phpBB.com

god0fgod wrote:Microsoft pretend all the new features are the cause of the extra resource use but it is all bloat. Vista should use no more than half a GB of RAM. I don't understand why the home basic version uses so much little resources ,compared to the others, for the difference in features. Microsoft must have purposely added more bloat to make people think the more expensive versions are better.

AdamR wrote:I'll state it one more time and one more time only: Disable Superfetch and memory usage will be a virtual non-issue. I will acknowledge the fact that it's more RAM intensive than I'd like it to be, but I hardly consider it bloated. RAM is there for a reason. It's to cache data. Unused RAM is wasted RAM. Superfetch bridges this gap by filling it up as full as it can go. If were dealing with a low-RAM system, this will, unfortunately, result in page file and HDD swapping. One thing I would have liked to see Microsoft do is automatically disable Superfetch on machines with less than 2GB of RAM to avoid this problem.

- Adam

But the minimum requirements wouldn't include superfetch or whatever and it doesn't explain the requirement gap between home basic and the others. Is superfetch only on the other versions. I'm a little ignorant because I don't feel I should spend my time researching Vista too much.

god0fgod wrote:But the minimum requirements wouldn't include superfetch or whatever and it doesn't explain the requirement gap between home basic and the others. Is superfetch only on the other versions. I'm a little ignorant because I don't feel I should spend my time researching Vista too much.

Superfetch is present in all versions of Vista (Basic, Premium, Business, Enterprise, Ultimate). The main differences between Basic and Premium are its media features (Media Center, DVD Maker, Tablet functionality etc) and Aero Glass.

From my testing, Basic really performs about the same as Premium on the same hardware. Though you'd need a slightly better video card for Premium to take advantage of Glass. The features themselves really have nothing to do with resource usage.

- Adam

god0fgod wrote:

ToonArmy wrote:I think its a good thing Microsoft are now using system memory more thoroughly

Microsoft pretend all the new features are the cause of the extra resource use but it is all bloat. Vista should use no more than half a GB of RAM. I don't understand why the home basic version uses so much little resources ,compared to the others, for the difference in features. Microsoft must have purposely added more bloat to make people think the more expensive versions are better.

As stated previously unused memory is wasted memory, but only if the operating system can release it intelligently for use by other applications.

My opinion on that craptastic of an OS? Sure, here's what I put on another forum:

Myself wrote:Let me say about what I had to go through with Vista...

I've been using XP ever since I bought a new computer to replace the two HP's I had (they were nearly as old as I was x_x) and it's an ok system. I can crash about any system there is (I've crashed Windows numerous times and I've even crashed Linux a couple times), but I still use XP because it's the only system I know how to modify bits and pieces of it.

Vista on the other hand, complains a lot about customizations you want to do to it. All Vista does is complain, THAT'S IT. Most programs right now STILL don't have compatibility for Vista, such as an anti-virus that I used on XP.

My first problems was during the beta stages of Vista. RC1 hasn't even been released but I was checking out to see what it's like. Those idiots in Redmond moved everything around in the Control Panel.. I still have troubles even today to find something in Vista than I do in XP. Not only that, it also burnt out my video card, making it completely useless. I made a dual-boot so that way I can protect my files just in case, so I just went back to XP after that and never think about going to Vista.

Now that I have a laptop, it was pre-installed with Vista on it. And again, just more issues when I've done NOTHING to system files or anything. I've had to format it 3 times in the month I've had it because of Vista. Not only that, it also fucked up my hard drive making it completely useless. All I had to go on was the 1.9 GB recovery partition that somehow still worked. Other than that, the main portion of the hard drive was completely shot, I couldn't get anything to recognize in it. So, I had that replaced and decided to go full-on with Linux for my laptop.

Vista causes nothing but troubles. It's a horrible system and I will break any computer with Vista on it. I can't stand that poor excuse for an OS when XP works fine for many people. I've had nothing but trouble with Vista and I was forced to replace parts because of that crap OS.

All-in-all: Vista = HORRIBLE. Don't buy it. Just BURN it.

I don't tolerate an OS that does this crap to my computers. I've now fully switched to Linux on my laptop and will never touch Vista again just to have it ruin any more than what it did already.

I do know about the part in the beta stages, but the full release was still as troubling as ever.

Vista on the other hand, complains a lot about customizations you want to do to it. All Vista does is complain, THAT'S IT. Most programs right now STILL don't have compatibility for Vista, such as an anti-virus that I used on XP.

Whose fault is that, really? The application developers. I've used AVG, Nod32, Kaspersky, CA, OneCare, Trend Micro, Webroot, Norton, McAfee, F-Prot, PC-Doctor, and Sophos all on Vista with absolutely no problems. Not to mention anti-spyware applications such as CWS, Ewido, Spyware Doctor, and many others. Also, you do realize you can disable UAC with the click of a button, right?

I've had nothing but trouble with Vista and I was forced to replace parts because of that crap OS

Bull. While it's certainly possible for files to get corrupted, an no point will it cause the HDD or video card to become physically damaged. You just got bad hardware out of the box.

- Adam

There is something that gets me. Weeks ago, Vista used to start up pretty quick. Now it takes a little longer. Does that mean it's because I been using Windows Update? I always thought their new releases/fixes would try to bog down my notebook. =/

Bull. While it's certainly possible for files to get corrupted, an no point will it cause the HDD or video card to become physically damaged. You just got bad hardware out of the box.

Not to start an argument, but my nVidia card was working fine while I was using it under XP. I had no problems with it for a few months until I put Vista on a partition. Few weeks later, video card burns out while using it.

For the hard drive.. again, it worked fine for a while until Vista SHOT it useless. That's why I'm not going back to Vista after this trouble.

Oh, right.. about the UAC, here's a topic about that, among others things. Click here for that.

ScionCrow wrote:

Bull. While it's certainly possible for files to get corrupted, an no point will it cause the HDD or video card to become physically damaged. You just got bad hardware out of the box.

Not to start an argument, but my nVidia card was working fine while I was using it under XP. I had no problems with it for a few months until I put Vista on a partition. Few weeks later, video card burns out while using it.

I'm sorry, but it's complete nonsense. True, Vista will put more strain on a GPU than XP will. However, at no point should said GPU "burn out" unless one or both of two things are true: 1) The GPU was defective in the first place, or 2) the GPU was old and was reaching the end of its life anyway. We could also conclude from this that ANY application which uses the GPU would have caused the same thing, such as a 3d game, which is significantly more strenuous on the GPU than Vista ever would be.

For the hard drive.. again, it worked fine for a while until Vista SHOT it useless. That's why I'm not going back to Vista after this trouble.

See the above conditions. Hard drives don't die from software use. Period. Now, some file systems will cause the mechanical read/write head in a HDD to move in different combination which as a result will be more strenuous on the HDD. However, both XP and Vista (and Windows 2000 for that matter) use the NTFS file system, which is actually very efficient in terms of physical data placement.

Again, you just had really bad luck. It has absolutely nothing to do with Vista.

One of the most HDD intensive programs you can run is Hitachi's Drive Fitness Test. If anything will make a HDD crash, it's that. In fact, that's that the purpose of the program: It puts the drive through absolute hell. If it fails, the drive has defects and is not a safe drive to use. I'd wager your HDD would have failed this test long before you put Vista on it.

Oh, right.. about the UAC, here's a topic about that, among others things. Click here for that.

Wait, wait, wait. Hold up a second. Maybe I'm not gathering the information correctly in that linked topic, but it seems to me its implying several things.

1) When UAC is disabled, Vista keeps warning you about it.
This is half-true. If UAC is disabled, Vista will warn you only ONCE each time you boot up or log in, just like XP SP2 will warn you if you have the firewall turned off. Cancel this notice in Vista, and it'll never bug you again.

2) Vista will lock you out of your files.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what the original author meant, but unless you're using BitLocker or some type of encryption, you can always get access to the files provided you have access to the HDD. Pop the drive out, throw it in an external enclosure, hook it up to a Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, or Server 2008 machine and change the ownership with one change in the files/folder's Security settings. Done.

3) Vista takes up more HDD space. Well, no kidding. It has more features. One thing to consider is that the HDD requirements for Vista aren't actually what's needed. Microsoft, rightfully so, takes into account things like page filing and enough free space in order to do a proper defragmentation.

4) Vista needs 2GB of RAM in order to enjoy all of its features.
Again, not true. I've got Vista Home Premium on a 512MB RAM system. And while it runs slow (as would Leopard or Ubuntu on the same RAM with all features enabled), it still runs every single feature. 1GB is recommended for premium features, 2GB is recommended if you're a multitasker. There's a huge difference.

- Adam

What were the specs of your nVidia card? How long have you had it? Was it covered under a certain warranty? Did you report this damage to nVidia Corp. and Microsoft?

scioncrow wrote:my nVidia card was working fine while I was using it under XP. I had no problems with it for a few months until I put Vista on a partition. Few weeks later, video card burns out while using it.

