安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語（日文）
한국어（韓文）
ไทย（泰文）
Български（保加利亞文）
Čeština（捷克文）
Dansk（丹麥文）
Deutsch（德文）
English（英文）
Español - España（西班牙文 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希臘文）
Français（法文）
Italiano（義大利文）
Bahasa Indonesia（印尼語）
Magyar（匈牙利文）
Nederlands（荷蘭文）
Norsk（挪威文）
Polski（波蘭文）
Português（葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙）
Português - Brasil（葡萄牙文 - 巴西）
Română（羅馬尼亞文）
Русский（俄文）
Suomi（芬蘭文）
Svenska（瑞典文）
Türkçe（土耳其文）
tiếng Việt（越南文）
Українська（烏克蘭文）
回報翻譯問題
討論區規矩與守則
檢舉此篇文章
then your Computer Setup...
& it ran Windows 10, but it did not run it well...
I played Tomb Raider & Watch Dogs 1, as well as
some other things, I never got to test out GTA5...
But I had to run Games at the lowest Settings possible,
but Windows 10 however on desktop lagged & skipped...
Paint Program ran ok, but not great for tons, & tons of Detail work, though...
The Ink would go & bleed, & such...
It was not great...
Windows 10 Home
I had a 15 inch Toshiba 2-1 Laptop Tablet
It ran Intel I3 Duel Core CPU at 2.10 Ghz
6GB DDR2 or DDR3 RAM I forget
It ran Intel 550 HD GPU
It ran higher then 720P Resolution...
I think 1320 by something, or something like that... Odd Resolution...
It had Touch Screen, & could flip open, & had a WebCam Support
for I think 720P Resolution, or 480P I forget...
After I had Upgraded to Windows 10, I had wanted to Downgrade
back to Windows 8.1 because it ran smooth on it, & not on Win 10...
I never did though, because Win10 made my Drawings a lot better
because of the Touch Screen feature with Win10...
That doesnt mean you installed every update though
And you have to reboot after they install, then see if there are anymore
This is actually possibly true... But remember, look at what Computer Specs
they are running... Their PC Specs are equivalent to that of a Duel Core
which most likely are not even DDR3 Capable...
They are probably running DDR2 RAM... Windows 10 needs DDR4 to run Stable...
DDR3 if you want issues, but it would still run... But DDR2? I dunno...
I am claiming from a Standard User, not a High End PC...
The OPs main problem is his lack of RAM, not what type of RAM he has, and it being a low spec laptop. An SSD and at least 8GB RAM would greatly help him out since APU graphics rely on RAM.
Also, AMD A6-5200 uses DDR3 Not DDR2, dont know where you got that from.
And considering the laptops age it would most likely benefit from a format and clean OS install, not with all the bloatware it came with.
Just for the record, repeating a statement does not make it a fact. As I did say earlier, my personal observation was (from several years ago after installing a W10) that after boot it grabbed cca. 2x as much memory, 3x as many threads and processes and the installed image was also over double. If you have different numbers please present them, or admit your statement is not actually a fact. Or elaborate what you count as "resource" if not memory, cpu and disk space.
The second statement states "nearly", so admits there is a speed difference (what kinda aligns with with statement #1 being false). That in itself contradicts the 3rd statement for people who would count only as-or-better speed qualify for "as good or better". So calling that fact is a stretch.
OTOH certainly the difference MAY be small enough to notice in everyday use.
I personally have no experience on running W10 on old HW, all my W10 installs are on boxes that not support W7. If you do have data that is good for the comparison IMO it's a good idea to just provide it, then we can finally put this debate to rest, without numbers it really only resembles a flamewar-with-blanks.
windows 7 you can trim down to run on 2g if needed
SMH... I am the *only* one in the whole thread that *HAS* linked to sourced data. No one (and not you) have done so. I am the only one who *has* backed up my facts ffs...
I did provide the data, tested from a third party, it clearly showed what was *needed* to boot to a usable desktop enviroment. Since we all know that the windows OS's all scale well on hardware when granted greater resources, logic dictates the one that can run on the least will overall be the best in all cases.
