I'm just curious, but it seem that when I have Vista idling with all my background processes running I seem to be using 1.5GB of RAM (Kaspersky uses alot of that RAM). I have the same stuff installed on Win7 (including the same version of Kaspersky with the same scan and protection settings) and Win7 only seems to use around 800MB of RAM when idling. So has Win7 been optimized better to be less of a resource hog or amI crazy and imagining things?

definitely not crazy, my experience has been the same. Using a lot less resources then Vista, which to me is a huge seller.

Hi JasonS134Thanks for posting.Yes, your experience is close to what many others are seeing.The main theme for W7 is Smaller, Lighter, and Faster.Regards, Ronnie Vernon MVP

Thanks. That's good to know. So far I'm really liking Win7.

I haveinstalled 7 and Vista on the same machines several times and as far as I can tell they use about the same RAM. Both scale the RAM usage to how much is available. I have had 7 taking as much as 900MB in 2GB of RAM or as little as 300MB in 512MB of RAM, and Vista does about the same. And this is with no other software installed. I've found, as have others, that IE7 in Vista will consume all available RAM and then give you an Out of Memory error if you don't close it out regularly, with IE8 being in 7 I have not noticed this problem, so that may be the resource difference.

Yeah I see that same result in vista at idle my machine runs 3.2 GB Ram in use. In windows 7 I use 2.7 gb ram. Reason for so much ram this machine host two virtual machines(Development server 2003, development server fedroa 10). Then aslo ran media center on top of that.

Something odd there Jason! My Vista machine idles with FF open at 830mB, Windows 7 on another machine idles at 800 mB. Try using Avast Free!Roger

Yeah, I know Avast Free will use less resources than Kaspersky. But I've used both and prefer Kaspersky (just personal preference really).

I can say this curiously.. When i use Windows Vista on my laptop with 4 GB ram i can't run NFS Undercover game.. And when i install Windows 7 with same and all the same components of programs i can run and perfectly play NFS Undercover when Adobe Photoshop CS 3 working on background with approx. 200 plugins and many of textures on it. Note: BE SURE ! Avast! working fine on Windows 7 ! And when any virus wants to come on Windows 7 Avast! and built in anti virus program of Seven alerts one by one :) It's going perfect !Sincerely..DincerDincer

My experiece has also been positive. set up vista premium 64 bit TOTALLY equal to Win 7 64 bit, using the sys info gadget (not scientific), my Vista tended to ilde at 5893gb of 8189 available (using 2296) and on Win 7 ideling at 6571 of 8189 avail (using 1618 Gb) of RAM. That to me is very telling, especially in a Beta. If MSFT tweaks it more, then I forsee even leaner times Thanks so far MSFTDaveThe seeds of today are the flowers of tomorrow

It's very interesting to me, as many people have noted, the performance differences even with Win7 being a Beta. The computers in my signature are the ones I run, with the laptop being my day to day machine. It takes a good two minutes or so for it to boot fully and settle at idle in Vista Home Premium.The desktop machine, by all measures a less capable setup, takes around half that time to boot and settle at idle. While the laptop doesn't lag much at all in the things I do and the games I play, at times there's a notable chop. The desktop machine, even in the Beta, hasn't suffered it once. It's enough to make me ponder pulling out the spare drive and testing Win7 on the laptop.I have to admit, I never CHOSE willingly to install Vista, it came with the laptop and it's run well enough for me to not fuss with attempting to put XP Pro on it. So far, my experience with Win7 has made me sit up and go "Wow, here's my XP replacement."Now, if only I could get my Classic Start Menu back. HehehMain computer: HP Pavilion DV9000 - MS Windows Vista Home Premium: 64-bit. Hardware: Intel Core Duo T5750, 3 GB DDRII RAM, 2x120 GB SATA 7200 RPM HDDs, GeForce 8600M GS, RealTek HD Audio, LightScribe DVD-RW. Secondary: Custom built - MS Windows XP Home SP3/Windows 7 Beta 64-bit. Hardware: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0 GHz), 1 GB DDR RAM, 320 GB HDD space (1x80, 1x160 PATA, 1x80 GB SATA), 1x4X DVD-RW Single-Layer and 1x16X DVD-RW Dual-Layer, GeForce 7300 GT (AGP) 512 MB, SB Audigy MP3+.

Its definitely a step in the right direction for MS, but as far as lean and light go its still not there. On my test machineI have 3 identical drives, one each with XP Pro Vista Home Premium and Win7. The machine I feel represents a typical user machine I see with my customer base. It consists of a celeron 2.8ghz single coremachine with 1gbram and 256mb ati video. I have a variety of programs installedto support devices like printers and cameras along with2 mid range games and a decent AV solution.Trying to evaluate from an "average user" point of view these were my observations.XP runs quite well on that machinefor the most part. There was performance hits from HP'spackaged printer software and IE7, thosebeing the most resource intensive always-onapps on it, it still isanOS that does'nt make you wait for basictasks.Vista was a disaster from the word go, so slow on nearly every task, it was a real disappointment. The Release of SP1 did well to improve itsperformance butVista was still whatI considered unusable for day to day work.I have had many customers express interest in upgrading to Vista but once they realized they would have to spend an additional $200-300on thier existing systems, just to make up for the deficiency of the OS,it became a non option. I just could not recommend Vista to anyone but customers with above average hardware in clear conscience.Windows 7 I expected to be no better, It suprised me in nearly all aspects. The installation was fairly quick and painless, It may have been quicker then Vista but it has been quite some time since I installed Vista so thats inconclusive. First run impressions were quiteimproved, simple tasks did not feel like it was running in jello. Hardware and software setup was a breeze, I appreciate the toned down UAC warnings, it no longer seems like the OS is questioning my judgment at every step. Windows 7 is still somewhat of aI/Ohog, especiallywith its desktop search indexing going offfrom time to time,that is going to bethe first thing on my disable list. It is obvious the coders have done a good job with improving the OS at nearly every turn.Its a step in the right direction asI pointed out above, but its not there yet. XP Still runs circles around it in nearly every aspect,with or without the eye candy. I trulyhope this beta isn't the base before the bloat. With todays economy and the push for eco friendly it just should not take a serious power hungry machine to run the latest and greatest OS at less speeds then the previous releases were capable of. Personally I buy new hardware to increase system performance not to just keep up with the OS. I don't buy the more functionality excuse either. There are alternative OS's that can do more with less and still provide impressive eye candy to the user, granted they are still not ripe for mainstream desktop use they do show us it is possible. If they can do itI am sure MS can too.Kudos to the Win7 Team, Keep up the good work.Tom S.

Well, in all fairness that's to be expected. Vista and Windows 7 are both FAR newer than XP (which is closing on the 10 year mark amazingly), and require more in the way of basics to get things done. As I recall, it was the same when people upgraded from Windows 98 to Windows XP. Windows XP definitely used far more in the way of resources and so was slower. If I installed Windows 98 on a current machine, it would SCREAM, certainly. The same can be said of XP versus Windows Vista and Windows 7. Of course Windows XP runs circles around Windows 7 and especially Vista, it was written to run on hardware around 1/4 the power of the machines available today (that's a rough number based on simple math in clock frequencies in RAM, not an actual power rating that takes into account multiple core CPUs, FSB increases, and RAM speed increases among other things).I'm not saying you're wrong, XP is certainly faster and because it's still THE platform many people use it's still the benchmark. I'm just pointing out that the hardware levels available now eclipse what XP was MADE to run on (233 MHz Pentium MMX, 64 MB RAM minimum as opposed to 1 GHz PIII/Athlonand 512 MB RAM to be able to even THINK of running Vista), so it's not an ENTIRELY fair comparison. I think the thing that has people sitting up and going "Wow" is that we expected Windows 7 to be just as bloated and sluggish as Vista, and it's NOT. For the first time in my recollection at least, we have what looks to be a successor OS that is actually closer in performance to the last one everyone wants to still use as opposed to its immediate predecessor. Here we have what looks to be an OS that is a step up in appearance and behavior, and two steps backward (in a GOOD direction) for requirements. You can, once again, do more with less machine. Just my thoughts.Main computer: HP Pavilion DV9000 - MS Windows Vista Home Premium: 64-bit. Hardware: Intel Core Duo T5750, 3 GB DDRII RAM, 2x120 GB SATA 7200 RPM HDDs, GeForce 8600M GS, RealTek HD Audio, LightScribe DVD-RW. Secondary: Custom built - MS Windows XP Home SP3/Windows 7 Beta 64-bit. Hardware: AMD Athlon 64 3000+ (2.0 GHz), 1 GB DDR RAM, 320 GB HDD space (1x80, 1x160 PATA, 1x80 GB SATA), 1x4X DVD-RW Single-Layer and 1x16X DVD-RW Dual-Layer, GeForce 7300 GT (AGP) 512 MB, SB Audigy MP3+.

