Some Simple Windows 7 Benchmarks

[rayzoredge 2]

WIndows 7 actually needs less specs then windows Vista did.

We'll see when Microsoft publishes the minimum and recommended system requirements for this operating system. (I also want to know what specifications are required to run it well in conjunction with other programs... not what it needs.)

[Baniboy 3]

Well, for you guys to have something to compare to, I've made benchmarks from my computer running on vista premium.Model: HP DV7-1090 (laptop)processor: amd turion X2 Ultra Dual-Core Mobile ZM-80 2.10 GHzRAM: 3 GBGRAPHICS: ATI Mobility Radeon HD 3450 256 MBWell my PC is a little different but at least you can compare them somehow... better than nothing? right?!Here are the benchmarks, I don't have any video but you can trust me :PBoot: 01.29 min (appears to be a little slower than tramp's pc)Some common programs I use:Firefox: 1 secGimp: 7 secMacromedia flash 8: 8 secVLC media player: 0.5 secWMP: 1.5 secCrimson editor: 1 secIf you want me to try a program on vista, just ask me(if it's not freeware I might not have it but you can try asking if I have).

Edited January 14, 2009 by baniboy (see edit history)

[dualstriker 0]

I've just installed Windows 7 and the first thing I noticed was that it uses way more RAM than XP did. I have not yet reached the 1GB mark while using XP for just surfing the net, but in Windows 7, it's just 10-30MB short of reaching 1GB, though it is understandable that Windows 7 would use more RAM since it has some features that XP does not have. I still cannot say if I would buy Windows 7 if it were released, but if it were to use lesser RAM, I think I would definitely buy it after it releases.

[Tramposch 1]

I don't think you can really expect it to use less RAM. Any system you buy today and even from 2007 on has way more than enough RAM to run Windows 7. Using 1GB is nothing. If you're concerned about it using too much, then you probably don't have a new enough system to run it efficiently.

[rayzoredge 2]

I've just installed Windows 7 and the first thing I noticed was that it uses way more RAM than XP did. I have not yet reached the 1GB mark while using XP for just surfing the net, but in Windows 7, it's just 10-30MB short of reaching 1GB, though it is understandable that Windows 7 would use more RAM since it has some features that XP does not have. I still cannot say if I would buy Windows 7 if it were released, but if it were to use lesser RAM, I think I would definitely buy it after it releases.

RAM is relatively cheap nowadays, and as much of an advocate as I am that the operating system/software shouldn't dictate what you need as opposed to what it has to its disposal to utilize efficiently, you might want to throw more RAM into your system to catch up with the times, not to mention run your other programs more efficiently and have an overall better computing experience. (There's a pretty large difference between having 1GB of RAM and 2GB of RAM... trust me. ) Remember:

"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM!" -- Bill Gates, 1981

[websey 0]

haha microsoft not make a failure with the 1st release of an operating system are you sure ????Look I hate microsft with such a hatred it is unbelievable, I have a duel boot system one running Knoppix linux and one running XP....But even 2 - 3 years ago i would not have turned from linux to XP it is only since Xp has become such a solid fairly secure system that i use oit now and that is only for gaming due to incompatibility with my gfx card under linux And look i do quite like xp but for the first few years it was about as useful a chocolate fireguard and about as secure as a whole in your wall....And then vista came along lol and what a crash and burn that was microsoft reps under selling specs going oh yes you only need 512mb ram for running it lol what a joke you need at least 512mb ram to run xp let alone the beast that is vista....And then a few years later cos they knew they messed up here comes windows 7 which tbh is going to be a load of poo as well....why because microsoft have forgotten how to make good software and are so assured of there complete strangle hold on the market they can pump what ever rubbish they want into it.....If this was one of the other big companie people wouldnt buy it but because it is microsoft you have to....and this is due to the fact that everyone isnt going to mass emmigrate to linux which is new and scary lol....anyway tbh i should of started a new I hate microsoft thread but hey ho never mindlaters guyswebsey

[dualstriker 0]

RAM is relatively cheap nowadays, and as much of an advocate as I am that the operating system/software shouldn't dictate what you need as opposed to what it has to its disposal to utilize efficiently, you might want to throw more RAM into your system to catch up with the times, not to mention run your other programs more efficiently and have an overall better computing experience. (There's a pretty large difference between having 1GB of RAM and 2GB of RAM... trust me. )

If I were to buy more RAM (I have 2GB in my disposal right now), I would want to make the most out of them. I would prefer to use a low RAM consuming OS rather than a high RAM consuming one given that both can run the same software. I think the best bet for XP to retire is to not create good software for XP and fully support any new Microsoft OS.

