XP->7 Testimony

[L.C.]

NOTE: This post is merely of facts from my observations, not opinion, and thus not qualifying for fanboyism. This is my testimony of the factual, obvious observations I have made within the past couple to few days of my migration

 

Old laptop: Lenovo G530, 2GHz Pentium Dualcore w/ 1MB L2, 2GB DDR2, 250GB SATA HDD, shared Intel GPU w/ 256MB VRAM

New laptop: Lenovo T61, 2GHz Core 2 Duo w/ 4MB L2, 2GB DDR2, same HDD (swapped), dedicated NVIDIA NVS 140M w/ 128MB VRAM

 

Old laptop setup:

I setup Windows XP Professional from scratch, however, ever since its release I have been very carefully fine-tuning Windows XP and experimenting with it over the years, and have gotten to a point where my particular Windows XP Professional disk and tweaks yield XP to run like day #1 after 3+ years. No performance loss over time, snappy, quick, and fast. Everything came up in a bam, and when monitoring the system resources (CPU, RAM, GPU, etc) in programs like Process Explorer and Task Manager, you could figure out which hardware component was bottlenecking the system within mere instant moments of attempting to run an application. Less than 32 running processes (I had certain things like PowerMenu running -- personal preference stuff), and a memory usage of about 250-300MB at boot (about 2-4x more than Linux, depending on which distro you load -- comparing to Parted Magic, Ubuntu Netbook, and Debian Mint).

 

New laptop setup:

Same everything but slightly better, more powerful hardware; same RAM, same HDD. Fresh, vanilla installation of Windows 7 Professional (x64). Through my past couple days, the first several hours setting up about half my programs, I have noticed obvious performance differences.

• The system bottlenecks on RAM
  
• Programs are slow to start (might be in correlation to RAM)
  

EVEN if Windows 7 manages memory differently than XP, one thing is definitely clear: Windows 7 is far more demanding on memory and resultingly suffers related consequences. In comparison, XP would be like Linux to 7. Linux is fast, packs a punch, and bams! everything at you when you do things; XP was the same experience to me (note: I often use Parted Magic, related distros, and had Debian Mint setup in dual-boot on old lappy, so I know what I'm talking about what I am making these comparisons). Windows 7 is quite, very obviously, on the contrary.

 

 

 

I have Aero turned off (using Classic), black solid background (no wallpaper), turned off all Windows audio sounds and boot sound, turned off screensaver, turned off power savings for PCI-E, set minimum CPU state to 100% for Plugged In, unchecked useless things from the Startup tab in msconfig, manually set number of processors in msconfig to 2 (which is what I have, and permits to set to at most), I installed latest version of Diskeeper Pro (genuine) very soon after completing OS installation and defragmented both partitions (and now they are kept defragmented), I am using the latest drivers for everything, I am using enhanced video drivers for my NVS 140M. I have the very latest Windows Updates (including SP1 and post-SP1 patches). I have components of my laptop that I don't use (like ExpressCard and modem, for example) disabled via BIOS. I updated the BIOS firmware long before installing the OS (there was a handful of versions missed out on).

 

If there is something I haven't done, please let me know or suggest something. Obviously, at this point, I need to get another stick of RAM (or replace current sticks) with 4GB, the max my laptop's motherboard will support.

[JoWie]

I did the same thing half a year ago. I now have a laptop with i7, nvidia 330M (optimus), 4gb RAM, normal HDD. It is an incredible step up from my old windows xp laptop.

I have no issues with running out of memory. I often have 2 virtual machines running (windows XP & xubuntu) or a recent game on full settings (although usually not full AA).

 

Measuring actual physical memory usage in windows 7 is can be tricky, a lot of the data in the taskmanager, perfmon, etc is not just the physical usage. If you open the taskmanager, go to performance and click the resource monitor button. In the window that pops up hit the memory tab, the bar below is a much better indicator.

Note that windows 7 tries its best to not have any free ram (this is a good thing), I usually have between 0 and 25 MB free.

 

More RAM will help, but I am not sure this is your big bottle neck (when looking at the size of your memory)

Edited March 11, 2011 by JoWie

[Drake7707]

My laptop runs smoother in windows 7 than it has in windows xp while it only has 1.5gb ram (2gb - 512mb shared with gfx card) and I never really had issues with being out of memory (though I don't really play the latest games anymore). I doubt 2gb vs 4gb will make much difference (unless you open a lot of things simultaneously that all require a lot of ram).

