-KJ Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 There wasn't a leap of noticeable difference on my machine between Vista and Win7, but I did notice Win7 to be more responsive in Explorer. What sold me were the new UI features. Otherwise, I'd probably be sticking with Vista as the performance difference was negligible to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NfoTech Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Seriously? Why has this thread perpetuated to bull***? 7 is faster. End of story. Give it a rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_I am Reptar Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Why is windows 7 64 bit RTM slower then Vista 64 ? It isn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamwhoiam Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 i don't know why but my windows 7 takes longer too boot to the desktop and also my Vista 64 seem alot snappy when i open apps and just works faster. My 32 Bit windows 7 seems faster then the 64 bit windows 7.here is my system spec i7 at 3.9GHz 6GB Ram seagate 750Gb drive 7200.12 version Then there's something wrong with your install or you have bad BIOS/OC settings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 i don't know why but my windows 7 takes longer too boot to the desktop and also my Vista 64 seem alot snappy when i open apps and just works faster. My 32 Bit windows 7 seems faster then the 64 bit windows 7.here is my system spec i7 at 3.9GHz 6GB Ram seagate 750Gb drive 7200.12 version I have close to those same specs and yes my boot times are slower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 There are tools like xperf that can be used to analyze the boot process and show what's taking long during the boot process. Might be worth a try. I would ignore the people claiming that 7 should be massively faster, but it shouldn't be noticeably slower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+devHead Subscriber² Posted October 15, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 15, 2009 Why are you running 64bit on a system with only 2gb of ram? Where did this thinking come from that Windows x64 shouldn't be run on a machine with 2 GB of RAM? I ran Vista 64-bit only and always just had 2 GB of memory. It still ran faster that 32-bit. Just because the 64-bit OS can use 4 GB or more doesn't mean that it needs to have that much. If you have a 64-bit processor, regardless of how much memory, you should be running a 64-bit OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boogerjones Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I ran Vista 64-bit only and always just had 2 GB of memory. It still ran faster that 32-bit.bull****. And no, I don't need to explain it. There are only rare instances where a 64-bit setup will be faster than a 32-bit setup when all else is equal. But I agree that there's little reason against running a 64-bit OS on a machine with 2 GB of RAM. I have Windows 7 x64 on a machine with 2GB of RAM. It will make a future memory upgrade seamless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mudslag Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I also run Vita 64bit on 2gigs of ram just fine and yes its faster then my i7, 6gigs ram, Win7 64 on startup Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Where did this thinking come from that Windows x64 shouldn't be run on a machine with 2 GB of RAM? I ran Vista 64-bit only and always just had 2 GB of memory. It still ran faster that 32-bit. Just because the 64-bit OS can use 4 GB or more doesn't mean that it needs to have that much. If you have a 64-bit processor, regardless of how much memory, you should be running a 64-bit OS. Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you gain something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 32-bit. 64-bit has more processes and will eat up that 2GB in a hurry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shifts Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you gain something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 32-bit. 64-bit has more processes and will eat up that 2GB in a hurry. So does that mean then that the only disadvantage is that you have less overall memory to play with on a 64 bit system in general if there are more processes taking up more memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xire Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you gain something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 32-bit. 64-bit has more processes and will eat up that 2GB in a hurry. Do you actually know what the process is? Thing you said makes no sense at all. It's not always about the gain. If I want to develop 64bit apps and only have 2gb of memory I'll use 64bit OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrian Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you gain something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 32-bit. 64-bit has more processes and will eat up that 2GB in a hurry. It's exactly this kind of FUD that is delaying 64-bit migration. I can't wait until MS finally puts out a 64-bit-only OS and forces you to upgrade or remain stuck in the past. 64-bit will not "eat up that 2GB in a hurry," it runs just fine on 2 GB. If you are using applications that demand a lot of memory like Photoshop then the logical solution is to buy more RAM, not use a 32-bit OS just to save a couple MB. If you have a 64-bit processor, regardless of how much memory, you should be running a 64-bit OS. +1 Edited October 15, 2009 by Darrian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbba Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you gain something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 32-bit. 64-bit has more processes and will eat up that 2GB in a hurry. It's an easy game to play: Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you lose something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 64-bit. I also love your "64-bit has more processes" statement. Exactly what are these additional ram eating processes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeepingThePie Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 There wasn't a leap of noticeable difference on my machine between Vista and Win7, but I did notice Win7 to be more responsive in Explorer.What sold me were the new UI features. Otherwise, I'd probably be sticking with Vista as the performance difference was negligible to me. That's been my experience. For me, Windows 7 is an interface upgrade, and one I appreciate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+devHead