How efficient is Windows 7?

[fire_storm]

Do you know ho much space an installation of win7 takes up on the hdd? Doesn't need to be exact. And also how much ram it uses up to function. thx

 

Usually about 10-15gbs which is nothing when you can buy 1TB hard drives for only $80 dollars.

[sack_patrol]

Well, not sure how much of it is needed to function, but the Windows folder is about 17GB in size vs 22GB for Vista vs 15GB for XP.

RAM usage is around 1.5GB for Win 7 and Vista, 600MB for XP.

Negligible differences really when you get a 500GB HDD and 4GB RAM in a not too expensive system.

I see. Well I guess it does take quite a bit of ram compared to XP. Installation is ok though.

 

Windows7 Professional 32-bit = 16Gb minimum

Windows7 Professional 64-bit = 20Gb minimum

 

These "minimums" will be affected by size of your page and hibernation files. Of course you can turn off and delete hibersys and manually shrink the page file or offload to another drive if necessary.

 

In my system with all apps loaded and necessary background functions running (i.e. antivirus, task scheduler, some sidebar gadgets etc.) the system is using+reserving 1.2Gb of RAM). But keep in mind that the new memory management model used in Vista and Windows 7 is completely different than the memory management in XP. Windows 7 is very operationally "aware" of how much physical memory is installed in your machine and manages memory allocation accordingly. In my system I have 6Gb of RAM installed.

 

I have been a long time user of Windows 2000 Professional and later Windows XP Professional and never used Vista save for the 64-Bit Ultimate version which I installed on my travel laptop (which was also a good OS). Right now all of the machines on my network have been upgraded to Windows 7 except for my FTP server which is still running Windows XP Professional.

 

I haven't found a single application that absolutely refuses to work in Windows 7, installations are painless and most rigs boot with at least usable drivers already included in the Win7 driver store. So from a dyed in the wool (i'll never leave XP) fanboy, I've been 100% happy that I've made the switch to Windows 7 pretty much across the board.

 

In fact Windows 7 works so much better than XP in so many things, that I've found myself using features of Windows 7 that I wouldn't have even considered when I was running XP.

Ya, but I just wanna make my system better, I really don't care for applications and programs. I know what it has to offer since I watched a few reviews and commentaries about the OS and I could imagine myself deleting...well all of them. But thanks anyway.

 

Usually about 10-15gbs which is nothing when you can buy 1TB hard drives for only $80 dollars.

On a 160GB it also isn't much since I gave my C:\ partition 30GB and the rest is for everything else, and I still have enough space for my stuff. Though I wouldn't buy 1TB hdd, thats way too much for me. I could probably use a 250 raid1 set up but no more.

Edited January 4, 2010 by ballist1x

[Waco]

Do you know ho much space an installation of win7 takes up on the hdd? Doesn't need to be exact. And also how much ram it uses up to function. thx

You do know all of this is listed on the MS website listed earlier in this thread right?

 

As for RAM usage, 7 and Vista behave similarly and will use whatever you throw at it. On a browsing machine you could get away with 512 MB, light gaming 1 GB (if you really had to), and 2 GB is good for most people. If you have a slower HDD (and you do) you'll notice the difference between 1->2->4 GB much more than someone with a fast hard drive.

 

I wouldn't go with less than 2 GB if you're going to be gaming (if you call what you do gaming).

[cirro]

how about ya just try out windows 7 and if ya don't like it. get rid of it.

 

this isn't rocket science, or even complicated.

[ocre]

Do you know ho much space an installation of win7 takes up on the hdd? Doesn't need to be exact. And also how much ram it uses up to function. thx

 

while i am pretty confident there is not much point in me responding I would like to remind you of my previous post which explained the whole Ram and memory usage and on xp the lack of. While you might be so happy to see that you have 1.5g of free memory in your task manager in XP your are neglecting to realize the fact that free ram is unused ram that you have purchased but XP doesnt even use it. You said it bothers you to have apps and such installed that you arent using yet you are okay with XP wasting energy by leaving your ram setting doing nothing all the while you think its free ram but really its wasting as XP has no purpose for it due to the lack of proper memory management.

 

Everything you open and do is read from your HD which is hundreds of times slower then your power sucking but doing nothing ram. Right now I am happy to see that i have only 29mb of free wasted ram while i am caching 2491mb. Its great to see that my OS actually has a use for my ram and its not just to generate heat.

 

Now i am not sure you still understand what this means so i will explain why caching in ram is better then not using ram (free ram). This is not to be little you but to enlighten, although i expect to fail. I feel like you can become more knowledgeable while others may have given up.... cache is like a reserve tank that can hold data and send it through the CPU much much quicker then "pumping" it from the a slower source. Its a stock pile like the warehouse at the back of a department store which stays stocked so as not to have to wait for shipping every time a product is sold. Your harddrive is the source but it delivers data at <60mb/s to your ram which can deliver the data to the CPU at 7600+mb/s. Systems very but these figures pertain to your hardware based off what i can dig up in your sig. Its a shame to have this unused "free" ram just setting there and depending on your HDs 60mb/s speeds when you decide to do something on your PC. Vista/ 7 doesnt leave the reserve empty. It is smart and finds the most useful data for the tank based off your individual case. It has the tank ready and if you do something odd or unusual like a rarely ever used program it can drop some of the cache and load up directly from the HD just as XP does all the time for you. But you see PC users are pretty predictable and use many of their favorite programs often. Its everybody. While we all try new stuff we get in routines that is inevitable. Well this cache of ram is like a clip loaded at all times ready for you to pull the trigger. Its got you covered at over 7600mb/s strait to the cpu. Its fast, very fast. While XP is nice and all its not ever gonna know how to manage your 2gigs of ram. Never. your large free ram is ram that xp doesnt have a use for, its burning energy with nothing to do. Xp waits for your decision and the gets the data at a <60mb/s whenever you open a program. What is the point in having 2 gigs if your OS is doesnt even use it.

 

Open your massive heaviest resource hog game or program and you'll see that XP still doesnt load it all in memory. You will still have much free space and your program will never get that 1 gig its required to run on. XP will always have massive amounts of free space and will even use virtual memory when your physical ram isnt even fully loaded. There is no way out of it, XP will not utilize your ram. the more you have the worse it becomes.

 

I hope you at least put an effort in understanding what i have took my time to explain to you. 2gigs is enough for windows 7 x86 (32bit) and your purchase will also allow you to install the 64bit version in the future with the same product key if you ever choose to. Do not get the 64bit with 2 gigs.

if you were strongly against 7 from the start then why would you start a thread as this. Look everyone here has used XP and i bet nearly all have loved it. But you fail to recognize everyone here is telling you the same. XP is great but it is becoming outdated. It cant utilize your system, it waste your ram and holds your cpu back. You will never realize this until you move on. Things have got a lot better. Your argument is about as useless as it comes. Its totally ignorant, you dont even know what 7 actually can do for your system and you are against it. If you wasnt really interested there is nothing more useless, wasteful, and uncalled for. 9 pages of very experience PC users, reviews, and system builders arent trying to mislead you. I hope you arent just wasting our time play games and you are actually interested.

[tkrow21]

Thats like a joke rite? 2GB should be enough. If not then it really is a memory hog (win 7)...although it might be considered normal since it's new n stuff.

 

If this is true..then 2GB might not be enough for other stuff too. Though in WinXP it's just right meaning I'd have to stay with it.That's not a problem or anything mind you. XD

 

You remind me so much of Jarret Cale's character when you say ghey n' stuff.

 

I think Singleplayer works well with 2GB of memory but you'll bet getting skipping in multiplayer.

 

3GB is enough but 4GB is a nicer number.