What is the *real* memory requirement of W7 ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Dec 18, 2006
Messages
588
Location
CA
Not talking about "system requirements" as published by Microsoft. I am trying to get an idea of what is the real world memory footprint of Windows 7 ? For exmaple Vista gobbles up ~1GB ram right off even before you start using any program. Similary how much does Windows 7 consume and start off at ?
 
Last edited:
I don't know but, Smart Computing magizene people will know for sure. My limited experience with MS is-Don't get until after release of first Service Pack. New MS operating systems are usually pointed toward 2X memory requirements of their last mistake i.e. Vista.
 
Vista uses a lot of memory to boost performance supposedly. If there is free memory it will use it. This kind of makes sense because memory is no good if it isn't being used.

Windows 7 is supposed to load only services that are needed so it should use a little less memory unless you are using these services. It can load services on demand better from what I am told.
 
I am doing some testing with Win7 now. For light tasks, 2GB is probably enough. If you're running some piggy processes (virus/spyware scanners, games, Office, etc), I'd pony up and get 4GB. Otherwise, you'll start to swap to disk and performance will fall dramatically.

Good luck.
 
Well, for example I have Windows 7 RC running on an HP laptop with 1GB RAM, once logged in, half is used for the OS.

I also have had several versions of Ubuntu, Fedora, etc, and with those default installs, memory use was around 200 or so MB, leaving about 70% of the total RAM available for use.
 
This is a semi-loaded question. Please factor your background processes that you are always running (ie AV, ASpy, Wireless Keyboard etc).

My old set up with Windows 7 prerelease candidate was 3G of Ram on a P4 3.2ghz (unicore HT). When the OS was left alone to relax to a "quiet" state of to minimum processes running was around 600MB used. Peak usage I ever saw was 1.3-1.5G.

I recently installed Windows 7 on a friends new Lenovo laptop of a Pentium Dual Core 2.1 gHz. At any one time 7 plus his apps are eating about 800mb-1.2G of Ram. Again there are better authorities here but the general consensus is Windows 7 is not Vista type resource hog. Also, I assume the OS "triages" usage based on available ram in the first place. Then, again Windows 7 is hog compared to XP of course.
 
Yeah, it's still not as snappy as XP, but it is a significant improvement over Vista. To be honest, the ONLY reason people will buy Windows 7 is because it's going to get jammed down their throats with new pc purchases. XP is perfectly serviceable, but Microsoft is going to EOL it to force the issue for people that want/need security updates. People with Vista can probably hold out since Microsoft is gradually de-porking it over time and they'll have to support it for a number of years going forward. So those folks don't have much incentive to pay for Win7.

I'm only testing Win7 because a client has asked me to. I'm perfectly happy with Ubuntu 9.04 on my laptop and on my main desktop partition.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
Yeah, it's still not as snappy as XP, but it is a significant improvement over Vista. To be honest, the ONLY reason people will buy Windows 7 is because it's going to get jammed down their throats with new pc purchases. XP is perfectly serviceable, but Microsoft is going to EOL it to force the issue for people that want/need security updates.

I'm only testing Win7 because a client has asked me to. I'm perfectly happy with Ubuntu 9.04 on my laptop and on my main desktop partition.


Well said, and true to the core.
 
I'm running W7RC-32 right now on an older test mule:

A64 3500+ (Newcastle); Abit AV8 (VIA K8T800 pro); 1gb of PC3200; generic Radeon 9550 AGP card, and an ATA100/160gb HDD.

With all usual background apps (ASW,AV, etc.), a couple unusual ones (Squeezecenter), and Firefox running, it's eating around 450 mb. Not bad, and not that much more than XP-SP3.

For all pedestrian uses, W7 runs adequately on this older system, with some occasional stumble when the multitasking heats up or more complex video is rendered. However, I don't think I would count on it for any serious video editing, as the CPU is not loafing most of the time and there are plenty of bottlenecks elsewhere.

W7-64 might present an entirely different outcome.

In a newer system, I think anything 2gb RAM or more should be more than fine for the typical user. The GPU appears more important with all the Aero effects going on. A 64 bit version doesn't make much sense with under 4 gb.

I could live with W7, based on what I'm seeing.

*****

RIP Les Paul
 
Originally Posted By: Familyguy
People with Vista can probably hold out since Microsoft is gradually de-porking it over time and they'll have to support it for a number of years going forward. So those folks don't have much incentive to pay for Win7.


Vista is the Win2K of its time - a short-lived precursor to the next generation OS standard. Except that Win2K was a great breakthrough product in 1999. I can't say the same about Vista.
 
I'm running W7 RTM x64 with 6GB of RAM on a A64 x2 5200+ (2.6 ghz). IIRC, when I'm just surfing with 6 or 7 windows open, the RAM usage is around 1.3 GB.

Apps seem to be a lot more snappier opening than XP x86.
 
Well that's why they call it Windows 7... Need 7gb or ram and 7gb of HDD space.
LOL.gif
 
I am running the 64 bit Windows 7 RC and after bootup I am only using from slightly less than 1GB to 1.2GB. It scales to how much RAM you have available.
I haven't had time to put the released version on yet to see if it is any different, but I doubt it. Overall I like Windows 7.
 
current XP system running with all the mumbo jumbo right now. Windows LM, AIM, Zone Alarm, AVG, Cobian 9, and APC utility, 74Xmb Ram. W7 Beta and now release run about 50mb more without zone alarm, and is as fast if not faster than XP...

I feel W7 is what vista should have been. I ordered my copy of it, as I will build a new PC around it.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top