Linked by David Adams on Wed 29th Oct 2008 20:51 UTC, submitted by Jeremy13
Windows Loyd Case over at ExtremeTech attended Microsoft's technical briefing of Windows 7 and can't help but compare how the new operating system will be better than Vista. Key features are better user support, stability, performance, and many other things. Sounds like a broken record? Probably, but Microsoft learned a lot after Vista launched, and they'll be careful not to repeat a lot of the same mistakes twice.
Thread beginning with comment 335591
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Windows 7 uses less memory than Vista
by soonerproud on Thu 30th Oct 2008 03:23 UTC in reply to "still a compromise"
soonerproud
Member since:
2008-03-05

You need to watch the introduction video of Windows 7 by Steve Sinofsky. He specifically demoed a netbook with a 1 gig Atom processor and 1 gig of memory running Windows 7 Ultimate in all of it's glory (That means Aero is enabled too) and only using 500 megs of memory.

Steve specifically said that the work reducing the memory footprint in Windows 7 is not complete yet and they will be reducing it even more to around 300 megs. Even XP, when configured for modern hardware and running anti-virus and anti-adware software easily uses more that 500 megs of memory.

Edited 2008-10-30 03:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

I have been running vista ultimate on my MSI wind notebook for a couple of months now.
When I installed it I expected it to suck badly but strangely that did not happen.
Boot time is about 1m20 Seconds, MEM usage about 500 Mb (including AVG free and Spybot S&D), battery life is about 2h30. Wake from sleep is less than 5 seconds. Nothing in vista is disabled or tweaked for performance (full Aero on and superfetch).
UI is not super snappy but not worse than XP home.

I tried to install a number of different OS'es on this machine and the status was:

Opensuse 11 (fail, no network, no sleep)
Ubuntu 8.04 (fail, no network, no bluetooth, no sleep)
OpenSolaris (ok, slow as a dog, battery 1h only, no sleep)
FreeBSD (failed install).
XP (ok, wireless LAN unstable after wake from sleep)
Vista (ok, errors in eventlog but no visible problems).

Jens

Reply Parent Score: 2

cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

I have been running vista ultimate on my MSI wind notebook for a couple of months now.
When I installed it I expected it to suck badly but strangely that did not happen.
Boot time is about 1m20 Seconds, MEM usage about 500 Mb (including AVG free and Spybot S&D), battery life is about 2h30. Wake from sleep is less than 5 seconds. Nothing in vista is disabled or tweaked for performance (full Aero on and superfetch).
UI is not super snappy but not worse than XP home.

I tried to install a number of different OS'es on this machine and the status was:

Opensuse 11 (fail, no network, no sleep)
Ubuntu 8.04 (fail, no network, no bluetooth, no sleep)
OpenSolaris (ok, slow as a dog, battery 1h only, no sleep)
FreeBSD (failed install).
XP (ok, wireless LAN unstable after wake from sleep)
Vista (ok, errors in eventlog but no visible problems).

Jens


Ignoring the technical stuff. You put a 2 year old £300 operating system on a £350 computer, rather than put a
the cutting edge free 8.10 Ubuntu out errm today?? and thats without any kind of Office applications lol perhaps you should get £350 Microsoft Office for it as well ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

He specifically demoed a netbook with a 1 gig Atom processor and 1 gig of memory running Windows 7 Ultimate in all of it's glory (That means Aero is enabled too) and only using 500 megs of memory.


Unused memory is wasted memory. It's not important how much memory is used but that the memory is used effectively.

Reply Parent Score: 2

SANGEKi Member since:
2006-11-30

Even XP, when configured for modern hardware and running anti-virus and anti-adware software easily uses more that 500 megs of memory.


My XP installation is using about 78 MB right after boot up.
That is without AntiVirus and such but there is no way that's going to take 400 MB unless you are using Norton/Symantec products.

Even after running for a while with multiple tabs open in Firefox it's usually around 150 - 250 MB.

Edited 2008-10-30 08:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

soonerproud Member since:
2008-03-05

My XP installation is using about 78 MB right after boot up.
That is without AntiVirus and such but there is no way that's going to take 400 MB unless you are using Norton/Symantec products.

Even after running for a while with multiple tabs open in Firefox it's usually around 150 - 250 MB.


I call shens. Go back and read what I said once again because i specifically pointed out that once you configure XP for modern hardware (That includes installing all your drivers) it easily sucks up memory. Yeah you can make XP use less than 100 megs of memory, if you like a crippled system or are using really old hardware and software.

Edited 2008-10-30 14:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1