Super User is a question and answer site for computer enthusiasts and power users. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Do Aero desktop effects in Windows 7 slow down the computer? And does Aero actually cause more CO2 emissions than Windows XP?

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Ƭᴇcʜιᴇ007, Journeyman Geek, Mike Fitzpatrick, studiohack Aug 1 '11 at 1:06

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Well since my pc is powered by a gerbal I have noticed a significant reduction in stress and CO2 emissions from the little guy when I switched to Win7. – KronoS Jul 25 '11 at 6:23
up vote 3 down vote accepted
  1. yes it does, as it is doing more work than without Aero.
  2. That is a function of how much power you are consuming, and from what source.
share|improve this answer
Thanks very much !! – grandproducts Jul 25 '11 at 7:37
  1. Aero offloads some of the work to the GPU. With a decent GPU, in some ways it's actually more efficient, and with a modern system, shouldn't slow you down that much (or might even be faster).

  2. This depends on where you're getting your power from - it would be a negligible difference though. I'd note, both OSes release zero carbon if the computer is unplugged. Computers don't use that much power compared to say, airconditioning or your fridge.

energy usage graph

share|improve this answer
I keep a CPU and RAM monitor running at all times as a part of my Shell. Before disabling all Aero effects on my system, RAM was running at a 42% when Vista first loaded. Once the effects were disabled and the system restarted, RAM sat at 34%. I have 3GB of RAM in this system and it was "designed" for Vista, though admittedly did not come with a spectacular GPU. – MaQleod Jul 25 '11 at 4:02
Vista and better tend to do a lot of caching, which is a good thing. Ram is more energy efficient than the hard drive, after all. Your graphics adaptor is designed to render graphics, and composite desktops make use of that - its not all about desktop effects. – Journeyman Geek Jul 25 '11 at 4:04
Oh my gosh! A beautiful graph! +1 ;) – KronoS Jul 25 '11 at 6:21
@MaQleod One of the Vista -> Win7 changes was a reduction in the memory needed for screen composition (ie. Aero affects). IIRC Vista needed allocation in main and video RAM, Win7 only needs one of these. – Richard Jul 25 '11 at 6:26
Thanks Guys! I just think it would always be better for anyone of us to have our environment in mind whatever we do. – grandproducts Jul 25 '11 at 7:33

It depends on your computer.

On my old Compaq laptop with an ATI Radeon 200M, yes, it definitely did. It was pretty much unusable.

On my new VAIO laptop with NVIDIA Geforce GT 300M, no, it doesn't. In fact, it's probably faster than regular GDI.

share|improve this answer
Thanks very much! – grandproducts Jul 25 '11 at 7:35

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.