February 16, 2009 at 11:16 am #161164LoganMember
BOOT – From OS selection to fully loaded i.e. hourglass stops
EMAIL/NET – Load time from click to loaded
BOOT = 90 seconds
EMAIL = 23 seconds
NET = 10 seconds
BOOT = 57 seconds
EMAIL = 15 seconds
NET = 6 seconds
Its weird because just ‘guesing’ by usage, it felt like Win 7 was slower to execute, but the stop watch timings proved to be different.
One thing I have noticed though is Win 7 is noisier, as it seems to churn away and access the hard drive more then XP. Anyone know why this is?
Also, did anyone install Win 7 on the standard 1GB, see how it was, and THEN upgraded to 2GB? Did it make any noticeable improvement?
Thanks.February 17, 2009 at 9:58 pm #183940FraggarMember
I installed Win7 on the standard 1GB, worked perfectly. Timed my booting with entering the password included at 55 seconds.
Then installed the 2GB ram, didn’t notice any difference. Too bad I bought that piece of memory.February 17, 2009 at 11:23 pm #183935TCMuffinMember
Increasing the RAM from 1 GB to 2 GB is unlikely to make much difference to boot times.
Extra RAM helps you run more programs/windows at the same time. So, when you have several Firefox tabs open at the same time and Thunderbird and the Gimp and OpenOffice….that’s when the extra memory will come into its own 🙂
And of course, if you want to run memory intensive programs, such as image editing on large files and games.February 18, 2009 at 12:43 pm #183936emeowwwMember
I have compared 1GB and 2GB on Windows 7, and yes there is no difference to boot times. This also applies to XP. It also doesn’t make app loading any faster unless they are memory intensive e.g. photo-video editing
7 has more background processes running at once – that should explain increased hard disk activity.
You will find that a tweaked version of XP will be faster than Windows 7, the reason why I will be sticking to the former instead.February 19, 2009 at 12:29 pm #183939LoganMember
That’s not been my experience so far. I agree XP is still the faster Windows OS for the NC10, however XP now sits in its own category. As really, the choice at present these days is which one you put up against XP, Vista or Windows 7. Considering tests done on many websites, you’d go with Windows 7, as it uses less resource then Vista – although still more then XP.
Personally I’ll take a small hit to be running a nicer looking OS then XP. I can’t say I actually notice much difference between the two. I’ve now got my 2GB installed and I disagree with you on the no difference side of things. I haven’t redone any timings but I can obviously see execution times are a lot shorter then on 1GB.
Yet to try games to see if there’s been an improvement, but as I say, application side, definite difference.February 20, 2009 at 10:01 am #183938Mat-MooMember
2GB of ram should improve battery life as more can be cached to memory, therefore there should be less hard diskmemory swapping (Theory!)March 23, 2009 at 11:39 pm #183937rainlsdParticipant
I’ve got a boot of 12sec for winXP on my NC10, altho i’m using a 128gb SSD drive wich pretty fancy specs 🙂
Unfortinatly i couldn’t seem to get neither Vista or Win7 to be installed on my machine, no clue why but it ended up stuck at finalizing installation and in 2 cases it rebooted just to show a bluescreen 🙁
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.