Windows 7

[UncasMS]

you're right atifish

but let's put it this way: if i want a stable and decent system i can as well stay with XP

if i want new features (better or not is to be discussed) and more eye candy then the system requires more ram

of course you can disable many services and reduce optics to a minimum and make vista/7 look like an NT based os and it will perform better then but why not stick to xp in cases like that?

[cynthia]

Had 2GB on the Vista and the week I ran with 3GB it was a completely different story. Before when I ran DVD Rebuilder it took hours before it was back to normal speed and you could forget to use the computer during the run with DVD Rebuilder.

With 3GB it was back to speed at the moment DVD Rebuilder finished and you could use the computer during that time.

With the 8GB in Win7 I don't even notice that DVD Rebuilder is running when I use the computer.

So memory is vital for Vista/Win7.

[photo_angel2004]

Originally Posted by UncasMS

don't even think about running vista/se7en on machines with less then 2-3gb of ram - even 2gb is rather critical!

good info to know. Now all I have to do is print this post out and give it to my 2 friends that think the 512mg sticks are enough. LMFAO!

I am running 1.5 gig on my machine now and I have XP. LOL


My motherboard will only handle 3 gigs or ram so I am thinkin if I would upgrade to 7 time for a new pc.

[MilesAhead]

Originally Posted by cynthia

Had 2GB on the Vista and the week I ran with 3GB it was a completely different story. Before when I ran DVD Rebuilder it took hours before it was back to normal speed and you could forget to use the computer during the run with DVD Rebuilder.

With 3GB it was back to speed at the moment DVD Rebuilder finished and you could use the computer during that time.

With the 8GB in Win7 I don't even notice that DVD Rebuilder is running when I use the computer.

So memory is vital for Vista/Win7.

If I could somehow get it on there I'd be curious how 32 bit Vista SP1 runs on my dual core with 2 GB ram. I bought it with Vista installed before the first SP. Usually a mistake. It has slow explorer file copy and some other quirks. After tuning services, turning off file indexing, and using Everything Search instead of locate32 I got it to a fairly usable system, but I had to use file copy apps to avoid the shell copy.

I hacked it to put on themes so to get SP1 on it would probably take 2 weeks of drudgery. It gets to the 3rd or 4th boot, then says "Service Pack not installed ... rolling back" and boy is that fun after 2 hours!!

Windows 7 runs great on it with 2 GB. I don't do Office type apps that eat up memory so I don't even run a swap file. Smooth as butter.

My quad core came with Vista64 SP1 and I didn't have any of those problems. Only had to tweak 2 or 3 services. The rest were set by default to the settings I did on the first machine(I had a printout with all my service settings produced by LookInMyPC.. very handy tool.)

I think if they waited to the SP1 level of code before putting out Vista most of the hassle would have been side-stepped. Vista64 SP1 is very smooth. Course on this PC I have 8 GB which helps.

[doctorhardware]

When I create an image on another drive with true image. I can install the drive and boot the system and I am done. Yes I can place the drive in a case and open any of the folders with out using any special software.

[atifsh]

Originally Posted by photo_angel2004

good info to know. Now all I have to do is print this post out and give it to my 2 friends that think the 512mg sticks are enough. LMFAO!
.

guess they are right if thats 1 mega gigs lol if that term exists

recently i went to a local vendor with a friend, and i was like............ when the guy told him 512 is enough and 1 gb is required when u do some heavy work, and i was like what the hell does he meant by that.
then he tried to sell him fx 5200 because he wants to play CRYSIS... then i couldnt kept quite lol i guess intels 4500 is better then that stupid thing.

[UncasMS]

Originally Posted by UncasMS

i'm not convinced that it really is faster

it loads some of its services delayed and so it seems like it is ready for use faster but this is rather "cheating" than faster loading

but dont get me wrong: i'm pleased with the speed so far

i've come across this video and the outcome of that test is no surprise:

4 64bit operating system were tested and WIN7 is SLOWEST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88aal...layer_embedded

[drfsupercenter]

Meh, my computer certainly doesn't take 72 seconds to boot.

And I don't know WTF that guy did, but Ubuntu 9.04 boots MUCH faster than 9.10, I upgraded to 9.10 and it takes at least, if not longer than, twice as long to boot. One of my friends who uses Ubuntu pointed out the same thing on his Sony Vaio.

So I don't know what kind of crap that dude had in his startup, he could have easily put in 50,000 programs on Windows 7 and made it take forever to get past that "Welcome" screen. I believe it's all of about 5 seconds for me. (Not booting total, just the welcome screen LOL)

[UncasMS]

did you watch the video entirely???

that "dude" measured the time from starting an os until loading a certain url within a webbrowser

and yes, win7 does take that long - at least my win7/64 takes a similar time

it took me 75 sec from starting the pc to having loaded a predefined internet page

the same pc with xp took more than 10secs less

[MilesAhead]

My Vista64 was taking 2 minutes for a reboot cycle (using BootSpeed script.) I did the boot logging thing and it turned out even though I did PCdecrapifier and also specifically uninstalled Norton, it still had settings in the registry to load Norton drivers that no longer existed. It was timing out waiting for those. I ran the Norton removal tool about 6 times to get rid of it all.

Even after that with services tuning, my warm boot cycle best time was about 78 seconds. 10 or 12 seconds slower than 32 bit Vista. On my quad core machine the usual advice of reduce the number of startup programs etc, had just about zero effect. If I eliminated all my little startup hotkey gadgets it only shaved off about 1 1/2 seconds. It's all those drivers and services loading and file indexing and Lan shadowing and all that. With all that eliminated and my registry optimized with NTREGOPT 78 seconds is as low as I can get it to go.

I don't remember the W7 32 bit time because it's on the secondary machine and I use a kvma switch. I just start it while the monitor is on the primary machine. When I see the network connection is green then I map the drives.

[drfsupercenter]

I know they opened a web browser - but that shouldn't take virtually any time at all once your computer boots.

Mine takes a little over a minute I think, but that's because I have lots of things running like DeskSpace virtual desktops, AVG, Daemon Tools, etc... if I disabled all but Microsoft programs it should go a lot faster (like when I first installed it it was under 30 seconds, I recall)

Still, it might boot a little slower but it works a ton better in the long run, so why get so uptight over boot times?

[MilesAhead]

I wonder if anyone determined how long it takes to initialize Windows On Windows or W.O.W. as they call it? That might be a big part of 64 bit boot sluggishness. It must take a few seconds to launch that virtual 32 bit jazz. My Vista64 seems to be a pretty steady 12 seconds slower than Vista 32 bit(and I bet W7 32 bit) so I wouldn't be surprised if it took 6 or 7 seconds to get that W.O.W. thing up and running.

[UncasMS]

Originally Posted by drfsupercenter

I know they opened a web browser - but that shouldn't take virtually any time at all once your computer boots.

Mine takes a little over a minute I think, ...

Still, it might boot a little slower but it works a ton better in the long run, so why get so uptight over boot times?

first of all i dont think that "should" and "if" are really helpful when criticsing

why dont you actually run a decent test and share your findings?

on my 7/64 it DOES take quite a while after se7en "seems" ready until a browser (firefox 3.5.4) will get started - loading the page afterwards hardly takes time, that's true

secondly, were you not the one asking what an amount of junk that "dude" must be loading via autostart on his ubuntu?

taking a look at all of yours i'd say you two must be twins:

but that's because I have lots of things running like DeskSpace virtual desktops, AVG, Daemon Tools, etc

[drfsupercenter]

Maybe part of the problem lies in how bloated Firefox has become

And I was asking about Ubuntu 9.04 - as every instance of 9.10 I've
seen boots slower than 9.04 on the same computer (I know several people here at the university who use Ubuntu and like myself, have upgraded it)

And I know I have a lot of stuff running, that's because I really don't care. Aside from it taking a little longer than a clean install to boot, it still runs perfectly fast, better than Vista even, so I'm willing to overlook that. (It's like how you can have MS Office boot with Windows, in fact it sets itself up that way - making boots take longer but then Office starts faster. It just depends what's more important, I guess)

[UncasMS]

Sure FF has become bigger but the main reason is what i said a couple of posts before:
se7en PRETENDS to be ready but loads some of its services delayed and this is the main reason why FF or any other tool in autostart takes additional time to be fired up until windows itself has finished loading all the stuff it is programmed to (and some of which not all of us use and therefor disable).