 

Vista was/felt faster than XP, 7 is/feels faster than vista.

 

Don't underestimate the speed of your HDD as a bottleneck, my work laptop with an 128gb SSD is 100 times faster than my laptop at home, while the rest is only slightly better (cpu, memory) in my work laptop.

 

I don't know if disabling aero will make your computer any faster, all the window frames are using the gfx card anyway.

 

In perfmon (start -> run -> perfmon) you can add all sort of counters (much much more detailed than looking in task manager) to see what the bottleneck is.

 

Windows 7 also monitors any performance bottlenecks. You can find those entries in the Event Viewer under: Applications & Services logs -> Microsoft -> Windows -> Diagnostics-Performance.

[»SD>Big]

my win7 runs amazing and i do not make any modifications to the OS, it is pretty much stuck (some small tweaks). dell D630 latitude with a full core 2 duo 2.5ghz 4gb ram and an intel x-25 ssd.

 

the ssd makes molto bene.

 

i def find it faster than XP was on this laptop. faster boot, faster loading of apps.

[Yupa]

Make sure DWM isn't running, just switching to the classic theme doesn't stop it.

 

Makes Windows 7 almost as tolerable as other versions of Windows: http://classicshell.sf.net/

Performance opts: http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/51174-visual-effects-performance-options-shortcut-create.html

 

But yeah, use Linux.

[Dr Brain]

I found the opposite of your findings. I found that my computer ran much more smoothly on Win 7 than XP. Perhaps because it's an older computer the drivers aren't as well supported? It might fall into that middle ground where it's too new for Microsoft to include it with the OS and too old for the OEM to get any $ from writing decent drivers.

[L.C.]

(EDIT: According to some people at HardForum, Windows Classic uses more resources than Aero.

 

 

...)

 

 

 

BTW, on HardForum this thread didn't go very well. Too many ignorant and arrogant idiots, many of whom I think have no idea what they're talking about when it comes down to analyzing the times.

 

We as a world have come to a point where to perform the same basic functions on a computer does not require more hardware juice/power, more RAM, more CPU, more GPU. It's logarithmic, and it has already been written about and proven that, for example, the closer you approach to having 256 cores the less and less of a gain you actually get for each additional core.

 

Remember the days when a 128MB RAM upgrade made such a huge difference? Those days are over. Adding more RAM generally won't make any noticeable difference. More CPU won't do as much either. SSDs are the next thing, but trust me, it won't make a difference soon enough.

 

 

 

I *fear*, yes, I really do fear, that with the way things are going, 10 years down the road when we might be able to put 32GB of RAM into our desktop systems and have 16-core 5GHz CPUs with 32MB L2/L3 caches and 4TB+ per computer.. Microsoft would have a minimum requirements on Windows requiring at least 24GB of RAM, an 8-core CPU of at least 12MB cache, a GPU with at least 1GB VRAM, and at least 512GB of diskspace for the OS. I mean, how ridiculous is this? For the same basic tasks, requirements have gone up when we've already exceeded the hardware requirements for performing the same functions? wt?

 

What I think Microsoft did with Vista and 7, having different memory handling, is to design the memory handling for TODAY'S paradigm. That is, if we go 10-20 years into the future when we might be able (not necessarily HAVE) insane amounts of RAM in our desktop systems, Windows 7 will be awful because it wasn't designed with systems having ridiculous massive amounts of RAM (32GB-128GB).

 

There is a point where it has to stop, and if it doesn't, then that only proves my thinking all the more plausible.

 

 

 

Oh, and here's my HardForum thread for entertainment value: http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1592290

Edited March 12, 2011 by L.C.

[Avast]

In 10 years all Copper wiring will be replaced by Fiber Optic.

 

Less heat and tons more data transfer.

 

Also Windows 7 is basically Windows Vista renamed. All the problems I have had with Windows 7 that I Googled bring up the same problems on Vista. I just installed Service Pack one a few days ago, so maybe SP1 for Windows 7 brings improvements.

 

Regardless I have had tons of errors with this OS. Files not deleting, despite setting permissions, and even using the hidden admin account as my default account. I had actually select the whole fucking C drive, and set it to admin. Even though it was already set to admin. But after that finished 20 minutes later. It finally deleted the files I wanted. Trying to set permission on the files themselves. Didn't work. The option wasn't even there. Same with the folders, sub folders, and anything else. Thats the whole reason I had to do the whole C drive. Fail OS. Did I mention this is on the admin account where everything should bet set to admin.. seeing as its the admin account.. and EVERYTHING was set to admin.. and still fail OS.

