PDA

View Full Version : Unlucky Vista - out you go!


Kab
02-12-2007, 12:32 AM
:D

Vista Service Pack 1 is coming (http://apcmag.com/5098/microsoft_kick_starts_vista_sp1)

Vista is a compromise- a replacement is coming in 2009 (Vienna) (http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2007/02/11/microsoft-vista-is-a-compromise-a-replacement-is-coming-in-2009/)

Yup. already being developed. :crazy:

DvBoard
02-12-2007, 08:55 PM
Yup, replacement in 2-2.5 years is what i've heard.

Veno(V)
02-13-2007, 01:10 AM
Watch it get pushed back til 2011 =oP

ianm2
02-13-2007, 01:24 PM
someone plse xplain wot beta, rc and rtm means plse?

I think the code names given are unhelpful and daft, too.

They don't tell you anything and simply sound cryptic.

That also applies to IC's.

hmmm, reasurring peeps by releasing a sp?

Personally, for a sp to be released really soon gives me grave concerns about the standard of the product, if it needs one so soon....

Well if its only 2 yrs till the next one, may as well wait, hardly worth it. I bet that's just a filler, too!!

The stories I am hearing about vista is it looks nice and all that, but really isn't worth shelling out for, is it going to bomb commercially, I suppose a few peeps who simply have to have it will buy. ahh well, htat's hype for you, it was supposed to be revolutionary, not just a slight mutation

Spectre
02-13-2007, 02:18 PM
someone plse xplain wot beta, rc and rtm means plse?

Beta...not final code but not first build. RC means release candidate. RTM means release to manufacturing.

Slartibartfast
02-17-2007, 01:14 AM
The best part is that XP is everything 95 was supposed to be :rolleyes:

DvBoard
02-17-2007, 02:29 AM
At this point i'm tempted to switch to linux. Cheaper, and prbly just as much trouble.

Kab
02-25-2007, 01:24 PM
We already use Linux and Sun OSes as much as possible :D

Lenny_Nero
03-12-2007, 07:46 PM
I heard in a pod cast the other day that M$ now believe that most users dont move to the new OS until the first service pack has been released this is why they now aim to have the first SP out as soon as they can after the release.

I also think that Longhorn as it was got shelved because of the movie people getting involved and this is why its being planned for the next release/OS. So the OS we got was/is just a media player edition written in less than 12 months. If the next windows version is better then I might take a look, for me Vista is off the cards it offers me nothing and in fact has less that I would want, and really a lot of things that I do not. If there was a version with out all of the HDTV guff, not that you are even allowed to watch it at anywhere the full resolutions.

I still use Win2000 as my main windows OS with quite a lot of people that I know.

I use Slackware, but not as much as I used to, I try to use it more, but there is a lot of stuff I have to use that (when I last looked) does not run on *nix, and all of my work computers are Win2000 so I have just got used to it.

Spectre
03-12-2007, 09:05 PM
I heard in a pod cast the other day that M$ now believe that most users dont move to the new OS until the first service pack has been released this is why they now aim to have the first SP out as soon as they can after the release.

XP SP1 was out ~9-10 after release.

jonnyGURU
03-12-2007, 09:24 PM
Arrrgh!! Stop the Vista!!!

So I got a couple PC review samples. Sorry guys... side gig. Need to pay the bills. Can't publish results.

These PC's are otherwise very capable low end machines, but they run Vista.

OH MY GOD PUT A BULLET IN THE CHAMBER AND PUT IT TO MY HEAD NOW!!!!

Vista is so bloated, it cut the performance of these machines in half... wait... fourth! I heard a rattling noise and thought it was a bearing in a fan. But after stopping all of the fans, I realized it was the HDD grinding away the entire time the machine was running.

VISTA SUCKS!!!

Kab
03-12-2007, 10:47 PM
And yet you might not have a AMD CPU with Cool 'n' Quiet running Vista x64 - OR there would be total disaster!! (unless your motherboard mfg has issued a new BIOS release with this fix, which very few have) :mad:

BTW, out of curiosity Jon whats your idle RAM usage with Vista and which version is it?

jonnyGURU
03-13-2007, 05:47 AM
Let me fire it back up and get back with you on that. I shut it down and unplugged it out of disgust.

jonnyGURU
03-13-2007, 08:41 AM
Hovers between 415 and 430MB completely idle. :(

Spectre
03-13-2007, 08:54 AM
BTW, out of curiosity Jon whats your idle RAM usage with Vista and which version is it?
It simply releases the RAM back to other programs when needed it doesn't lock it out like shared memory. This is a non-issue.

jonnyGURU
03-13-2007, 08:56 AM
Ah... there you go. :)

It's still slow as shit. The hard drive is constantly running.

