Vista, RAM and Processor Hogger

[rehbar]

I too dislike M$ Vista duto requirments of hardware. Every user can not upgrade his/her hardware to meet M$ Vista.

Another thing that is " there's been a 5 year gap between Vista and XP ". You can't put claim on users that 5 year gap between two O$. Why not M$ build it into 2 Years?

M$ should build Simple Version of M$ Vista that need not much hardware upgrade as between 2k and XP.

If question is why to upgrade to M$ Vista? The answer is to see change between XP and Vista. Most of users go back to xp duto harware requirments of M$ Vista.

[Nepali]

i agree.

people upgraded just to have a glance on a new OS.

and

if we talk about 5years. its not the scheduled GAP, its DELAY.

i am gonna switch back to XP

Edited February 26, 2007 by Nepali

[DigeratiPrime]

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

Some users, including myself, may want Vista for certain features and not others.

[wfunction]

Well, practically every process (except System and System Idle) that is part of the system uses almost double the memory.

And Vista has NO memory management to me - it has HD and CPU management. Which part of Vista, could anyone tell me, actually optimizes memory usage?

Also, could someone tell me what exactly changed (globally) in Vista (except the looks) that causes the high RAM usage?

[fizban2]

Vista was built to scale, i know people who have older hardware are not happy with this as they have been able to swapp OSs for a long time without having to do a major upgrade but it isn't like that with vista. Reports are that the Next OS from MS will be release end of 2009, until then Vista have to run well on any new HW that comes out between that time frame. think about XP, lately with the hardware that is out, wiether you have the latest AMD or Intel chip, or one that is 6 months to a year old, preformance is largely not noticeable (i know for some it is but for a general user, the difference is not very noticeable) if you do alot of high end gaming or graphic or calculation based work, you may notice a difference but other then that, XP has a limit to how much faster it can scale out. Vista changes this, with 512 it runs ok, a normal user can use it without much complaint with a decent CPU. Give them more ram and things start moving quickly, 1 gig of ram means it moves smooth for just about anyone. Push on to 2 or 4 gigs and wow watch as it just flies. also think about quad core and 8 core cpus, intel is talking about them for next year, will XP be able to utilise those resources? can it scale out and effictively use all the power that is being given to you? what about hi preformance workstations with 6 - 8 gig o ram? Xp unfortuantly only scales so well from what i have seen. Microsoft choose to set vista on the path that it would be able to scale out well with the up comming HW that will be hitting the markets, i know this leaves alot of people behind that have older machines that can run without question but bog down on Vista. In this case in my mind it is trying to decide which is the lesser of 2 evils, you can either have your OS be able to running well on older equipment and maybe not hadnle the new stuff as well because you had to leave out features or could configure the OS to handle both old and new hardware. we will have to wait and see how it works out after vista has been out for more then a month

[TravisO]

Honestly, Vista's requirements aren't very high at all when you do the math. The biggest "bloat" Windows ever faced was Windows 2000, where "usable" ram requirements went from 32mb to 192mb in order to run a usable box, that's 6x more in less than 2yrs!!! Where as a usable Vista setup is 768, which is only 3x that of XP's 256mb ram and the jump took 5yrs!!!

Minimum requirements are garbage... XP CANNOT run efficiently at 128mb of ram. Heck a default boot is around 110mb or so, you need to heavily customize XP to get the bootup smaller, which is something that 99% of users don't know how to do.

For an end user you need 256mb in order just to run your everyday apps at the same time; IE, Office, anti virus and a music player. When you get into a family setup with multiple logins running (aka user switching) you're needs skyrocket to 768mb or more. And if you are a developer (SQL server, Visual Studio) you better be rocking 2gb or more.

Finally, I also believe we won't see the larger benefits of the Vista improvements until Windows 2009 (yes it's slated for a 2yr release date) where there will be a reworked UI and more improvements. Heck we might even see some benefits in Vista R2 that's suppose to come out in about a year. So obviously I'm not on the "Vista is the best thing ever" train, but I do realize it lays a lot of groundwork for vast improvements. Even one of Vista Aero's project managers said (I lost the url) that Vista's UI is like invention of fire. In itself it's kind of cool but it will take awhile before the truly amazing stuff to come out, the example he list was the combustion engine.

Finally we need software in order to push hardware. I'm a firm believer that RAM isn't any cheaper today that it was in 2001 because software requirements have halted since XP came out (ok Office XP and then 2007 did want more ram). You need demand in order to push production. We're on the wave of a bunch of great technology innovations; Intel's Core 2 Duo gives massive amounts of speed with a small watt/heat footprint. NVIDIA is coming out with $70, $100, $130 DirectX10 based cards and even Intel has an onboard chipset that can do DX10 too. Finally memory companies are ramping up to 80nm and 65nm based memory, which will bring prices down, especially in the area of 2GB ram chips, which are still very overpriced. Finally 64bit computing puts us past the 4GB ram limits we've been having and Vista supports this very well and Intel & AMD have been pushing for awhile.