Aside from XP, windows 10 was the lowest required resources. Period. Not me testing it, me showing someone else testing it, on video, in a controlled enviroment.
Im not saying that in any given situation windows 10 wont have potentially higher resource usage, it might. It might also be making *better* usage of those resources in a way the results in a faster usable experiance.
In the end if OP wants to run the crap show that is 8, or the now legacy and unsupported or patched 7, more power to him. But a properly configured 10 system would be just as fast and just as good, within margin of error in all testing.
There are already *tons* of test, vids, and articles, and all of them pretty clearly show that windows 10 is as fast or faster than 8 or 7, with 7 generaly being allot slower in some cases. I hsouldnt be having to back up widely available common sense knowledge, google it. I have already been the *ONLY* one to post relevant source data via the vid. No one else has. How about you all back uup YOUR claims, since none of you have...
In this thread? You might have done it on a different one, be aware that some pople does not read everything everywhere. On this thread I saw no data beyond a single YT video.
Well, if that is all you count as evidence for the made claims, that is certainly thin. It is an interesting experiment and results are somewhat surprising too (thinking of it not really, the unified platform did create motivation to cope with extreme low conditions is some way, that was never an aim before), but has little to none of practical impact.
We don't run the OS just to show the desktop -- but to execute programs. And we supply at least the stated minimums. In this topic we're interested in what OS is fit to run programs optimally on a 4G old box. Data relevant to this is still waiting to be supplied.
There is not need to supply data on that ffs.
Windows 10 still ships *to this day* with 4GB ram on machines out of the box, and is perfectly fricken usable.
If it is *able to operate on the least resources* then logic dictates *it will operate likely best on more resources*.
^^THAT^^ is exactly what anyone who has tested 10 on any configuration has seen.
Again, I am not here to *prove common knowledge*.
A single google search will do it for you...
https://www.itworld.com/article/2960641/windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7-a-performance-comparison.html
https://www.techspot.com/review/1042-windows-10-vs-windows-8-vs-windows-7/
https://home.bt.com/tech-gadgets/computing/windows-10/why-windows-10-is-superior-to-windows-7-11364001699871
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=windows+7+vs+10+speed&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Again, its wide spread common knowledge. I honeslty cant believe its even being argued here...
Up on the top of the screen:
"Application performance is more of a mixed bag, with tests showing Windows 10 to be faster than Windows 7 with some apps and slower with others"
Seems those are the facts, not what you keep stating.
Mixed apps results does =/= slower OS.
The OS itself is faster and better. Some apps are *also* faster and better, some apps are the same, some are slower.
The argument you are making is a straw man one that applies in both directions. Some apps are slower on 7.
Fact is, the OS itself is faster. Apps dont define OS speed.
Windows 10 gets security updates,
Period.
7 is a non-contender. No questions asked.
Yeah, and it needs them too. As W10 is *fresh* code, full of new exploits that need a fix. And is replaced every 6 months for a fresh supply. Each version having a very short support period (under 2 years).
From the practical security standpoint it is moot to call safer than the alternative that was fixed ~10 years ago and only gets fixes the whole time.
Also, W7 DOES get patches, just not released for everyone. What means if anything really serious is patched, with actual impact on users, it WILL be known. And chances are high that MS will release that patch for everyone -- just as happened with the CFT stuff for XP recently. If not, users will be able to make a call then, whether to follow the alternative mitigation or obtain the patch in some way or make a switch.
Till that happens the safety-related claim is mostly FUD.
"No questions asked." is a dead giveaway of not thinking in threat models or any terms related to actual security and safety. Works for you, great. But to push that as a general advice is a fishy practice.
As I said before, people who ask questions here, and probably anywhere else are NOT interested in OS wars and abstract things like "which OS is faster". We use the OS just as a necessary PITA to launch the applications. And are ONLY interested in how those applications run.
So when asks a practical advice on performance please keep that in mind at answering. You're welcome to call W10 faster, just when you state that add the small clarification of "however your apps may be running slower". And that, in that way is useful information, while otherwise is misleading, and triggers a fruitless debate.