And normally, things do blow up, burn out, or both if they're overclocked. Vista and OC'ing may not mix well.

Happened 2 years, maybe 3 years ago, so I really can't remember that far back.

And to prove my point about Vista ruining hardware:

Vista can kill your hardware.

I have seen it do so.

It will assume and/or override options, pushing the hardware outside of "safe" zones, because the drivers that come with Vista suck for lots of hardware.

At the same time, Hardware designed for Vista will be "killed" by XP in different ways, until you put vista back so vista can "fix" it. This is intentional.

I don't know if the killing vista does is intentional. Wouldn't suprise me if it is.

Direct quote from a friend of mine linked in the topic I said a few posts back.


My views will not change for what had happened to me. Vista is a horrible OS and I will never EVER use it on any of my systems. The forum has quite a few IT professionals on that forum with their own experiences in Vista. I have my own, and that's what I stand by.

So you are blaming vista for the drivers which are provided by the manufacturers. (might be tested by Microsoft)

I assume Linux kernal is also responcible for the drivers issue to that op system as well ?? They too bundle the drivers with the installs.

Yes the Vista driver issue was bad at the start, it always is with new op systems, Microsoft or others, it makes no difference.

I still think MS tried to hard with the features.

Like the gadgets...at a first glimpse they may seem nice and useful but why not let people download that as an optional update? Obviously, you can disable it but I still think "features" like this are too much.

AdamR wrote:4) Vista needs 2GB of RAM in order to enjoy all of its features.
Again, not true. I've got Vista Home Premium on a 512MB RAM system. And while it runs slow (as would Leopard or Ubuntu on the same RAM with all features enabled), it still runs every single feature. 1GB is recommended for premium features, 2GB is recommended if you're a multitasker. There's a huge difference.

I continue to think you're giving Microsoft and the OEMs too much room, or user perceptions too little, whichever the case may be.

You may have VHP on a 512 system, but my guess is that odds are it doesn't typically ship that way. The performance rating is likely too low, as I mentioned earlier. In the case of a new notebook I bought, it looks as though the sole reason it shipped with VHB was installed RAM, which was 512 MB. (I bought it from the manufacturer at an eBay auction, and the installed RAM might explain how it got to auction in the first place. )

So really, for the first time in PC (as in IBM PC and its offspring) history, we have a hardware-dependent GUI selection from the point of view of the vendors. You might object to people thinking of Vista as having a lot of fluff, and I don't want to go on record as really disagreeing. Yet in all fairness, there is reason for people to think otherwise. Vista has GUI elements that it can do without, and does do without, and the single most important factor in determining the haves and the have nots seems to be hardware, not the feature set. In contrast to XP, for example. Even if that all makes no difference to Vita's quality in the long run, it does require a significantly new way of thinking about an OS (remember, this is an OS, not just a media player with a fancy skinning system or something), and I think people ought to be given enough room to make that mental adjustment.

SamG wrote:You may have VHP on a 512 system, but my guess is that odds are it doesn't typically ship that way. The performance rating is likely too low, as I mentioned earlier. In the case of a new notebook I bought, it looks as though the sole reason it shipped with VHB was installed RAM, which was 512 MB. (I bought it from the manufacturer at an eBay auction, and the installed RAM might explain how it got to auction in the first place. )=

It is actually a P4 1.5Ghz that originally shipped with 128MB of RAM in October of 2003. I upgraded it to 512MB and an ATI X700 GPU. Like I said, runs slow when multitasking, but the OS itself runs fine.

Even if that all makes no difference to Vita's quality in the long run, it does require a significantly new way of thinking about an OS (remember, this is an OS, not just a media player with a fancy skinning system or something), and I think people ought to be given enough room to make that mental adjustment.

Agreed. The operating system is no longer just an operating system. It's an entire platform and "user experience" which is quickly changing in order to provide interopribility between any and all computer devices you may want to connect to it. Instead of having scattered pictures and videos, you're running them on a single Media Center PC which serves as both the server for said media, but also the center of "entertainment" in the "whole package" of user experience. That's the key, and like you said, it's going to take awhile for people to adjust to how the concept of the OS and personal computing is changing.

I think in may regards one of the biggest failures of Vista was its vision was way too far in the future. If you're ever watched Bill Gates give a presentation, his mind is always "dreaming," if you will, as to what he would like the whole computing experience to be like. Shooting too high resulted in Microsoft being forced to pull back features which were being looked forward to with much anticipation (such as WinFS and the complete WDM user experience in all areas of the OS), and ultimately, starting from scratch on top of a Server 2003 kernel.

- Adam