Yes, right now as we stand Vista may seem a bit needy, but in only 3-6 months from now we'll see some huge improvements in memory and video, especially when you look at prices.

PS: Stop whining, Vista is not an OS to stick on your current Win2000/XP box, it's a new OS for new boxes. Just like how Win2000/XP cannot run on the same box as your98/ME setup, the requirements have simply changed. Upgrade and grow up, or keep using XP. Nothing is new here, MS has always been on a 2 step OS plan. A first OS comes out (95, 2000, Vista) and it usually requires a new box to run efficiently because of massive improvements. Then a 2nd stage OS comes (98, XP, Win2009) out fairly quickly that will work on your same hardware.

Edited February 26, 2007 by travisowens

[prx984]

Call me the biggest hipocrit, but... I like Vista now

I understand that people don't want to upgrade from XP and that, but... Keep in mind, Microsoft is extending support for Windows XP to 2014. 7 years from now, people running XP will be in the same boat as the 98SE users of today. If in 7 years you still don't need to upgrade, then great. Don't upgrade, but, by then, a big change most likely will occur and you'll need to upgrade. And frankly, 400 bucks for a new computer (with monitor and all that stuff) isn't such a bad price. Just go and pay the $400 and get yourself a decent computer that has Vista or w/e os they have out by then.

If you can't afford to buy a new computer, then either change your priorities, or stop whining.

It took me 7 years before I could buy a new laptop. I wanted to get one with XP on it, but I had to get one with Vista on it. And it hasn't been such a bad decision IMO.

[Nepali]

PS: Stop whining, Vista is not an OS to stick on your current Win2000/XP box, it's a new OS for new boxes. Just like how Win2000/XP cannot run on the same box as your98/ME setup, the requirements have simply changed. Upgrade and grow up, or keep using XP. Nothing is new here, MS has always been on a 2 step OS plan. A first OS comes out (95, 2000, Vista) and it usually requires a new box to run efficiently because of massive improvements. Then a 2nd stage OS comes (98, XP, Win2009) out fairly quickly that will work on your same hardware.

I understand that people don't want to upgrade from XP and that, but... Keep in mind, Microsoft is extending support for Windows XP to 2014.

If so then i will wait for win2009 (if it will get released on time)

MS isn't punctual on time as vista was scheduled to be released on initial 2006 and delayed a year..

[wfunction]

PS: Stop whining, Vista is not an OS to stick on your current Win2000/XP box, it's a new OS for new boxes. Just like how Win2000/XP cannot run on the same box as your98/ME setup, the requirements have simply changed.

I disagree. I have an Emachines 600 MHz with (I think) 256 MB RAM, and it runs XP a lot better than 98.

And, can anyone again remind me of how Vista has RAM management? I guess SuperFetch is a form of "management", but certainly doesn't help most applications with 512 MB RAM.

[TravisO]

If so then i will wait for win2009 (if it will get released on time) MS isn't punctual on time as vista was scheduled to be released on initial 2006 and delayed a year.

You are correct, over the past few years MS has had some big hickups (Office 2002 -> Office 2007, Windows 2002 -> Windows 2007, SQL2000 -> SQL2005, IE6 -> IE7). But if you look back, you'll see MS has spent more time on track than off: a new version of SQL Server, Windows, IE and Office was coming out every 2-3yrs. So these past few years are the exception, not the rule. MS has stated many places on their blogs that these 5+yr dev cycles were a BAD idea and they won't do that again. Instead they are going back to incremental versions instead of shooting for the stars. A new Visual Studio is coming out this year, SQL2008 will be out, Vista R2 is coming out at the beginning of 2008 and a new OS comes out in 2009.

[TravisO]

I disagree. I have an Emachines 600 MHz with (I think) 256 MB RAM, and it runs XP a lot better than 98.

You don't have to (fully) disagree with me. Your RAM is way above 98's needs and unless you spent a fortune, you didn't get 256mb of ram when you bought the machine. Personally, I would have installed XP too, as ram is your limiting factor anyways, not CPU. Just recently I upgraded (my call) a small network from Win98 to XP and all the machines had similar specs to your box.

My point was, if you had a 98 grade box, you wouldn't be able to run XP. And by 98 grade I mean it would have been 400mhz or less and 16mb or 32mb of ram. You bought your machine pretty late in the 98 life-cycle.

Edited February 27, 2007 by travisowens

[Fr33m4n]

I'll admit that I haven't read all the posts fully but to me some of you seem to be missing the point. Hardware is getting better and better and 4Gb of RAM will at some point become standard. If you benchmark 4Gb RAM XP against 4Gb Vista, you'll see that Vista IS way BETTER. And that's the thing, Vista WASN'T designed for the computer of yesterday. It WAS designed for the computer of tomorrow. SuperFetch is by design made to hogg all your RAM and ReadyBoost will speed up system load times with the right hardware in the right situations. I recently read an article on engadget where a guy tested out Vista on a new macbook pro. He said that vista was faster and more responsive then os x on that same machine.

