# Windows 7 performance whoops Vista and XP



## soumya (Dec 13, 2008)

*www.2dayblog.com/images/2008/march/windows_7.jpg

The latest Windows 7 6965 build has been tested by ZDNet’s Adrian Kingsley-Hughes, and his results show that Microsoft’s promise of a vastly improved Windows experience in Windows 7 is coming true – despite 6956 not even yet at official “beta” status.

As the clock ticks ever closer to the official Windows 7 beta, due to be showcased by Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer at the January 7 pre-CES keynote,  the word is spreading that Windows 7 looks like rocking in every way that Vista didn’t.

From low memory usage, fast boot times, an improved GUI, fewer services on startup, longer battery life, speedy operation and more, users of Windows 7 pre-beta 6801 and the unreleased (but available anyway) 6956 builds are impressed.

Kingsley-Hughes (K-H) didn’t say how he managed to get his hands on 6956, but seeing as it is available from torrent sites as an ISO (converted from the leaked Chinese VHD), you can decide for yourself what the source may, or may not, have been.

K-H has written two blog entries over at ZDNet, with the first post comparing Windows 7 6956 to Windows Vista RTM and SP1, and the second post also adding Windows XP SP3 to the list.

In all cases, bar the Cinebench test, Windows 7 whoops Vista and XP SP3’s binary backsides, a fantastic performance benchmark that simply makes users expect even better from the final release code. Given the beta nature of the WDDM 1.1 graphics drivers, the Cinebench test will hopefully thrash Vista and XP when the final code is released.

Given that 6956 is being touted by bloggers as being close to the final “beta” build, there is the question of what additional Windows 7 surprises Steve Ballmer will unveil at the pre-CES keynote event.

This is especially so due to the “other Steve”, Steve Jobs, rumoured to be unveiling much more information about Snow Leopard OS X 10.6 at the Macworld 2009 event, starting January 5th.

Source


----------



## Kl@w-24 (Dec 13, 2008)

If Windows 7 can trump XP in performance and memory usage, it could turn out to be Microsoft's most successful OS ever!!


----------



## hsr (Dec 13, 2008)

hell, then what are those beta versions out there? i've just downloaded a 680x build from torrent of 2.32 gb am i doin r8?


----------



## x3060 (Dec 13, 2008)

looks promising , hope ms don't make a mess out of it.


----------



## IronManForever (Dec 14, 2008)

@ Klaw-24 
Windows 7 wont beat XP at Memory usage whatsoever..


----------



## hellgate (Dec 14, 2008)

^^^^  that for sure no doubt,but perf is a hell lot better than Vista SP2 v.113


----------



## amitava82 (Dec 14, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> @ Klaw-24
> Windows 7 wont beat XP at Memory usage whatsoever..


It's like saying Windows 98 runs on 64MB RAM where as XP takes min 256MB.


----------



## IronManForever (Dec 14, 2008)

amitava82 said:
			
		

> It's like saying Windows 98 runs on 64MB RAM where as XP takes min 256MB.


And thats what I wanted to clear out.
And yeah, about that running part. I have run Windows 98 on 11 MB RAM and browsed Internet through it. Windows XP whereas needs 26 MB to run. Inside Virtual Machines, that is.


----------



## hsr (Dec 14, 2008)

well gys i r not gettin this crappy pre-beta version installed pls suggest a source to dwnload from


----------



## Kl@w-24 (Dec 14, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> @ Klaw-24
> Windows 7 wont beat XP at Memory usage whatsoever..



Isn't that obvious?


----------



## desiibond (Dec 14, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> And thats what I wanted to clear out.
> And yeah, about that running part. I have run Windows 98 on 11 MB RAM and browsed Internet through it. Windows XP whereas needs 26 MB to run. Inside Virtual Machines, that is.



MS-DOS needs few KB's of ram to run.

Do we need to care about RAM these days? You get 1Gig of ram for 700 bucks. I have 2Gb of RAM, which was never fully utilized. I have used and still using Windows 7 and have posted few pics of it (running two dozen applications at the same time). Even then, the ram was not fully utilized and I surfed web and playing music, vidoes etc. 

