i don't want to be offensive in any way shape or form. but is this supporting vista or making fun of it?
i don't want to be offensive in any way shape or form. but is this supporting vista or making fun of it?
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
What's the purpose of letting built in apps that don't work for you just constantly thrash the hard drive?
I don't hibernate so I turn it off.
I don't use the built in search so I turned it off.
I don't use super fetch (aka lunchbreak) so I turned it off.
etc.
My computer has been running for 7 days and has 50 percent of it's memory in use or more.
Please investigate each of these carefully. Many things that "thrash the hard drive" will not run unless the machine is idle, even if they are scheduled to run. In other cases they will run while you are using the machine but have an idle priority.
Hibernate isn't a bad call. If you don't use it, spare the space.
For built in search the "index while idle" approach is far better than "stop everything and index for a while"...at least over the longterm life of the machine.
For superfetch you likely were using it quite a bit but may not have noticed. A heavy app that loads sluggish during one run will load faster the next.
edit: regarding your memory... you're viewing it wrong. After 7 days 50 percent of your memory is NOT being used. This means things that could be cached have not been.
Vista using more memory than XP is not a bad thing. View it more as an "xp failed to use memory". Unused memory is wasted memory and if the used memory is needed for something else then freeing it is essentially instantaneous.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
Of course vista is covered in FUD, welcome to reality! Every big company gets caught in the FUD machine...and its not like microsoft is a company that makes baby saving devices or is a non-profit feed the poor machine or something. They'll just have to put on their big boy pants and deal with the marketplace. 
The trouble with Vista is it costs $150+ and doesn't offer me anything new I actually want. Quite the opposite in some cases...the broken older sound card support and visual features that I have to turn off. XP is bought and paid for.
Does Vista perform just as fast as XP now? Are its drivers mature? Who cares? You're gonna have to do better then 'as fast as your old shit' to get me excited. I already have the old shit, and it ain't costing me a dime. The only thing I maybe want is DX10...but since MS decided to make it vista only its kind of crapped out its uptake. And at any rate...we're in diminished returns graphical territory to me these days anyway, its not all that valuable to me. I know developers are going to have a DX9 or openGL version until probably well after the next windows is released because they wouldn't have enough people to sell to if they didn't.
So, same as 2000...I'll let it go when I'm dragged kicking and screaming from it!
The trouble with Vista is it costs $150+ and doesn't offer me anything new I actually want. Quite the opposite in some cases...the broken older sound card support and visual features that I have to turn off. XP is bought and paid for.
Does Vista perform just as fast as XP now? Are its drivers mature? Who cares? You're gonna have to do better then 'as fast as your old shit' to get me excited. I already have the old shit, and it ain't costing me a dime. The only thing I maybe want is DX10...but since MS decided to make it vista only its kind of crapped out its uptake. And at any rate...we're in diminished returns graphical territory to me these days anyway, its not all that valuable to me. I know developers are going to have a DX9 or openGL version until probably well after the next windows is released because they wouldn't have enough people to sell to if they didn't.
So, same as 2000...I'll let it go when I'm dragged kicking and screaming from it!
Originally posted by: PingSpike
Of course vista is covered in FUD, welcome to reality! Every big company gets caught in the FUD machine...and its not like microsoft is a company that makes baby saving devices or is a non-profit feed the poor machine or something. They'll just have to put on their big boy pants and deal with the marketplace.
The trouble with Vista is it costs $150+ and doesn't offer me anything new I actually want. Quite the opposite in some cases...the broken older sound card support and visual features that I have to turn off. XP is bought and paid for.
Does Vista perform just as fast as XP now? Are its drivers mature? Who cares? You're gonna have to do better then 'as fast as your old shit' to get me excited. I already have the old shit, and it ain't costing me a dime. The only thing I maybe want is DX10...but since MS decided to make it vista only its kind of crapped out its uptake. And at any rate...we're in diminished returns graphical territory to me these days anyway, its not all that valuable to me. I know developers are going to have a DX9 or openGL version until probably well after the next windows is released because they wouldn't have enough people to sell to if they didn't.
So, same as 2000...I'll let it go when I'm dragged kicking and screaming from it!
So in summary you have XP, don't know or don't understand about the new features of Vista and are bitchin. Sounds like you should upgrade to Mojave too!
He didn't say he doesn't know about the features and he didn't say anything about the features to even determine whether he understands them or not. You completely missed his point. He says he doesn't NEED any of the new features.
Maybe you think everyone should upgrade to the latest and greatest $500 graphics card, too? Why? Because it would be faster and better, so if you don't upgrade you must not understand the graphics card, right? Well, maybe I never play games so onboard graphics is just fine. I don't need Vista, just like I don't need a new graphics card.
Last time I checked they were not exactly on their knees.
Plus showing it to 50 people isnt going to change the world is it?
How would you do PR for MS???
Oh your on a MAC...So thats why your so hostile
Indeed
Maybe he's trying to fit the DVD into the floppy drive " Dam wont fit, MS sucks , I go buy a MAC and be differentz "
The latest and greatest $500 graphics card will be faster and have more features. If you don't need those features that's cool but it doesn't mean the new features don't exist.
If you don't need the new features of Vista that's cool too. The new features (and not just DX10) do exist though.
I wouldn't recommend upgrading to anything if you don't actually need it.
PingSpike
Lifer
- Feb 25, 2004
- 21,758
- 603
- 126
I don't ever recall stating or implying those new features don't exist. I stated they had no real value to me.
I've used vista at work. I've read a number of performance comparisons. You're talking to a guy that turns HDR off in all his games because he doesn't like the style and doesn't want the performance hit! I'm not really impressed by crazy graphics much anymore, so long as there is a DX9 or OpenGL renderer for new games I should be able to play them to my satisfaction.
If my post indicated that "didn't understand or didn't know" the new features of vista, perhaps it was unclear. If so I apologize.
I don't have unlimited money. If I'm going to spend it, I want to get something for it that I'll use.
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
The memory ranges from 50 to 80 percent depending on what I am doing. Large apps like Adobe Photoshop or Encoding apps will push the memory use to 80 percent. With 6gb in the machine 50 percent is more then many Vista machines have.
SuperFetch is useless for me because the app is already open and loaded and because I don't schedule things, I usually run them while I'm watching TV or running to the store.
I don't reboot very often and the computer is usually running or in standby mode.
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
When XP first came out it wasn't that great and people where lucky to have 128mb. The complaint was that it was slow and bloated. Then time went by and the hardware became faster and more memory was added to machines and also sp2 came out and suddenlt xp was ok to use.
Now Vista is going through the same process as hardware gets faster and memory gets cheaper.
Well, theres plenty of unscheduled things that run in the background that can shift useful cache out.
But free memory rarely stays free, even in XP or Vista w/o superfetch. Except on boot, its usually filled with cache from recent I/O. Its all about whether or not that cache is useful.
I don't understand what you believed you've gained by essentially lowering the intelligence of the memory manager though. I'm all for not loading things you dont use (I turned off the index as well), but whats the point of so much memory if youre not even going to use it as efficiently as possible?
yah that was the smartest thing they did to get people onboard with vista, yet it stalled the spread of dx10 in apps & hardware because so many people refuse to use vista.
13Gigatons
Diamond Member
- Apr 19, 2005
- 7,461
- 500
- 126
Since I have turned off all the background apps and run things manually it works better for me that SuperFetch is off. It's just one less thing stealing cpu, memory and hard drive activity.
It seems superfetch was designed for lower memory systems.
This is one of the biggest errors the blogsphere keeps writing about. DX10 is not ported to XP because it depends on the new driver and sound stack that is in Vista. It has nothing to do with forcing people to buy Vista to get DX10. To port it to XP would require regressions that would destroy any benefits DX10 bring to the table.
A couple of things I want to point out.
1. Superfetch is better on systems with 2 gigs or more of memory. Systems under 1 gig actually perform better with Superfetch turned off due to the lack of overhead in memory.
2. You are confusing Superfetch with priority IO. Priority IO is what keeps processes in the background from running when you are using your system. Superfetch uses priority IO to schedule what is cached in memory and that is it.
3. Even with all those background task turned off, there is a huge benefit to the programs you do run being aggressively cached into memory. Just think of Superfetch as a smart prefetching. The fact is that Superfetch, once trained requires very little resources because it only runs during times you do not use the computer and is set on a lower priority.
edited for clarity
nerp
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,865
- 105
- 106
With superfetch you really don't need to worry about closing out "background" services or anything of the sort. Your apps load as if they've already been loaded even if they haven't. What's not to like about that? And the fact that you're cached, no performance is wasted because the memory is "used up." Memory isn't buckets of water; it doesn't take measurable time to clear memory like a bucket needs time to be emptied.
By disabling superfetch, you've made your apps load more slowly the first time around when instead, your usage patterns (way more predictable than you assume) could have been making your machine more responsive regardless of its state (first booted, running for a week, in the midst of a defrag, out of hibernation).
I like how Superfetch seems to know what level i'm in in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Loading a save game fresh is remarkably fast.
By disabling superfetch, you've made your apps load more slowly the first time around when instead, your usage patterns (way more predictable than you assume) could have been making your machine more responsive regardless of its state (first booted, running for a week, in the midst of a defrag, out of hibernation).
I like how Superfetch seems to know what level i'm in in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Loading a save game fresh is remarkably fast.
nerp
Diamond Member
- Dec 31, 2005
- 9,865
- 105
- 106
Read a little about the driver model changes. If you have technical understanding, you'd completley understand why. It's already been explained here. MS isn't in the business of substantially rewriting 6-year-old operating systems to backport the improvements of the current OS. No software company does this. Adobe isn't going to release a patch to add CS3 features into 5.0.
That is your loss then because this is not just something cooked up by Microsoft's marketing department. I suspect you don't read any of the whitepapers out on the subject and rely on others wrong perceptions.
John Carmack is wrong on this one.
Aye, Carmack is up there with Russinovich in my book but both have been wrong on things.
The MS marketting dept had no say whatsoever in the DX10 decision. It is purely a technical decision. XP is over 5 years old now and overhauling it's entire video architecture with a patch would cause utter havok for users and current application compatibility. You just don't do things like that.
This is a pretty old discussion and the topic has been laid to rest by those that understand it.
The MS marketting dept had no say whatsoever in the DX10 decision. It is purely a technical decision. XP is over 5 years old now and overhauling it's entire video architecture with a patch would cause utter havok for users and current application compatibility. You just don't do things like that.
This is a pretty old discussion and the topic has been laid to rest by those that understand it.
dx 10 for xp
seems to only work for some games. . but its definately doable if MS choose to spend some time and money..
seems to only work for some games. . but its definately doable if MS choose to spend some time and money..
And I can use the same link to argue that porting DX10 to XP is not doable. The fact is that the so called DX10 port to XP is a hack and has had lackluster results.
DX 10 requires memory manager in vista, it is also based on the new driver model. It cannot run properly in XP. btw That site is a good move by MS, all those mac commercials and deluded vista /Bill Gates haters are the main reason for vista bashing.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter