Windows 7

I am using Windows 7 since beta and i can only say i am loving it and cant go back to Vista (not even mentioning XP - yes i was one of those people who actually preferred Vista)

When i go to friends house (they are still using XP) it feels so archaic and old.. i am used to new features and i really cant stand when i am forced to operate without them
 
I also preferred vista over XP. XP is old, and crap. It was great for its time - I traded up from winME for chrissakes - but let's keep things in perspective here. XP is goddamn near 10 years old soon, and that is an ETERNITY in computing terms. In 2000, we were still new to gigahertz class CPUs. Our graphics cards had no pixel shaders. Daikatana jokes were still fresh. Heck, we were still madly anticipating Duke Nukem Forever...! :LOL:
 
Just fixed a long standing annoyance... my PC did stop for 30 seconds after login and I just read that using a solid color background is responsible for that. :rolleyes:
(I reinstalled Win7 in attempt to get rid of this delay)

MS Knowledge Base entry
 
Does anyone else get cpu spikes with the sqlservr.exe process? Why the hell is anything sql even running on my Win7 Home edition. You'll have to stare at your task manager for a while to see it. Disabled it with services.msc.

hvnvyd.jpg

Grall said:
I also preferred vista over XP. XP is old, and crap. It was great for its time - I traded up from winME for chrissakes - but let's keep things in perspective here. XP is goddamn near 10 years old soon, and that is an ETERNITY in computing terms. In 2000, we were still new to gigahertz class CPUs. Our graphics cards had no pixel shaders. Daikatana jokes were still fresh. Heck, we were still madly anticipating Duke Nukem Forever...! :LOL:
Click to expand...
XP is still a very good OS. It's when MS started doing OS's right. Just look at the lukewarm reception Vista received. DX10/11 and 64-bit(for 4GB RAM) is making people migrate to Win7 now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
vazel said:
XP is still a very good OS. It's when MS started doing OS's right. Just look at the lukewarm reception Vista received. DX10/11 and 64-bit(for 4GB RAM) is making people migrate to Win7 now.
Click to expand...
Actually that was Win2000 when they started doing OS's right, XP is practicly tad slower Win2k with themes added on top
 
Kaotik said:
Actually that was Win2000 when they started doing OS's right, XP is practicly tad slower Win2k with themes added on top
Click to expand...
Well I was talking consumer OS's. We all know XP was built on Win2k. They took their better OS's NT kernel and used that for the consumer OS.
 
I still think XP x64 is the best OS MS has released. It is rock solid, blazingly quick and very lightweight. It does have some driver related incompatibility issues but once you work around that its great.

I like W7 but I thought the Beta was faster than the RC and the RC is faster than the final released version.
 
I was a XP hater and DOS addict, so I kept using windows 98 (with DX9 and .net framework, etc.)
When I made the jump, I installed windows server 2003, which is the 32bit version of XP x64. no blue fisher price, no yellow dog, sane explorer etc ; rock solid, tested and refined. quite a great OS :LOL:

I went back to 256MB memory after a hardware disaster, and it still ran flawless.
on a later reinstall, I downgraded to windows XP, but if you configure it and use tweakUI here and there, you get pretty close.
 
vazel said:
Does anyone else get cpu spikes with the sqlservr.exe process? Why the hell is anything sql even running on my Win7 Home edition. You'll have to stare at your task manager for a while to see it. Disabled it with services.msc.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be running! :eek: You especially shouldn't have the vss writer process running unless you specifically installed an instance of SQL Server. Your sqlsrv process is also using as much memory as mine when I'm actively editing the DB stores. If you only have the instance running with no work, it should be a lot less than that.

XP is still a very good OS. It's when MS started doing OS's right. Just look at the lukewarm reception Vista received. DX10/11 and 64-bit(for 4GB RAM) is making people migrate to Win7 now.
Click to expand...

Kaotik already mentioned, and you've already clarified but it bears mentioning. W2K runs rings around XP on everything except SMP/HT support.

/me hugs his retail W2K Workstation box.
 
ECH said:
Has anyone noticed any difference in performance when comparing superfetch on vs off in games?
Click to expand...

Won't have much of an impact as it won't be one of the applications cached unless it's something you run frequently. If it is however, it's basically like running the game from a RAM disk depending on how much memory you have available to cache the application.

So unlike WinXP where if you had oodles of memory that would sit there and do nothing. Vista and Win7 will both attempt to cache frequently used programs thus in essence turning any excess free RAM into an automatic RAM disk for those applications.

What would be interesting is if you could tell Vista/Win7 which applications to include in superfetch and which to exclude.

Regards,
SB
 
Superfetch works differently in Vista/7 though. It's much less aggressive (less I/O) and more intelligent (smaller cache).

Anyway, adding to what Silent_Buddha said, even if your game is on the prefetch queue you're only going to benefit if you launch it after Windows has prefetched it while you're doing something else. I also have doubts the cache is big enough to hold the large datasets games use nowadays to prove a noticeable advantage. I suppose it could be dependent on workloads of certain games.
 
Aye, additionally, whenever you launch applications, if it's not cached, or only partially cached, Windows will automatically vacate cached items to allocate memory to the program just launched. In practice for me, my games aren't my most frequent applications so I don't see much benefit.

However, for those applications that I DO use frequently, it totally negates any speed advantage I would have with a SSD for those apps.

Fetching items is a background process so doesn't usually impact performance of anything. As Richard noted, when first booting into Windows you won't see much if any benefit as Windows hasn't had time to populate the memory.

I rarely ever reboot Windows though so that generally isn't a problem for me.

Regards,
SB
 
I'm a bit foggy on Windows caching. In Vista and 7 you have Superfetch and you have the usual system cache, right? If you run superfetch, can that impact the efficiency of the system cache? Do either of these mechanisms help with game files that get frequently accessed while the game is running?
 
swaaye said:
I'm a bit foggy on Windows caching. In Vista and 7 you have Superfetch and you have the usual system cache, right? If you run superfetch, can that impact the efficiency of the system cache? Do either of these mechanisms help with game files that get frequently accessed while the game is running?
Click to expand...

If I understand what you're asking... They are both part and parcel of the same system. I'm assuming you mean Windows maintaining recently run programs in memory even after you close the application in case the user decides to run it again.

Regards,
SB
 
Finally upgraded my laptop from vista to windows 7 and there are a couple of things that really need sorting out.

It has a fingerprint reader and, even though I've deleted all my fingerprint records, on resume/login it still defaults to requesting you swipe your fingerprint. On vista it offered both password and fingerprint logins at the same time. With 7, I can eventually get it to bring up the password option, but it takes a reasonable amount of time. I've no idea if there is a faster method, but ecape or ctl-alt-del don't seem to help.

Similarly, if you lock the screen (via ctrl-alt-del) it takes (IMHO) a relatively long time before it will begin to respond again. It's really annoying.
 
Simon F said:
Finally upgraded my laptop from vista to windows 7 and there are a couple of things that really need sorting out.

It has a fingerprint reader and, even though I've deleted all my fingerprint records, on resume/login it still defaults to requesting you swipe your fingerprint. On vista it offered both password and fingerprint logins at the same time. With 7, I can eventually get it to bring up the password option, but it takes a reasonable amount of time. I've no idea if there is a faster method, but ecape or ctl-alt-del don't seem to help.

Similarly, if you lock the screen (via ctrl-alt-del) it takes (IMHO) a relatively long time before it will begin to respond again. It's really annoying.
Click to expand...
Maybe your fingerprint reader software and drivers need an update?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D
Retro build - What GPU's should I go with?
Replies
16
Views
1K
davis.anthony
D
homerdog
Windows Spatial Audio (Headset Surround Sound)
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
Silent_Buddha
S
P
Laptop for Machine Learning - 2023
Replies
3
Views
1K
pascal
P
W
WoJ DXVK Manager for Windows v1.3 Freeware
Replies
1
Views
330
worldofjoysticks
W
D
4K Tv and Windows 10
Replies
3
Views
397
Davros
D
Back
Top