Warning to Windows 7 Testers (2 Viewers)

[pilehave]

I think I'll stay on Windows XP prepped for as small footprint as possible. A fresh install only uses 75-80 MB RAM (without MediaPortal of course). Now THAT'S effecient

I have Vista on my laptop but I really just want as simple an OS as possible that can manage to run MediaPortal. If MediaPortal would run on Windows 2000 I would do that!

You need to remember that Vista has improved audio and video playback (both in kernel side & user mode side) which are main concerns when it comes to selecting an OS for HTPC application.

What do you mean with improved? I have tried EVR on my Vista-machine and really don't see any difference with it compared to my XP, neither on PQ or functionality.

 

[midiboy]

Hi pilehave,

one thing that I really like about Vista and Windows 7 is that it is tearing free when AERO is enabled. With Windows XP I always had tearing problems during video playback on my projector no matter what I tried (and I tried more than a dozen tipps and tricks I found on forums etc.). With Vista and AERO enabled, tearing is simply gone.

Bye,
Alex

 

[The_Iceman]

I think I'll stay on Windows XP prepped for as small footprint as possible. A fresh install only uses 75-80 MB RAM (without MediaPortal of course). Now THAT'S effecient

I have Vista on my laptop but I really just want as simple an OS as possible that can manage to run MediaPortal. If MediaPortal would run on Windows 2000 I would do that!

You know that using less ram is also less efficient... this RAM thing is a big rumor that started since vista is out, because people don't know WHY vista uses almost everything of the installed RAM.

Vista preloads every programm which is in use very often (for example Photoshop or InDesign for me) into his RAM so acces is much faster than in XP... XP needs to load it first into the RAM which means longer loading times...

This "feature" has been improved on "7" so that everything is VERY fast now (some programms (photoshop 64bit) have HALF of the loading times they have on XP)...

I can recognize this also in Mediaportal... the starting time is much faster and the reactions and interactions inside MEdiaportal with the menus are much more responsive...

I loved Vista 64bit... but now I want to marry "7" 64Bit

For me... only stand by funvtionality was much better in XP... Vista sucked in this point ...
But with 7 everything is fine again! Workstation goes into sleep as programmed and re activates propperly when needed...

 

[SpudR]

Watch you language...
It might be VERY fast for example

 

[The_Iceman]

Better?

 

[pilehave]

I think I'll stay on Windows XP prepped for as small footprint as possible. A fresh install only uses 75-80 MB RAM (without MediaPortal of course). Now THAT'S effecient

I have Vista on my laptop but I really just want as simple an OS as possible that can manage to run MediaPortal. If MediaPortal would run on Windows 2000 I would do that!

You know that using less ram is also less efficient... this RAM thing is a big rumor that started since vista is out, because people don't know WHY vista uses almost everything of the installed RAM.

Vista preloads every programm which is in use very often (for example Photoshop or InDesign for me) into his RAM so acces is much faster than in XP... XP needs to load it first into the RAM which means longer loading times...

This "feature" has been improved on "7" so that everything is VERY fast now (some programms (photoshop 64bit) have HALF of the loading times they have on XP)...

I can recognize this also in Mediaportal... the starting time is much faster and the reactions and interactions inside MEdiaportal with the menus are much more responsive...

I loved Vista 64bit... but now I want to marry "7" 64Bit

For me... only stand by funvtionality was much better in XP... Vista sucked in this point ...
But with 7 everything is fine again! Workstation goes into sleep as programmed and re activates propperly when needed...

Well, not really in my case since I use the free RAM for a RAM-drive for timeshift files. More free RAM = more timeshift buffer.

I don't need Photoshop or Adobe Reader starting fast, because this IS after all a HTPC not a workmachine. I need low RAM-usage and as small footprint on the disk as possible. Don't know why you all love Vista, I have it on my laptop and it's OK but can't wait to see Windows 7.

 

[tourettes]

Well, not really in my case since I use the free RAM for a RAM-drive for timeshift files. More free RAM = more timeshift buffer.

Any specific reason why you are using RAM drive? As it won't speed up TVE3 channel changing times (as opposite that many users believe).

 

[emphatic]

A question for you Win7 users, has anyone of you upgraded from Vista or just clean installs? I'm just curious since I don't have enough HDD space to do a new partition for the beta of Win7, so I'm considering doing the upgrade instead. What do I have to backup if I do an upgrade? (This is not for my HTPC, I'm quite happy with my XP MCE for that).

Thanks for any tips you might have.
Emph

 

[tourettes]

A question for you Win7 users, has anyone of you upgraded from Vista or just clean installs? I'm just curious since I don't have enough HDD space to do a new partition for the beta of Win7, so I'm considering doing the upgrade instead. What do I have to backup if I do an upgrade? (This is not for my HTPC, I'm quite happy with my XP MCE for that).

A friendly tought to test beta OS on someone others HTPC

 

[pilehave]

Well, not really in my case since I use the free RAM for a RAM-drive for timeshift files. More free RAM = more timeshift buffer.

Any specific reason why you are using RAM drive? As it won't speed up TVE3 channel changing times (as opposite that many users believe).

Yes, my 250 GB 2.5" drive won't be unneccesary accessed when I don't record.