[dcyphure]

Your statement of upgrading hardware with the same software also doesn't mean much. A faster video card makes games go faster. Period

no coma...because you can also run newer games with new possibilities and features, now you can insert your "Period"

but as example lets also say softs run X speed with Y hardware, then you upgrade to Z hardware and software is now A speed...there comes a point where it cant really go no faster or it becomes irrelevant (games for example: medical books specify we see up to 60FPS at 75-80mhz...after that its irrelevant) so the result is that you have a mega micron 3 trillion ghz CPU running WMP 11..do you really want that? lets all live in the stone age why dont we

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

that depends soley on who you ask...are you asking yourself or someone who thinks that elephant in the back seat is cute and fun to have?

i like the options of features vista ultimate provides despite i dont use all of it but i learned years ago my tastes or needs/wants may and will change over the years as do many common pc users, you might not think you need Media Center now but never know when you suddenly want to record a tv show with it...just an example

theres nothing ms or anyone can do to keep everyone completely happy no matter what the product is.

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."

true it takes both hardware and software, the lower end of the hardware you scale the lesser difference you'll see in performance, when it comes to computers, hardware is the real performance factor. i cant expect everyone to have the same experience as i'm getting do to all the variables..hardware/drivers/apps, but what i'm saying is dont blame the OS unless EVERYONE is having the exact same problem.

so you say its slower, i say its faster...whats the cause? perhaps hardware or other should be investigated.

Well, practically every process (except System and System Idle) that is part of the system uses almost double the memory.

well gee your using an OS with a different kernal...well different everything pretty much, why not compare mac os memory to vista's since that would make the same difference but equal nothing.

Some users, including myself, may want Vista for certain features and not others.

right on, do with it as you wish, no one should be a dictator of how your pc is used, however some people remove things in the name of performance when it actually doesnt help improve it, removing services for example will only help some people with certain low end specs...even then i've yet to see before and after scores that differ greatly.

Why not M$ build it into 2 Years?

i dont think ms releasing a new OS every 2 years will solve anything...especially for the perfectionists and especially if they keep upgrading the software to user higher and higher requirements each time...then some will really whine. even if they add a wildly new interface thats totally different than vista...people will still whine and complain...theres no pleasing everyone, its impossible. to them i say use linux, build your own from scratch and name it bob's OS and distribute it.

[Nepali]

I'll admit that I haven't read all the posts fully but to me some of you seem to be missing the point. Hardware is getting better and better and 4Gb of RAM will at some point become standard. If you benchmark 4Gb RAM XP against 4Gb Vista, you'll see that Vista IS way BETTER. And that's the thing, Vista WASN'T designed for the computer of yesterday. It WAS designed for the computer of tomorrow. SuperFetch is by design made to hogg all your RAM and ReadyBoost will speed up system load times with the right hardware in the right situations. I recently read an article on engadget where a guy tested out Vista on a new macbook pro. He said that vista was faster and more responsive then os x on that same machine.

currently my VISTA is consuming 50% of RAM of 768 MB, then i disabled my un-necessary services including readyboost and superfetch as you beleive it will hogg all RAM

but on the next reboot there isn't any difference still the same usage of RAM. 50 %. this is what the meaning of proper memory management ?

Now the performance of vista on macbook, initial installation of any OS will obviously be faster. even XP on 128 MB or vista on 512 MB machine will be faster but with the period of time and third party software installation it will become slower. and you will face the same with your vista installation too. then again u have to apply some tweaks to boostup .

Edited February 28, 2007 by Nepali

[ScifiMike12]

I'll admit that I haven't read all the posts fully but to me some of you seem to be missing the point. Hardware is getting better and better and 4Gb of RAM will at some point become standard. If you benchmark 4Gb RAM XP against 4Gb Vista, you'll see that Vista IS way BETTER. And that's the thing, Vista WASN'T designed for the computer of yesterday. It WAS designed for the computer of tomorrow. SuperFetch is by design made to hogg all your RAM and ReadyBoost will speed up system load times with the right hardware in the right situations. I recently read an article on engadget where a guy tested out Vista on a new macbook pro. He said that vista was faster and more responsive then os x on that same machine.

currently my VISTA is consuming 50% of RAM of 768 MB, then i disabled my un-necessary services including readyboost and superfetch as you beleive it will hogg all RAM

but on the next reboot there isn't any difference still the same usage of RAM. 50 %. this is what the meaning of proper memory management ?

Now the performance of vista on macbook, initial installation of any OS will obviously be faster. even XP on 128 MB or vista on 512 MB machine will be faster but with the period of time and third party software installation it will become slower. and you will face the same with your vista installation too. then again u have to apply some tweaks to boostup .

You do realize that having those programs running in your taskbar is using up some memory usage. Heck, I would disable quick launch while your at it. See if that makes a small difference.

Mike.