Is Windows 7 as slow as Vista?

With your rig Vista should have moved like **** off a shovel! Anyway, Windows 7 = Vista slightly faster edition, so yeah its a bit faster in general use. Also Win7 uses a little less RAM.

With your rig Vista should have moved like **** off a shovel! Anyway, Windows 7 = Vista slightly faster edition, so yeah its a bit faster in general use. Also Win7 uses a little less RAM.

Daytona_178

From my experience, Windows 7 with all eye candy on = Vista with most eye candy off, perhaps a bit quicker. A slow hard drive would still impact Win 7 much like it did Vista. Gamingwise, I didn't see too big of an improvement between Vista and Win 7. Both have a bigger overhead compared to XP. But, I absolutely pefer Win 7 over XP.

Actually, I did a clean install of windows 7 64bit last night. I have 4 gb of RAM and used to have vista 32 bit, but the point is I've noticed a significant performance increase. It is faster.

Actually, I did a clean install of windows 7 64bit last night. I have 4 gb of RAM and used to have vista 32 bit, but the point is I've noticed a significant performance increase. It is faster.

Nills

I owned XP, Vista 32 and 64...

XP > Vista

I'm running Windows 7 64 and I can say...

7 > XP > Vista

Much faster then vista and more sercure then XP. Best of both worlds.

P.S.

Just think of it this way. 7 gives you DX 11 and if you ever get around to getting a SSD it has trim support. Alot of good stuff for gamers.

I owned XP, Vista 32 and 64...

XP > Vista

I'm running Windows 7 64 and I can say...

7 > XP > Vista

Much faster then vista and more sercure then XP. Best of both worlds.

Truth_Hurts_U

People with gaming rig should never complain about how vista or 7 is slow... it just doesn't make any sense.masterdrat

I agree. Gaming rigs have enough oomph to run either Win 7 or Vista quite snappily.

Me? I only grumble because the 4200rpm SATA hard drive of my laptop makes Vista a bit slow. I tried the Win 7 RC. Same thing. That's why I feel a fast (7200rpm) hard drive is a requirement for both Win 7 and Vista.

[QUOTE="Nills"]

Actually, I did a clean install of windows 7 64bit last night. I have 4 gb of RAM and used to have vista 32 bit, but the point is I've noticed a significant performance increase. It is faster.

Daytona_178

yeah, cause I have very little running processes like 38-40 running processes, (including nod32, and whatever game I may be playing) on vista 64bit and it isnt really slow at all honestly. About as fast as any other OS, if you understand what processes and services to have on and which to have off.

P.S. for gaming, there is little to no difference in windows 7 and windows vista.

The worst thing you would notive about Windows 7 is it's blocky, simple theme -- other than that, it's the gaming OS (64 bit, that is).

I installed win7 on a 7 year laptop it actually worked, of course it worked considerably slower then xp but it was decent, compability mode for drivers and everything worked like a charm, only 1 thing was wrong winplayer 12 played 720p videos blocky, I installed winamp and everything ran smoothly. Of couurse no aero and all the eye candy was turned of, though I could have turned it on by force.

With a gaming rig, you won't notice the differece.

[QUOTE="masterdrat"]People with gaming rig should never complain about how vista or 7 is slow... it just doesn't make any sense.jun_aka_pekto

I agree. Gaming rigs have enough oomph to run either Win 7 or Vista quite snappily.

Me? I only grumble because the 4200rpm SATA hard drive of my laptop makes Vista a bit slow. I tried the Win 7 RC. Same thing. That's why I feel a fast (7200rpm) hard drive is a requirement for both Win 7 and Vista.

No, it's not. I'd say 7 is the new XP.
Just get 64-bit version of the OS.

We tested Windows Vista load time vs. Windows 7 load time on the same computer (Asus P5QL/EPU, Core 2 E6300, 2GB DDR2, 320GB WD HDD, Geforce 8400) and Windows 7 loaded about 15 seconds faster than Vista did. So that goes to show how much faster 7 is compared to Vista.GeForce2187

Both Vista and 7 are great. Vista got a bad rap because people where trying to place a newer OS on older hardware. In other words Dell was selling crap with Vista installed. Its like having a Win 95 Machine and expecting XP to run perfectly. It will run, just not as well as Win95.SinfulPotato

Vista got a bad rap because MS pushed it out the door too soon.

MS told people that if they had XP, they could "upgrade" to Vista. This caused lots of problems; previous files didn't work right, programs didn't work right and many other things. Also, the lack of driver support for Vista caused many, many headaches. This is what gave Vista a bad rap.

Once drivers caught up and MS got out SP1, Vista ran much better and most products out there worked just fine with Vista.

What a lot of people might not know is that Vista works best with 2GB of RAM or more. The more you have, the better it runs/the more it can do. So you're right that people were looking at the requirements and it says 512MB is required to run Vista.....well, 512MB on Vista is like putting a motor from a Geo Metro into a Porsche and expecting it to perform like any other Porsche made.

Since all the patching MS has done, Vista runs just fine. However, to correct their failure with the initial Vista launch, MS worked on saving face by releasing a new OS (Win 7) that works just as well (if not better) as Vista. Plus the addition of a new look (big whoop, if you ask me) to help make people think they've done great things in their new Win 7 OS - when Vista works just about as well.

[QUOTE="SinfulPotato"]Both Vista and 7 are great. Vista got a bad rap because people where trying to place a newer OS on older hardware. In other words Dell was selling crap with Vista installed. Its like having a Win 95 Machine and expecting XP to run perfectly. It will run, just not as well as Win95.neatfeatguy

Vista got a bad rap because MS pushed it out the door too soon.

MS told people that if they had XP, they could "upgrade" to Vista. This caused lots of problems; previous files didn't work right, programs didn't work right and many other things. Also, the lack of driver support for Vista caused many, many headaches. This is what gave Vista a bad rap.

Once drivers caught up and MS got out SP1, Vista ran much better and most products out there worked just fine with Vista.

What a lot of people might not know is that Vista works best with 2GB of RAM or more. The more you have, the better it runs/the more it can do. So you're right that people were looking at the requirements and it says 512MB is required to run Vista.....well, 512MB on Vista is like putting a motor from a Geo Metro into a Porsche and expecting it to perform like any other Porsche made.

Since all the patching MS has done, Vista runs just fine. However, to correct their failure with the initial Vista launch, MS worked on saving face by releasing a new OS (Win 7) that works just as well (if not better) as Vista. Plus the addition of a new look (big whoop, if you ask me) to help make people think they've done great things in their new Win 7 OS - when Vista works just about as well.