Windows 7 Will Take Less Memory More Efficient

[Poke]

Sounds like it might be good..

Gates: Windows 7 will "take less memory, be more efficient"

 

[John Kotches]

I'll believe it when it's delivered and validated. Otherwise, it's just hype.

 

[andyb2]

Wasn't vista supposed to be "good" also?

 

[jamesalan9]

Funny how they make these claims after Apple's next OS 10.6 Snow Leopard will be designed to run much more efficient, in particular on dual core processors.

 

[Ramy]

We can all hope for this, but I doubt it will happen.

 

[pjmrt]

I'll believe it when it's delivered and validated. Otherwise, it's just hype.

Totally concur. I haven't seen anything but bloatware. Every advance in memory or speed seems to have been countered by a slower more memory hogging software. We can hope, but I would be surprised. At least the OS has gotten somewhat more stable since XP.

 

[Jim S.]

Funny how they make these claims after Apple's next OS 10.6 Snow Leopard will be designed to run much more efficient, in particular on dual core processors.

I didn't know it wasn't already much more efficient than Windows. My (admittedly brief) experiences with it have certainly seemed so.

And I wouldn't want to run Windows on anything less than a dual-core processor these days.

 

[mike123abc]

Apple's OS is essentially FreeBSD with a nice GUI and utilities. FreeBSD is of course a Unix like system that is very, very old. It used to work with 64k of memory, although the smallest I ever used it on was 256k. We had a 1 megabyte system that would run 50 users...

http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html

 

[John Kotches]

Apple's OS is essentially FreeBSD with a nice GUI and utilities. FreeBSD is of course a Unix like system that is very, very old. It used to work with 64k of memory, although the smallest I ever used it on was 256k. We had a 1 megabyte system that would run 50 users...

Open Source

FreeBSD's roots are indeed old, however current incarnations of FreeBSD are current... You probably aren't really saying that, but if you are your mistaken.

Also, Sun has put Solaris into a freeware like state, and a killer tool (dtrace) is part of Mac OS X as is their new very high performance file system, zfs.

Cheers,

 

[mike123abc]

Yeah I meant old as having been around forever, but is very up to date. I run the newest 7.0 on my server. In college we worked on BSD on the PDP and VAXes. I do not run zfs yet, it looked interesting, but a bit overkill for my application.

 

[John Kotches]

Yeah I meant old as having been around forever, but is very up to date. I run the newest 7.0 on my server. In college we worked on BSD on the PDP and VAXes. I do not run zfs yet, it looked interesting, but a bit overkill for my application.

I use dtrace for the real stuff at work -- and I use zfs for my storage server at home.

Very effective tools

Best,

 

[glcombrink]

Win7 will be written to take advantage of the hardware of the day. By the time Win7 hits, even basic computers will come with 8 core processors and 8-16 GB RAM. That means that Win7 will need to be 64 bit, as 32 bit OSs can't see over 4 GB RAM. While some will surely complain that Win7 won't run on their 5 year old computers (just as they do now with Vista), there is no money to be made writting software for old machines. Besides, Microsoft already wrote the OS for those older computers. It's called XP.

 

[cybertrip]

Win7 will be written to take advantage of the hardware of the day. By the time Win7 hits, even basic computers will come with 8 core processors and 8-16 GB RAM. That means that Win7 will need to be 64 bit, as 32 bit OSs can't see over 4 GB RAM. While some will surely complain that Win7 won't run on their 5 year old computers (just as they do now with Vista), there is no money to be made writting software for old machines. Besides, Microsoft already wrote the OS for those older computers. It's called XP.

But the problem with having an older OS is MS will be discontinuing support. Why not make an OS that is modular and just sell add-on packs and upgrade packs. I understand they are trying to change how we do computing, but, this is getting ridiculous with all these eye candy GUI's. I shouldn't have to upgrade my OS if it is perfectly functional. They shouldn't punish me by making future software incompatible with my current OS. Offer me a update to make my OS work with all the new technology and Windows Media Players and DirectX's.

 

[John Kotches]

But the problem with having an older OS is MS will be discontinuing support. Why not make an OS that is modular and just sell add-on packs and upgrade packs. I understand they are trying to change how we do computing, but, this is getting ridiculous with all these eye candy GUI's. I shouldn't have to upgrade my OS if it is perfectly functional. They shouldn't punish me by making future software incompatible with my current OS. Offer me a update to make my OS work with all the new technology and Windows Media Players and DirectX's.

I don't mean to sound like I'm defending Microsoft -- but from time to time you reach a point where it is not practical to upgrade on the fly. There become too many dependencies that you can't get the checks to complete successfully. There are also kernel based features (or even rewrites) that have to have all the little bits of old code gone.

Cheers,