• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why Windows Vista Won't Suck

Markbnj

Markbnj

Elite Member <br>Moderator Emeritus
Moderator
A lot of comments being made in the forum to the effect that "Windows Vista is all eye candy," and other related sentiments. Here is a good overview of why that is probably not a supportable perspective. Enjoy.
 
Sounds pretty cool. I wonder if it will have more dual core optimizations/performance benefits for users with dual core systems.
 
Finally someone posts an article that doesnt suck!

I'm going to be sure to bookmark this it can be re-posted in many of the nonsense threads we've been seeing lately.
 
Originally posted by: the Chase
Sounds pretty cool. I wonder if it will have more dual core optimizations/performance benefits for users with dual core systems.
Click to expand...
Supposedly yes, which is why I would like to give it a test on my system when it is released.
 
Anyone who says Vista will for sure be a good OS is kidding themselves. Anyone who says Vista will be bad is also kidding themselves. We don't really know. It could be a great OS. It could be an ok OS. It could also turn out to be a waste or even a crumby OS. We will just have to wait and see how it turns out as an OS.
 
I haven't heard anyone say that it was "sure" to be a good operating system. But there are a lot of clueless comments on this forum about Vista being all "eye-candy," so this article is a response to that mindset.

Frankly, 97% of the people who post on OS issues in this, and most other, fora couldn't fully describe the architecture and operation of an operating system component to save their lives. So I don't troll for opinions on whether it will be "good" or not.
 
I'll tell you what really ticks me off. It is that DirectX 10 will be for Vista only and not back ported to Windows XP. Why would they do it?

On the other hand, it was a huge mistake by Microsoft to make DirectX 9 compatible with POS Windows 98/ME!! DirectX 9 should have been for Windows 2000/XP only. Why in the heck is it that POS Windows 98/ME stuck around in the gaming community for a long time even after Windows 2000 and XP were released, but it seems that Windows 2000/XP won't stick around in the gaming community for much time at all after Vista is released? That really stinks because Windows XP is still a good OS and deserves to stay around for a long long time even after Vista is released. On the other hand, POS Windows 98/ME should have died as soon as Windows XP was released because Windows 98/ME weren't even real opertaing systems and they were native to a completely different OS heritage. And there was a much bigger difference between Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000/XP than there will be from Windows XP to Vista because Vista is still based on the same OS heritage being Windows NT flavors, where as POS Windows 98/ME had next to nothing in common with the native Windows NT based operating systems. Now Vista will still be native to the Windows NT OS heriatge as it will be Windows NT 6.0 where as Windows XP was Windows NT 5.1.
 
All that I can say is Wow! The features sound like they will make Windows a much more useable and friendly OS.

We'll see what OS X Leopard has in store, but I think that Vista will be hard to beat, if it lives up to these promises.
 
Originally posted by: timswim78
All that I can say is Wow! The features sound like they will make Windows a much more useable and friendly OS.

We'll see what OS X Leopard has in store, but I think that Vista will be hard to beat, if it lives up to these promises.
Click to expand...



It is also going to eat up system resources like mad which is not a good thing.
 
Originally posted by: Link19
I'll tell you what really ticks me off. It is that DirectX 10 will be for Vista only and not back ported to Windows XP. Why would they do it?
Click to expand...
It may have to do with the rearchitecture of the GPU stuff. Vista adds GPU scheduler and video VM. That is not being ported back.
 
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Link19
It is also going to eat up system resources like mad which is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about XP. :roll:

Use'em if you've got'em.
Click to expand...

I would rather have almost all of my 2GB of RAM being used for a resource intensive application. With Windows XP, 1.85GB of that 2GB would be used for the resource intensive foreground application and only 150MB used for just the OS to run.

With Vista, at least 512MB of RAM if not more will be used just for the OS, and foreground applications will have at most 1.5GB (probably less because Vista will probbaly eat more than just 512MB of RAM for some of its operations). I would rather have almost all of that 2GB of RAM allocated to an extremely resource intensive foregroun applications, than waste another 500MB just for the OS.

With Windows XP, I trim my installation down so it uses only 120MB of RAM upon bootup. I have only 18 processes running, two of which include NOD32 AntiVirus.
 
This is what Windows XP should have been.
I'm excited about Vista from what I've read about and noticed so far.. even if it really is just "Windows XP 2nd Edition"...
 
Originally posted by: Link19
Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Link19
It is also going to eat up system resources like mad which is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about XP. :roll:

Use'em if you've got'em.
Click to expand...

I would rather have almost all of my 2GB of RAM being used for a resource intensive application. With Windows XP, 1.85GB of that 2GB would be used for the resource intensive foreground application and only 150MB used for just the OS to run.

With Vista, at least 512MB of RAM if not more will be used just for the OS, and foreground applications will have at most 1.5GB (probably less because Vista will probbaly eat more than just 512MB of RAM for some of its operations). I would rather have almost all of that 2GB of RAM allocated to an extremely resource intensive foregroun applications, than waste another 500MB just for the OS.

With Windows XP, I trim my installation down so it uses only 120MB of RAM upon bootup. I have only 18 processes running, two of which include NOD32 AntiVirus.
Click to expand...

Screenshots of Vista's ram usage? Is that with all of the bells and whistles turned off, or in a default configuration, or after things were turned on?

Which processes are eating up the largest amounts of ram?
 
Originally posted by: spyordie007
Ahh, the light goes on!

Sarcasm is lost to easily in forums :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah tell me about it... 🙂

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Originally posted by: Link19
It is also going to eat up system resources like mad which is not a good thing.
Click to expand...

People said the same thing about XP. :roll:

Use'em if you've got'em.
Click to expand...

Well it's true... But then again, so is your statement. We aren't running P-133s with 32MB ram. Heck, that doesn't even describe our video cards, let alone the main processor(s).
 
Windows XP, 1.85GB of that 2GB would be used for the resource intensive foreground application and only 150MB used for just the OS to run.
Click to expand...

You must have different settings. On my system w/2 gigs XP consumes about 512 megs for its working set.

The things I like best about Vista, from what I have read so far:

- Audio stack retooling. Finally, 32-bit floating point audio ops, and a per-application volume control stack, not to mention user-mode drivers.

- Heap management retooling. Yippee for apps that use a lot of ram.

- Rewriting the network protocol stack. Based on nothing more than knowing how long the guts of that stack have been in the windows platform, I would expect serious improvements from the new one.

- Moving a lot of drivers out to user mode.

- API cleanup. Every twenty years you gotta sweep out the attic.
 
Random question about the moving some of the drivers from kernel mode to user mode.

Does this mean that different driver versions could be installed on a per-user basis? For instance, could I experiment with a beta driver on a separate user account without affecting the original driver on my main account?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top