[rayzoredge 2]

If I were to buy more RAM (I have 2GB in my disposal right now), I would want to make the most out of them. I would prefer to use a low RAM consuming OS rather than a high RAM consuming one given that both can run the same software. I think the best bet for XP to retire is to not create good software for XP and fully support any new Microsoft OS.

I completely agree with you on that one, which is why I have such bias against Vista and the fact that it hoards resources for some reason unbeknownst to me. (Supposedly Vista makes the most use of your RAM by utilizing what's free and idling... which is why there's a constant load on your RAM.) If anyone can tell me why in Vista that your RAM is under constant load, that would be great.

Software is still going to be made compatible with XP for quite some time just because Vista has an 18% usage rate (or something along those lines) when you look at the whole picture of consumer/commercial OS use. Until people will be convinced that Vista has been improved or until Windows 7 receives a successful debut, XP will still stay as a viable "downgrade" option for computer manufacturers, consequently keeping the software development field in an XP mentality. (Heck... we still have software compatible with Windows 2000.)

[Tramposch 1]

I completely agree with you on that one, which is why I have such bias against Vista and the fact that it hoards resources for some reason unbeknownst to me. (Supposedly Vista makes the most use of your RAM by utilizing what's free and idling... which is why there's a constant load on your RAM.) If anyone can tell me why in Vista that your RAM is under constant load, that would be great.
Software is still going to be made compatible with XP for quite some time just because Vista has an 18% usage rate (or something along those lines) when you look at the whole picture of consumer/commercial OS use. Until people will be convinced that Vista has been improved or until Windows 7 receives a successful debut, XP will still stay as a viable "downgrade" option for computer manufacturers, consequently keeping the software development field in an XP mentality. (Heck... we still have software compatible with Windows 2000.)

XP will only be a viable option until 2010, when Microsoft won't be selling it anymore. I also assume they won't be making many updates for it, either. We all know Vista was a failure. Even Microsoft knows it. It is a decent OS, but it isn't very practical for most people, especially as an upgrade. If you are buying a system, however, I would get Vista with it. But as I have advocated since the first time I tried Windows 7, it shows promise. It has a great design, it is incredibly stable (and was so even in pre-beta builds), and adds many new features that both a "normal user" and power users would use. I can't see Windows 7 being a failure. It is a huge step up from Vista and XP. It uses a lot less resources, and uses the ones it needs very efficiently. I have the beta installed as my primary OS right now, and when I get my MacBook I will be using it as a dual boot. I highly recommend checking out Windows 7 and at least giving it a shot. It is truly an outstanding operating system.

[Tramposch 1]

The boot time is now 32 seconds. Btw

[rayzoredge 2]

XP will only be a viable option until 2010, when Microsoft won't be selling it anymore. I also assume they won't be making many updates for it, either. We all know Vista was a failure. Even Microsoft knows it. It is a decent OS, but it isn't very practical for most people, especially as an upgrade. If you are buying a system, however, I would get Vista with it. But as I have advocated since the first time I tried Windows 7, it shows promise. It has a great design, it is incredibly stable (and was so even in pre-beta builds), and adds many new features that both a "normal user" and power users would use. I can't see Windows 7 being a failure. It is a huge step up from Vista and XP. It uses a lot less resources, and uses the ones it needs very efficiently. I have the beta installed as my primary OS right now, and when I get my MacBook I will be using it as a dual boot. I highly recommend checking out Windows 7 and at least giving it a shot. It is truly an outstanding operating system.

I do see the promise that Windows 7 may bring, and I can see some things that can count towards the vast improvement from the Vista OS. I think you forgot/didn't see that I mentioned in another thread that I did use Windows 7, but I downloaded the first build (7000? can't remember) and I couldn't do what I wanted with the OS, like streaming to my Xbox 360, running MagicDisc, and other such things. (I don't know if it's just my luck, but I couldn't stand knowing that the stuff I wanted to do with the OS just didn't fly... not to mention the whole "amazing stability" of Windows 7 just wasn't there for me, with it having hung on me a few times.)

I will definitely be waiting for a release candidate before trying Windows 7 again. I would go out and see about snagging a later build beta to play around with it some more, but why bother?

As far as the 32-second boot time goes, I wonder if M$ would be willing to look into instant-on technology or work with other companies that have already achieve 3-second boot times. What really should be in the works is the ability to instantly boot into an environment with Internet and basic application abillities WITH the actual operating system loading in the background. (I believe ASUS has already partnered with a third party to offer instant boot on some select motherboards, but it's an environment of its own where you would have to specifically request to boot into the main OS as opposed to my idea of the main OS loading up in the background as you work in the instant-on environment.) Anyone with me on this? Of course!