not.

Wasting memory has always been something morons who don't know how to code do.

PDP11, max 4MB of RAM. Lots of stuff got done in there. PDP8 maxed at 32K. Piece of junk that used to help run the world.

Multics systems maxed out at around 48MB memory, the last of which was retired in 2000.

This is a nightmare what people are doing to abuse memory, and more isn't getting done, more people spend more time doing useless things that could easily take up less memory, yet they chose not to do so. The problem then is with everyone being pigs with memory there is never enough even though there is, in a historic sense, many orders of magnitude more of it.

Constraints , particularly with memory, lead to the greatest explosion of technological paradigm shifts in the computing world.

Once the constraints were lifted, things have dragged on, rudderlessly, listlessly, directionless, with companies fighting over what the next anti-standard they try to own should look like. Its rather pathetic, less is getting done, except DRM is everywhere.

Progress.

I agree with your sentiments. I've done great software and hardware jobs with C=64, but in front of a modern PC my hands are tied.

There is no progress in IT, there are just greater and greater amounts of energy thrown into this industry.

lol every system you mentioned was an absolute pile of living shit when it came to user interaction and usability.

If you want to stare at a black screen with a blinking cursor as a form of user input to the machine then sure low RAM requirements would be easy to hit.

People do not want that in this day and age. Sadly they want flashy stuff and programs that integrate together. All of this sucks up your machine's resources as the developers add more and more background processes all eating ram and cycles to provide the functionality.

Now I do agree that 'tight coding' is just not taught in this day and age and that is a downright shame.

Whatever happened to the 'profiling' stage of development? Its largely gone.

The garbage collector was invented, huge frameworks took the place of in house libraries, and the rest is history.

Basically... unless you are in an embedded environment there is no need to bother profiling code anymore. Even there, frameworks are taking root.

however, none of those systems are in the same universe of capability at general computing tasks as modern Operating Systems.

I thought Win 7 was meant to be good for netbooks? My netbook came with 512mb of RAM, so basically with Windows 7 it would fill my RAM on bootup.

Vista reportedly used about 400mb on bootup, so things have gone backwards. And sorry to drag out the Linux comparisons again, but I came close to running out of RAM on Ubuntu 9.10 on my netbook - running Compiz, Update Manager, Software Center, Prism, Firefox and Opera (yeah, three web browsers and two package managers, don't judge me!).

So 512mb of RAM used just to display a pretty desktop... that's crazy resource use. "

A netbook with only 512MB of ram? Are you kidding? And you expect to run a modern OS on it?

Obviously there are people who think that UI = OS.

Well, I can't agree with you here. Of course hardware gets better, but if I buy new hardware I want more power. I don't want my resources being used up, especially not by my OS, because the OS it not the application.

So even, if I have the best hardware available I want to use it for my application and not for an OS. This doesn't make any sense.

Most software developers try to make software faster and less resource intensive. For example Mozilla Firefox. You can think about this browser what you want, but with higher versions it became faster and used less memory, while adding other enhancements. I can't see any reason, why I need new hardware for new software.

Oh and there are things like netbooks, nettops, etc. They have lower specs and besides this more (used) resources means wasting more energy usage. This isn't good for your battery life, your UPS or the environment.

And think about the (toxic) waste you produce. Bad for the environment, cost a lot of money, creates more traffic (the waste must go somewhere), even worse for the environment and for the people.

Think about it. Windows is used on A LOT of systems, so yes all these effects are BIG!

Windows XP isn't more secure than 7 though. Yes, 7 is a little less secure than Vista (UAC whitelist), but way more secure than XP can ever dream of being.



XP uses way less memory, but memory is made to be used. I'm fine with 7 caching parts of apps in memory for faster loading.

How is the default install insecure? It's much more secure out of the box than XP, so I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

Read the comment currently above yours or there is this site you might know OSnews, they had an article about it:
http://www.osnews.com/story/21499/Why_Windows_7_s_Default_UAC_Is_In...

That doesn't make it more insecure than XP. That just makes it slightly less secure than Vista, which was very secure.

I just said insecure. I never compared the security to XP .. stop putting words in my mouth, people.

Then insecure compared to what? Vista? OpenBSD (of course, but much more usable) XP? OS X? Perhaps we wouldn't have to put words into your mouth if you actually said something useful. Oh, and they made changes in the RC and RTM to mitigate the flaw.

I can call Linux insecure too, and give no comparisons, no valid reasons, and I would get called on it (violently) so why should you be any different? Win7 is much more secure than it's main competitor, WinXP. It's much much more secure than Win2k, and only a hair less than Vista.

MS's response after changing their mind about the flaw:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/05/uac-feedback-and-follow...

Things can simply be insecure. What a concept!
(Like the linked article said.)

But if you want: The default install of Windows 7 is insecure compared to Vista, Linux, OpenSolaris, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, DragonBSD and OSX (and a few others.)

BECAUSE every program the user runs can effectivly gain admin right without any problems (read Thoms article again if you think that is just "a hair less".
( Better read it twice. Just to be sure. ))


Edit: And they didn't really fix anything. The better tech journalists still tell people about the security flaw and advise people to set UAC to the highest setting.

Edited 2009-10-22 15:36 UTC

I use FreeBSD, and Linux, and for most users, they are non-starters (takes too long to get a BSD system into a workable desktop) OS X is safer, not really more secure. No normal user would even know where to begin with OpenSolaris, and Vista was universally panned by users and critics. Sometimes tradeoffs are made,a nd for the right reasons. People complained about UAC, that's a fact.

Windows 7 is almost universally claimed to be the "Vista that should have been", so what we lose with this little insecurity (mitigated from the RC going forward) we gain in a much more usable desktop.

I'm confused. Does your post say that everything people are raving about in this thread is wrong? It appears from your posted article that they've set flags to warn of any such program gaining elevated privileges. Sounds like a giant flag you got malware if its trying to change your UAC level. I'm satisfied with this patch if its in windows gold code?

It's OSNews, and it's a windows release. you should know better than to be direct, honest and vague all at once.

lol


i co-sign 7 being better than Vista, but that's all it is. well it's a 'new release' as well. Other than that, it's Vista with lipo & a face lift.

I'd still hit it. But Ubuntu be going through my phone when i'm not around. If i get caught with 7 i'll lose myself.

Would she know if i VM'd it?

*ponders*

Edited 2009-10-22 16:02 UTC

If you turn superfetch off, 7 doesn't use that much more RAM than XP. At least compareable from 2000 to XP, unlike Vista (with superfetch off).

But turning superfetch off will slow down the OS.

The reason Vista failed was not because of the pretty GUI, and the success of 7 isn't because of the pretty GUI.

Vista failed because it was crap under the hood, and undeployable in an enterprise with legacy applications.

7 is much better under the hood, and fairly deployable.

I did some benchmarking today.. WHY OH WHY does windows 2000 still beat XP, Vista and 7 (the win7 to win2k margin is about 25% for 2k) in dx8 and 8.1 and i really dont want to go into the dx9 performenace of 7 vs 2k as the 7 is abyssmal in comparison... but i have to add that it is atleast a few % better than vista =P.

I thougth that OS's would be faster and better for each version. As long as long as i dont surpass 28 cpus/cores in win2k. (ms does not have a limit there, but memory management and cpu reallocation threads gets screwed up about there... try it. Or if you have allready.. you know what i mean)

Best wishes to win 7 but ill be one of those bozos still sticking with win2k för all my windows needs.... it still does everything XP does. (allthough some stuff need some hacking to get it to install and work properly, like cleartype, high resolution icons and some games.)

Edited 2009-10-24 01:21 UTC

"...the fact that Linux continues to be largely irrelevant in comparison with its proprietary rival. In fact, according to statistics provided by Net Applications, Windows 7 had surpassed Linux in terms of usage share even before it was available to the general public. Such a rate of success certainly deserves a thumbs-up, perhaps even from Microsoft rivals."

From http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Gets-Thumbs-Up-from-Linux-...

Regards,
Peter

Edited 2009-10-24 06:04 UTC

What problems in particular are you talking about?

I've outlined the problems many times; ranging from the structure of it to the UI design and principles behind the design. It is pointless talking about the problems with it because Microsoft is never going to take any of my wishes on board so it is best to stop the absurd conversation in its tracks at this point.

Nikola rulez! Now please vote me down.

That should not be a surprise. You have been following it, so you should have known that it was not going to ship with the ballot screen. It will be put into an update, once the ballot screen is approved.

I'd like to say that I give a shit but I really don't. The ballot was retarded Opera stunt from the beginning and I won' miss it. Not that it would have bothered me any way, seeing as I dont use Windows much, but it was a stupid idea regardless.

I was just expecting _something_; what, given the massive EU fine and all. I suppose I was stupid to not realise that like everything else, Microsoft talk alot and don’t do very much.

Kroc, don't talk nonsense. If it were up to Microsoft, the ballot would already be here. It were the other browser makers who were not satisfied, and on top of that, it takes the bureaucratic mess that is the EU quite some time to approve anything.

Please, be reasonable.

Why would Microsoft want to have a ballot screen where users could choose a competing product? How would that make any business sense?

Kroc, don't talk nonsense. If it were up to Microsoft, the ballot would already be here. It were the other browser makers who were not satisfied, and on top of that, it takes the bureaucratic mess that is the EU quite some time to approve anything.

Please, be reasonable. "

What would be reasonable, if one was going to ship an irremoveable browser with an OS that users were given no other choice to purchase, would be to require that that browser implemented web standards.

