Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
Windows 7 evaluation
Innuendo:
I don't have it installed currently, but I bet I ran it at native resolution as I didn't change any options at all when I did run it. I just installed it and off I went.
MilesAhead:
W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.
-Josh (June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think MS is putting the Ultimate edition out there for people to try because it runs slower and bulkier. Sorry but I'm not that trusting of human nature. :) If nothing else, the install is probably smarter. When I bought a PC with XP Home on it, the swap file was set at a minimum of 16 MB and no maximum. When I did a clean install of XP Pro on a PC with 1 GB ram, the minimum swap was set to 1.5 GB and the maximum to 3 GB. I'll leave it to your intuition which system spent more time resizing the swap file. :)
f0dder:
I don't have it installed currently, but I bet I ran it at native resolution as I didn't change any options at all when I did run it. I just installed it and off I went.-Innuendo (June 04, 2009, 08:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
If you didn't change anything, you ran it at 800x600 :)
W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.
-Josh (June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think MS is putting the Ultimate edition out there for people to try because it runs slower and bulkier. Sorry but I'm not that trusting of human nature. :) If nothing else, the install is probably smarter. When I bought a PC with XP Home on it, the swap file was set at a minimum of 16 MB and no maximum. When I did a clean install of XP Pro on a PC with 1 GB ram, the minimum swap was set to 1.5 GB and the maximum to 3 GB. I'll leave it to your intuition which system spent more time resizing the swap file. :)-MilesAhead (June 04, 2009, 10:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Microsoft put the Ultimate version out for testing because they want the entire system tested, not just a subset. And your XP swapfile size was probably set by the OEM that assembled your machine...
Innuendo:
If you didn't change anything, you ran it at 800x600 :)-f0dder
--- End quote ---
Then I guess I ran it non-native. It's a very strange little game with a very strange sense of humor about it.
And your XP swapfile size was probably set by the OEM that assembled your machine...
--- End quote ---
Oh yeah, what f0dder said to the millionth degree. The first thing you do when you buy any pre-built machine is you wipe that sucker and do a clean install of the OS of your choice. The OS install that comes out of the box is just a drive image copied onto the hard drive and usually chock-ful of crapware.
Doing a clean install lets the Windows installer make intelligent decisions about the machine it is being installed on rather than having to rely on what was gained from the installer on who knows what machine the drive image came from. Another added benefit is your machine won't be slowed down by all the crapware, demoware, and near-malware the OEM pre-installed on the machine for you. Some of that stuff embeds itself so deep that the only way to make sure it's totally gone is a re-format anyway.
MilesAhead:
I don't have it installed currently, but I bet I ran it at native resolution as I didn't change any options at all when I did run it. I just installed it and off I went.-Innuendo (June 04, 2009, 08:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
If you didn't change anything, you ran it at 800x600 :)
W7 should run the same, regardless of version, on the same system. Ultimate would actually be expected to run slower due to the added services running at startup if any performance difference were to be noted.
-Josh (June 04, 2009, 04:04 PM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think MS is putting the Ultimate edition out there for people to try because it runs slower and bulkier. Sorry but I'm not that trusting of human nature. :) If nothing else, the install is probably smarter. When I bought a PC with XP Home on it, the swap file was set at a minimum of 16 MB and no maximum. When I did a clean install of XP Pro on a PC with 1 GB ram, the minimum swap was set to 1.5 GB and the maximum to 3 GB. I'll leave it to your intuition which system spent more time resizing the swap file. :)-MilesAhead (June 04, 2009, 10:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
Microsoft put the Ultimate version out for testing because they want the entire system tested, not just a subset. And your XP swapfile size was probably set by the OEM that assembled your machine...
-f0dder (June 05, 2009, 12:16 AM)
--- End quote ---
It's most interesting you're aware of the corporate motivations. Guess you must be on the BOD?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version