secretanchitman
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 9,353
- 23
- 91
just installed vista ultimate x64 over the weekend...uh 900+MB after a fresh start? i dont think so. i restarted one time after all my drivers had been installed (i have to admit, vista is pretty good about drivers, it found everything but my video card and hdtv card) and it was showing me 1.12GB of memory usage!!
lastly, fidelity active trader pro will not load my moms saved profile for some odd reason, so its definitely a no go for vista x64. it works fine in xp and vista x86 though. when i have the tv on, windows aero turns off and goes into windows aero basic or whatever it is. why? it surely cant be that taxing...
i definitely will not install vista again. 3.25 out of 4GB of ram is just fine for me in xp. xp uses less than 200MB after a fresh restart, while vista easily uses 3-4x that, for why i have no idea...
lastly, fidelity active trader pro will not load my moms saved profile for some odd reason, so its definitely a no go for vista x64. it works fine in xp and vista x86 though. when i have the tv on, windows aero turns off and goes into windows aero basic or whatever it is. why? it surely cant be that taxing...
i definitely will not install vista again. 3.25 out of 4GB of ram is just fine for me in xp. xp uses less than 200MB after a fresh restart, while vista easily uses 3-4x that, for why i have no idea...
Please research why Vista uses 50-80% of your available RAM at all times before coming to such a conclusion.
secretanchitman
Diamond Member
- Apr 11, 2001
- 9,353
- 23
- 91
i know why, but its still sluggish to me. i turn off all the unnecessary crap that vista has, and it still feels slower than xp. must be me only, but now i definitely see no reason to go to vista (unless there is a DX10 game that im dying to play).
and as for fidelity, thats a huge no-no for my parents so vista is a no go.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
LOL @ the ad. And yeah I have no reason to go Vista.
See I said the same thing about XP a few years ago - before 64-bit or dualcore was even out, that I'd never upgrade because it's too bloated. But for the hardware then, yes it was too bloated and slow. For today's hardware, XP is now ok but vista just crossed a whole other line. Maybe in 3 years from now when dual quad core cpu, 16GB of ram is mainstream, will Vista be ok.
People say "but it runs on 2 Gigs fine" yeah, but have you tried rendering a 5GB autocad drawing? or have you tried playing an intensive game? That 2GB pc will be swapping harder then a prostitute if you try to do anything with it.
So I'll probably end up doing same I did with XP. I'll wait a few more years. Or I'll dump windows altogether and just go Linux, if it's a viable solution then. Still got some apps I use heavily in windows. I can VM them but it kinda defeats the purpose.
See I said the same thing about XP a few years ago - before 64-bit or dualcore was even out, that I'd never upgrade because it's too bloated. But for the hardware then, yes it was too bloated and slow. For today's hardware, XP is now ok but vista just crossed a whole other line. Maybe in 3 years from now when dual quad core cpu, 16GB of ram is mainstream, will Vista be ok.
People say "but it runs on 2 Gigs fine" yeah, but have you tried rendering a 5GB autocad drawing? or have you tried playing an intensive game? That 2GB pc will be swapping harder then a prostitute if you try to do anything with it.
So I'll probably end up doing same I did with XP. I'll wait a few more years. Or I'll dump windows altogether and just go Linux, if it's a viable solution then. Still got some apps I use heavily in windows. I can VM them but it kinda defeats the purpose.
Jschmuck2
Diamond Member
- Jul 13, 2005
- 5,623
- 3
- 81
Scarpozzi
Lifer
- Jun 13, 2000
- 26,392
- 1,780
- 126
Vista64 Ultimate is solid for me. I've never seen a blue-screen and it loads my BF2 maps twice as fast as when I boot in XP on the same system.
Once again, my only gripe has to do with 3rd party drivers. Developer slowness and lack of support is to blame.... Not really Microsoft's fault.
Once again, my only gripe has to do with 3rd party drivers. Developer slowness and lack of support is to blame.... Not really Microsoft's fault.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
Gamingphreek
Lifer
- Mar 31, 2003
- 11,679
- 0
- 81
I will guarantee you that most people who bash Vista either:
A. Have never used it
B. Have no clue about how an Operating System runs
That said, I dual boot with Vista and Linux. I am Linux 90% of the time, and the 10% that I am in Windows is for gaming. For others who are still stuck on XP or 2K (<-Wow you have ZERO clue) for something other than just not wanting to pay, you need to read up on the tech behind Vista and then actually try it.
-Kevin
(Linux ftw though
)
A. Have never used it
B. Have no clue about how an Operating System runs
That said, I dual boot with Vista and Linux. I am Linux 90% of the time, and the 10% that I am in Windows is for gaming. For others who are still stuck on XP or 2K (<-Wow you have ZERO clue) for something other than just not wanting to pay, you need to read up on the tech behind Vista and then actually try it.
-Kevin
(Linux ftw though
)I love Vista, have had zero problems!
I do understand that 3rd party software and hardware makers dropped the ball and were late to marcket with working apps and drivers but thats not MS fault.
I do understand that 3rd party software and hardware makers dropped the ball and were late to marcket with working apps and drivers but thats not MS fault.
waffleironhead
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2005
- 7,080
- 580
- 136
I like vista as a concept. Nice layout and features. but I have had way too many bsod's reminds me of 98'. Over 3 years using xp no blue screens of death. Over 3 weeks of using vista, 10 BSOD.
Your argument doesn't make sense. Just because RAM is inexpensive doesn't mean that OS's should blatantly use a huge chunk of it for no reason when it has been proven that basic OS operations can be achieved using significantly less RAM. I'd rather have the OS reserve that RAM for other apps that run on top of it.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
I've tried/used vista. Can't stand it. Not only the resource issues but just the interface itself, its brutal. And the 100+ annoyances that have to be turned off, and good luck finding where since they hide everything now. There was no need for another windows to begin with. XP is fine. In fact win2k was fine. Just improve the backend, make another service pack or a re-release.
Vista was nothing but a money grabber. Make it look like a "must have" on the outside so people buy it. It's the same with cars. "this car has this,this and this" yeah but it's still going to have to be replaced in 3 years from now because it's rusting out. We live in a disposable world, it's pretty sad.
Vista was nothing but a money grabber. Make it look like a "must have" on the outside so people buy it. It's the same with cars. "this car has this,this and this" yeah but it's still going to have to be replaced in 3 years from now because it's rusting out. We live in a disposable world, it's pretty sad.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
Bingo. Same with CPU. Sure we have quad cores now, but why should OS actually be using 40% cpu when IDLE?
I actually even still use win2k for some applications such as my p2p VM. The idea of an OS it should have as little foot print as possible.
Hey buddy, Vista will clear that RAM up for applications that need it.
Please explain why you would like to throw 4 GB into a system only to have it sit idle 90% of the time, instead of using it for pre-fetching applications.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
But how long does this ram free/take operation take? Bet it takes much longer then if it was sitting there ready to use.
Imagine if your shipping company filled their entire truck with empty boxes "just in case".
Raduque
Lifer
- Aug 22, 2004
- 13,140
- 138
- 106
WTH are you talking about? Either you guys are terrible at installing or you're just making shit up. I had a Dell with 3GB RAM and a Core 2 Quad, and I don't think it ever broke 40% CPU usage even when I was running AV scans, browsing, and listening to music. The laptop I have now rarely ever hits 40%
Also, what kind of a stupid thing is to ask why a computer with 2GB of RAM might not be able to instantaneously open and manipulate a 5GB Autocad file? I wonder why intensive games might need more than 2GB? Maybe because as time has gone by they've increased the amount of things that need processed?
You might as well ask why they needed more powerful hardware to playback 1080p content than for DVDs, and then upon realizing how stupid that is, you ask why anyone would want 1080p when 480p is just fine.
Red Squirrel
No Lifer
Thing is, an OS shoulod have low footprint. The resources that we spend tons of money to put into our systems, we want to see them put to use. Vista sitting idle using 40% cpu is not putting those resources to good use, when XP will idle at less then 1% and programs will get more cycles.
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