how to improve perfomance of my windows 7

I don't know why so many people insist on using their old hardware when new Microsoft OS's are released. If you want to truly enjoy your new windows 7, then custom build a new system. I used these specs in my brothers system I just built.

Intel Core i3-540 CPU
Gigabyte GA-H55M-S2H Motherboard
4GB Kingston HyperX DDR3 1333MHz Memory
Western Digital Caviar Blue 500GB Hard Drive
LG DVD Burner 22x with Lightscribe
XFX GT 220 1GB PCI-e graphics card
Antec Earthwatts EA650 650 Watt Power Supply

The rest doesn't matter, like the case and other parts, but this system is super fast. Don't make a comment about the DVD Burner like, "why didn't you get a bluray drive?" because we download all of our hi-def content and we hate discs everywhere. This was built for under $800 and there are few if any systems you could buy at the store that would even have a chance to compete with this setup in regards to overall performance. Just get rid of the old parts and build something current to take full advantage of this new and advanced OS from Microsoft. You will not have regrets.

Maybe because some of us don't like the thought of tossing out a perfectly good computer like that. Better than all those parts ending up in a landfill somewhere. And not to mention $800 is a lot of money. Not everyone can afford to drop that kind of cash on a new computer every couple of years.

Jimmy,

You are right, there is no sense in tossing out your old machine! Windows will work on older hardware, just make sure it fits the system requirements and older hardware is compatible.

Cheers,
Tara

I just added that to my HP d4999t machine. I picked out the GT 220 with DDR3 1GB RAM and it's a screamer. The d4999t is not noisy and this card didn't add any noise I could hear.

Good choice!
Bob

What is the point of getting the new OS and running it on the old hardware. You performance is going to be garbage regardless of the OS, unless you are using Vista on that old hardware, then you have a real problem.

1GB ram and it's a screamer, what did you have as your last system, an Apple IIe. Geez, lets get out of the stone age guys and have a little pride in your systems.

But I do like this card as a basic starting point for anybody who wants multimedia performance on an HDTV, but not for gaming or anything else serious.

Not true. You can run a pretty recent version of Linux on older hardware and get better performance in a lot of respects. And while the latest version might be something of an exception since they dropped PPC support, every version of Apple's Mac OS X managed to IMPROVE performance across the board on supported systems.

Microsoft is the lazy one that relies on people buying new systems with faster CPUs and more memory rather than really taking the time to do performance tuning of the code.

You should really get some experience with OTHER operating systems out there before making ignorant comments like this.

My experience across the board is fine. I simply an intelligent enough to place my emphasis of experience on what most people use. Since most people do not use Linux, then I don't care about it's performance. Since Apple only has about 12% of the computer market and they don't sell their software separately so custom system builders can build custom PC's with the Mac software, I don't care about that either.

Maybe you should know why someone is making a certain type of comment before you make an ignorant comment, fool.

Also, if people keep updating their OS and leave their old hardware in place, what is the reason for updating the OS? Think about it. It is most likely 1 of 2 things. Either they just really want the newest OS because it is cool, or they are experiencing diminished performance from their system. If they performance is not what it was at the time of purchase, then what is the cause? Sometimes the OS has been affected by malware and other times the hardware is degrading due to heat or simply time. So, if you just want the cool new OS, fine. I have nothing to say about that and that is not what I am commenting on. On the other hand, if you have diminishing performance in your system hardware, then it is obviously time for an upgrade and simply upgrading your OS is not going to make your hardware function better. That is the point of getting new hardware to go with the new OS. Seriously, a PIV with 1 GB ram on Windows 7 will not run even in the same galaxy as a Core i3 with 4 GB ram on Windows 7. But you probably think that is an ignorant comment and that shows just how stupid you are.

It's simple really, when you stop to think about it.

While none of what you say is incorrect (this time), the analysis is way off. Like I said before, it's only Microsoft that is too lazy to spend the time really tuning the code in their OS. Linux does it, the *BSD people do it, Apple does it as well. While a P4 will be a P4 forever, and won't be able to compete with a Core i3/5/7/9 which are 3 generations beyond the P4, not to mention several design factors of the P4 lead to it's rather lackluster performance, there IS something to be said for making the most of what you have.

You see this a lot in the video game world, specifically with consoles. As time progresses, developers learn to better squeeze every last bit of performance out of a system's hardware. The hardware itself has never changed, it's just a matter of learning how to use it more efficiently.

I have done some development work myself, so I'm not totally unsympathetic to Microsoft's position. Performance tuning is slow, tedious, expensive, and often times the performance payout is pretty low. It does have some positive elements however. It often forces you to streamline your code, which makes it easier to maintain later, and it also increases the odds of finding a bug that would have gone unnoticed otherwise. You also have to really think about the structure of your program and how to implement it. That generally leads to a much better overall program that is easier to maintain in the long run.

However, there does come a point where it really is pointless to try and support certain things. Microsoft is wrestling with that very issue right now with Windows, and that's why you hear about other operating systems Microsoft has in the works that aren't based on Windows. Sooner or later, pretty much every program reaches a point where it needs to go in directions you never anticipated at the outset, and trying to shoehorn in some of these features just isn't practical.

The catch here, is that NONE of this really factors in to your wildly inaccurate analysis based on the facts at hand.

A P4 w/ 1GB of RAM will never be able to match the performance of a Core i3 with 4GB, this is true. However, is it so unreasonable to expect that a new OS utilize a system's hardware to the best of its abilities, given the obvious limitations?

Next time, you might want to follow a thought through to completion before calling others stupid. You're the one making an argument on a flawed premise, that stems from an incomplete analysis of the situational factors. It's not a pissing contest about which system will run faster, it's about making the best use of what you have. Because not everyone can afford to spend $500-$1,000 dollars on a new system every time Microsoft comes out with a new version of Windows, and if you load Linux onto a P4 with 1GB of RAM, you can still get a couple years of useful life out of the thing as a desktop, and several more after that as a file server or something similar. It's all about what the system is used for.

Now run along child, the grownups are trying to have a discussion.

OH MAN!!! we`re not having a debate competition or something. So please don`t argue over this topic and make things worse, instead try helping me find a solution.

I already told you, and others agreed, you need more RAM. Now, if you choose to simply ignore that recommendation because it's not what you wanted to hear, that's your problem.

You have 512MB of RAM right now, and that is about 1/4 of what you SHOULD have for acceptable performance. And no, ReadyBoost will NOT be an acceptable substitute.

If you have some additional question to ask, then do so. Otherwise your question was asked and answered long before our little errant child burst in trying to prove how much he knew, and only succeeded in doing the opposite.

Wow, Jimmy, I guess I touched a nerve. Calling me a child proves a lot in terms of your maturity level and also your comfort level with my knowledge of systems. Don't feel bad that you have a low performing system, even with the newest OS. My only point was that if someone doesn't have the extra money to build a new system with current and relevant technology, then there is little point in spending hundreds or even one hundred dollars on the newest OS. It is most important to follow the price vs. performance curve (yes, this is bases on optimization problems in Calculus if you ever studies this) and to get your money's worth. For example, if you kept the same hardware from your XP machine and upgraded to Vista and then subsequently upgraded to 7, you went through 3 OS's. The initial OS price was built into the price of this original system. Then you spend minimally $100 for Vista and then minimally $200 for 7, you are already 1/4 of the way to a new system that will include 7. So, while yes, you may get slightly improved performance and yes, you are taking advantage of immediate savings on the purchase of new hardware, you are hardly doing yourself a favor. You will still at some point have to upgrade to a new hardware platform. The benefit is that now the technology is so dramatically improved that many of the performance stripping issues are going away. The thermal specs of the CPU are so greatly improved down at the 32nm node that at stock clock speed with a stock cooler, the i3 under load will have difficulty reaching 40 celcius. This means that there will be no thermal degredation and the part will last much longer. I don't think I need to cite an example for each part since you seem to want to be the guru in here (even though you are not) but this is all going to boil down to the simple fact that most people buy a system that is not customized and uses fairly crappy parts if it was purchased from one of the big companies (Dell, HP, Sony) and it makes no sense to spend more money on a crappy system.

Next time, either build your own or go to someone who will custom build a system for you, using only high quality parts, not these cheap parts that are generally slapped in the box. Your performance will remain at a higher level for considerably longer and you will not necessarily need to upgrade to the next OS.

Geez, take it easy baby, the more opinions the better. That is how we garner better understanding and can develop more people into saavy users, not just people who go buy a box and play solitaire.

No taking sides here. It appears that this discussion has gone south.