I agree with a new OS and more functionality you cant expect the same performance on old hardware, its just not a reasonable expectation. The perfomance gap from 98 to XP was not so great that you couldn't tweak XP into submissionand have it run half decently on even a233 CPU. At the time of release the perfomance gap between XP and Vista was colossal, even with high end hardware and all the eye candy turned down,XP on older hardware still out performed it for day to day use. Now hardware is insanely fast but with Vista youbarely notice it. People are spending a small fortune for new hardware andend up withless overall performance. Its hard to convince a customer what he needs to spend in order to have a system that is noticably better performing then the old worn out box he wants to replace.One of the best analogies I found so far, "Would you spend an extra $10,000 on an exact same model of car you drive with a bigger and better engine only to find out it goes slower because they filled the fenders with lead?"I can't say its only MS doing this either, all software companies are doing the same thing and I feel its a bad trend and counter productive towards serious improvements in home and office PC use. At least it appears MS is listeningthis time around.Tom S.

Tom S3 said: I agree with a new OS and more functionality you cant expect the same performance on old hardware, its just not a reasonable expectation. The perfomance gap from 98 to XP was not so great that you couldn't tweak XP into submissionand have it run half decently on even a233 CPU. At the time of release the perfomance gap between XP and Vista was colossal, even with high end hardware and all the eye candy turned down,XP on older hardware still out performed it for day to day use. Now hardware is insanely fast but with Vista youbarely notice it. People are spending a small fortune for new hardware andend up withless overall performance. Its hard to convince a customer what he needs to spend in order to have a system that is noticably better performing then the old worn out box he wants to replace.One of the best analogies I found so far, "Would you spend an extra $10,000 on an exact same model of car you drive with a bigger and better engine only to find out it goes slower because they filled the fenders with lead?"I can't say its only MS doing this either, all software companies are doing the same thing and I feel its a bad trend and counter productive towards serious improvements in home and office PC use. At least it appears MS is listeningthis time around.Tom S.Kinda missing the point. Saying 98 machine can run XP is not always true. The minimum req for 98 was a 486DX/66 with 16MB of ram. With a span of 4 years from 98 to XP the latest gen of 98 machines at the time could in fact run xp just fine, med age (2 years) gear could run with some tweaking but machines from that were middle of the road the day 98 came out ran like cold mollasses with xp. Now look at XP to 7, thats what 7 years? So a machine that is new this year will run it beautifully, gear 3.5 years old will run it well enough, machines from the day xp was released...no..... Same for vista (even though it was a larger than needed step thanks in large part to the over allocation of ram from the video stack). I will agree that vista needed to be tweaked to fit the mold, but please compare apples to apples.Oh and my 2 year old machine that was built with quality parts but not bleeding edge fast or anything ran vista x64 like a dream, in fact ran BETTER than XP which is why i ditched my dual boot, and we built my wife a machine for Vista last year for $470 that also runs beautifully (could use more ram tho.) So saying that at release it ran like worse than an old machine with xp isn't always true either. The $10,000 analogy was the same I heard on the salesfloor for windows 2000 and xp from customers asking "why doesn't this feel faster then my 95 or 98 / 2000 machine?" Older will always run faster on newer tech... newer tech just allows for newer features to be run that could not be handled on the older OS. The answer i gave to them is the same as i give to you... Ask yourself " why am I upgrading?" If the XP generation of gear works for you and you have no reason to switch, don't..just stick with what you have till you need some new feature or device that your old system won't run.

I agree here with what is being said - common sense says that a newer OS will require more resources - it's pretty simple.However I'm dealing with Microsoft directly for our business, and after dropping Vista on a couple of machines I was really not happy with how it seemed to "suck" everything in - I'm talking standard Dell desktops dual core with 2Gb mem. Back to XP and everyone was happy.Microsoft have been banging on that Windows 7 RC would be WAY less hungry than Vista, and that it would run happily on even some of the old laptops we have (Dell Latitude D420, 1Gb memory, 1.2Ghz dual core).Last weekend I performed a clean install on said D420, and these are the results. Just measuring using standard Task Manager:Memory at startup: 620Mb PF Usage, total Physical Memory available 147384Memory after opening Windows Explorer and IE8: 823Mb PF Usage, total Physical Memory available 54668.At this point it was grinding when opening Word or Excel with file less than 10Mb in size.In short - unusable.On the plus size - I did feel that Windows 7 was a lot more cleaner OS than Vista - look and feel were really nice, security features easy but comprehensive.We'll stick with XP for now, but I'd say that anything with 4Gb memory upwards is going to be really nice with Windows 7. Don't get your hopes up if you have less memory....