This is what i been hearing. its takes about 700 MHz to just run windows xp while it takes about 2.0 MHz to just run windows vista or windows 7. Before i say anything else, lets say we have the three operating system at 3.0 MHz each. So i come to idea that if its taking 2.0 MHz just to run windows 7 or vista as compared to 700 MHz just to run windows xp, then i'm assuming that out of the 3.0 MHz, only 1.0 is really being used up for speed for windows 7 or vista since 2.0 is already being used up just to run either system as opposed to windows xp only using 700 MHz just to run the xp system having about 2.3 ghz left over for speed. This is my theory speaking. Is that how the systems work? am i right? I only ask all of this is because i'm considering getting windows 7, 64 bit edition. But if I'm going to be sacrifice more MHz (speed) just to run the system alone and less being used for speed and since MHz can only be around 4.0 max on most home computers, then i rather just settle for windows xp for that reason alone. that's of course if that's the case.
I have a theory and question about all three operating systems, windows xp, 7 & vista
- Thread starter trent713
- Start date
rawcomputers
New Member
You'll see better performance out of 7 than xp-sp3 or vista.
I've successfully (albeit i pulled my hair out) got 7 running (with aero off obviously) on a pentium iii laptop with sdram.
It doesn't "TAKE" a certain amount of mhz or ghz to run an os - these are the measures for cycles (or processes) per second that the processor is capable of.
Every OS (and other piece of software for that matter) does have an operating minimum, but will obviously run slower the closer to that minimum your system is.
Another consideration is RAM - have lots of it, or be ready to wait all day for the simplest things!
I've successfully (albeit i pulled my hair out) got 7 running (with aero off obviously) on a pentium iii laptop with sdram.
It doesn't "TAKE" a certain amount of mhz or ghz to run an os - these are the measures for cycles (or processes) per second that the processor is capable of.
Every OS (and other piece of software for that matter) does have an operating minimum, but will obviously run slower the closer to that minimum your system is.
Another consideration is RAM - have lots of it, or be ready to wait all day for the simplest things!
Bodaggit23
Active Member
Right now my Windows 7 is using 0 Mhz "just to run". 
Vista is faster than 7 on my computer. 7 boots faster, but
functionally, Vista is quicker.
Vista is faster than 7 on my computer. 7 boots faster, but
functionally, Vista is quicker.
Drenlin
Active Member
^ Vista is faster at loading programs, yes. That's part of the reason why it uses so much RAM. 7 is faster at most everything else, though.
Windows 7 and Vista will both run perfectly fine on a 3GHz system. I'm assuming you mean a Pentium 4?
edit: I should add that XP is getting pretty old now. It may take fewer resources, but that's not everything there is to an OS. If you ran Win98 on one of today's systems, it would be lightning fast...but you wouldn't do that, would you? Well, I'd venture to say that there's as much difference between 98 and XP as there is between XP and 7. It may not be as visible, but 7 (and Vista, for that matter) really is a lot more sophisticated.
Windows 7 and Vista will both run perfectly fine on a 3GHz system. I'm assuming you mean a Pentium 4?
edit: I should add that XP is getting pretty old now. It may take fewer resources, but that's not everything there is to an OS. If you ran Win98 on one of today's systems, it would be lightning fast...but you wouldn't do that, would you? Well, I'd venture to say that there's as much difference between 98 and XP as there is between XP and 7. It may not be as visible, but 7 (and Vista, for that matter) really is a lot more sophisticated.
Last edited:
Bodaggit23
Active Member
So much RAM? 20% is alot to make applications load faster? Love it!
Vista x64 uses 1.2GB of my RAM idle.
Win 7 x64 uses 1.1GB of my RAM idle.
Windows 98 would bottleneck my hardware...lightning fast, it would not be.
Twist86
Active Member
I am curious do would you mind if I asked a few questions about your Aero removal? I am trying to do the opposite and keep Aero but I have no clue what files I need to remove from some batch files to keep it