Even the current gen smartphones are having 256MB RAM. So, let's keep that memory thing away.


----------



## george101 (Dec 14, 2008)

ya i agree with desibond. even i have 4GB ram. lets c how windows 7 performs wen it comes to games and mutitasking.


----------



## IronManForever (Dec 14, 2008)

Kl@w-24 said:
			
		

> If Windows 7 can trump XP in performance and *memory usage*, it could turn out to be Microsoft's most successful OS ever!!





			
				Kl@w-24 said:
			
		

> IronManForever said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I hope you know where it started from. 



			
				desiibond said:
			
		

> So, let's keep that memory thing away.


Intrestingly, Memory footprint is one of the most important parameters determining an OS. Primarily the reason why Vista has been bashed by _Anti-Microsoftians_.

Lets bring this to an end. Period.


----------



## comp@ddict (Dec 14, 2008)

desiibond said:


> MS-DOS needs few KB's of ram to run.
> 
> Do we need to care about RAM these days? You get 1Gig of ram for 700 bucks. I have 2Gb of RAM, which was never fully utilized. I have used and still using Windows 7 and have posted few pics of it (running two dozen applications at the same time). Even then, the ram was not fully utilized and I surfed web and playing music, vidoes etc.
> 
> Even the current gen smartphones are having 256MB RAM. So, let's keep that memory thing away.



Correction:

2GB Transcend Value 800MHz DDR2 is for Rs.1075 all time low price eh!


----------



## desiibond (Dec 14, 2008)

^^ OMG. damn. okay. That's dead cheap.


----------



## freshseasons (Dec 14, 2008)

Aren't we like spoilt with over indulgences in choices of the software we are using now a day.Think of the good old days on windows 98 and run it had.
  So many choices and each day getting better.
  Is investing in a software really wise coz you can be so sure that it will not be around for a long time and the newer and better will be just in corner.


----------



## Kl@w-24 (Dec 14, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> I hope you know where it started from.



There was a big IF in what I said, wasn't there? 

Anyway, if Windows 7 can provide me the features of Vista with acceptable performance, I don't see too many reasons for it to fail.


----------



## gxsaurav (Dec 15, 2008)

> Anyway, if Windows 7 can provide me the features of Vista with acceptable performance, I don't see too many reasons for it to fail.



Even in Beta state we are getting better performance then Vista in many things. Things are just going to get better once the drivers mature to WDDM 1.1


----------



## x3060 (Dec 15, 2008)

i get a feeling that this might just fly really high for MS.


----------



## Faun (Dec 15, 2008)

comp@ddict said:


> Correction:
> 
> 2GB Transcend Value 800MHz DDR2 is for Rs.1075 all time low price eh!


thanks for the news, looks like right time to get one this week


----------



## Garbage (Dec 15, 2008)

Thats good news...

/me is searching for someone who can send me Win7 Beta (pre-release) DVD.


----------



## Arun the Gr8 (Dec 15, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> @ Klaw-24
> Windows 7 wont beat XP at Memory usage whatsoever..



Yeah, it can i guess. Someone from microsoft posted that the 7 is running smoothly on his lenovo s10 despite the atom processor and 512 mb ram...


----------



## Vishal Patil (Dec 15, 2008)

whats the configuration of the PC  that Windows 7 was tested on. I doubt it will be able to beat XP.


----------



## ravi_9793 (Dec 15, 2008)

I don't understand, why people are worry about RAM requirement. 2 GB RAM cost is just around Rs. 1500/-


----------



## comp@ddict (Dec 15, 2008)

Yup, with increase in demand for ram by the PC, the prices hav fallen too.


----------



## casanova (Dec 16, 2008)

Any hints on official launch of Windows Se7en. I can't wait to get my hands on it.