Subscriber² Posted October 15, 2009 Subscriber² Share Posted October 15, 2009 Unless you can give some solid FACTS that you gain something from 64-bit with < 4GB of RAM, then you SHOULD stick with 32-bit. 64-bit has more processes and will eat up that 2GB in a hurry. You gain because you have a 64-bit CPU that fully exploits a 64-bit operating system. A 32-bit CPU doesn't. Do you even know how a processor works? What, do you think since it's 64-bit it uses twice as much RAM as 32-bit? Nothing ever 'ate up 2 GB in a hurry' on my system. I don't need to give you solid FACTS (I guess capitalizing the word makes it more real for you?), you don't have any either. But I do know from experience that the 64-bit version of Vista runs better than the 32-bit with just 2 GB of RAM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astra.Xtreme Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) You gain because you have a 64-bit CPU that fully exploits a 64-bit operating system. A 32-bit CPU doesn't. Do you even know how a processor works? What, do you think since it's 64-bit it uses twice as much RAM as 32-bit? Nothing ever 'ate up 2 GB in a hurry' on my system. I don't need to give you solid FACTS (I guess capitalizing the word makes it more real for you?), you don't have any either. But I do know from experience that the 64-bit version of Vista runs better than the 32-bit with just 2 GB of RAM. That's fine. I guess I came off wrong saying that 64-bit will eat up RAM since you guys are wayyy overblowing what I said. Bad context. 64-bit has to emulate 32-bit hence using more RAM. It might not be a hell of a lot, but it does. FYI, I'm running 64-bit Win7 w/ 4GB and benchmarks were slightly slower than when I ran 32-bit. The only thing that came along with 64-bit was software incompatibilities and a lot of nightmares with software I have to use for school. It's not that people won't switch over, it's that companies won't put in the effort to make everything work under x64. 64-bit is a good idea for the future, but the transition has been way too slow for it to be valuable for 90% of everybody. That is my point... Edited October 15, 2009 by Escalade_GT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEVER85 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 That's fine. I guess I came off wrong saying that 64-bit will eat up RAM since you guys are wayyy overblowing what I said. Bad context. 64-bit has to emulate 32-bit hence using more RAM. WOW64 isn't emulation, it's a translation layer. Emulation was only required with 64-bit Windows designed for Itanium processors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 WOW64 isn't emulation, it's a translation layer. Emulation was only required with 64-bit Windows designed for Itanium processors. It isn't instruction set emulation, no, but it emulates the 32-bit Windows environment. That is the distinction people don't seem to get. There is a lot more work to do than just execute instructions, and doing it involves everything from emulating the kernel/NT API (which internally is what you call "a translation layer", which still does use both memory and resources) to running 32-bit versions of all the required libraries on top of that alongside the 64-bit ones. This does use some memory, although the increase in resource use isn't more than a few percent at most. I've personally run 64-bit Windows on 2GB for ages, and it's not a problem. If you do things like run modern games, you should be installing more memory instead of trying to save some megabytes here and there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoosier28 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I bought a new laptop with Vista Home Premium 32 bit on. I had another HD and installed Windows 7 RTM 64 bit. There is no comparison in my case. Windows 7 blows Vista away. Startup and shutdown times are faster and way smoother than on Vista. Keep in mind that the Vista HD is out of the box and the 7 HD has many programs that I installed. And still, 7 performs better than Vista :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 They are exactly the same for me speed-wise. This. On a modern machine (like the one the OP has), there is no difference in regular use, only shorter boot times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamwhoiam Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 It isn't instruction set emulation, no, but it emulates the 32-bit Windows environment. That is the distinction people don't seem to get. There is a lot more work to do than just execute instructions, and doing it involves everything from emulating the kernel/NT API (which internally is what you call "a translation layer", which still does use both memory and resources) to running 32-bit versions of all the required libraries on top of that alongside the 64-bit ones. This does use some memory, although the increase in resource use isn't more than a few percent at most. I've personally run 64-bit Windows on 2GB for ages, and it's not a problem. If you do things like run modern games, you should be installing more memory instead of trying to save some megabytes here and there. That "emulation" of the kernel/NT API/WIN32 API is called thunking. It's no different than how Windows 3.1 with Win32s could run 32-bit apps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leo Natan Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 And it's the same way 16bit applications run on 32bit Windows OS. Don't remember anyone complaining about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdood Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 That "emulation" of the kernel/NT API/WIN32 API is called thunking. I don't know why you put it in quotes, as if it's somehow not an emulated environment because the parts of the emulator that has to interact with the 64-bit host (as little as possible.. when a 32-bit program calls a library function, it doesn't call the 64-bit one with thunking, it calls the 32-bit one that is part of the emulator) has to use thunking (ie convert the stack back and forth between 32 and 64-bit). WOW has one sole purpose in life, and that is to emulate a 32-bit Windows environment. Do you have some sort of phobia of the word? I can't help you with that, but it is the word used by most people, including Microsoft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjoswald Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Both Vista and Windows 7 feel the same to me. I'm guessing it's a Superfetch/Indexing issue if all your drivers are current. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts