Vista upgrade: a waste of time?

How does memory usage compare when running a 64-bit version over 32-bit version of Vista?

 

I believe the management are in similar fashion. Linux-like. Vista employ "Superfetch" technology which will pre-load lots of program/library that is likely to be used. This actually confuses some people when they saw that Vista use about 1/2 memory at idle and think Vista is mem hog. However, when apps request more mem from OS, Vista will allocate more mem for the apps and reduce the pre-loaded done by Superfetch.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vista_IO_technologies#SuperFetch

This approach is actually good. More unused RAM at idle means more waste and Vista is actually try to make use of all available resource if possible.

Regarding 32-bit and 64-bit, the real different is 32-bit only can address memory upto 4GB but 64-bit will be able to address upto 16TB. 32-bit apps will be run under WOW64 engine under 64-bit version.

My experience is 64-bit is about 10% slower for most 32-bit apps. I don't see real advantage to upgrade to 64-bit version until "real" 64-bit apps are more available. Memory/CPU intensive apps will be benefit from 64-bit, only when they are actually compiled to 64-bit version. Unfortunately, very handful of "everyday" use programs are available in 64-bit. I wish Photoshop CS2 will be ported to 64bit soon...

 

I havent found a performance hit yet running 32bit on 64bit Vista. I can give an exact quote on the memory usage of 32bit vs 64bit later when I get home. I think its around the same though.

 

Me, I'm forced to stick with Win XP because no linux distro will fully work on this darned laptop and I can't afford a new one so soon (when are you ever ahead of the upgrade curve with computers or commercial software unless you're rich - it's like the world's biggest hi-tech scam). And there's no way I'm crippling my laptop by degrading it to a new OS that requires more resources just to work in a very basic way. As more and more great open source software is available to run on Windows, I've gradually evolved to the point that I use WinXP simply as the underlying operating system that allows the computer to run the software I want, as operating systems were always meant to be. Everything else I use on it is open source or free, and mostly all of it cross-platform. As such, I can easily interoperate between my current WinXP laptop and any desktop I might have running Linux. I don't have to choose which "world" I want to live in.

It's a computer, not an entertainment system. Who needs Microsoft, and who needs Vista? WinXP SP2 is already a very stable OS that works well. MS is irrelevant now (especially if you have no reason to run software mandated by any business or office), but the general public just hasn't caught on yet. It's only relevant as what it started out to be, an OS vendor. But as Windows has evolved, it's less and less necessary to upgrade to the latest new thing, and so OS's have to be sold on bells and whistles only.

I would prefer to run linux, but as long as I already have a stable Win XP system, why bother if I can run pretty much all the same software anyway. OpenOffice, Firefox (and great add-ons like Web Developer Toolbar, ad-aware, etc.), Thunderbird, Python, NVU, FileZilla, Evernote (Win only, but free), 7-Zip, Notepad++, Apache server (which can be kept up to date, unlike the built-in IIS server in Win XP Pro which can never be upgraded to latest version and is already 2 versions behind even if you buy Win XP today), PHP running on the server (I use it as a local development server). It all adds up to a dream system for zero additional cost beyond the cost of the computer itself - an outstanding system compared to what I could have gotten spending big bucks just a couple of years ago. And the upside is that I no longer have any dependence on expensive, frequently obsoleted software, plus my hardware remains functional much longer since open source software tends to be much less resource hungry.

For most people, the most immediate but dubious advantage of Vista is simply a change of appearance. You can already easily change Win XP's appearance with simple, free (or relatively cheap) software. I think MS's time would be much better spent just maintaining and improving Win XP, but there's no money in that.

 

Has anyone been following Paul's supersite review on vista? He just finished his 8 part review and he goes into nice detail about all the programs. http://www.winsupersite.com/

 

Yes, I've read his reviews. They're good consumer reviews, but don't really touch on some of the more problematic issues with Vista. I remembering going from 95 to 98 and having issues with drivers, etc. XP handled the transition well, but Vista is an even bigger leap so I anticipate similar if not more problems.

This is definitely one time when I believe waiting several months or longer to see how it shakes out will be in my best interest. And, as Paul notes, for most people XP is both safe and stable. There really is little motivation for a regular consumer to upgrade.

 

Ive had Vista on a DV6000z and a DV9000t both with only 1gb of ram.. ran perfectly smooth. Memory usage was just under 500megs with antivirus and a couple other small programs. I could see the need for more memory when gaming or running many applications but for the average user it seems like 1gb is enough. I ran into no slow boot problems but did notice it takes a little bit longer to shut down. Things will smooth out a few months after its release just like XP.

 

I'm pretty sure vista's going to contain the same problems, bugs and security holes that XP has, and the system's going to deterioriate the minute you install, so what's the point? Besides, I'm a happy mac user.

 

I'm not sure if its worth the cost of switching...

 

I am of course doing the upgrade
getting the home premium which was the one i was going to buy
now i get it free
*shrug* dont see whats horrible about that
still probably wait a month or so after I get it to install it to see how intial launch goes

 

Anyone know if i can choose home premiume instead of buissness when upg. from xp pro??

 

Nope. The upgrade path is sealed to the specified version and the same bit version as what you were using previously.

 

I'm seriously considering the "Family" deal. Purchase the full version of Ultimate and purchase the keys to full version of Home Premium for $49 each, up to two. I don't like the upgrade scenario where you MUST have Windows XP installed or you can't upgrade. Only the full versions are bootable and are capable of clean installs, which I prefer. I know that Microsoft claims that the technology behind the upgrade is very different....but the ONLY way I can see to the upgrade would be to do a fresh install of XP and install nothing else...no drivers, nothing. Then upgrade. About as "clean" as you will get with the upgrade. And remember, that your XP CD key now becomes part of Vista...

Bob

 

Perhaps people would be so kind as to engligten me as to where to look for free Vista RTM. I've been on MSDN and didn't find any

 

Tom's Hardware did a nice comparison of Vista vs. XP. Looks like XP still has legs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/29/xp-vs-vista/

 

Is the upgrade 32 bit or 64 bit?

 

32-bit.........

 

Apparently the guys over at Wine are gonna try to emulate dx10.

Direct3D10, which will ship with Windows Vista in a few months, doesn't seem to be a large cause for concern. At first glance it appears to be more of an evolutionary change rather than revolutionary. New shader support will be needed, but extending ours once OpenGL supports it should be pretty easy. Stefan mentioned Microsoft is currently offering a lot of incentives for Windows developers who develop D3D10-only games since they'll only be usable on Vista - there's no plan to backport D3D10 to XP. Dan Kegel asked if that means we should port Wine's forthcoming D3D10 implementation to Windows, which would be relatively easy when we switch to WGL.

To wrap things up, Stefan presented some of the obstacles they've run into. Most games ship with a set of Microsoft helper libraries named D3DX_##.dll. There are approximately 30 different versions of those right now. They contain higher-level functions, such as a shader compiler. There's no problem using the native ones, but they must be installed by the game. Some games don't ship with them and that's a problem. Another big issue is copy protection; but as we noted above there's work being done on that area.
http://www.winehq.org/?issue=320


So yeah, I'm pretty sure that once Vista becomes the norm, I'll be upgrading to linux, (or maybe just staying with XP if they do port it to windows)

 

Great article by the way. Looks like Vista is literally a waste of time.

"Overall, applications performed as expected, or executed slightly slower than under Windows XP [...] Our hopes that Vista might be able to speed up applications are gone. First tests with 64-bit editions result in numbers similar to our 32-bit results, and we believe it's safe to say that users looking for more raw performance will be disappointed with Vista. Vista is the better Windows, because it behaves better, because it looks better and because it feels better. But it cannot perform better than Windows XP."

Personally I would rather have a faster computer than a bunch of frivolous eye-candy...what a disappointment especially considering all the hype around Vista's various speed-boosting technologies. At least it doesn't seem to increase power draw although I'd like to see actual battery drain times rather than watt consumption numbers.

 

But if you follow the discussion about the above article, many disagree with the way TH test the platform.

 

Yea, but price/value wise, Vista is a total overcharged!