So far, I've used Windows 7 on a few different computers, all of which ran BETTER than XP...
System 1) Win 7 32bit, Dell Optiplex GX620 desktop/mini tower, P4 3.8Ghz, 2GB RAM, nVidia add-in board, 500GB Seagate .12 series drive.
The entire experience is noticeably faster. Java apps that took up to 15 seconds to load (that weren't in memory cache) took no more than 5 seconds. MS Office 2007 runs like it should and doesn't lag like it does on XP. This computer really surprised me as I thought it would be a 'dog' for performance. Remember the days of using Windows 95 on a 486 with 8MB of RAM? That's what I was expecting. The opposite results happened: it was faster than XP.
System 2) Win 7 64 bit, Dell Optiplex 745 desktop/mini tower, 2.4Ghz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI add-in video, 500GB Seagate .12 series drive.
Performance of this is on-par with a brand new system. While this computer is 2 1/2 years old, it feels brand new.
System 3) Win 7 32 bit, Dell Inspiron 1720 laptop, 128GB Patriot SSD, 4GB RAM. Sure, a good SSD will speed things up. Why buy a new laptop when this 2 year old unit is as fast as, or even faster, than a brand new unit?
System 4) Win 7 64 bit, HP Pavilion mini tower, Quad-core Q6600, 4GB RAM, nVidia video, WD 1TB disk drive. I thought moving from a dual core 3.0ghz with Vista 64 to a quad-core 2.4ghz would be slower. Nope. It's faster. Everything is faster and feels faster. I'm glad to see that Microsoft has gotten out of their own way.
System 5) Win2008 Server R2 (Same as Win 7 64 bit), AMD 5200+, 4GB RAM, ATI video, 750 Seagate Hard disk. Noticeably quicker than Win2008 server. Boot times are less, things just work right out of the box.
Worthy to note: ALL systems feel faster than anything I've used with Vista 32/64. The GUI is substantially more lightweight and usable. Apps load faster across the board.
As for RAM footprints, around 300-400MB for the OS to boot & load. While that is far greater than a lean Linux distro like Ubuntu, the extra memory footprint is used in a manner that makes us all happy: it works well. 1GB of total system RAM is adequate for performing basic tasks, unlike Vista. 2GB RAM vs 4GB...I can't tell any difference in performance for generic tasks.
Lastly, do NOT purchase a system with the intent to use Windows 7 Starter. The base GUI does not include the enhanced/accellerated video. Play back of DVDs stutters terribly & overall usability is compromised. Make sure you upgrade to Home Premium on any system, even low-end netbooks if you plan on using Win 7.
System 1) Win 7 32bit, Dell Optiplex GX620 desktop/mini tower, P4 3.8Ghz, 2GB RAM, nVidia add-in board, 500GB Seagate .12 series drive.
The entire experience is noticeably faster. Java apps that took up to 15 seconds to load (that weren't in memory cache) took no more than 5 seconds. MS Office 2007 runs like it should and doesn't lag like it does on XP. This computer really surprised me as I thought it would be a 'dog' for performance. Remember the days of using Windows 95 on a 486 with 8MB of RAM? That's what I was expecting. The opposite results happened: it was faster than XP.
System 2) Win 7 64 bit, Dell Optiplex 745 desktop/mini tower, 2.4Ghz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM, ATI add-in video, 500GB Seagate .12 series drive.
Performance of this is on-par with a brand new system. While this computer is 2 1/2 years old, it feels brand new.
System 3) Win 7 32 bit, Dell Inspiron 1720 laptop, 128GB Patriot SSD, 4GB RAM. Sure, a good SSD will speed things up. Why buy a new laptop when this 2 year old unit is as fast as, or even faster, than a brand new unit?
System 4) Win 7 64 bit, HP Pavilion mini tower, Quad-core Q6600, 4GB RAM, nVidia video, WD 1TB disk drive. I thought moving from a dual core 3.0ghz with Vista 64 to a quad-core 2.4ghz would be slower. Nope. It's faster. Everything is faster and feels faster. I'm glad to see that Microsoft has gotten out of their own way.
System 5) Win2008 Server R2 (Same as Win 7 64 bit), AMD 5200+, 4GB RAM, ATI video, 750 Seagate Hard disk. Noticeably quicker than Win2008 server. Boot times are less, things just work right out of the box.
Worthy to note: ALL systems feel faster than anything I've used with Vista 32/64. The GUI is substantially more lightweight and usable. Apps load faster across the board.
As for RAM footprints, around 300-400MB for the OS to boot & load. While that is far greater than a lean Linux distro like Ubuntu, the extra memory footprint is used in a manner that makes us all happy: it works well. 1GB of total system RAM is adequate for performing basic tasks, unlike Vista. 2GB RAM vs 4GB...I can't tell any difference in performance for generic tasks.
Lastly, do NOT purchase a system with the intent to use Windows 7 Starter. The base GUI does not include the enhanced/accellerated video. Play back of DVDs stutters terribly & overall usability is compromised. Make sure you upgrade to Home Premium on any system, even low-end netbooks if you plan on using Win 7.