Jump to content

Vista, RAM and Processor Hogger


Nepali

Recommended Posts

Most of the user updated their OS from 98/ME/00 to XP without upgrading their existing hardware, and one among them is me. Coz 128MB RAM is good for 98/00/XP as compared with 512 MB RAM for VISTA

XP and VISTA got so big gap on hardware requirement

Eg:

1024 MB RAM

128 AGP

P4 compactable processor

it consumes lots of RAM.

128MB for XP - 512MB for VISTA ( and its minimum as well)

without 512 RAM it won't get installed.

so must of the user are refusing to install it.

This way MS won't get more consumer..

and the last thing..

is it worthy to upgrade to VISTA upgrading heavy HARDWARE ?

Edited by Nepali
Link to comment
Share on other sites


xp also runs like crap on 128mb's

vista has way better memory management than xp and its very noticable no matter what your running.

if ms stuck vista with 128mb's still, then whats the point of moving ahead, pointless to have computer technology get faster if software wont follow, if that was the case we'd all still be using tandy computers or something

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but whats the point of having a operating system use up all your resources when those resources could be better used running applications and games.

From what I've seen so far vista x 64 cant do anything more than I was already doing on XP x64. However it takes twice the amount of resources.

I'm sure vista will get better but in my opinion improved software should be more efficient for your hardware not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xp also runs like crap on 128mb's

vista has way better memory management than xp and its very noticable no matter what your running.

I really wish I knew the logic behind an OS taking several hundred megs of RAM at idle somehow being "better memory management" than one that takes a fraction of that at idle. XP in 1GB of RAM is happy. Vista in 1GB of RAM.. "does better in 2GB." How is memory being managed better here? If Vista could do everything it does with the memory footprint of XP I'd be extremely impressed. The way it is now, I'm definitely not impressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the thing for memory managemt..

if VISTA itself gonna take whole amount of RAM, whats left for other program.

Every body, who is gonna upgrade to vista wants to run updated programs

eg. office 2007

photoshop CS3

coreldraw X3

these are to tell few..

whats left for these programs

Even i have noticed if u run mediaplayer, sidebar, aero and some programs, it will eat up all RAM + Processing speed

I still think 2 GB RAM is also less for vista.. if u gonna try VISTA on its full performance.

Gosh....................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've noticed that this is what MS did to Vista:

It put a bunch of useless stuff in it to make it slower and less efficient,

and then it added features like ReadyBoost, SuperFetch, etc. to claim it'll run faster.

I've removed many services and, even when my computer is idle, I have 300 MB of RAM used - no startup programs... nothing.

In XP, that was around 120 MB. What's the deal? Even the new "features" don't decrease RAM usage - they only decrease Hard Disk/CPU usage!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to mention that Vista does try to do a lot of precaching (SuperFetch) and indexing (integrated search), plus visual effects when Aero is enabled. These things aren't free - they require memory. And 512MB for the full out-of-the-box Vista experience definitely isn't enough :).

I've noticed that this is what MS did to Vista:

It put a bunch of useless stuff in it to make it slower and less efficient,

and then it added features like ReadyBoost, SuperFetch, etc. to claim it'll run faster.

Useless to you maybe, but to others they're quite useful. SuperFetch and ReadyBoost, when used properly, do make a system much more responsive and faster to do everyday things.

I've removed many services and, even when my computer is idle, I have 300 MB of RAM used - no startup programs... nothing.

In XP, that was around 120 MB. What's the deal? Even the new "features" don't decrease RAM usage - they only decrease Hard Disk/CPU usage!

Then check perfmon and see where that memory is going - it should tell you what "feature" is using that memory.

If you don't like Vista, go back to XP and stop complaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great @cluberti

If you don't like Vista, go back to XP and stop complaining.

Thats what MS gonna say tooo... :P

Upgrading hardware isn't practical for everybody just to experience Vista interface. Operation of vista for basic user is still a crap. What is vista for a basic user ..just a sleek UI.

Most of the user, i bet, have installed VISTA just to feel it, but not the wants.

Yep for sure.. i am gonna shift to XP soon..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

xp also runs like crap on 128mb's

vista has way better memory management than xp and its very noticable no matter what your running.

I really wish I knew the logic behind an OS taking several hundred megs of RAM at idle somehow being "better memory management" than one that takes a fraction of that at idle. XP in 1GB of RAM is happy. Vista in 1GB of RAM.. "does better in 2GB." How is memory being managed better here? If Vista could do everything it does with the memory footprint of XP I'd be extremely impressed. The way it is now, I'm definitely not impressed.

the logic is...UPGRADE

your not forced to do it no more than your forced to use the latest CPU, when you upgrade hardware in future you can upgrade os to its equivalance.

its called futureproofing, 2 gigs in 3 years from now will be the same as the thought of having 256mb's now.

so whats the logic to upgrade hardware and always use the same software??

you take advantage of nothing, theres no inovations, no potential features to take advantage of.

so what do you want? a new os thats limited to older hardware? whats the point of that.

I've noticed that this is what MS did to Vista:

It put a bunch of useless stuff in it to make it slower and less efficient,

and then it added features like ReadyBoost, SuperFetch, etc. to claim it'll run faster.

I've removed many services and, even when my computer is idle, I have 300 MB of RAM used - no startup programs... nothing.

In XP, that was around 120 MB. What's the deal? Even the new "features" don't decrease RAM usage - they only decrease Hard Disk/CPU usage!

you obviously havnt used vista on higher end hardware...i can tell you its literally twice as fast as xp was, wmp 11 took 3-4 secs to compltely load on my rig, in vista its instantaneious, the time i say "one" outloud its done loading and playing. i have ultimate edition so i have lots of services...games benchmark exactly the same as they did in my heavily Nlited XP.....UPGRADE before using upgraded software, common sense

Edited by dcyphure
Link to comment
Share on other sites

great @cluberti
If you don't like Vista, go back to XP and stop complaining.

Thats what MS gonna say tooo... :P

Upgrading hardware isn't practical for everybody just to experience Vista interface. Operation of vista for basic user is still a crap. What is vista for a basic user ..just a sleek UI.

Most of the user, i bet, have installed VISTA just to feel it, but not the wants.

Yep for sure.. i am gonna shift to XP soon..

512MB is a minimum requirement, and if you run full-on Vista, that's pretty low. 2GB is minimum for a good user experience with Aero, and 4GB really makes a huge difference. I understand the upgrade argument, but RAM isn't that expensive nowadays, and neither is a decent video card with 128MB of RAM to run Aeor. I just don't understand the desire to run something on 256MB of RAM anymore when 2GB can be had relatively cheap.

I'm just not sure why people install Vista and then strip everything out of it - if you want Windows 2000, run Windows 2000! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point (about not using Vista if I don't like it.)

But take a look at mine (about optimizing HD/CPU and not RAM).

I have not tested Vista on higher end hardware - If I want a quad-core, then I'll buy it and stop complaining. But although RAM isn't expensive, upgrading by 1GB can cost 15% of my notebook price right now. (Compaq Presario V24xx)

And, the truth is, I like Vista's look. That's why I'm not going back to XP - XP looks "half done" to me, because half the icons are 32*32*16.

My point: I don't get why adding a little to the looks causes every system process to double its memory usage. Explorer is kind of understandable, but svchost? Come on, what's changed?

I have to say, Vista is truly more "evolutionary" than "revolutionary".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the logic is...UPGRADE

your not forced to do it no more than your forced to use the latest CPU, when you upgrade hardware in future you can upgrade os to its equivalance.

its called futureproofing, 2 gigs in 3 years from now will be the same as the thought of having 256mb's now.

so whats the logic to upgrade hardware and always use the same software??

you take advantage of nothing, theres no inovations, no potential features to take advantage of.

so what do you want? a new os thats limited to older hardware? whats the point of that.

But that's absolutely 100% NOT what you said before. You said, specifically "better". To me, for the last.. well since I saw the word "better" in the dictionary, I've assumed it meant "taking something and improving it." In fact, Dictionary.com has many, many definitions for "better". Here's one:

"3. of superior suitability, advisability, desirability, acceptableness, etc.; preferable: a better time for action."

Now the thing that's supposedly "better" is the memory manage of Vista compared to XP. So when I read that, I think "Vista has memory management that is superior to XP's." But the reality is that it doesn't, UNLESS you redefine what it is you're making "better." Your definition of "better" seems to be like this: "If you use a higher grade gasoline in your car, you will get better mileage. But you also need to buy a new car that already has better mileage to begin with."

See how that comes across? You don't make something better by replacing what you're trying to improve.

The reason Vista has all these memory management things is to compensate for the fact that it's a freakin' beast on resources. They enhanced the suspension, bored out the engine, upgraded the transmission, and then threw an elephant in the back seat. In the end, does it really end up being better?

Your statement of upgrading hardware with the same software also doesn't mean much. A faster video card makes games go faster. Period. If I have XP, and I have a $30 junk 8MB PCI card in that rig, and I replace that with a nVidia 8800GTX, guess what? Faster gaming. Guaranteed. Heck, even Freecell would be faster. Faster hard drive absolutely helps ANY OS. Faster CPU helps ANY OS. More memory helps any OS, if you're using it. Vista with 1GB of RAM and XP with 1GB of RAM will handle an app like, oh.. Photoshop, differently. If you need to load a 600MB project into Photoshop, do you think a system with XP and 1GB or an identical system with Vista and 1GB would be better suited? Now bump the RAM in both systems up to 2GB, and increase the project size to 1.8GB. Which will handle it better? Recent games like 1GB and even 2GB of RAM, and they cache alot and try to make use of as much as they can. I'd rather have XP's amount of free memory to fill with game data than Vista's. And that's if Vista doesn't randomly decide to index my hard drive. I hear it likes to do that.

I own a desktop and laptop, both have 2GB of RAM and moderate to high-end specs. I run XP64 on my desktop and it's insanely fast. It's fast and it works. It works RIGHT. I run benchmarks, it benches right in the ballpark of systems of it's specifications. I load a game and it runs. Perfectly. I installed Final Fantasy XI (which won't install in Vista at all) and it's been pretty much running ever since, and it's perfect. My laptop has XP MCE on it and it works. It benches where it should, it runs apps like it should, it's fast and reliable. Vista so far from what I've read does not promise ANY of this with any consistency. The irony is that I'm sure to fix alot of the problems they'll just tack on yet more code. Be kinda funny if SP1 for Vista added 100MB to memory usage or something, just to fix things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you using VISTA rather XP ?

can ur kids operate it as efficiently as they upgraded from windows 98/00 to XP

what have u seen in vista that u r forced to upgrade on it

is vista really worty to upgrade (OS and HARDWARE)

These are some questions, then only comes the matter of memory management..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...