Is it not on a new kernel and using less memory?
Windows 7
- Thread starter Samlaptop
- Start date
Is it not on a new kernel and using less memory?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,750
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Same kernal as Vista. I think it has a smaller memory footprint, but that's due to less services enabled as default.
They don't - it's not meant to be there. The taskbar wasn't enabled because it's not finished.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 9,712
- Location
- Retired Don
The only reason holding me back from installing it as a main OS is that I will have to do a reinstall every time a major new build comes out!!
I'll prob do it when Beta 1 comes out maybe.
I'll prob do it when Beta 1 comes out maybe.
I know the feeling. Beta 1 would be a good bet. According to an article on El Reg today, they're expecting a Public Beta 1 before Christmas and an RC in Q1 or Q2 of next year. Nothing said about a Beta 2 - so it's either not public, non-existant or 'don't know'.
Quite like the look o this, feels much snappier
Any new install of OS would do!
In fact 7 is the same performance as Vista.
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251&from=rss
That's a bit of a dreary article. I'm not doubting the lack of performance increases, but it basically ends by saying 'it's going to be crap, and it's going to have new and crippling compatiblity issues'. Being essentially the same as Vista, it's not likely to have any compatiblity issues that Vista doesn't already have.
I'm also struggling to believe that those tests proved Vista was 40% slower than XP... because it certainly doesn't feel it.
Vista is a nice OS but for legacy 32bit games it just doesn't seem to cut it for me, well not for World of Warcraft at least.
I'm not sure if it's the 32bit emulation but the game performs far more smoothly on XP 32bit with a crippled 3GB RAM than with Vista 64bit with full 8GB, it's a shame really.
I've thought about trying Vista 32bit to see if it's any better but with only 3GB RAM available I'd rather just use XP.
I'm not sure if it's the 32bit emulation but the game performs far more smoothly on XP 32bit with a crippled 3GB RAM than with Vista 64bit with full 8GB, it's a shame really.
I've thought about trying Vista 32bit to see if it's any better but with only 3GB RAM available I'd rather just use XP.
The Game's 32-bit, so it can't make use of all the RAM. The 32-bit isn't emulation, it just switches the processor to 32-bit mode for that thread. There's no difference in performance.
I don't think running Vista 32-bit is going to make any difference.
Well like I said I'm not sure of the reason but there IS a massive difference in performance, not in frame-rates but XP feels a far more smoother experience for this particular game, Vista 64 is just stutter after stutter.
I'm aware that 32bit applications still have the memory limit but my point is Vista has an extra 5GB to play with, more or less allowing 3GB to be dedicated to the game and it still can't manage to run the game as smoothly as XP does (for whatever reason).
I particularly like this post in the comments to that "article"
I have no problems with benchmarking the O/S and commenting on performance and the like, but when the person that analyzes and presents these results says: "the process lists are similar" I'm forced to wonder what the guy is smoking. OK, so you have have smss.exe, csrss.exe, winlogon.exe, a bunch of svchost.exe processes. That really says nothing about the underlying architecture of the operating system and the amount of differences that are there. This guy might as well have said "I looked at Word '97 and Word 2007 and they're both named 'winword.exe' and let you edit text. I'm struck by those similarities!" Anyone expecting Windows 7 to be a radical departure from Windows Vista is delusional, all the more so if that expectation involved vastly different process lists. Also, this guy compares the video encoding performance of Vista and Windows 7 and says there's no performance improvements... That has got to the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Seriously. It might very well be that Windows 7 is as slow as Vista. Maybe it's even slower. But you will never know that by comparing how long video encoding takes on each of them. Video encoding is a CPU-bound process, so nothing Windows 7 does can improve the video encoding performance of any machine because it cannot just magically improve your CPUs clock speed. All other things being equal, any gains from encoding german scheisse porn on Windows 7 over doing so on Windows Vista are going to be negligible at best.