Spectre
03-13-2007, 09:04 AM
Ah... there you go. :)

It's still slow as shit. The hard drive is constantly running.

Three common ones I remember from testing here at work:

1) Page file. If you are below ~1.5GB we noticed a fair amount of page file usage.
2) Autoindexing.
3) Automatic Defrag being on.

It could be one or all 3 of those.

Kab
03-13-2007, 09:43 AM
It simply releases the RAM back to other programs when needed it doesn't lock it out like shared memory. This is a non-issue.Not that I think its related to Jon's problem, but I don't think so. Vista has a memory footprint of 480-700MB depending on your GUI settings. I dealt with this around mid November when I first experienced heavy RAM usage with nothing but basic settings running post boot, and as if no one knows, its full of bugs. There are MSDN members that could not get RTM in mid Jan to bootup and run (instant locking) when having zilch hardware problems and all other OSes ran fine. Power save settings are totally screwed up in a deep mess, just like WMP and Movie Maker is in too many ways. Minor hardware changes can disrupt the system behavior completely requiring new drivers or no boot. Vista uses more power on the same hardware and is much more sensitive to slight corruptions or instabilities in RAM. There are reviews stating this with one little game and you're already running over 1.3GB, so volatile memory is not released back from the initial footprint, it just builds until it cramps it all up with huge performance losses. If the RAM is constrained for required usage then even XP optimized to adapt and use less than what it would if there was ample RAM available. Vista may do that, I'll never know as I have more than enough for it to grumble up. But Vista is still in beta by far, so its by no way as simple as its definitely this or that fix.

Spectre
03-13-2007, 09:48 AM
In a word, no. VISTA extremely aggressively precaches in system memory to predict what you will be using. Free memory is wasted memory if the OS or a program is going to have to pull from the hard drive given the extreme difference in latencies between RAM and hard drive. If you need something VISTA releases teh pre-cache in favor of what you called.


As for the rest of that mess.

Corrupted/bad RAM is not VISTA's fault.
Changing components and needing new drivers is not VISTA's fault.
If a computer has 1.3GB of RAM available there is no reason to release it back yet...it hasn't all been used.

Not that I think its related to Jon's problem, but I don't think so. Vista has a memory footprint of 480-700MB depending on your GUI settings. I dealt with this around mid November when I first experienced heavy RAM usage with nothing but basic settings running post boot, and as if no one knows, its full of bugs. There are MSDN members that could not get RTM in mid Jan to bootup and run (instant locking) when having zilch hardware problems and all other OSes ran fine. Power save settings are totally screwed up in a deep mess, just like WMP and Movie Maker is in too many ways. Minor hardware changes can disrupt the system behavior completely requiring new drivers or no boot. Vista uses more power on the same hardware and is much more sensitive to slight corruptions or instabilities in RAM. There are reviews stating this with one little game and you're already running over 1.3GB, so volatile memory is not released back from the initial footprint, it just builds until it cramps it all up with huge performance losses. If the RAM is constrained for required usage then even XP optimized to adapt and use less than what it would if there was ample RAM available. Vista may do that, I'll never know as I have more than enough for it to grumble up. But Vista is still in beta by far, so its by no way as simple as its definitely this or that fix.

Kab
03-13-2007, 10:35 AM
Thats not even what I'm talking about and its absolutely nothing to do with pre-caching. The S footprint is high to cover eye candy, and what you said about RAM from the initial footprint being released when required, doesn't occur. If you open a few windows and run out of memory, while running a program what happens? It thrashes for endless minutes and doesn't change screens, good optimization eh. Ever started up solitaire and have it run 40+MB? http://koti.mbnet.fi/fizle/vista_pasianssi.jpg

No thats not Vistas fault either where its just a known resource hog. Tell me something I don't know. Vista is a pig that doesn't deliver the pork as a MSDN member put it a few weeks back.

Spectre
03-13-2007, 01:29 PM
No that large footprint is largely due to the pre-cacheing by the OS (the os is bigger but ZOMG they added more feeatures who'd thunk it would be bigger!!??!!). This is an area that has been beaten to death and the problem is you are used to the innefficent method in which previous versions of windows utilized RAM. You seem to have never even read any of the documentation about the VISTA feature set. It is called superfetch: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/superfetch.mspx

Pre-cacheing in this manner is more taxing to borderline systems but it is a more efficient overall method of running a system. You may get "thrashing" for misses but that is about the same as mispredictions in a processor.

