I swear ...

[Syntax_Error]

Vista is alot more resource inefficient than XP, thus why XP can run on minimal memory and Vista's lowest distro requires something like a gig or so, and thats MINIMUM REQ. I can run vista just fine on my laptop that has a core 2 duo and 2gigs ddr2 ram... but I still choose to run XP Professional as it's ALOT less buggy, and has everything I need.

I really feel Vista was just setting the bar for the next operating system, doing things that will be needed, such as changing "*:\Documents and Settings\Syntax\Stuff" which is very ugly in CLI and requires quotes to more like "*:\users\syntax\documents" which is pretty. Just a bunch of shit like that to make it more efficient in the next OS, which is Windows Vienna? I do believe so.


I suggest a clean reformat, get all the drivers and install the software you need, and it should work fine. What Specs are you running?

You could always wait for vienna. lol

[Swan]

Syntax_Error Wrote:Vista is alot more resource inefficient than XP, thus why XP can run on minimal memory and Vista's lowest distro requires something like a gig or so, and thats MINIMUM REQ. I can run vista just fine on my laptop that has a core 2 duo and 2gigs ddr2 ram... but I still choose to run XP Professional as it's ALOT less buggy, and has everything I need.

I really feel Vista was just setting the bar for the next operating system, doing things that will be needed, such as changing "*:\Documents and Settings\Syntax\Stuff" which is very ugly in CLI and requires quotes to more like "*:\users\syntax\documents" which is pretty. Just a bunch of shit like that to make it more efficient in the next OS, which is Windows Vienna? I do believe so.


I suggest a clean reformat, get all the drivers and install the software you need, and it should work fine. What Specs are you running?

You could always wait for vienna. lol

*sigh* DO I NEED TO POST THIS PAGE EVERY TIME SOMEONE SADCASES ABOUT VISTAS MEMORY?

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

My laptop has 512MB RAM, and it runs vista FASTER than XP. I've also experienced less bugs, so if I had a choice, I'd choose Vista. However, if I had a choose between Windows and *NIX, and Mac the choice is obvious ... Mac > Linux > Windows.

Quote:Those figures explain why I only have 6 megabytes of "free" memory in Windows Vista. Vista is trying its darndest to pre-emptively populate every byte of system memory with what it thinks I might need next. It's running a low-priority background task that harvests previously accessed data from the disk and plops it into unused system memory. They even have a fancy marketing name for it-- SuperFetch:

In previous versions of Windows, system responsiveness could be uneven. You may have experienced sluggish behavior after booting your machine, after performing a fast user switch, or even after lunch. Although too many carbohydrates might slow you down after lunch, your computer slows down for different reasons. When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks— including automatic backup and antivirus software scans— take this opportunity to run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take space in system memory that your applications were using. After you start to use your PC again, it can take some time to reload your data into memory, slowing down performance.
SuperFetch understands which applications you use most, and preloads these applications into memory, so your system is more responsive. SuperFetch uses an intelligent prioritization scheme that understands which applications you use most often, and can even differentiate which applications you are likely to use at different times (for example, on the weekend versus during the week), so that your computer is ready to do what you want it to do. Windows Vista can also prioritize your applications over background tasks, so that when you return to your machine after leaving it idle, it's still responsive.

This isn't a new concept, of course. But Vista treats system memory like a cache much more aggressively and effectively than any other version of Windows. As alluded to in the above lunch anecdote-- and as you can see from the Task Manager screenshot above-- Windows XP has no qualms whatsoever about leaving upwards of a gigabyte of system memory empty. From a caching perspective, this is unfathomable. Vista tries its damndest to fill that empty system memory cache as soon as it can.

As he so straightforwardly put it, EMPTY MEMORY IS WASTED MEMORY. In summary, Vista caches all of your memory for faster performance. This increases stability AND speed.

[darkfate]

What version of Vista are you running Swan?

[Clarkii]

i dont think he likes windows darkfate

i myself dont trouble myself of the "innefficiences in its memory usages and CPU usages" and myself have never aquired the blue screen of death..

i have Xp and i think its fine, but i dont see how people can say "man windows xp is shizz, my game wasnt playing at 45.43 fps.

overall, i like windows, and i dont see how you dont..

[goughy000]

its not the OS its the way you use it.

and often what hardware your using it on?

many people have better results with linux as it takes less resources.

[Swan]

Indeed, Linux is much more easy on your hardware.

I have an nVidia 7600GT, AMD Athlon 4200+ Dual Core 2.21 Ghz, 320GB HDD, 1GB RAM, and an M2N-SLI Deluxe Motherboard. I need an update.

And before you assume anything, I use computers for games, school, and simple browsing only. Pornography is for children (Excuse the fact that I'm almost 14, but physical age versus mental age is much different).

I don't like Windows because its based upon DOS, which is both much too simple, and much too easy to break and to break into. In Linux, say you install a program such as Beryl when you don't have your drivers configured properly, you can "break" the GUI, yes. But, its as simple as a copy command to fix it.

su
<enter password>
cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf.backup /etc/X11/xorg.conf

and if that doesn't work, you use apt or any other program to uninstall it. In Windows, you are faced with the trial of either sending it to the shop, fixing EVERYTHING manually, being held hostage to virii and malware, and in the newest distribution, "Cancel or Allow?" every time you run simple programs from the Program Files directory.

Microsoft, I have nothing against them, but if they want my vote, they need to step it up.

[goughy000]

i'm pretty sure windows isn't dos based anymore...

it has dos included but isn't a GUI built on it like linux's desktops are just GUIs on the command based linux.

really all operating systems are built the same. window's gui is just a lot more bulky.

and remember that your hardware wont necessarily be the best supported by windows just because its top of the range. the drivers are probably quite new and not properly tested yet. sure they can be beta tested but they can't be tested on all the configs out.

make sure your using the latest drivers and see if anyone else is having problems with a similar setup?

(this isn't a rant post its just suggestions)

[Swan]

I'm using an older setup (note 7600GT. Good card, but not the best out there. SLI Connect 2x8800GTX Ultras please? ).

Darkfate: Home Premium. The recommended version for gamers.

I agree when you say Windows is bulky - I usually install another graphical shell over explorer. Now if only there was KDE or Gnome for Windows... Gnome is FTW

Linux is built upon UNIX, which was the bomb in its time. Linux, however, is commonly updated hence the kernel will be much newer, safer, etc.

[goughy000]

mmm gnome for windows. that would be gnome with true win application support.. now THAT is what the consumer wants