Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Unlucky Vista - out you go!

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Moderator
    Posts
    4,126
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Default

    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/pro...uperfetch.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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kab View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Spectre; 03-13-2007 at 01:43 PM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    London, salf of the river
    Posts
    21
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    26
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.
    I should update this, I have new AMD boxed and about 12 other boxed on my sub net.
    ASUS A7N8X nForce 2 AMD Tbred @2012 MHz, 2GB Radeon 9250 Win2000/slackware
    LG GSA-4167B - LiteOn SHM-165P6S & NEC ND-3550A Seasonic S12 - 4x Maxtor 200GB WD 74 GB
    - - - - - -
    DFI LP RDX200 CF-DR (12/23/05) Athlon 4200x2 (LDBFE) Zalman CNPS9500 AM2 Sapphire Radeon X1650XT 24Pipe
    2 GB G.SKILL F1-4000USU2-2GBHZ Raptor 74 Eclipse 62 Corsair HX 620 | LG GSA H42N & Asus CRW-5232A

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Roll around the world
    Posts
    697
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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.

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Spectre View Post
    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/pro...uperfetch.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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Moderator
    Posts
    4,126
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    19
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    7 Posts

    Default

    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.



    Quote Originally Posted by Kab View Post
    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.

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

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Roll around the world
    Posts
    697
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Default

    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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-30-2018, 12:41 PM
  2. I think Win 8.1 kills my Vista OS.
    By Baron in forum Operating Systems
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-17-2014, 07:25 AM
  3. Thinking of going to Vista.
    By Silk_the_Absent1 in forum Operating Systems
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-12-2008, 05:28 PM
  4. Can't OC GPU in Vista???
    By Jon Gerow in forum GPU Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-07-2007, 03:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •