Is Vista just XP Sevice pack 3?

I haven't made the plunge to upgrade (which is something that takes a lot of restraint for me) because as far as I can tell the new windows OS doesn't offer any advantages to the old XP operating system. In fact all I can see are negatives. It requires more memory, its costlier than any upgrade Ive seen thus far, and kinda like Firefox, not all of your attachments will make the turnover.
Vista promotes its all in one interface with live updates and integrated media. But If your happy with your current software there doesn't seem to be any benefit to upgrading. And all the compatibility issues that people talk about don't help either.
Granted vista is supposed to be compatible with the future of microprocessors, and is said to have an advantage for 64 bit processing, but other than power users and desktop computing most people are still on 32 bit right?
Im not sure if I've just gotten old enough to the point where I don't like change or if Vista just sucks. I wanted some opinions b4 I made a mistake

 

Well, if you're happy with XP now, then upgrading to Vista probably isn't a necessity, nor will it ever really be a necesssity (except maybe until Windows XP is no longer supported by Microsoft)

Is the upgrade worth it? What AM I doing here? What sorta tasks do you normally use your XP for?

 

no, vista suck clock. its like XP with a new theme but 10x slower. its a POS
it just suck so bad i cant belive i installed it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Vista is a lot more than "XP SP 3".

Cost wise it is a bit more (I believe the upgrade to Home Premium is $150-160 depending on the vendor), but the feature set has been expanded and also it is the first price increase on Windows in a LONG time (since Win 98 I believe).

It uses more memory but also uses it much better than previous windows versions (see the threads about the new memory model). Basically, more RAM in Vista literally translates into everything running faster because Vista treats it sort of like a cache. Also, Vista is much more fully optimized towards multi-core processors than anything else out there.

As to the compatibility issues, if you take them in toto they are significantly less than under XP or Windows 2000. The best way for you to determine what sort of compatibility issue you will have is to check your apps against reputable Vista compatibility listings.

Overall, Vista most certainly does not suck. I for one am enjoying it a lot.

 

Nobody really is jonesing for Vista. Problem is all the laptop makers are suckas and they have taken bribe from MS to make Vista standard. Now some oft hem charge you MORE if you ask for an install with XP instead of Vista? WTF?

 

Well now that I have had Vista running on my laptop for over a week now I can honestly say that I'm very satisfied with it.

It runs beautifully on my computer, even faster and smoother then XP did. It boots up incredibly fast compared to my XP probably with the help of some of Vista's technology like SuperFetch or whatever its called. And when I use it everything loads quick and with the sidebars I can see that my RAM is never really pushed to its limit even when I run a large amount of applications. I tend to do all my web surfing, music/movie, and instant messaging while on Vista and I run a Virtual Ubuntu where I do alot of my programming work, all at the same time and my computer just hums along. The Aero interface is really easy on eyes, while it isn't a stunning breakthrough it just makes everything very pleasant to look at, I particularly enjoy the real-time thumbnails you get of windows when you hover over windows in the taskbar and when you alt+tab. All the programs I used to use on XP (besides my Anti-virus and Nero which I needed a much more recent of to be Vista compatible) run great and some of them even run better on Vista.

But I don't blame people for bashing on Vista, not all machines can really handle it. All my talk about it running smooth probably is boasted by the fact my computer is only two months old and is quite top of line which really makes Vista shine. On older computers (like my old laptop) Vista doesn't run all that well especially with features like Aero Glass and Sidebar which consume more memory.

So I think if you have a computer that can run Vista to its potential, its not a bad idea to give it a chance. I'm really enjoying its many features, a lot of which I haven't even had time to mention.

P.S. User Account Control is the most annoying thing I have ever seen pops up every two seconds asking you if you can change this or do that, disabling it (while not recommended) was a good idea and takes away my only really issue with Vista at first

 

It's Windows XP covered in charcoal.

 

From my testing of it, I found that Vista was just XP, a bit slower, a lot more elegant looking, but a lot more savvy about covering up XP holes and errors. Vista crashes a lot better, but that's just because M$ programmed in new ways to deal with errors. They never really bit into the causes and reasons for those errors in the first place. Supposedly, driving writing is easier, but I haven't seen anyone say "gosh wow" the drivers from manufacturers are so much better, or that they are coming out faster.

Sure, there are a few new features like ReadyBoost and UAC. But are they worth the price? You'll just have to find out on your own.

 

{LONG RANT}

Vista is so much more than XP SP3. There is actually supposed to be a SP3 for XP being released sometime soon as long as were on that thought.

Anyway, So far, Vista has been a great new "tinker toy" I say tinker toy because having just released. its still having driver problems and what not with some hardware, unfortnately this includes Nvidia GPU's

It looks amazing on my laptop, it boots incredably fast, the hybrid sleep mode is a great feature for when im moving between college classes, the sidebar is usefull, the new windows vista help and search option blows XP's out of the water, and probably the best one so far IM IN LOVE WITH SPEECH RECOGNITION! Once Vistas speech recognition learns the way you talk, essays and term papers can be completed up to 3 times faster (In my case at least, and i consider myself a pretty quick typer). Sometimes I just find it more relaxing to "talk" my essays instead of typing them anyway, I really find that it makes them easier to do.

The only big stink I have with Vista is that my gaming performance took a hard hit by upgrading so soon.

I think Vista is great. Its still a little bit buggy, but its new also. SP1 will be out sometime later this year, and that will make it better.

I really wouldnt reccomend the upgrade though if you dont have at least a gig of ram (2 Gigs is what i would reccomend) and a decent GPU. U really need both to fully experience Vista.

{/LONG RANT}

 

At first I dislike Vista (not hate) but disliked the beta and rc2 editions. I found it really ehhh...but now I like it. I guess once you go to Vista you can't go back. =)

 

It uses more memory because it's an active OS. One thing that bothers me is when people complain about this aspect, if you have the memory, don't you want it in use? It's like buying a sports car and driving it like a volvo station wagon. Vista is always doing something in the background to speed up performance. Personally i would rather see 50% of my memory in use if i knew it was cacheing things in the background and what have you. I didn't buy 2Gb of memory to see 1.5GB free at all times of the day

An OS isn't going to make your computer run faster, that is the job of hardware. I don't understand why people don't understand this concept.

Software support is decent as it stands, and will only improve over time. Msoft holds the cards here, like it or not they will phase out XP over time. It's only a matter of time before software writers will write exclusively for Vista. I'm not saying to make the change right now, but you will need to at some point (to keep up with software and DX10).

If XP works for you, that's great. It has been around for 5+ years and is supposed to be stable at this point. Not sure how many of you were around for the 98 to XP switch, but it had many of the same problems we're seeing today. XP was a huge upgrade from 98 unlike Vista from XP, i'll admit that. But then again, windows 98 also was horrible at the time, it could only get better.

I can't wait to reflect on all these threads (not just here, i'm talking about everywhere i visit) and see what we think of it in 2 years. If you think you can take XP along for the next 2-3 years, that's great. But if you know anything about software and hardware you'll realize that at some point you're going to need to make the upgrade. Do it now, do it after SP1, do it for the next OS, choice is yours...

 

^great info man

i have a vista laptop coming to me soon and i read people bashing vista because their memory was being used alot more then on XP

but you def pointed out that vista makes good use of this memory all the time

 

Windows XP mainstream support ends 4/14/09, extended support until 4/08/14. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=3223

It is conceivable to run XP for the next couple of years (gamers aside). But as was mentioned above, you will eventually need to migrate to Vista at some point (unless the next OS debuts before XP is retired, which is unlikely).

Speaking of SP3, where is it? Were we not supposed to get it by last summer? I would guess it was put on hold because of the ramping up of Vista.

*Update Edit*

It looks as if Microsoft has already determined the mainstream lifecycle support for Vista. Oddly, it is slated to be retired only 3 years after XP. http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=11734

According to that, Vista will not live to see the maturity age of XP. Very interesting.

 

If it's just XP Service Pack 3 - it's one hell of a Service Pack. I'm loving my Vista install...Xp what?

 

A bloated OS can slow down your computer and eat up battery life though. Dunno why anyone is in denial about this.
Hint: Aero Eye Candy

 

Using that thought process what OS isn't bloated? OS X uses more eye candy than Vista.

Linux by default doesn't but more and more people use Beryl/Compiz for eye candy.

Oh and btw, there's a way to turn off Aero in Vista if you feel it's adding to this "bloat" that you speak of.

 

Actually your completly wrong on this point. Vista has been tested and reviewed by many people. Aero doesnt actually slow your pc down any more than if you have it disabled. Aero is run by the GPU its not using your other hardware. so if you have a video card that supports Aero you shouldnt see any slow down at all.

Im not saying its not a somewhat bloated OS. It Doesnt run bad though. Its just a fact of Life More and more features add Bloat. every new OS has always needed better hardware.

 

That pretty much sums it up.

As others have stated, Vista is much more than a SP for XP, despite its relatively minor flaws. While Vista does have a few problems, most of them are problems that any new OS would encounter. These include driver issues, specifically. How can you expect new drivers on a new OS to work immediately? Sure they had some time to work on them, but didn't we see this problem before with XP?

