Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Windows 7 high on system resources

windows 7 (2009) needs double the RAM of windows xp (2001), and somebody find it surprising?

does OSX SL run smoothly on OSX Puma's hardware (256MB RAM)?
 
While that situation is not a good one for MS, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

OSX is anything but svelte. Its conumes huge amounts of ram on its own. Compared with Linux (which can easily run on 512meg) OSX is quite bloated.
 
maflynn said:
While that situation is not a good one for MS, people in glass houses should not throw stones.

OSX is anything but svelte. Its conumes huge amounts of ram on its own. Compared with Linux (which can easily run on 512meg) OSX is quite bloated.
Click to expand...

Linux?? It's barely passable as a desktop OS, when it actually works. There isn't even any comparison between Linux and the OS X Experience.
 
I don't see this in my systems. My netbook (Atom N280, 1GB RAM) runs about 70% RAM and 10% CPU most of the time. My iMac (2.4GHz, 4GB) under Windows 7 runs about 50% RAM and 20% CPU when running WoW, Firefox, iTunes. For me Windows 7 has been less of a resource hog than XP.
 
Windows 7 uses RAM much the way OS X does, it will consume all that is available and make excellent use of it. Windows 7 is much more scalable and friendly to various types of hardware than Windows XP.
 
Oh, fun. More FUD.

I have installed 7 on four different machines, and I am yet to see this happen. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but I haven't seen it. In comparison to XP, it has been using more RAM. On my main gaming machine that had Vista, it dropped the RAM usage in half. Before, it was using almost 2GB at idle. After installing 7, it dropped to around 1GB. I would also like to see if they are using 64 bit across the board. 64 bit systems use more memory, and if they are comparing 32 bit XP to 64 bit Win7, it is a bit unfair.

I also noticed that in order to join this XPnet, you have to install their software. I suspect they may have a problem with their software and/or reporting metrics. Win7 changed the way memory is managed, and allocates more memory to prefetching/caching. When needed, it will re-allocate that memory to applications. If they are still using XP style metrics to measure memory usage, it will not report correctly.
 
*LTD* said:
Linux?? It's barely passable as a desktop OS, when it actually works. There isn't even any comparison between Linux and the OS X Experience.
Click to expand...

its more than passable, for what most people use it for.

for most people, the downfall of linux is the same as the downfall of OSX, abysmal flash content performance.

the article Op linked, portrays a windows 7 system that will "ALWAYS" slow down with several hours of usage, which is utterly crap and false.
 
MisterMe said:
You're joking, right?
Click to expand...

why asking a question you already know answer to? lets remove that meaningless step and ask whatever real question you have, okay?

to the op, here is my win7, haven't rebooted for 10 days. system has 2G Ram

ram.png
 
clevin said:
why asking a question you already know answer to? lets remove that meaningless step and ask whatever real question you have, okay?

to the op, here is my win7, haven't rebooted for 10 days. system has 2G Ram

ram.png
Click to expand...

I posted the story because I thought some would find it interesting - I have no opinions, negative or positive - other than what I originally posted.

( btw - I have never been impressed with any version of windows - I have always found the whole windows experience clunky and rather unpleasant. Unfortunately, my work dictates I have to use the crap day in, day out. )
 
Then why post? I have found that W7 has been a welcomed upgrade to my XP box and have been nothing but pleased. If you don't care, then why post a non-apple related story on a mac website?

Stella said:
I posted the story because I thought some would find it interesting - I have no opinions, negative or positive.

( btw - I have never been impressed with any version of windows - I have always found the whole windows experience clunky and rather unpleasant. Unfortunately, my work dictates I have to use the crap day in, day out. )
Click to expand...
 
xIGmanIx said:
Then why post? I have found that W7 has been a welcomed upgrade to my XP box and have been nothing but pleased. If you don't care, then why post a non-apple related story on a mac website?
Click to expand...

I'll repeat -
*Because Thought it may be of interest to others*

The forum is "Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion" - I think other OSes certainly fall into the "industry" category.

P.S
I'll glad your pleased with your XP Box.
 
Stella said:
What on earth are you talking about?
Click to expand...

Seven out of the seventeen comments are from two Canadians. The thread is about Windows being high on system resources. Should I repeat the question or should I state more obvious facts?
 
more please with W7 and pleased with the difference between the two

Stella said:
I'll repeat -
*Because Thought it may be of interest to others*

The forum is "Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion" - I think other OSes certainly fall into the "industry" category.

P.S
I'll glad your pleased with your XP Box.
Click to expand...
 
kernkraft said:
Seven out of the seventeen comments are from two Canadians. The thread is about Windows being high on system resources. Should I repeat the question or should I state more obvious facts?
Click to expand...

Dunno. System resources - Canadian interest - maybe you should ask other Canadians! Canada has certainly plenty of natural resources!
 
Honestly, right now I am running Firefox, three tabs open, Google Earth downloading new models, downloading a video game and running Windows 7 with all graphical settings on. It says I am consuming 25% RAM and 7% CPU. Then again, this is a gaming system and all...
 
Stella said:
LOL..
Click to expand...

LOL indeed.

Win 7 works wonderfully on my NC10 Netbook, an i7 workstation, a 2.2 MBP and a 2.4 UBMB.

I've had less headaches, less 'wtf?', less browser nightmares, a faster, more reliable and more intuitive experience using Win 7 on all of those machines, than OSX on any of them. Win 7, on all those machines, is a much much snappier, responsive platform for office apps, and ignoring the NC10, for content creativity as well, than OSX.
 
It is so fun to see how many MacRumors' posters love Win 7.

I am not attacking or defending Windows 7 but with the resources Micro$oft have, I find it so laughable that when they finally get a decent OS working on most modern hardware, MacRumors' posters seem to love to love it.
I have Windows XP, Vista x64 and Win 7 x64 all running. Is Win 7 x64 so much different (i.e better) to Vista x64 for the average user???
Nope.
Sure, the OS has a new desktop pic, a sort of Dock, Gadgets turned off by default, but come on.... please. If you use Word, Internet Exploder, games.... it doesn't feel different to Vista. Either Vista wasn't all that bad, or Win 7 isn't all that much better.
BTW.. it should be Win 6.1, not 7

Run dxdiag... and see the *real* version of the OS.
 
*LTD* said:
Linux?? It's barely passable as a desktop OS, when it actually works. There isn't even any comparison between Linux and the OS X Experience.
Click to expand...

Have you even used Ubuntu or Fedora Core? Brilliant free Distro's.
PC-BSD is also rather good.

If I had a company, I would have all the servers and desktops on Linux (probably Ubuntu), simply because it is free (saving my company money), most distro's do not require much resources (saving me money again on hardware), compatibility with Windows is second to none and they are very stable indeed. Much more stable than Snow Leopard may I add.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back