----------



## chandru.in (Dec 16, 2008)

ravi_9793 said:


> I don't understand, why people are worry about RAM requirement. 2 GB RAM cost is just around Rs. 1500/-


It is not about RAM's cost.  Many laptops having 2 GB RAM start dragging like a pig with Vista and AV hogging most RAM.  Applications have very little RAM left.  Most professional applications are heavy leading to great productivity hit when RAM is unnecessarily lost to OS and necessary services like AV.


----------



## fabler (Dec 16, 2008)

Hi guys..

I've installed windows 7 build 6956..My GMA 900 driver was installed successfully. But when I open any full screen application my computer just get freeze.. so anybody have any idea how to fix it? I've also try windows update. but no luck.. anybody having problem like this? But it is working well on my friend's computer without any problem. He has 965 chipset and I've 915 chipset.


----------



## gxsaurav (Dec 16, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> It is not about RAM's cost.  Many laptops having 2 GB RAM start dragging like a pig with Vista and AV hogging most RAM.  Applications have very little RAM left.  Most professional applications are heavy leading to great productivity hit when RAM is unnecessarily lost to OS and necessary services like AV.



Ahem...what???? Slow, where?

I m using a C2D E6550 with 2 GB RAM & Use professional application which u r talking about with Windows Vista. There is no performance penalty that I see compared to Windows XP. oh! I m also not using any anti virus software. Just Ad muncher & IE with IE 7 pro.


----------



## The_Devil_Himself (Dec 16, 2008)

here we go again.....


----------



## Ecko (Dec 16, 2008)

What Micro$oft did introducing SP3 was ,lowering its performance...!!!
This seems a pre-planned stratergy to me after they got a worst response of Windows CR@Pista in the market.
This will surely help Windows 7 
See my siggy....!!!


----------



## zyberboy (Dec 16, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> It is not about RAM's cost.  Many laptops having 2 GB RAM start dragging like a pig with Vista and AV hogging most RAM.  Applications have very little RAM left.  Most professional applications are heavy leading to great productivity hit when RAM is unnecessarily lost to OS and necessary services like AV.



Wrong,2Gb ram is more than enough for vista to run beautifully.for example vista requires only 600mb ram for os. With an additional anti virus+firefox+nero+Adobe+VS2008 express+Urban terror(game) loaded there will be still more than 900 ram left.


----------



## fabler (Dec 16, 2008)

Ecko said:


> What Micro$oft did introducing SP3 was ,lowering its performance...!!!
> This seems a pre-planned stratergy to me after they got a worst response of Windows CR@Pista in the market.
> This will surely help Windows 7
> See my siggy....!!!



I'm totally agree wid ya..


----------



## desiibond (Dec 16, 2008)

zyberboy said:


> Wrong,2Gb ram is more than enough for vista to run beautifully.for example vista requires only 600mb ram for os. With an additional anti virus+firefox+nero+Adobe+VS2008 express+Urban terror(game) loaded there will be still more than 900 ram left.



Totally agree. I ran vista on my 3yr old PC. It was running well and was blazing fast when I upgraded ram to 2Gig. Seriously, the performance can be attributed to the most widely used h/w that I picked and hence didn't face any driver incompatibility etc.


----------



## chandru.in (Dec 16, 2008)

zyberboy said:


> Wrong,2Gb ram is more than enough for vista to run beautifully.for example vista requires only 600mb ram for os. With an additional anti virus+firefox+nero+Adobe+VS2008 express+Urban terror(game) loaded there will be still more than 900 ram left.


I have told about this enough.  I'm telling this from many of my friends experience with Vista pre-installed laptops.  I'm not interested is re-iterating the whole story.


----------



## Kl@w-24 (Dec 16, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> I have told about this enough.  I'm telling this from many of my friends experience with Vista pre-installed laptops.  I'm not interested is re-iterating the whole story.



Manufacturers often ship loads of utilities and additional programs bundled with the OS, which keep running in the background. More often than not, these potentially unwanted apps are the cause of slowdowns and not Vista which came pre-installed with the laptop.


----------



## adithyagenius (Dec 16, 2008)

Kl@w-24 said:


> Manufacturers often ship loads of utilities and additional prograns bundled with the OS, which keep running in the background. More often than not, these potentially unwanted apps are the cause of slowdowns and not Vista which came pre-installed with the laptop.



Totally agree with you. My HP laptop was too slow. Tried all kinds of tweaks and defragmenting utilities. Tried uninstall everything, reinstalled vista using restore discs. Then finally, I used untouched copy of vista from torrent and installed using my OEM CD key. . I had to call MS to get it activated. I told the MS guy that I am using pirated disc to install. He didn't care. I was rewarded for my effort. It is as fast xp in most of the tasks except gaming. (200 points drop in 3d mark 06). My laptop was more responsive than xp in multitasking. It is actually faster in vmware. But now can only run 1 vmware with good performance as opposed to two on xp. But I wanted only 1 that was faster. Lower battery time though. But my laptop exceeded the vista requirements.
core 2 duo 1.8ghz, 945gm
Geforce 7600 GO & 17" 1440*900
2*80GB HDD, 2*512MB 667Mhz

I used to hate vista because of loss of eax and control over sound in many apps, RAM + VRAM sharing address space, for being slower than xp. Now I use vista 64 and used Realtek 3d soundback and alchemy. I am pretty happy. I dont have xp installed anymore.


----------



## fabler (Dec 16, 2008)

@adithyagenius

like your siggy...


----------



## gxsaurav (Dec 16, 2008)

chandru.in said:


> I have told about this enough.  I'm telling this from many of my friends experience with Vista pre-installed laptops.  I'm not interested is re-iterating the whole story.



This is where you are wrong. You are comparing OEM installed Vista which generally comes with many ads with a newly & custom installation of Linux/Windows XP. 

What I stated, was a clean Install of Windows Vista, & some tweaking which you can even read in a guide I wrote. Since Vista is slow for U for some reason beyond my understanding, it doesn't mean it will be slow for everyone.

It seems you still don't understand how Vista manages memory or about Superfetch but just need something to blame vista for.


----------



## fabler (Dec 16, 2008)

right saurav..


----------



## IronManForever (Dec 16, 2008)

chandru.in said:
			
		

> It is not about RAM's cost. Many laptops having 2 GB RAM start dragging like a pig with Vista and AV hogging most RAM. Applications have very little RAM left. Most professional applications are heavy leading to great productivity hit when RAM is unnecessarily lost to OS and necessary services like AV.





			
				chandru.in said:
			
		

> I have told about this enough. I'm telling this from many of my friends experience with Vista pre-installed laptops. I'm not interested is re-iterating the whole story.



Same with my friends SONY Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?

_Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
250 GB HDD_

Nothing has been modified after it was bought. And it is hellish slow; yeah, maybe because of the crapware intalled by OEMs. Vista takes almost 2 minutes to load. 

Isn't there anyway to restore the speed without formatting and re-installing?


----------



## gxsaurav (Dec 16, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> Same with my friends Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?
> 
> _Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
> 2GB DDR 667 Mhz
> ...



Well, I don't think there is any other way then reinstalling. My friend is using a similar Acer Laptop & after reinstalling windows, it has become really fast.


----------



## desiibond (Dec 16, 2008)

^^ Have you tried Vista Tune-Up utilities given in this months' digit magazine. Also check the "guide to Vista"


----------



## adithyagenius (Dec 16, 2008)

I don't trust 'tune up' utilities. Most of the tune up utilities for xp did more bad than good.


----------



## casanova (Dec 17, 2008)

No, its not the utilities but the utility is named "Tune Up Utilities 2009 (latest version). Use it to trust it.


----------



## Vishal Patil (Dec 26, 2008)

The thing to worry about ram usage is that larger the code, more the time it takes to do the job. smaller the code faster is the job accomplished.

so if you code two DIFFERENT programs in C or assembly language to copy data from one place to other with same features, the smaller will execute fast.
I mean it the matter of getting 3MBps and 2.5MBps for copying same data to pendrive in two different OS. Thats where low ram usage matters not the cheapness of RAM.


----------



## desiibond (Dec 26, 2008)

^^ So, what happens when the RAM never gets full? NEVER!!

It actually depends on the speed of the processor (not clock speed but performance/wall) and speed of RAM (and of course, RAM timings). If the RAM is above 2gig, all you need to worry about is processor and HDD if your system is slow.


----------



## Jayanth.M.P (Dec 26, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> Same with my friends SONY Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?
> 
> _Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
> 2GB DDR 667 Mhz
> ...






_Pentium Dual Core T2390, 1.86 Ghz, 1 MB L2
2GB DDR 667 Mhz
Intel GMA X3100
160 GB HDD

Vista runs like a breeze. It boots 15-20(max) seconds. with security suite installed. 
_


----------



## desiibond (Dec 26, 2008)

IronManForever said:


> Same with my friends SONY Laptop. How should Vista run on this kinda Hardware?
> 
> _Pentium Dual Core T2310, 2.0 Ghz, 1 MB L2
> 2GB DDR 667 Mhz
> ...



Check my PC in my signature. Vista was very fast even when I used onboard nvidia 6100 and 1Gb ram. The speed depends on how you make it work and not on how new your hardware is.


----------



## Pratul_09 (Dec 26, 2008)

Windows XP lost because it didn't have support for advanced devices. Vista lost because it had all the support for all the advanced devices and features, but didn't allow to control them when to activate and deactivate them. Let's hope that Windows 7 learns from these mistakes and improves.


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Dec 27, 2008)

Easy solution dudes keep both in dual boot or triple boot.


----------



## Vishal Patil (Dec 28, 2008)

desiibond said:


> ^^ So, what happens when the RAM never gets full? NEVER!!
> 
> It actually depends on the speed of the processor (not clock speed but performance/wall) and speed of RAM (and of course, RAM timings). If the RAM is above 2gig, all you need to worry about is processor and HDD if your system is slow.



 well all i can say is that, it was an example. Actually copying data is not matter for todays CPU's, but how about playing games with higher fps and resolutions due to low processing required as a result of efficient coding.


----------



## khattam_ (Dec 29, 2008)

gxsaurav said:


> Ahem...what???? Slow, where?
> 
> I m using a C2D E6550 with 2 GB RAM & Use professional application which u r talking about with Windows Vista. There is no performance penalty that I see compared to Windows XP. oh! I m also not using any anti virus software. Just Ad muncher & IE with IE 7 pro.



I understand that you are an MVP, but IE7??

Anyways, I have the same config as yours.. however, I have Kaspersky installed for obvious reasons.. Am sure you haven't encountered Win32.Sality....



Jayanth.M.P said:


> _Pentium Dual Core T2390, 1.86 Ghz, 1 MB L2
> 2GB DDR 667 Mhz
> Intel GMA X3100
> 160 GB HDD
> ...



either your Vista installation is new or you use it very less with very less software installed...

I have a E6550, 4MB L2 Cache, 2GB DDR2 800 and Vista 64bit. It boots in about 20secs too.. but that is only after I reinstalled it, after it became too slow to normally operate, last week..



jojothedragon said:


> Easy solution dudes keep both in dual boot or triple boot.


yes I have.. Win Vista 64bit and Ubuntu 8.10 64 bit... 
I have XP in VirtualBox which I access from both OS, when I need it.. But I barely do...


----------



## desiibond (Dec 29, 2008)

Vishal Patil said:


> well all i can say is that, it was an example. Actually copying data is not matter for todays CPU's, but how about playing games with higher fps and resolutions due to low processing required as a result of efficient coding.



Do you really think that today's games give more fps just by adding more RAM??

btw, on my PC, NFS:MW runs better on vista than on XP. Any explanation for that??


----------



## jck (Dec 29, 2008)

im going to install win server 2008 64 bit


----------



## comp@ddict (Dec 29, 2008)

^^^To do what?


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Dec 29, 2008)

> either your Vista installation is new or you use it very less with very less software installed...