Vista is very similar to XP, I agree, and it lacks some of the earlier promised features (specifically WinFS). However, it is more user-friendly and is more appealing, despite whatever "bloating" it causes.

Overall, Vista is not "changing the way we use computers" (as stated by Microsoft), but it is attracting more and more computer users. Not to mention, is does add some new abilities to Windows that are very useful.

Matt

 

Thanks for one of the best takes on Vista I have read to date. I am not upgrading this year. I might next year but I did not go to XP from w2k for almost 2 years. There was not compelling reason beyond the improved networking setup for botards...

 

I currently don't like Vista due to its performance and compatibility features but once those get solved I'm getting Vista.

 

Vista is a lot more than just XP SP3. It just doesn't bring much worthwhile to the table that you can't get better elsewhere, and it also brings with a lot of DRM and other media-company stooging that I have no desire to deal with. XP will be the last version of Windows I run, and when my games stop working under it or Wine, my games will just stop working.

 

Vista is a non-starter for me. It's another Windows ME.

Of course, I don't mind actually using the RAM in my computer, but an OS should not use up that much RAM. It should leave it for the applications to use. OS's should be upgraded, not replaced by a new concept each time, and when they are upgraded, if new functionality is added, it should not obsolete existing nearly-new computers by requiring more resources than what was power-user spec a mere months before (which is exactly what Microsoft has done with Vista). What it should do is to make computers faster with the upgrade, not slower. The things that do require more resources than existing computers have should be capable of being turned off for those who prefer performance over graphics. Keep it lean and mean, and let the applications people do the work. I mean, something's not right when a whole Gig of RAM and a fast single core processor is suddenly just marginal for an OS upgrade.

I'm staying with XP for now, using cross-platform and/or open source apps as much as possible (and it's very possible), and I'm waiting until Linux catches up with this fairly new laptop I have now.

 

How is Vista anymore bloated than XP was at its release given the current state of hardware? With 2GB being the norm now, having ~700mb in use at startup is nothing. Add to that, Aero is run off the GPU, and todays GPU's can handle this load without issue. Heck, my GM950 can run it just fine. As to battery life, i won't argue that. My biggest complaint about Vista is my loss of 20min in battery time. Others have stated they see no drop, but i would challenge them there. I don't think it's that big of an issue, but something i won't argue.

But at the end of the day, the fact remains, hardware runs the software. Just loading an OS won't make any computer faster overall. There are certain programs that can benefit from one OS to the next, but my comment was directed at those asking "will loading Vista make my computer faster?" people, which is just not the right question to ask.

 

1) 2GB of RAM is not "the norm". 1GB is. However, I agree 2GB should and will be standard soon enough.
2) 700MB of memory used at start is not "nothing". It is actually quite a bit. For most people with 1GB of RAM, that is a big chunk. Even for me with 1.5GB, it is a lot. Hell, even for people with 2GB, 700MB is a lot. Not to mention you shouldn't have that many startup apps anyways...

Matt

 

1GB is the norm says who? If you look at most computers being shipped, and around any computer forum, you would see that most people are using 2GB now. With Vista out, it is now going to be pretty much standard. If you're still running 512mb of memory, you should re-evaluate your need for Vista to begin with. If you're running 1GB, then perhaps Vista Basic is for you. That's part of the reason for the different versions.

If all memory is in use and all programs can run, does it really matter how much is in use? Personally, i don't mind seeing physical memory in use, that just means the OS and programs are using it. Having 500mb sitting there waiting to be used does me no good, but if it's being used to optimize my OS like Vista does, then i'm all for it. Then again, i wouldn't be running Vista Ultimate on 1GB of memory because i did my research. Vista will free up memory for other programs when they are in use, i don't see what the big thing is with having available memory is. And if you're running programs that need 1GB of memory in XP, you're probably smart enough to realize you need a memory upgrade to begin with Isn't that the point of an upgrade, you notice performance is lacking in a given area, so you upgrade it? Well same holds true for an OS.

I threw 700mb out there as just a number, but that's not my point. The point is, people complain about memory usage with an OS that is designed to utilize available memory. It's the same thing as when XP came out. At the time people were commonly running 256mb memory, and 512mb was a big thing. 1Gb became common as programs started to use the memory. It's the same thing with Vista. One of the biggest things someone should research before upgrading is their hardware. When MS is telling you a GB is the minimum, you should be able to figure out that you're going to want to have more than that. I can't tell you how many times i've read game boxes min specs and just laughed. Vista is for the future, thus the DX10. Msoft isn't banking on people with 5 year old computers to throw Vista on it with 512mb of memory

 

The problem is that like all microsoft it's bloatware, sure 700mb may not be all your 2Gb, but why on earth does the OS need that much? Does it really need that much (I'd wager no, it doesn't) why does it use that much (I'd wager because of shoddy programming that Microsoft is fairly well known for).

Add to that the DRM issue, and the further attempt by Microsoft to force others out of the software business by providing more "free" applications that I am now being forced to pay for that are actually not very good.

 

Firstly I have 1.5GB, not 1GB. Secondly, I will be using the Business version shortly, any home edition (no matter which) isn't really for me. I wouldn't use the home features, yet I do use the business features.

Thirdly, people on this forum are not average. I would say most people on this forum have superiors computers to what is normal. Most people have 1GB of RAM, give or take 512MB. I can guarantee that more people have 1GB of RAM than 2GB.

Matt

 

And i can guarantee you more people run OS's other than Vista

 

That's just my point, what does it matter how much memory is being used? There is a lot more going on within Vista than Aero and what you see on the desktop. Do you honestly believe Msoft sat down and said "wouldn't it be great if we coded our OS to have memory leaks and utilize memory for no good reason?". If you are on old hardware, don't upgrade to Vista, it's really that simple, and i would be the first to advise you such. Really unless you have a DX10 card, or want the added security, or want to buy future software that will no doubt be written for Vista, you might as well stick with XP. I'm not trying to be Vista fanboy here, i'm just looking at the facts. If having more than half your memory available in the background is your thing, stay XP, or better yet go 2000/98. If playing DX9 titles is your thing, stay with XP. If you're happy with the current software and don't plan on getting anything new, stay with XP. If you have 512mb of memory, stay with XP. I can think of a ton of reasons to not upgrade. But at the same time, there are a lot of reasons to upgrade. I for one don't plan on riding out XP for another 2-3 years so i made the jump. Had i not had Vista capable hardware, or wanted Vista i would have stuck with XP, but as it were, i thought i would go along for the ride.

This really is a stupid argument to begin with. I've said my piece, i'm not pushing Vista on anyone. It just frustrates me when i read comments that are not thought out. I mean is it really a big deal how much memory something is using as long as it is using it correctly (meaning not just a leak)? I am running XP on my desktop for now, i'll never upgrade my wifes laptop due to it's hardware limitations, i'm not saying XP doesn't still have its place. But if you honestly think it's the end all OS, and don't plan to upgrade you are sadly mistaken. Oh the short memories, this brings me back to XP launch...

 

Yes, you seem to be missing the point, it matters because I need to run other programs beside the OS, I have programs that can quite happily use 1.5GB of memory and those are programs I ACTUALLY want to run, the OS is just something I HAVE to run.

To answer your insinuation, no I don't think Microsoft sat down and said "lets code our OS to have memory leaks and utilize memory for no good reason" however I also don't think they said "lets code our OS to use as little memory as possible and be as efficient as possible" just look at word, excel, they are HORRIBLY inefficient, they take up vast quantities of memory.

I didn't think it was similar to XP launch, but when XP launched I brought it immediately, why did I do that, because I had ME and ME really sucked.

As for upgrading, you are right, I am going to upgrade eventually, in fact I already have... Ubuntu is running alongside XP right now, and I'm starting to switch more and more to using it.

 

You mean to tell me you're maxing out memory doing excel with 1.5GB of memory? The tasks you run, have plenty of available memory within XP, but you're getting "out of memory" errors within Vista? I'm still not seeing how this as huge issue. Even at 1.5GB of memory i find it hard to believe you're at the threshold of max memory in Vista, but just right in XP. If this is the case, i would say your situation is unique, and i wouldn't blame you for staying with XP. But then again, i don't see this being the case. If you're (and i mean anyone) is willing to dish out $200+ for whichever version of Vista, they could afford a little extra to upgrade their computer to have the ammount of memory they need for their programs. Like i said, people need to evaluate their need for this OS as well as their hardware capabilities. And with your last statement, i'll assume you aren't running Vista, therefore anything you say is a moot point.

 

Remember, that "$200" is included in the price of the computer, so you can't escape from paying for it. That "$200" means I CAN'T afford better hardware.

Luckily, my machine has enough RAM for most use. I can run multiple video files, web browsers, word processors, and music without slowdown. That was with Windows XP though.

Vista is a whole different story. 650MB of RAM used on boot. ****, thats about 3x Windows XP Home Ed.

I try and run Company of Heroes, and lo and behold! My pagefile gets filled up. Why my Operating System NEEDS 650MB is beyond me. My XP install uses 190MB - up to 250 odd after installing all my drivers. My Ubuntu install only uses 150MB, which is after running Beryl! It uses much more intensive effects, and still fits into that 150MB!

Bloatware got a new definition: Windows Vista.

 

I have not upgraded to Vista yet. I have my Vista Ultimate disc collecting dust until the first DX10 games hit shelves. Absolutely no point in installing Vista until then. (I voted Vista was a horrible idea based soley on the reviews of others and I believe it was released abit early)

What I can not understand is why people would buy or upgrade to a brand spankin new OS (that offers no real advantage to the current one in use aside from "oooh pretty") and then start complaining about inadequate, drivers and hardware/software support. Just makes no sense to me. You brought this on yourselves, the only one you can complain about or to is you. Any knucklhead who has owned a computer for more than a day knows that newly release software is going to come with some bugs and defects. If you were smart about it (patient) and waited a few months, your Vista experience most likely would have been much more enjoyable.

Sorry if I got off topic from the current thread debate about memory usage and what not. I just like using the word knucklehead.

I was really moved by your comment here Sucka. You actually made want to install Vista for moment.

 

I am using Vista with clean install with Z61m for about two weeks. My experience have been smooth overall. I think Microsoft is a bit more mature than previous release of XP. Vista is stable and fast.

I did not feel any speed difference with XP. In some cases Vista is faster in :
a. Startup time.
b. Post start up. I can load any programs because any memory resident program in taskbar will load in the background or load later. It is nice than with XP whereas you should wait until wholle programs load.
c. Office 2007 launch faster than with XP. Tested.
d. I am using Norton Internet Security 2007 which is surprisingly slim, not resource hog and i did not feel any noticable delays when launching office files.
e. It is more stable than XP. If i open internet explorer, outlook 2007 (with over 2 GB inbox), 5 mb excel database, and windows media player i still cannot feel any noticeable delays. With XP is a bit slow when moving between windows (same condition but with Office 2003).
f. Overall looks and surrounding is cleaner. I like black and i like the same color implemented in the themes. And not to mention the translucent task bar and windows. Some might say we dont need all of this but i think it is a nice upgrade from the same blue bars for about 5 years.
g. The looks perfectly match with all around black Thinkpads

Same with other reply i dont think Vista is the same with XP with SP 3. The kernel have been re-written and some major change in the shell too.

This is an example of an article about Vista new kernel :
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/technetmag/issues/2007/02/VistaKernel/

 

Even though I have zero experience with Vista, in no way will I dispute it's maturity vs XP when it was released. XP in it's infancy was terrible, but you also have to look at what it replaced...ME ~~~shivers~~~

I made the jump to XP early because I was not at all happy with ME or 98 and was willing to put up with the growning pains of XP. I expected it and did not complain about the problems a new OS came with.

Now that XP has matured, I am quite happy with it and plan to wait until Vista matures a little.

 

Oh yeah, so far the ME is the worst product MS ever release in history - windows ME- Mistake Edition. Even though i did not try it (from 98 direct to XP) but i red and heard so many complaints about it....

 

Believe it or not, there are MORE people that owned a computer prior to Vista than have bought one since. I know that is shocking, but alas it is true

Furthermore, if you're budgeting a computer, and you can't factor in $50-100 bucks for added memory, maybe it's time to ask daddy to up the allowance. Seriously memory is still one of the easiest, cheapest, noticeable upgrades out there, be it desktop or laptop. So i find the whole "Vista broke the bank" comment to be complete BS, or just piss poor planning on your part.

And with 1GB of memory, running all those tasks and trying to play games, i'm not supprised you could fill a GB, heck that would tax my desktop which is running 1GB. Sorry i don't feel sorry for you when you're running an OS that has a 1GB min and you're trying to run tasks that eat a lot more memory. That goes along with my whole point, todays games/software/OS's take more memory. This isn't 2001 anymore...

ashveratu: Very valid points. As i've said, unless you need to, or just really want to upgrade there is no compelling reason to now. Like i said i don't see a problem with upgrading now as long as you've done your HW and know your system is capable of running it (ie: drivers and hardware). And i couldn't agree more with the complaining comment. It saddens me to see people who install Vista just to complain about it. If the user didn't bother to do their homework on the OS, then they sleep in the grave so to speak. With that being said, i also see no reason to wait a year, or wait till the next OS and so on. Like it or not, this OS will replace XP, and if you plan on riding out XP till the bitter end, expect to miss out on new games and software...

 

I agree, this article talks about this stuff:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129525-page,1/article.html

 

vista is faster than xp on my computer. Load up times are just like microsoft advertised, fast and efficient. The graphics look good, and since I got it free from my school, I cant complain.