 

Them defaulting my hard drive to shut down in power options. Who told them I want that to happen? XP never did shit like that. That's another thing, who told them to hide the Admin account? I am the Admin, I don't need hidden crap on my own computer that I find out about later after I make a normal User Account. There was also various other serious problems. Right now im using 2.86 Gigs of Ram. What a Joke. Tiny XP would use 100Mb of ram only with 23 processes or less.

 

Give me Tiny XP SP3 over Windows 7 ANYDAY.

 

However windows 7 has lots of eye candy.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Avast

[»Lynx]

Towards the end of your initial post, you mentioned that you turned off a lot of services, I fear that you're turning things off that need not be turned off. I've always found (when using a system that meets Win7 minimum requirements) that Win7 is much faster than XP, and stays faster for longer (out of the box). I've found that even hackintosh systems are much faster than XP systems.

 

Anyway, I've not measured any differences (no point...) but I've read benchmarking articles that generally agree that Win7 is much better.

 

... 10 years down the road when we might be able to put 32GB of RAM into our desktop systems and have 16-core 5GHz CPUs with 32MB L2/L3 caches and 4TB+ per computer.. Microsoft would have a minimum requirements on Windows requiring at least 24GB of RAM, an 8-core CPU of at least 12MB cache, a GPU with at least 1GB VRAM, and at least 512GB of diskspace for the OS. I mean, how ridiculous is this? For the same basic tasks, requirements have gone up when we've already exceeded the hardware requirements for performing the same functions? wt?

 

... Where does this even come from? Lol

[Dr Brain]

BTW, on HardForum this thread didn't go very well.

 

Not surprising. You have no scientific data, only opinions that you expect others to accept without question.

 

Which basic OS tasks have gone up in requirements? If you think about it rationally, you'll find that they haven't. You expect a lot more functionality from your OS than you used to, and that comes with a price.

 

In 10 years all Copper wiring will be replaced by Fiber Optic.

 

Good luck with that. Transferring even 100W of power through optical cabling requires lasers that can kill.

[Drake7707]

Give me Tiny XP SP3 over Windows 7 ANYDAY.

I've used TinyXP before but I hit one wall after another. Things not working like they should, unable to run programs, not being able to install .NET framework, thus meaning not being able to run any .NET applications, etc. is unacceptable.

 

Regardless I have had tons of errors with this OS. Files not deleting, despite setting permissions, and even using the hidden admin account as my default account. I had actually select the whole fucking C drive, and set it to admin. Even though it was already set to admin. But after that finished 20 minutes later. It finally deleted the files I wanted. Trying to set permission on the files themselves. Didn't work. The option wasn't even there. Same with the folders, sub folders, and anything else. Thats the whole reason I had to do the whole C drive. Fail OS. Did I mention this is on the admin account where everything should bet set to admin.. seeing as its the admin account.. and EVERYTHING was set to admin.. and still fail OS.

 

Why would anyone use the hidden admin in windows 7 ? You could just give yourself admin rights. Being an admin however doesn't mean that you have elevated rights at all time, UAC will ask you if you want to grant a program elevated rights or not, even for windows explorer. This system is much more like it is used in linux (and it's much more secure). In XP admin meant being able to do everything, in Vista and 7 admin means being able to grant yourself the rights to do something that requires elevated permissions.

[JoWie]

When setting file permissions like that, always set yourself as owner first (recursively), this saves a lot of trouble.

[Avast]

http://www.jmfiberoptics.com/Links/FOInfo/intro.htm

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1DRrAhQJtM

 

Yes it will definitely happen. No need to tell me Good Luck. I am not the one who will make it happen. In less than 100 years civilization has evolved in too many ways to even list. So I don't even see how you think in 10 years it's not possible to switch to Fiber Optics. They were already considering it in 2000. Intel for example, already switched to Fiber Optics in a few things if you do your research. Which I won't do for you beyond what is here.

 

Power is hardly an issue. You think when they use Fiber Optics they will continue to use or even need 100W to power a computer, then your some funny type of programmer. Stick to software. Obviously they will use ten times less power, and get the same results at 10 times faster speeds.

 

http://news.cnet.com/Fiber-optics-may-speed-PCs/2100-1006_3-274632.html

 

2001 article, and they said Could begin to replace Copper in the next 7 years. That's right we already begun. In 10 more years it will be noticeable. Because it will be your whole desktop computer.

 

When setting file permissions like that, always set yourself as owner first (recursively), this saves a lot of trouble.

 

Actually I haven't had to recursively set anything for a long time. And thanks for the "tips" But I know how to use Windows 7 and how permissions work, it was not user error, ignorance, or lack of anything on my part. The Os is faulty and it was a problem they carried over from Vista.

[Avast]

Give me Tiny XP SP3 over Windows 7 ANYDAY.

I've used TinyXP before but I hit one wall after another. Things not working like they should, unable to run programs, not being able to install .NET framework, thus meaning not being able to run any .NET applications, etc. is unacceptable.

 

Well I installed .NET framework just fine on my TINY XP machine, in fact its still there. You can't do much without it, so I wouldn't have used the OS if that was the case. And everything works for me.

Edited March 12, 2011 by Avast

[Dr Brain]

Power is hardly an issue. You think when they use Fiber Optics they will continue to use or even need 100W to power a computer, then your some funny type of programmer. Stick to software. Obviously they will use ten times less power, and get the same results at 10 times faster speeds.

 

I'm not a programmer. I'm an electrical engineer, and I've actually worked on a project where we evaluated transferring power via light. You'll note that article talks about moving to fiber for data, and not power. Most of the copper wiring in a house (by mass) is power, and not data. That copper isn't going anywhere (it might change to Al if copper prices keep going the way they are, but they will *not* be optical).

 

While it's nice to think that optical computing is just around the corner, the truth is that it's still very theoretical. Any move toward optical will be for data cables that have to traverse many miles where the attenuation makes a big difference, and not the power grid, and not within a home.

 

And none of that will affect LC's Win 7 experience (or lack thereof).

[Samapico]

I believe Avast was indeed talking about all copper wiring that is used to transfer data, even though it wasn't clear . Replacing the power supply with a laser machine would be stupid and inefficient.

[Cheese]

dr, dont waste your time on fools, its too important

[L.C.]

you mentioned that you turned off a lot of service

No I didn't.

[Avast]

I believe Avast was indeed talking about all copper wiring that is used to transfer data, even though it wasn't clear . Replacing the power supply with a laser machine would be stupid and inefficient.

 

Yep, thanks.

 

Your right for electrical in a house it wouldn't work brain.

[JoWie]

 

When setting file permissions like that, always set yourself as owner first (recursively), this saves a lot of trouble.

 

Actually I haven't had to recursively set anything for a long time. And thanks for the "tips" But I know how to use Windows 7 and how permissions work, it was not user error, ignorance, or lack of anything on my part. The Os is faulty and it was a problem they carried over from Vista.

 

I never said the user or OS was at fault. I merely stated it because this saved me a lot of trouble, especially when accessing external ntfs harddrives. Even when I am an administrator, windows 7 often refuses to set permissions unless you make yourself owner.

[Drake7707]

Give me Tiny XP SP3 over Windows 7 ANYDAY.

I've used TinyXP before but I hit one wall after another. Things not working like they should, unable to run programs, not being able to install .NET framework, thus meaning not being able to run any .NET applications, etc. is unacceptable.

 

Well I installed .NET framework just fine on my TINY XP machine, in fact its still there. You can't do much without it, so I wouldn't have used the OS if that was the case. And everything works for me.

 

Ah interesting, I might have used an older version then. Hmmm this could be handy to set up in a virtual machine

 

I never said the user or OS was at fault. I merely stated it because this saved me a lot of trouble, especially when accessing external ntfs harddrives. Even when I am an administrator, windows 7 often refuses to set permissions unless you make yourself owner.

 

I second this, even when logged in as domain administrator I didn't have rights to change permissions of a file (in this case a shortcut on the public desktop) because the owner was the local administrator of the terminal server (and this difference took me a long to realize).

[»Maverick]

[...] . I installed latest version of Diskeeper Pro (genuine) very soon after completing OS installation and defragmented both partitions (and now they are kept defragmented) [...]

If I were you, I would not install any extra software for defragmenting the drives as Windows is capable of doing that by itself:

http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/01/26/how-windows-7-handles-disk-defragmenting/

[Samapico]

^

 

 

Especially Windows 7...

[Gradius]

I predict that Windows 7 is somewhat good, but not fully reliable. But in search, drivers are the main source of problems.

[L.C.]

Windows 7 does a pretty good job of finding drivers. I only had 2 or 3 drivers Windows couldn't do, but it gave me direct links to the correct driver from the correct manufacturer for those.