Thats not even what I'm talking about and its absolutely nothing to do with pre-caching. The S footprint is high to cover eye candy, and what you said about RAM from the initial footprint being released when required, doesn't occur. If you open a few windows and run out of memory, while running a program what happens? It thrashes for endless minutes and doesn't change screens, good optimization eh. Ever started up solitaire and have it run 40+MB? http://koti.mbnet.fi/fizle/vista_pasianssi.jpg

No thats not Vistas fault either where its just a known resource hog. Tell me something I don't know. Vista is a pig that doesn't deliver the pork as a MSDN member put it a few weeks back.

Lenny_Nero
03-13-2007, 07:22 PM
I was playing a pod caste last night, either windows weekly or the main TwiT one and they were talking about how one of them has found you need at least 4 GB of RAM to get Vista to 'start' to run right... no thanks.

As for all of the eye candy... and just what good does that do again ?
I just did a clean install on an old 700 MHz slot A that only has 128 MB of RAM and runs Win2000 fine. A great little box that really should be running a version of *nix for its main uses, but it also gets used by others as an e-mail and scanning/photocopying sort of thing. They are shocked to hear what it is. I have a 466 MHz Celeron with 388 'ish MB that gets the same sort of use. There is just no way that XP could do that, I bet Vista will not even install on them.

I have seen this as some sort of deal to get people to buy a new computer every time they upgrade to a new OS.

Kab
03-13-2007, 09:25 PM
Spectre, I probably read it long before you did as being part of corporations that get products thrown at us very early, put it that way. So quit shooting the obvious in my face to cover up obvious Vista flaws. Superfetch being more efficient is MS's saying, not a finding. Over 70% of the MSDN members I tested with complained about this huge buildup and drainage of memory since the beginning and you're now trying to teach me otherwise. You install the OS, clean, loadup the OS WITHOUT Aero or additional UI features of any sort and its at 480-600MB usage (differing by system oddly), and thats just one. And NO, it doesn't drop like you said when needed by other programs it only aggregates further until it reaches a dead-end, even though superfetch exists to only aggravate that, which I didn't doubt once if you read over again. Thats synonymous to you saying all the high footprint for any program on Vista is due to superfetch and nothing else. Wow. With an AMD proc, Vista 64-bit, try running something thats 32-bit. Hint: You'll meet the same result as XP 32-bit with 16-bit apps. :rolleyes:

And for the record, no, we don't want or need that sort of eye candy.

No that large footprint is largely due to the pre-cacheing by the OS (the os is bigger but ZOMG they added more feeatures who'd thunk it would be bigger!!??!!). This is an area that has been beaten to death and the problem is you are used to the innefficent method in which previous versions of windows utilized RAM. You seem to have never even read any of the documentation about the VISTA feature set. It is called superfetch: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/superfetch.mspx

Pre-cacheing in this manner is more taxing to borderline systems but it is a more efficient overall method of running a system. You may get "thrashing" for misses but that is about the same as mispredictions in a processor.

Spectre
03-13-2007, 09:49 PM
I see you didn't like reading what I wrote try it again.

And on our test systems it functions exactly like that. You can watch it creep up to almost full mem usage as new things open and the magically it keeps working....and it isn't because of pixie dust and phantom RAM. It could be because of priority, and releasing cache. But hey you enjoy the bag on VISTA train so don't jump off you might break your neck.



Spectre, I probably read it long before you did as being part of corporations that get products thrown at us very early, put it that way. So quit shooting the obvious in my face to cover up obvious Vista flaws. Superfetch being more efficient is MS's saying, not a finding. Over 70% of the MSDN members I tested with complained about this huge buildup and drainage of memory since the beginning and you're now trying to teach me otherwise. You install the OS, clean, loadup the OS WITHOUT Aero or additional UI features of any sort and its at 480-600MB usage (differing by system oddly), and thats just one. And NO, it doesn't drop like you said when needed by other programs it only aggregates further until it reaches a dead-end, even though superfetch exists to only aggravate that, which I didn't doubt once if you read over again. Thats synonymous to you saying all the high footprint for any program on Vista is due to superfetch and nothing else. Wow. With an AMD proc, Vista 64-bit, try running something thats 32-bit. Hint: You'll meet the same result as XP 32-bit with 16-bit apps. :rolleyes:

And for the record, no, we don't want or need that sort of eye candy.

Kab
03-13-2007, 11:12 PM
Not really, it just isn't true for any system I've seen running or from friends I know from the MS tech network, so hard to believe. Common flaws outlined with fact, maybe bashing in the kiddy world, but common convention in grownups to criticize. Enough users have experienced it to know 'marketed' from 'realistic'.

Better than a broken neck to start with :cool: