Does anyone else feel that Windows 7 still isn't snappy enough?

Seriously, it still feels really choppy to me in certain aspects compared to Windows XP even after turning off all the visual effects. Simple stuff such as scrolling up and down pages quickly through firefox, moving a window around, or resizing the window still feels really freaking laggy. I can even feel a very slight lag just from typing. On XP, my Pentium 4 with 512mb of RAM is able to do all these tasks without even lagging a bit.

It's honestly bugging me a lot for some reason. Does anyone else feel this way as well?

Notes: I'm running Windows 7 Professional 64-bit with 4 GB of RAM and the latest Nvidia drivers.


More notes:

 

Are you sure it is not bootcamp drivers issue?
You are on a Mac.
It is smooth as far as PCs are concerned.
On a Acer Aspire 4530, Timeline 3810TZ, Packard Bell BU45 it is all smooth...

 

It might be Aero... or it might be because you're running it on a macbook?

Only thing I've noticed is that foobar2000's spectrum vis. looks somewhat choppy when I set it too full screen, and I don't recall it doing that in Vista.

 

Another Mac user, Luke has also been complaining about the same thing.

 

Okay well, it's honestly not as laggy as I made it sound. I'm thinking that it's simply because I'm way too picky about these stuff and it's just not up to my standards. It's not going to be easy to test whether it's really a Mac issue or just me being really picky though, because the only other people I know who have Windows 7 installed, have it installed on a Mac.

On a side note, I just played around with my sisters comp which has Vista installed, and it feels smoother than my comp. I also just played with my desktop that has XP and it's definitely much, much smoother.

 

And then again, it could simply be due to the fact that I'm on 'Power Saver' mode, doh. Sorry everyone.

 

I always said always use the original OS that came with your computer, never upgrade because it will be slower. But I made an exception with my factory installed vista pc, windows 7 makes it boot faster and runs it more smoothly.

 

so you're allowed to break your own rules, but others are still required to follow them?

 

I'm getting that kind of feeling too. I mean it feels smoother, all these fading transitions, and stuff, but it doesn't feel any faster, just smoother. Not to mention I've gotten my first BSOD on a Windows 6.0+ kernel today in class, sooooooooooo embarassing. Windows 7, touted as MS's best OS to date, BSOD in class... I so heard someone snicker in the back >.> No clue what happened, was just using Aero peek to check a download status...

 

Update all the drivers.
If you had done clean install check all drivers are installed.
Usually BSOD is due to incorrect setup with drivers.
To further isolate the issue check Event Viewer.

Actually I advise you to check Event Viewer to maintain System Health
You should only see info and warnings for DNS timeouts Ethernet not connected etc. Any errors will signify an issue.

 

LOL, YUP

 

Windows 7 is "snappier" than Snow Leopard period, nuff said.

 

well, 7 really is like a glorified service pack for vista.

 

thats faster than snow leopard

 

Really? What a sad individual.

 

and doesn't delete all of your user data

 

You mean sort of like Snow Leopard was for Leopard?

The one that cracks me up the most, "I heard someone in the back snicker" OMG!

 

Service packs for Vista don't delete user's files.

 

This is true! +1

 

Nope its just you

 

That's the first thing I did after the reboot. I also looked at the crash dump, says the most likely cause is ntoskrnl.exe (that's that kernel isn't it?). Event viewer turned up nothing except the errors of an unexpected reboot. Everything points to Win7 as the cause I guess so far. Kinda weird, as I've had Win7 installed since it came out, and it just crashes randomly on me. Since launch I've been using it pretty exhaustively. I've checked the drivers so far, I manually installed them. All of them I've tried on Vista (unless it was Win7 specific), and it worked on there for the duration of use on Vista. Haven't been able to reproduce the crash at all.

Gotta agree though, it is a glorified service pack, at least I only paid 30$ for it instead of 120$. Reading Arstechnica's 15 page review just made it more apparent to me.

 

Randomly Crash?
Highly possble it is RAM Error.
Try running RAM Test.
Btw the Kernel is loaded into the RAM

 

Ah, thanks, I'll give that a try and see what happens.

 

Hey Cathy.
Myself Millermccullum and I read your entire posting. Welcome to the forum. Yes I feel that Window 7 is not snappy enough. It is the version between the Window XP and Window Vista. Anyways Thanks. Stay Connected.