So if Microsoft aren't prepared to be reasonable, why should Kroc have to be?

Who cares if you cant remove it? What's important is that it can be replaced.

If you can't remove it, it remains on your Windows system as a security weakness.

All Windows systems are compromised by its presence.

I believe the idea was that OEMs could choose whether or not to have the ballot screen and what browsers to put in it (e.g. you buy a new computer from Dell and it asks you whether you want IE, Firefox, or Opera).

I can't imagine that the EU would be able to force Microsoft to include other companies' products in its operating system.

Well, you're stuck with whatever hardware you've got already, so even if all modern 32-/64-bit Windows supported it (unlikely), then you still are more likely to find only the latest version pre-installed than anything older Windows (that might work actually better, *cough*).

Edited 2009-10-22 14:31 UTC

Actually, it's running quite fine on a pair of 3 year old computers in my home, an Athlon 64 300+ (single core) and an Intel Pentium 4HT 3Ghz. Both machines have only 1GB of RAM.

I just installed the 90 day Enterprise version trial on a Pentium IV 2.8Ghz (single core). The startup times, and general performance are on par with XP (no numbers though). It is far, far faster for most tasks than Vista on a 3GB quad-core machine in our office. The action manager is a nice alternative to the notification area. The task bar, low-rent OSX Dock clone will take some getting used to.

Overall a good review but I disagree on the removal of the calender. Most people I know are using both web mail and a online calender like google's so there is no need to have a default calender along with the added bloat. Microsoft did the smart thing and put the calender in Live Mail for those that insist on sticking with a traditional email and calender solution because these people are likely to be one in the same.

In most cases OEM's are going to include Live Mail in their default configurations so this is not an issue for most people that just get a new os with a new PC.

A lot of the applications like photo gallery, movie maker, etc are available through the live installer. Decoupling the end user apps allows them a lot more autonomy on development cycle.

the calendar I believe is part of the windows live install.

//It is not the WORST Windows i ever used, that distinction goes to Vista, but it is the 2nd one.//

You haven't been around very long, then.

Watch ... businesses will begin bailing on XP on switch to 7.

Wow! I had the exact opposite reaction, and I use XP at work. I find 7 much easier to use and am able to configure it the way I like it. Really I see no major differences from XP except for some of the nice new features like aero peak, better font rendering (in my opinion), a little bling... all good. Performs well on my machine (tho' admittedly my machine is probably better than most users' machines).

What is causing you more clicks? How is it getting in your way as opposed to XP?

Same thing here.

The day I wanted to give 64-bit Win7 RC a try on an average 3-year old Dell, with a nice video card but only 2GB RAM, a try was the last day I ran XP on it.

The usefulness is there and I've been able to index and be productive with it. Only gripe is that it seems to get sluggish quickly (again, only 2GB) ram whereas XP would be just fine on it.

I've been looking at building my next PC or grabbing one from Dell with win7. I like it, but you just gotta have the step up hardware to run it.

I have a core 2 quad w/8GB of RAM so I rarely run into trouble with memory.

Ditto... and I don't think I ever want less in a machine again.

once you go quad, you never go back.

Just having the ability to encode an hour ov video in about 20 minutes makes my day.

Me too. I may try again, though.
Still, i would have liked a "better xp". There's way too much "glitz" in windows 7. Like that "command bar" that you CAN NOT remove from explorer. What's up with that? It gives me retarded "shortcuts" like "burn to cd" and stuff that i know very well how to do, and when i want to do it i'll open up nero or whatever...
And navigating the "control panel" is really confusing. Too many clicks to do simple things. And again these retarded "suggestions" in the side pane. LOL.
Also, one would have liked to think that by know, you could switch GUI/Icon theme without much effort. Think again. And the GUI engine looks pretty much like it have since windows 95 was first released. No, the pretty window borders don't fool me.
Oh, and the icing on the cake was when ActiveX (some .net equivalent) found it's way in to my firefox install without even alerting me about it. Nice touch Microsoft...
Still, it was rather stable though.

What short memories people have... nothing could be worse than the dark ages of Windows 98 and accomplices.

hmm... someone who knows how everything works in the old paradigm hates the new one... what a surprise.

Agreed that it is worse than Vista....but worse than XP? That seems unfair, aren't most release applications designed for XP? As a Mac user I am pretty used to only upgrading the OS once the Apps require it, seems like that is backwards in the Windows world...why not wait until the applications are designed to leverage the OS before you jump out on the bleeding edge?

That said....I still think Apple ought to mail this http://tinyurl.com/yfvazaf to every Windows 7 buyer. Heck their more than halfway there with their latest series of Mac/PC ads.

I guess that depends on what you like in font rendering. After installing Windows 7 RC1 just to see what the hype was about, the very first thing I did was find out which settings in font rendering were the least aggravating for my eyes.

I still vastly prefer the result on my Gnome desktop at "best contrast" setting. But a lot of people seem to have no problems with being shown the rainbow at the edges of their letters. To each his own.

You can install verdana and tune the font rendering settings in xorg too.

Yup, and it still looks like shit.

Dejavu Sans (Bitstream Vera Sans) and Freesans are the way to go. Make sure your web browsers don't allow custom fonts.

However, on Windows, with Cleartype, Verdana and Consolas look the best, IMO (still inferior to the Vera fonts in X, but better looking than w/o subpixel rendering).

Yes, Fedora 11 runs OK on an Athlon XP 2000+ with 512 MB RAM.

I agree about the modern, mainstream statement. However, due to the almost infinite customizability of Linux, there are modern disto's to run on just about every machine. I can run DSL (Damn Small Linux) on Pentium I and II systems - even with Firefox - and get a fairly snappy machine. That's one of the things I like about the FOSS world, there's an entry point for just about everyone.

I also like to install OpenBSD on older laptops. Combined with the default FVWM and "links -g", I can surf just about every site (Gmail, Linux Today, CNN) on any Pentium 1 or better machine. Even with 64MB RAM.

Having said all of that, I also run Windows 7 on a beefy desktop for Games and .NET development. Also, I run it on a netbook with 2GB of ram (I would not go less than 1GB), and find it to be a much-improved OS. Kudos to MS for an improved Windows.

And now I wait for ChromeOS on ARM.

OpenBSD... an OS Grandma could use.

RTM is the full release.

You mean RC? other than the fact that next June it will stop working... not too much changed.

You can mod him down but he will become more powerful than you can ever imagine.

No, sorry. It doesn't have the immovable cashew, it doesn't use a half-developed zoomable UI that breaks when you try to use it, you can't randomly rotate gadgets such that you have to stand on your head to read them, and most of all...

Microsoft listened to their customers when they designed the UI.

If you're gonna troll, do it RIGHT.

But the lack of virtual desktops completely blows my mind.

Most of the people I know could do work on a 5 year old machine running any generic operating system since they do e-mail, surf the web, and occasionally write something, plus they play solitaire. A few more people do something with photos, but most don't use the machine for most of what it can do.

I've known bosses at various work places who had to have the latest machines while other machines were 5 years old. The only reason we upgraded anything is because the machines were causing productivity problems or couldn't run special software.

Here's hoping that Windows 7 doesn't do something stupid like lose people's data or become the biggest botnet on the planet within 1 month.

Much agreed. The Veeps and managers in Mahogany Row will run it with out any compelling reason(and expect Helpdesk to fix it now) And developer and other power users can install it on just about anything that can run it 'reasonably well'. We are not the target market. I mean if I need a feature that I cannot write a script or tiny app for then likely someone else has And I can install it - if it breaks then I will fix it. If I do not get malware it is because I wasn't going to that part of the web.
My concern is what is really going on with that group that keeps dragging the Windows (and MacOS) experience down. The consumer side is so bogged down with trying to keep the GUI to the Lowest Common Denominator while still giving that same user Admin rights.
So here is to hoping.
...BTW this is what they should have released 4+ years ago and with that 'mystical/imaginary' WinFS

To most people, a computer is a fancy appliance. The idea of putting an OS that didn't come with it is sorcery, to left to the learned sages (those of us who don't fear breaking our systems ).

Sad, but that's how it goes. I don't even know if most of them realize it would be possible to just get a new OS. Of those, too many are too afraid to try anything, so might get out off by labor+OS costs v. just buying a new low-end PC.

The best thing would be to push Web surfers to IE8. Or at the very least, IE7. Screw IE6.

//Screw IE6.//

You clearly don't work for a large organization.

I would love to see companies move away from IE6. There are few good reasons to keep it around.

I know about momentum and supported apps, but 7 and 8 are much better security, and few web apps don't have a IE7 compatible version. Furthermore, IE6 is holding you to XP, weather you want to be there or not.

I only support it for specific clients anymore myself, and loathe to do that.

Profit taking proves nothing. Several day traders buy stocks before an event to see the price increase sharply and at the peak, they sell.

Considering how much better the current (not the 1980s U.S. version) Ford Escort is over the best Ford Pinto, there is no reason to doubt that you hold Windows 7 in high esteem.

I don't care to use Windows but everything tells me that Windows 7 is a good advance over Vista and instead of calling Windows the "65 % solution", I might have to revise that to the "72 % solution".

I guess he meant it's a Ford after all, not a Lamborghini or a Ferrari.



Well, it has to be better than Vista. It surely can't get worse. But I don't think it will surpass XP. XP does what 99.9% of people want anyway, and with less hardware, with less compatibility problems. Just because it's new and shiny doesn't make it better. The only thing to consider is security, which is the most important part, as it's what causes the most troubles for most of the PCs out there.