My vista is 7months old and i've kAv and comodo installed. Vista totally runs like breeze. Load time after login is about 20sec but boot takes about 15-20sec coz i got daul boot xp&vista. And Xp runs totally cool with load time  with 4-5 sec after login screen.


----------



## SunnyChahal (Dec 29, 2008)

I installed my Vista Ultimate about 5 months back in August. I just use the CCleaner,NOD 32 and my Vista is as fast as it was on the first day. All my hardware works,so do all the games and all the Dx10 games perform better on Vista than on XP. I also keep my OS updated. Installed SP2 and performance in GTA IV increased by 5 FPS!
I see no reason to go back to XP. Though I've got Windows 7 Beta Build 7000 installed just for testing purposes.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 29, 2008)

As my experience with Firefox on windows vs Firefox on linux, first on my rig then on a dual core rig tells, the performance difference is seen only on lower end rigs. Once you go higher, the OS which first lost actually gains lots of ground.

Vista may hang like sh!t on 512MB RAM, but on 2GB RAM, vista will be faster than Windows XP.

(In my case, firefox is faster on windows in my rig but on a dual core rig, same OSes its faster in linux).

And having multiple versions of the same OS installed in your PC is a WASTE OF HARD DISC SPACE. Keep One and stick to it.

I once had a friend who had installed Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows ME and Windows XP on his computer and said that he had absolutely no compatibility issues. Apparently, he booted into Win98 once a week and used XP all the time. Others were just lying there for "compatibility reasons" and Win98 was only for cheap oooold games. Not at all worth it IMO.


----------



## jck (Dec 29, 2008)

comp@ddict said:


> ^^^To do what?




to take full advantage of the 4 gb ram which i am going to get


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 29, 2008)

jck said:


> to take full advantage of the 4 gb ram which i am going to get


Then Get Vista 64bit. OR Linux. Why server ?


----------



## jck (Dec 30, 2008)

*www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/2008/03/16/why-should-i-use-a-server-os-for-my-workstation/

3DMark 2006 - Standard setup, just installed and ran.

    * Windows XP x64 = 5789 3D Marks
    * Windows Vista x64 = 5541 3D Marks
    * Windows Server 2008 x64 = 5990 3D Marks

HD Tune on Main HDD (The WD SATA)

    * Windows XP x64: Maximum Transfer = 69.8 MB/sec; Burst Rate = 96.2 MB/sec
    * Windows Vista x64: Maximum Transfer = 71.1 MB/sec; Burst Rate = 110.7 MB/sec
    * Windows Server 2008 x64: Maximum Transfer = 75.6 MB/sec; Burst Rate = 114.3 MB/sec

Cinebench 9.5 (64-Bit Edition); Multiple CPU Rendering:

    * Windows XP x64 = 742
    * Windows Vista x64 = 745
    * Windows Server 2008 x64 = 747

Half-Life2: Lost Cost (Video Stress Test No AA no AF - defaults for my card @ 1280×1024):

    * Windows XP x64 = 127.56 Avg. FPS
    * Windows Vista x64 = 85.25 Avg. FPS
    * Windows Server 2008 = 115.51 Avg. FPS

Counter Strike Source (Video Stress Test - 4xAA no AF - defaults for my card @ 1280×1024):

    * Windows XP x64 = 139.65 Avg. FPS
    * Windows Vista x64 = 111.42 Avg. FPS
    * Windows Server 2008 x64 = 121.94 Avg. FPS

Battlefield 2 (High settings on everything @ 1280×1024):

    * Windows XP x64 = 95.2 FPS
    * Windows Vista x64 = 80.1 FPS
    * Windows Server 2008 x64 = 94.4 FPS

so maybe games will run a little slower..(dont have much room for game thanks to my 7300 go) but general responsiveness will be better. i just hope it dosent create problem with dual monitors..


----------



## iMav (Dec 30, 2008)

Well, I think Sunny here can tell you about games on Win 7 & from what he has told me there is a huge FPS boost in games on 7.


----------



## hellgate (Dec 30, 2008)

^^^  yup theres huge boost in fps with win 7.
the only prob is that u wont get all drivers for new hardware.


----------



## SunnyChahal (Dec 31, 2008)

I am dual booting Windows 7 Ultimate 32-Bit Build 7000 Beta and Vista Ultimate 32-Bit SP2. Both OSs are fully updated.
Here's the deal,
1.Assassin's Creed:
  Vista-30-35 FPS,Windows 45-50 FPS

2.NFS Undercover:
  Vista-25-35 FPS with constant slowdowns.
  Windows 7-35-40 FPS ,no slowdowns whatsoever,smooth as butter.

3.FarCry 2:
 Vista-12-15 FPS.
 Windows 7-20-30 FPS

But for some reason or the other I am not being able to install GTA IV. It's asking for some xlive.dll which I placed in sys32 but still it didn't seem to work. I installed GTA IV in XP SP2 compatibility mode as none others helped.

All the above benchmarks are from my Q6600,8800 GTS 512 G92(not SLIed),4GB DDR2 RAM 800 Mhz,P5N32-E-SLI rig with all the graphics settings maxed out in all the games mentioned above. I am using a 22" LCD monitor with the rig.
I am yet to try out SLI with Windows 7.

As for the drivers,Windows 7 had drivers for my LAN card,sound card,chipset,GPU and even my multimedia keyboard(Logitech G15) and mouse (LogitechMX518 ).

A querry here,do Vista drivers work on Windows 7? I need the latest nVidia drivers to enable SLI.


----------



## jck (Dec 31, 2008)

in the benchmarks i came across for gaming xp32>xp64>2008server64>vista64



hellgate said:


> ^^^  yup theres huge boost in fps with win 7.
> the only prob is that u wont get all drivers for new hardware.


u managed to get all drivers?
plus thats not the only problem dude
*www.downloadsquad.com/2008/11/10/5-very-basic-things-windows-7-still-isnt-any-good-at/


----------



## fabler (Dec 31, 2008)

hi Sunny1211993

Is there GMA 900 drivers available in windows 7 build 7000 ? Coz I've installed windows 7 build 6956 but the GMA 900 drivers was not available so couldn't able to see DVDs on my lapppy..


----------



## JojoTheDragon (Dec 31, 2008)

Win7 rocking on gaming. This is gr8.


----------



## jck (Dec 31, 2008)

win7 isnt rocking on gaming , its just better than vista as i showed in the benchmarks...
everything is better than vista


----------



## fabler (Dec 31, 2008)

guys...  my previous post is not only for sunny... if anybody of you know if gma 900 drivers are available in win 7 build 7000.. so please let me know..

Thanks..


----------



## iMav (Dec 31, 2008)

Sunny1211993 said:


> A querry here,do Vista drivers work on Windows 7? I need the latest nVidia drivers to enable SLI.


They should work. You can try it.


----------



## MetalheadGautham (Dec 31, 2008)

Hmm... very good news indeed. The fact that there is a 5-10 FPS difference means a lot. While IGPs like HD3200 in 780G deliver 19FPS in 1024x768 Crysis at medium settings, this could mean that Crysis could become playable at those settings. Most IGPs which have a slightly-below playable FPS rating for such games stand to benifit a LOT.


----------



## fabler (Dec 31, 2008)

anybody know about GMA 900.. please tell me ?


----------



## comp@ddict (Dec 31, 2008)

^^^What do u wanna noe,u can install Windows Se7en on ur lappy with GMA 900? Answer is yes.
RAM for perfect performance - 1GB

BTW, XPx64 stands out as the best till now, plan to install it.


----------



## fabler (Dec 31, 2008)

comp@ddict said:


> ^^^What do u wanna noe,u can install Windows Se7en on ur lappy with GMA 900? Answer is yes.
> RAM for perfect performance - 1GB
> 
> BTW, XPx64 stands out as the best till now, plan to install it.




Thanks for the reply.. 

Actually I've installed windows 7 build 6956 on my lappy. But rather than installing gma 900 drivers, windows 7 has installed generic drivers. So I couldn't start any fullscreen application. Whenever I start media player and fullscreen it, the movie just hangs. I can't even play games. I've tried to install windows XP gma 900 drivers in windows 7. It was successfully installed but whenever I start any fullscreen application my lappy just got freeze. 

anybody ?


----------



## comp@ddict (Dec 31, 2008)

Hmm, that's strange, but CHooto Cheeta had installed Win7 on his lappy with GMA900, or was it GMA950?


----------



## SunnyChahal (Dec 31, 2008)

If GMA 900 graphics drivers are not there in Build 6956 then they are most likely not to be in Build 7000 too. You can try installing Vista drivers. Try your luck! Another option is to wait for the Build 7004 to come out which is very unlikely to happen


----------



## fabler (Jan 1, 2009)

Sunny1211993 said:


> If GMA 900 graphics drivers are not there in Build 6956 then they are most likely not to be in Build 7000 too. You can try installing Vista drivers. Try your luck! Another option is to wait for the Build 7004 to come out which is very unlikely to happen




alright.. thanks for reply..  so I wait till the final beta is out ?


----------



## SunnyChahal (Jan 1, 2009)

Just wait till the Beta 1 is out officially in Jan,most probably around 15 Jan. You _should _give  Vista drivers a shot. They may just pull it out for you.


----------



## shantanu (Jan 1, 2009)

Vista drivers work on windows 7 perfectly.. no problems..


----------



## SunnyChahal (Jan 1, 2009)

Downloading nVidia 180.84 drivers right away!


----------



## fabler (Jan 1, 2009)

hi guys.. there is no vista drivers available for GMA 900.. so I've downloaded latest xp drivers and installed it on windows 7 build 6956. Installation was successful. but when I start any fullscreen application. my lappy just got freeze.. no luck...


----------



## gary4gar (Jan 1, 2009)

I believe,Windows 7 will rock. in coming years people would swear by it.
and vista is a bad release. people have already rejected it outright.
But windows 7 will be a hit.


PS: Why are you people discussing Vista performance in Windows 7 thread? Please try to stay on topic.


----------



## ionicsachin (Jan 1, 2009)

using build 7000 right now.....i somewat feel it is more stable then Vista Sp1 lol


----------



## roshan1236a (Jan 1, 2009)

Microsoft SUCKS these days I dont think Windows 7 will be a success.
I will still be with XP!


----------



## SunnyChahal (Jan 1, 2009)

^^ 
So live in stone age and be happy n00b. Use XP till you die.
And yeah,MS doesn't suck,it's you who does.


----------



## hellgate (Jan 1, 2009)

^^^ any moajor diffs bet build 6956 & build 7000??


----------



## IronManForever (Jan 1, 2009)

^ Chill! 

That was for Sunny1211993.


----------



## hellgate (Jan 1, 2009)

^^^   didnt quite get u.


----------



## SunnyChahal (Jan 1, 2009)

Neither did I.

BTW no major difference between Build 6956 and 7000,just gadgets and some bug fixes.


----------



## shantanu (Jan 1, 2009)

guys chill.. the best way is to wait and watch what comes up.. i myself love XP, but cannot use it forever.. Vista gave me some new dimensions and i am sure Windows 7 will also be a great hit..

i will prefer the users to not discuss about build 7000 if you are not a genuine beta tester.. Pirated or torrented build cannot give you a clear idea what windows is all about..

Thanks

Shantanu


----------



## apoorva84 (Jan 7, 2009)

just downloaded the torrent yesterday and installed it today...there's definitely a  performance boost when compared to vista. but XP still wins. i have a intel p4 1.7ghz machine with 1gb ram. not very impressed with windows 7. but this is still beta 1, so i am sure by the time the final version is ready, it will be worth the upgrade.


----------



## gforce23 (Jan 8, 2009)

Windows 7 Beta 1 is now officially available for TechNet and MSDN users. The ISO is 2.7GB. Everyone else can download it from tomorrow.


----------



## fabler (Jan 8, 2009)

Thanks for the news pal.. but right now its not available for download.


----------