 

I have the same Macbook pro as cathy but with 4GB or ram and a 7200rpm harddisk. Win 7 is way smooth. It runs faster than Snow Leopard. Boot up, sleep, shut down all faster. The few apps I run on both system are also faster in Win 7. However they are things like Adobe Reader and Ms Office and especially Office for mac and windows can not be compared. Adobe and Ms programs just always seem to run smoother on Windows.

 

Are you sure Apple allows you to say this?
You are suppose to say SL is better.

 

Ran the system built in diagnostics test, ram and hard drive checked out. Might get Ultimate Boot disc to triple check it perhaps, since I let the test run twice, and it checks out. I guess it was just a random occurence for me. Could a system restore could have triggered it? I did run one before because my help files got messed up from HP's software.

 

+rep for you wave. Very good unbiased observations. And it does support the statements that Mac users are going out and buying Windows 7 to place on their machines.

 

I really don't think it's fair to compare Windows 7 performance to XP performance. It is a common fallacy among many people to note how a later version of Windows is inferior (performance-wise) to earlier versions of Windows, and it really shows a failure to point out rather general and obvious computer trends.

The reason for this is that the addition of functionality and complexity inevitably leads to greater usage of computing resources. The ideal way of saying that a given OS isn't delivering would be to notice that resource consumption increases in software have outpaced performance increases in hardware.

Of course, this rule doesn't take into account the optimization or improvements in efficiency of accomplishing tasks that have remained much the same in Windows across different versions, but I think my criticism still stands.

 

Well I'm running Windows 7 Ultimate on 4 different Dell Laptops, Yes!

1555 as below runs super well

D420 2gb ram 1.2 Core Duo ULV runs smooth and no crashes ever Its been running since April 2009 and upgraded through RT

Vostro 1500 Core 2 Duo 1.6 with 2gb ram runs very well since Sept 2009

Dell 1505 core solo ( ) 1.8 with 2gb ram runs so much better then Vista per my Son, faster and no BSOD since Sept 2009

thats 4 with 2 more to be installed ( 2 more 1555 each with 4gb of ram)

I think I have a good test here, if your system has problems its not Windows I think I can back that up, Windows 7 will have problems if
You do not have at least 1 gb ram ( you need 2 or more)
You have problematic hardware ( such as bad ram or hard drive many are finding out that this is the case when they install win 7)
You do not have proper drivers.

Windows 7 will prove to be the best windows since XP but XP is like having a Laptop from 1999 lets get real here, Windows 7 is hot and new and does not crash unless your computer has a real hardware problem or incompatible drivers.

I have been testing this along with almost 7 million others.

 

You know if I install Tandy's Desk mate

Its zippy and runs faster then XP and did not crash, but this was for 8086

Sure you can name all kind of OS's that run fast DOS for one but you are right its stupid comments people want to make like when the Automobile began on the roads and many people thought that "Fad" would never replace the horse or the "Internet Fad".

A lot of times people are just stupid in the face of progress and Windows 7 is real progress forward ( instead of Vista that was backward)

 

The fastest way to test since you have 4GB worth of RAM is take out 1 stick continue using for a week and check any BSOD.
If BSOD occurs switch modules.

RAMtest that detects error means the ram is faulty while faulty ram may not show in RAMtest.

 

1. there's no one "software", nor one "hardware." and any current software will run fine on a top-line hardware. the problem is top-line hardware is not your average one, which brings to:
2. the software is made with hardware capacities in mind. there's no use for the makers to "outpace performance increases in hardware."
and finally:
3. this was a valid criticism for vista. people felt like they needed high end computer to run vista well. so it's not surprising to see it echoed with 7 (whether it's true or not).

 

I never even implied that there was one "software" or "hardware". And advances in computer technology not only benefit the top-of-the-line users, they benefit everybody.

There is no reason for Microsoft to write an OS that is not only more functional and complex and demanding as a consequence, thereby requiring many users to spend more on hardware upgrades for their system? Actually, there is.

I'm not sure if it was a valid criticism. Vista was an unusually disproportionate decrease in performance, it's true, but it's hardware requirements were never that unreasonable. This point is debatable.

Ultimately developers are put in a rather difficult position; they're expected to add functionality to the OS, thereby making it more complex and demanding on given hardware. But at the same time, the OS is expected to perform better. Efficient methods of doing a certain task only get you so far in closing the gap.

 

what's the benefit? lower prices? better technology? because from your next statement it seems like you imply it's the latter, but not the former. so then how do you know the overall effect is positive?

Ummm....microsoft isn't in the hardware business. unless you're implying there's a secret conspiracy between microsoft and the likes of dell, lenovo, hp, ...? aside from the fact that it's against all antitrust laws, then the effect you're describing should be stronger if the software company actually OWNED the hardware company, right? but wait! there's a company like that: apple! now did snow leopard require users to spend more (or anything at all) on hardware upgrades?

that was the public opinion. whether you disagree with it or not, rightly or wrongly, isn't the issue. the fact that, a. microsoft clearly took that into consideration and tried to deliver better performance over vista, and b. every computer magazine/critic review basically agreeing that they accomplished that, makes me trust the public opinion more over your statement.

look, what you're describing about computer technology might very well be true. it's outside of my expertise and i don't know much about it. but that is not the driving force behind the xp->vista->7 performance trend.

 

The great Apple OS has also done exactly this. What in the heck do you want? An OS to run on a Pentium III as well as a 64bit Core i7? How about video advances? and rendering, I think there is way more issues in advancing technology then you pay attention to.

My Dell 1555 is 100 more powerful then my Fathers Pentium III desktop, in fact I will go on say even 1000 times more powerful, why live by candle light when you can use fluorescent bulbs?

I can start a fire with flint and steel but a lighter is a little bit easier.

Your logic of writing software to run on computers developed over 20 years ago does not hold, or even 10 years ago lets live in the present.

Yes the driving force behind developing software is to use the newer technology available and being developed int he next 3 to 5 years.
That my friend is a fact. I read many trade articles where M$ is partnered with the Hardware manufactures like Intel and ATI to develope drivers and newer faster, more complex OS's.

there a new transistors that will conduct 0 heat

MIT


UI


These are just two articles

Just because you do not understand the reasons does not make it wrong.

 

do you even understand the issue being discussed? or just like linking articles? if "the driving force behind developing software is to use the newer technology available and being developed int he next 3 to 5 years." then how come ".. Vista ... was backward" made in your last post? did you mean there are other things going on other than general trends of improving technology that no one denies, including me? then discuss those effects instead!

the whole point of the issue is that: i claim windows 7 is a more efficient vista. every review i read says that. some here even call it "a glorified service pack." it has nothing to do with general technology trends, that Bog is trying to bring up. and based on Bog's last sentence of his last comment, makes his whole point moot. it's the efficiency we're talking about here, not the general trend. stick to the topic, if you feel like contributing.

 

Are you asking me how I know that the overall effect of advancements in technology is positive? Are you serious?

If I implied that Microsoft is in some great conspiracy, that was not my intention. However, Microsoft is not in the business of saving users money as a top priority; it is in the business of (in the PC sector) offering the average user the easiest and smoothest computing experience possible. I say that increased complexity and thus increased system requirements are a byproduct of technical changes made to the OS.

If you want a better tool, you're going to have to add more complexity to make it more functional. This equals more cost. I can't think of a simpler analogy that works.

I agree that you're entitled to place your trust wherever you choose.

However, I disagree when I consider my analogy involving performance and functionality; it seems quite clear to me that there is an inverse relationship between the two.

In any case, it seems that we've both stated our positions on the matter.

 

finally something we can both agree on.

 

now now lets keep it civil. The main purpose of a newer OS is not for older computers to run better, the main purpose, As stated by M$, Intel and others, is to further technology and budding software.

I agree that windows 7 is not Vista, I understand what is posted and took issues with the argument. 7 is better with older machines but that is not the main purpose.

7 carries the kernel that Vista was built on, though it was refined, Is XP windows 2000? No but they share the Kernel. After XP SP2 it was a much different operating system, eveyone seems to forget how buggy XP and XP sp1 was, I do not have such a memory, XP before SP did not have a fire wall and did not work well with USB devices.........

7 and Vista are similar and have some parts same but as a whole 7 is a new operating system and a true advancement.

Vista was unfinished even at SP2 it does not run as well as 7, I know I have both here, a 1555 with 7 Utlimate and a 1555 with Vista Home premium SP2. the Windows 7 Ultimate runs clean, snappy and well
The Vista SP2 Crashed yesterday..............what more can I say?

 

It's the ol XP v Vista thread. If XP is faster for your needs, then run XP. If Win7 is faster, then run Win7.

 

LOL then stick with a Centrino from 2005............................... I feel some people live to find fault.