I'm having trouble deciding what to buy in regards to Windows 7

[rcgldr]

windows 7 ... vista benchmarks

I don't like those "benchmarks" . It'm not worried about improvements in how 3ds max renders one frame. Of COURSE that shouldn't change much, why would it? its nearly 100% memory and processor based...

Except what wasn't covered there is the fact that Windows XP is faster than Vista and Windows 7, at least for gaming or any graphics intesive application. In Windows XP, more of the driver runs at ring 0 (privileged) level, reducing the amount of communication between the protected and non-protected part of the video driver.

I won't be getting Windows 7 until I also get a new system fast enough to compensate, and I still plan to dual boot between Windows 7 and Windows XP.

 

[Topher925]

And like Evo indicated with Vista, Win7 has ways of doing things that I just don't care for. We've had to undo some of the bells and whistles that we don't like.

Like what? When I installed W7 Pro it didn't come with any of the bells and whistles activated. It booted with only about 400MB of RAM being used and basically no features except for some security stuff.

Except what wasn't covered there is the fact that Windows XP is faster than Vista and Windows 7, at least for gaming or any graphics intesive application.

I doubt it. Maybe for some older games that will max out the RAM on your computer but every game I have runs faster on W7 than on XP. One of the biggest reasons for this is DX10 for games like Crysis but in any case, your VGA drivers are going to make a much bigger difference than your OS.

In Windows XP, more of the driver runs at ring 0 (privileged) level, reducing the amount of communication between the protected and non-protected part of the video driver.

I'm pretty sure the ring 0 thingy only applies to the x86 instruction set and not the newer x64 instruction set. Since most x64 OS's (I think) use a "sandbox" or UAC type structure only the kernel itself is allowed to operate at the ring 0 level. I would imagine this wouldn't make much of a difference since I think the OS would allow direct communication with hardware for something like a VGA driver, just not direct control.

 

[rcgldr]

Windows XP is faster than Vista and Windows 7, at least for gaming

Maybe for some older games that will max out the RAM on your computer but every game I have runs faster on W7 than on XP.

Tom's Hardware article about XP versus Vista:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

For Vista and Windows 7, the drivers run in ring 1 instead of sharing ring 0 with the kernel. In the case of XP, it's a throw back to when NT supported the no longer existing Alpha processors that only had two priority levels, so in order to share code, XP ended up with just 2 levels instead of being able to use all 4 on the Intel compatable cpus.

The performance differences for most games is small enough that it probably doesn't matter, unless you don't have enough ram to run Windows 7 and the game properly. From what I read, 3GB or more of ram is recommended. My current system only has 2 GB of ram.

The other annoyance is the UAC (user account control) that keeps getting in the way when installing or playing games. I'm not sure how securerom and other protection schemes used on older games will run under Windows 7.

As I mentioned before, in my case, I plan to buy a non-upgrade version so I can dual boot Win 7 and XP. I can then use each of the OS's to back up the other OS partition by copying them to partitions I have on a second hard drive used for backup purposes and swap file.

 

[Pattonias]

I would recommend having four gigs of ram if using W7. The OS could easilly top out anything less when multi-tasking and it is nice when to have a bit of a buffer to prevent problems. Also, having enough memory to avoid using your swap file will insure faster, more reliable operating.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have noticed that the 64 bit version does use considerably more memory than the 32 bit version. This is not a problem for me as I have plenty of RAM, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have noticed that the 64 bit version does use considerably more memory than the 32 bit version. This is not a problem for me as I have plenty of RAM, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this.

I think you might be right about that. I usually see "idle" usage from 800MB to about 1.1GB. Still, it could be I have so much it doesn't try too hard to conserve it- I'm running 8GB of ram

 

[Topher925]

Tom's Hardware article about XP versus Vista:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-4.html

The link you posted only compares XP to Vista, not W7. Also, that comparison is almost 3 years old and uses a graphics card that doesn't even support DX10. The computer they tested it on also only has 2 gigs of DDR800 RAM. In other words, ANYTHING you run on XP on that machine will perform better because it is simply limited by hardware. If you did the same benchmarks on a W7 machine with decent hardware and up to date software I believe you will always see a performance increase.

 

[slider142]

I would recommend having four gigs of ram if using W7. The OS could easilly top out anything less when multi-tasking and it is nice when to have a bit of a buffer to prevent problems. Also, having enough memory to avoid using your swap file will insure faster, more reliable operating.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I have noticed that the 64 bit version does use considerably more memory than the 32 bit version. This is not a problem for me as I have plenty of RAM, but I was wondering if anyone else noticed this.

The recommended amount of RAM for the 64-bit edition is 2GB. However, I am running Windows 7 Ultimate x64 on a laptop with Intel integrated graphics and only 2GB DDR2 memory and frequently multitask with multiple browser windows while listening to music (Zune application) in the background with very little performance hit. In fact, this laptop used to run Vista and 7 runs applications much more responsively. If you intend on doing critical graphics/sound/video editing however, you will need more memory.

 

[Pattonias]

The recommended amount of RAM for the 64-bit edition is 2GB.

There is really no point in using the 64 bit OS with any less than 4 gigs. You use at least half of your RAM at idle. If the computer is limited in the space you have available for RAM then you may get by, but if at all possible you should use at least four. There are so many possibilities for optimization when you don't have to worry about running out of RAM.

If you can only use 2GB I would recommend installing 32 bit anyway.