Lightweight Windows 7 pre-Beta on Eee PC 1000H looks very promising
By Thomas Ricker 
posted October 31st 2008 4:08AM
posted October 31st 2008 4:08AM
Sure, Windows 7 will run just fine on a thick slab of screaming desktop, but what everyone's really wondering is how it'll perform on laptops, or better yet, down-market netbooks. The very same stage that put Linux into the grubby hands of the Wal-mart consumer and forced Microsoft to extend the life of XP just to stay in the game. It's all pre-beta stuff for now mind you, but Laptop loaded up its early Windows 7 build onto an Eee PC 1000H (10-inch, 1.6GHz Atom, 1GB RAM) with decent results. For the most part, it ran "pretty well" with Laptop managing to get the netbook's features working from the XP drivers supplied by ASUS. And just as Microsoft demonstrated, the relatively lightweight Microsoft OS required just 485MB of RAM when Windows 7 was fully loaded, sans applications of course. Hot. There were some problems with graphics performance as demonstrated by jumpy, 720p video playback and video conferencing over Skype. Still, pre-beta is exactly that, pre-beta. Drop a gold-release Windows 7 OS onto an Eee PC convertible touchscreen and Microsoft and ASUS might be on to something come mid 2009.[Thanks, Avram P.]
Do you have access to the pre-beta build???
It's all over the net as of yesterday.
Engadget, for the millionth time .. I have been running Windows Vista just fine on a 1000H for MONTHS now.
It just works great .. even without tweaking. It runs as fast as XP. Even Aero work (albeit with a slight performance jab as the chipset in this thing sucks balls).
I may be a certified professional for Windows Vista but it just runs great out of the box for me.
It's interesting to note that the same site wrote about using Vista on the same laptop: http://blog.laptopmag.com/eee-pc-1000h-runs-vista-home-premium-with-few-hiccups
Yet you imply that this is some special Windows 7 ability. Maybe the amount of RAM it uses. But there's way too much hyperbole and stridency when talking about these things. It would be great if a tech blog actually had a handle on the facts rather than repeating and reinforcing what are often mistaken impressions.
Is Windows 7 above customised for Netbooks or will it release in the same lightweight fashion for desktops as well?
I ask this in all honesty:
What's the clear and distinct advantage (for me) of running Windows 7 OS on a netbook?
I'm still waiting for the answer to that question regarding running Windows Vista on ANYTHING.
What's the advantage?
What's the benefit to the consumer?
Don't ask me; if it were still compatible with the latest software, I'd still be running Win98SE!
Even so, XP was a huge leap forward in terms of features and stability;
I guess Vista's deal was security and some "me, too!" OSX features--which was a good thing.
So now with 7 we get the security, the "me, too" OSX features, some genuine interface improvements, and a smaller footprint.
But really, I still like to boot to Win98SE, just for fun. Those were the days...
Greatly improved security against malware and viruses, instant search, shadow copies of files, improved wireless networking, built in DVD authoring, vastly improved audio stack (with discreet controls for separate programs), 'breadcrumbs' in explorer, just to name a few under-the-hood enhancements.
So, why don't they make the "lightweight" version the regular version? If it runs "decent" on a 1.6GHz Atom 1GB RAM Eee PC, it should SCREAM on a high end laptop or desktop, and give us lots more available memory for those of us who run "serious" applications like compilers.
The point is it's not a lightwieght 'version', it's just lighter wieght than vista, because so many people bitch and moan about that being a system hog.
To be fair, my vista setup uses over 1gb with only a few background apps running, so all those whingey people probably have a point.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't pre-beta and RC versions of Vista far more light-weight than the final build?
I'm excited about 7, too, but I wonder if the final build's footprint may explode in size after some late-stage modifications.
No....The betas and RC or Vista were painfully slow... and memory hogs... Idling at 450-600 depends on how long you had it on....
they also seemed to self destruct in about a month....RC1 was like a rock RC2 was crud... don't know why they went with it....SP1 is like RC1 again lol....
also with super fetch Vista uses more memory if you have more... so say when I had 1Gb it used 250-300mb idle... now on my new machine I built 4Gb... no bloatware on either systems.... I idle at 450....
so from betas the memory usage wend down at least 150mb....
That was my Vista Beta2 - RC2 experience.... the orig RTM about 2 weeks in was a hog as well.... they fixed most of those problems though.
What worries me... is the fact that Dell and other put so much freakin bloatware on the machines ....
Also the free Antivirus that comes with some ISP's are extremely memory hogs.... I have seen Xp idling at 350mb.... wipe out AV it goes back to 150....
my numbers all have avast on it....
no.
beta 2, was far more ram-eater...
I'm amazed Engadget posted a semi-Microsoft friendly article on their site.
"500MB of RAM usage for a modern OS is great."
Yep. And 20 grams of chocolate a day is even better.
This is 500MB of ram usage on a netbook without everything running. That is totaly insane and I don't care if RAM is cheap.
With XP64 loaded, a few windows of IE, and Outlook running my system is using 425MB of memory. There is not one thing that Vista or Windows 7 will do better, other than run DX 10. All of my programs run faster than they would if I installed Vista on my work machine. If I installed Vista I would have to upgrade my computer to get the same performance without gaining any new usability.
That is why Windows 7 and Vista fails. I would much rather buy a netbook with XP than Windows 7. There will be no features worth having to make up for the performance deficit.
Windows 7 could be a good OS if they reduced the memory footprint and made the OS run faster. Instead it will be dead in the water just like Vista. It will sell millions of copies because it will be preloaded on new computers but corporations will still keep XP running as long as possible.
They will keep it until Microsoft finally declares XP end of life and businesses will be forced to upgrade for fear of support and patches for a buggy OS. It's the Microsoft way.
They got Windows 7 to work on a 1.6GHz Eee PC, with 1 GB of RAM? Oh man, I like Windows 7 already!!
SO, choppy video playback isn't caused by Windows7, it is caused by SHODDY CODECs. Removing the default microsoft codecs was the only way to get ffdshow/coreavc to run in WMP12. Now that I've got it working, windows7 IS better than XP!!!