If you're looking for productivity, its not that much different from xp.

 

And that statement is relevant, why?

I researched my laptop purchase for three full months before jumping on this, and I'm glad I did. I got THE best deal running at the time. I was given $1500 by my father to buy a laptop as a gift for getting into university. My laptop end up costing $1526, so I went slightly over budget. The only thing I am disappointed with though is the hard drive space. Had I been able to not pay the $90 that Windows XP cost, I could have bumped my harddrive to 120GB.

Unfortunately, you come across as not having to worry about money, which is too bad. This is the demographic that MS caters to of course, those to well off to care if they're being shafted.

That's the thing, WinXP and Ubuntu both don't max my memory, it's only Vista that has troubles. My question is, what features does Vista have to justify using 650MB of my ram? There's Aero, but it's using about 3x the amount of memory it should. Theres the sidebar... Which does nothing. But what else is there, really? Why when it is do heavily based on XP, does it expand so greatly? Is it because Vista is just a giant, bloated, bandaid?

In April, Ubuntu Feisty Fawn (7.04) will be released. It'll be released AFTER Windows Vista, yet I can guarantee you it will not use 200MB of RAM. Leopard comes out soon too, but there is no way Apple are silly enough to make it thrash their MacBook users machines on boot, like Vista does.

 

Because you siad the $200 is factored into the cost of a laptop, i was pointing out that most will be buying the OS outright, not factoring it into their purchase. You were implying that the cost of the OS bundled in a purchase broke the bank and would not allow for a memory upgrade. That is it why it is relevant.

Then you obviously didn't factor in Vista. Which is all fine and dandy, i'm not trying to push Vista on anyone. But if you researched for 3 months, and thought 1GB was going to be good for the next 2-3 years you did an awful job, it's that simple.

Real good observation, you must know me well

Honestly my financial status is none of your business. I was mearly implying that if someone is buying a computer, they can add an additional $50-100 bucks to upgrade the memory. If memory is an area you're willing to skimp, then that's the problem you created for yourself. MS caters to uh, EVERYONE, but good try. MS is on something like 95% of the world's computers, i think you or someone you might know falls into that demographic

Again you have not done adequate research. If i need to explain the OS to you, then you have no room to talk to begin with. Beyond that, i pose the same question i did earlier, why does it matter how much memory is in use if you have enough for the programs you run? Again, this logic of available memory eludes me. If the memory is there, and able to be used by the OS, why not use it? I don't run out of memory on my computer, so why do i care if it's using 200mb as opposed to 600mb? At the end of the day, i'm still not running out of memory. I'm not implying Vista doesn't use more memory than other OS's where it might not need to, but i don't see the problem with it...

WOW that's great, and what, +/- 1% will use it? I have no problem with Ubuntu, i think it's a great option to have, but i also enjoy software and game titles for my Windows machines. But again, how much better is an OS because if it uses less memory? With all that memory sitting idle, how does this help you again?

 

No, most people will be getting Vista because it comes preinstalled on their new machine. Just like XP. OEM sales make up the VASt majority.

That was my point, yes.

I factored in Vista alright. I've been following Longhorn sice I switched from XP to WS2003.

I'm so naive as that, but I may be in luck. RAM usage in Linux has gone DOWN in the past 12 months, so hopefully they can continue to keep it lean.

Then by the same logic, couldn't you have spent the extra money to get the 2.16GHz processor? Or a 160GB harddrive? There is a limit to what people can spend. Maybe you just don't realise that.

Good thing I didn't skimp then, and didn't go for 512MB, as I was thinking...

The point I believe I have been suitably conveying in my previous posts, is that there is not enough memory available for use. You do know what the pagefile is, right? It's where application information goes when you run out of main ram. With Windows Vista using 650MB, that leaves 350 to my other applications. Company of Heroes uses around 500MB, so it has to shunt some of it's stuff to the pagefile. That's not CoH's fault, but Vista's. I wouldn't be so angry if Vista moved it's own info into the pagefile, I wouldn't lose nearly as much performance then.

What is the relevance of mentioning market share? It's a superior product, popularity has nothing to do with it. It's faster, prettier, easier, less resource intensive, and it's development cycle was only 6 months, as opposed to 5.5 years.

 

You seem to be lost on this subject, so i'll just let it go.

And you don't know what is going on within the OS and thought a GB would be enough to run it? I don't even think i need to say anything further.

So you bought the laptop knowing that your GB would be enough for the OS you run, thanks for proving my point. People who go with a gig of memory AND did their research probably are ok, those that want Vista and bought a gig probably didn't do their HW, point proven. Again with the whole available memory thing...

To a degree yes. But then again, my research showed i would be ok with what i bought, and i am. You on the other hand bought a computer and ended up not having enough memory to run the latest OS, who screwed up in this situation?

Welcome to 2007. That comment made me lol. I haven't built a PC with 512mb since like 2000. Even XP has a hard time running on 512mb and company of heroes i'm sure would really struggle.

Yes i know what pf is. But the point i've been saying is people need to know how much memory they need to run their given tasks. Again, you are showing your lack of knowledge in this area. If you're having problems running said game within Vista, and are running 1GB of memory, again shame on you. Not only that, but the census is right now to hold off on Vista + gaming anyways, but oh right you did your research...

I think it's 100% relevant. We are debating an OS that will be run on 95% of computers in the world. If you want to talk about Ubuntu i think you're in the wrong forum to begin with. Perhaps that OS should be pushed on older systems with less memory, maybe you should make that your mission as opposed to posting things you obviously know nothing about.

Honestly i'm not here to convince you or anyone else to use Vista. If your sole reason bashing Vista here is for memory usage, you are bringing this upon yourself. You obviously aren't ready for this OS if you're in need of more than a GB of memory and don't own such. Continue running Ubuntu, that's fine by me, but don't make posts bashing an OS because you don't have the hardware to run it.

 

Well, considering I bought my laptop before the Vista BETA stage, who could have guessed that Vista would require three times the resources of Windows XP?

I can so run the latest OS. Ubuntu 7.04 runs dandy on my machine. Latest beta came out after Vista did.

What kind of crap goes on your machine that makes XP struggle with 512MB of ram? First XP machine I had ran on 192Mb of ram. Was all good. Of course, I wouldn't expect Company of Heroes to run well on 512, so I went the full 1024.

I know exactly how much memory is needed by my applications. That's my point, Vista shouldn't require 650MB if it were programmed correctly.

I've never intended for Vista to become my primary OS, I've already upgraded. I merely ran a free version to test how well it would run, and what "optimisations" MS has performed for us. I couldn't really find any, though. UAC is nice, however.

Don't be so naive, Windows XP isn't run on 95% of the worlds computers, and not 100% of XP users will upgrade. If you want to spout statistics, get them right first.

I push for Ubuntu on all systems, as it is clearly a superior OS. New releases become more efficient, and add worthwhile features.

It's not my sole reason, there are many more but I saw some incorrect arguments stated and set out to disprove them.

Hahaha! 'You obviously aren't ready for this OS', you got that right! I suppose the day I win the Powerball and get hit by a truck, I'll be ready to waste my money on XP Service Pack 3.

 

Then you're probably better off without it to begin with.

That's great, why are you in the Windows OS forum?

Show more ignorance, you seem to help prove my points with each of your posts. Cause everyone knows 512mb of memory is the key number in todays computing enviorment

Now your a programmer, i'm even more impressed So because an OS released in 2007 uses more memory than an OS in 2001 it's poorly programmed?

And yet you did your "3 months" of research leading to the purchase and "followed longhorn" since the early days? That's besides the point, if you never intended to use it, what the heck are you complaining about? If you're upset you can't run it with a GB of memory, perhaps you should have paid attention during your "research" of longhorn, that or noticed that in todays computing world 512mb is hardly enough to check email with smoothly.

Where did i say XP? Secondly, the actual market share for Msfot is somewhere in the 90 percentile, so don't call me out when you don't have a clue yourself. Next post you'll go on how Msoft is a monopoly...

Clearly superior? There's far to much to debate here and quite frankly it isn't worth it in a Windows OS forum. You want to run it, that's fine by me, in fact i would encourage it, you obviously know very little about Windows.

Again you have this knack for making me lol. Your main argument is Windows Vista doesn't run on your machine because you have a GB of memory and that's not enough to run the OS and your game. Stop the presses everyone, he's won the debate There are plenty of areas Vista is lacking, i wouldn't deny that. But the fact that in 2007 you can think you can buy an OS and run the latest games with 512-1024mb of memory is just absurd. Once again i could not care less if you run Vista, but don't assume that because it uses more memory than XP or Ubuntu it is an inferior OS. You want to talk about naive?

Oh my little friend, where to begin with you

I would love to sit around and rip apart every half thought out idea you come back with, but this is honestly getting no where. I've admitted Vista isn't for everyone, i've admitted it uses more memory than XP did, i've admitted there are short comings, what do you want me to say? This OS is MUCH more than a shiny GUI or a SP3. I'm sorry you are getting your info from a 15 year old blogger on the intranets, but it is not. If you want to ride XP for 2-3 more years, be my guest. All i would ask is that you stop posting about things you know nothing about, and downgrade an OS for reasons you can control. Sorry that i don't mind seeing 99% of my memory in use 24 hours a day as long as all my programs are running happily. I feel sorry for people that pay attention to their available memory, and quite frankly i feel sorry for you.

I think i've had enough debate with the Ubuntu user in a Windows forum

 

What? I'm not allowed to be in here because I talk smack about bad products? 'Quickly! Bar the gates! He only uses Windows fifty percent of the time, he must be up to something!'

You're always welcome in the Linux section, though. Even if you don't use Linux.

When did I say that I wasn't a programmer? I also enjoy hunting, but my firearms proficiency has little bearing on the topic.

And, I'm not worried about it using more memory, I'm just worried about it wasting that memory. In programming, the footprint is one of the main design considerations. A lean program is better than a bloated one.

That argument is like saying "If you aren't going to vote liberal, why complain about them?" The whole point of complaints is either education or improvement. Or in some raving fanboy's cases, insanity (like complaining about the last two Eva eps, sheer madness). If we shut up about a bad product, the company who makes it is going to think they've built the perfect thing. They won't learn from their mistakes unless we point them out.

You're grossly exaggerating there. 256MB is enough for basic web browsing, email and word processing. More is always nice though, but not essential.

You said Vista would be used on 95% of the worlds computers. I guess somewhere closer to 70%, if that. Not even Windows XP has such a large userbase as you suggest.

Nah, everyone already knows that.

Makes me all warm and fuzzy knowing I can make you laugh.

I never said Vista didn't run, in fact, it was quite stable to install and run. No OS crashes in two weeks, which is impressive for a Windows release. But, when using semi-intensive applications, it had the tendency to run about as well as a two legged Dog.

Yay! Happy joy!

Oh, there are other reasons it's inferior, too, believe me. But the memory argument wasn't brought up by me, I just chimed in.

Why don't we start with a valid argument? Eh?

Honestly? I would love to see that too, been too long since my last decent debate.

Your sarcasm isn't lost on me. :d

But whatever that was supposed to be, is...

I'd settle for 99%, really! Rather than the 125% that Vista uses. 99% would be a Godsend under Vista!

Now you try the pity line? Shame on you... But, for your future reference, I hardly ever check my memory usage, usually only when I need to quote statistics, in situations like this (Using 945MB at the moment, Kubuntu Dapper LiveCD). It's just the constantly blinking hard drive indicator in Vista that starts to bug me...

 

Again no substance with your "argument". The only thing you said that has any bearing or possible way to back up is your market share comment. Well here's some reading for you.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,129525-page,1/article.html

Now i didn't graduate with a math degree, but when i add that all up it is over 90%

You haven't proven anything, except you think Vista uses to much memory. Which that alone is a subjective argument, because if someone had 4GB of memory, what is too much? Everything is relative when it comes to memory, your GB just doesn't cut it for todays games/programs and apperantly OS's.

Again, thanks for trying.

 

Well I am all about thread hijacking so I will help Sucka elaborate a little. I am not sure if this point was already stated and just overlooked earlier, but here I go.

Vista, in a sense is not using alot of memory. Vista is populating available memory in advance with the programs it thinks you are mostly likely to use. So all the memory is really being used by whatever programs you use most often. Does that make any sense? If it doesn't, then good luck understanding this link that explains it in more detail.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

 

Can I just ask one thing? What's market share got to do with memory usage? Or the fact that Vista is just dodgy?

Going by that argument, you haven't proved anything either. Except for the fact that you haven't used Vista on the average PC. And, as I've stated numerous times of the course of this thread, I count 'too much' memory usage as more than 100% my physical memory.

I think we can both agree that Windows Vista is not suitable for the average PC, and hardware upgrades are necessary. It really is too bad Microsoft doesn't cater to the average user, when other vendors can.

I know all about SuperFetch. Just wish I could disable the stupid thing. I'll tell my OS what programs to load into ram, not the other way around.

 

In the link post I posted earlier, someone says they were able to disable superfetch. Somewhere very far down near the bottom the page I believe. Hrm, now I know the last thing yall want to do read something soooo control-c....control-v

I just turned off superprefetching and indexing services and I still managed to type this. Funny how my HD is quite and I have 1.2 gigs of free ram.

My CPU cycles on both my CPU cores are well close to zero.

OMG MY COMPUTER IS NOT OPTIMIZED. good
matt on February 28, 2007 05:00 PM

Of course he doesn't say how he does it........