Windows Vista

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Windows Vista
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 11 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34264
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 749891 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 13:49:17 UTC - in response to Message 749890.  

I've been running Vista since February 2007...and i expected many more problems than i got...Fans of another O/S have had an open field in dissing Vista...So beware...Not all of what they say is true...Vista is not perfect...but it's better than i expected...I don't want to go back to XP.


I second that



With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 749891 · Report as offensive
Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3252
Credit: 31,903,643
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 749893 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 13:58:26 UTC - in response to Message 749890.  

I've been running Vista since February 2007...and i expected many more problems than i got...Fans of another O/S have had an open field in dissing Vista...So beware...Not all of what they say is true...Vista is not perfect...but it's better than i expected...I don't want to go back to XP.


Pitty though, but both have theire Pro's & Con's.

But DO prefer XP64, inspite off compatability problems, with 'older' (=/> 5years).
And ofcoarse the 32BIT version.

VISTA is RAM hungry while XP don't grasp the RAM available ?!?!

Can't wait to try WINDOWS 7, (Gates lucky number???) hope it's not 7BIT's.


ID: 749893 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 749898 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 14:23:17 UTC - in response to Message 749893.  
Last modified: 8 May 2008, 14:26:50 UTC

VISTA is RAM hungry while XP don't grasp the RAM available ?!?!


With RAM being so cheap these days, I really don't understand this complaint. Besides, at least with Vista's SuperFetch, any extra RAM doesn't go to waste like it does with XP. With XP, anything left over after startup just sits there doing nothing but taking up electricity. You have 2GB of RAM with XP and only 400MB used? You have 1.6GB of RAM doing nothing. Vista will use that extra RAM as an intelligent cache - and if you need it for applications, it will simply empty the amount needed from the cache so you can run your app. Because Vista will actually use all available RAM for cache, many people think there's nothing left for them to use and they blame Vista for being a 'hog' without actually knowing what's going on.


Its the same complaint all over again. When Windows 95 was released with a 'minimum' requirement of 4MB of RAM, people who actually ran it found that it was incredibly slow. Even 8MB wasn't too much better. It wasn't until you had at least 16MB or more that Windows 95 really started to fly. Windows 98 was almost the same as 95 so it didn't require much more RAM. When XP came out with a 'minimum' of 64MB of RAM, people started to complain again. Actually using XP with only 64MB made it real slow. XP's sweet spot is about 512MB of RAM. Now Vista increases that to about 2GB (for a realistic minimum) or 3GB of decent performance.

Every OS release always wants a little more than the previous. You'd think we'd be used to that by now.
ID: 749898 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 749905 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 14:36:29 UTC - in response to Message 749898.  

VISTA is RAM hungry while XP don't grasp the RAM available ?!?!


With RAM being so cheap these days, I really don't understand this complaint. Besides, at least with Vista's SuperFetch, any extra RAM doesn't go to waste like it does with XP. With XP, anything left over after startup just sits there doing nothing but taking up electricity. You have 2GB of RAM with XP and only 400MB used? You have 1.6GB of RAM doing nothing. Vista will use that extra RAM as an intelligent cache - and if you need it for applications, it will simply empty the amount needed from the cache so you can run your app. Because Vista will actually use all available RAM for cache, many people think there's nothing left for them to use and they blame Vista for being a 'hog' without actually knowing what's going on.


Its the same complaint all over again. When Windows 95 was released with a 'minimum' requirement of 4MB of RAM, people who actually ran it found that it was incredibly slow. Even 8MB wasn't too much better. It wasn't until you had at least 16MB or more that Windows 95 really started to fly. Windows 98 was almost the same as 95 so it didn't require much more RAM. When XP came out with a 'minimum' of 64MB of RAM, people started to complain again. Actually using XP with only 64MB made it real slow. XP's sweet spot is about 512MB of RAM. Now Vista increases that to about 2GB (for a realistic minimum) or 3GB of decent performance.

Every OS release always wants a little more than the previous. You'd think we'd be used to that by now.


I don't mind it using RAM, heck, I hope any operating system uses any and all ram available to it...intelligently.

Linux does it already (and has been for years) ..I have everything cached to ram and no swap space in use, 99% of the time.

ID: 749905 · Report as offensive
Scarecrow

Send message
Joined: 15 Jul 00
Posts: 4520
Credit: 486,601
RAC: 0
United States
Message 749912 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 14:44:30 UTC

ID: 749912 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34264
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 749918 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 15:04:48 UTC - in response to Message 749905.  

VISTA is RAM hungry while XP don't grasp the RAM available ?!?!


With RAM being so cheap these days, I really don't understand this complaint. Besides, at least with Vista's SuperFetch, any extra RAM doesn't go to waste like it does with XP. With XP, anything left over after startup just sits there doing nothing but taking up electricity. You have 2GB of RAM with XP and only 400MB used? You have 1.6GB of RAM doing nothing. Vista will use that extra RAM as an intelligent cache - and if you need it for applications, it will simply empty the amount needed from the cache so you can run your app. Because Vista will actually use all available RAM for cache, many people think there's nothing left for them to use and they blame Vista for being a 'hog' without actually knowing what's going on.


Its the same complaint all over again. When Windows 95 was released with a 'minimum' requirement of 4MB of RAM, people who actually ran it found that it was incredibly slow. Even 8MB wasn't too much better. It wasn't until you had at least 16MB or more that Windows 95 really started to fly. Windows 98 was almost the same as 95 so it didn't require much more RAM. When XP came out with a 'minimum' of 64MB of RAM, people started to complain again. Actually using XP with only 64MB made it real slow. XP's sweet spot is about 512MB of RAM. Now Vista increases that to about 2GB (for a realistic minimum) or 3GB of decent performance.

Every OS release always wants a little more than the previous. You'd think we'd be used to that by now.


I don't mind it using RAM, heck, I hope any operating system uses any and all ram available to it...intelligently.

Linux does it already (and has been for years) ..I have everything cached to ram and no swap space in use, 99% of the time.


And most of the programs dont run.



With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 749918 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20400
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 749927 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 15:32:57 UTC - in response to Message 749918.  
Last modified: 8 May 2008, 15:33:14 UTC

... I don't mind it using RAM, heck, I hope any operating system uses any and all ram available to it...intelligently.

Linux does it already (and has been for years) ..I have everything cached to ram and no swap space in use, 99% of the time.

And most of the programs dont run.

As in viruses don't run, indeed so! ;-p

More seriously, take a look for yourself and then comment. If you don't want to touch your hdd, then try one of the LiveCDs. Obviously, running from a CD drive is hideously slow but you should at least see what runs or not.

I think it compares very favourably over Vista...

Happy crunchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 749927 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 749932 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 15:43:47 UTC - in response to Message 749927.  

And most of the programs dont run.

As in viruses don't run, indeed so! ;-p


Viruses only don't exist because of the Linux marketshare. If Linux had more to target, then there'd be viruses on that platform too.

More seriously, take a look for yourself and then comment. If you don't want to touch your hdd, then try one of the LiveCDs. Obviously, running from a CD drive is hideously slow but you should at least see what runs or not.

I think it compares very favourably over Vista...


Been there. Done that. There's nothing in Linux (the four or five distros I tried) that impresses me. I'll stay where the third party support and software is at.
ID: 749932 · Report as offensive
Profile Mike Special Project $75 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 17 Feb 01
Posts: 34264
Credit: 79,922,639
RAC: 80
Germany
Message 749940 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 16:09:56 UTC - in response to Message 749927.  

... I don't mind it using RAM, heck, I hope any operating system uses any and all ram available to it...intelligently.

Linux does it already (and has been for years) ..I have everything cached to ram and no swap space in use, 99% of the time.

And most of the programs dont run.

As in viruses don't run, indeed so! ;-p

More seriously, take a look for yourself and then comment. If you don't want to touch your hdd, then try one of the LiveCDs. Obviously, running from a CD drive is hideously slow but you should at least see what runs or not.

I think it compares very favourably over Vista...

Happy crunchin',
Martin


Do you really think i would say that if i hasn´t tried?



With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.
ID: 749940 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24881
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 750002 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 19:02:13 UTC

I purchased Vista because of customers coming to me to solve problems with their rigs. I needed the hands on knowledge so that I could help. My copy of Vista Ultimate cost £115 ($230) which I thought was reasonable at the time.

The main problem that I have been seeing with a lot of rigs is not enough memory. The likes of PC World have been selling rigs with 512mb ram & Vista Home Basic, with some having Home Premium. Lately, they have been selling them with 1gb ram.

Most home users just do not check out the specks & see a rig for either £299/£399 as a very reasonable cost. They then can't understand why it won't run the latest games or the programs run really slow.

I suppose that once I get used to it, I would probably run it regularly. After using XP for so long, just find Vista a pain at the moment.
ID: 750002 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 750064 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 20:39:25 UTC

Thank you ordering Windows Vista Home Basic with SP1 64-bit DVD - English from Windows Vista After Market. Your order is pending approval. Please expect an updated status within 2-8 hours.

Well, that wasn't so bad... Only 10 bucks and 10 days wait...

But now that I've cracked open the box, I'm not so sure that I can wait that long... ;)

(Maybe I over-reacted just a tad)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 750064 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 750085 - Posted: 8 May 2008, 21:04:26 UTC - in response to Message 749918.  

VISTA is RAM hungry while XP don't grasp the RAM available ?!?!


With RAM being so cheap these days, I really don't understand this complaint. Besides, at least with Vista's SuperFetch, any extra RAM doesn't go to waste like it does with XP. With XP, anything left over after startup just sits there doing nothing but taking up electricity. You have 2GB of RAM with XP and only 400MB used? You have 1.6GB of RAM doing nothing. Vista will use that extra RAM as an intelligent cache - and if you need it for applications, it will simply empty the amount needed from the cache so you can run your app. Because Vista will actually use all available RAM for cache, many people think there's nothing left for them to use and they blame Vista for being a 'hog' without actually knowing what's going on.


Its the same complaint all over again. When Windows 95 was released with a 'minimum' requirement of 4MB of RAM, people who actually ran it found that it was incredibly slow. Even 8MB wasn't too much better. It wasn't until you had at least 16MB or more that Windows 95 really started to fly. Windows 98 was almost the same as 95 so it didn't require much more RAM. When XP came out with a 'minimum' of 64MB of RAM, people started to complain again. Actually using XP with only 64MB made it real slow. XP's sweet spot is about 512MB of RAM. Now Vista increases that to about 2GB (for a realistic minimum) or 3GB of decent performance.

Every OS release always wants a little more than the previous. You'd think we'd be used to that by now.


I don't mind it using RAM, heck, I hope any operating system uses any and all ram available to it...intelligently.

Linux does it already (and has been for years) ..I have everything cached to ram and no swap space in use, 99% of the time.


And most of the programs dont run.


So, tell me which program doesn't run?

ID: 750085 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24881
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 750260 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 5:14:11 UTC

GSP's Money (Accounts), Starfish's Sidekick (PIM), both of which I have used for years on W98SE & XP. Calendar Creator 9, I just can't get to work under Vista whatsoever.
ID: 750260 · Report as offensive
Profile Jeffrey
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Nov 03
Posts: 4793
Credit: 26,029
RAC: 0
Message 750286 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 6:42:36 UTC

Oh My God!!! I just spent the last two hours in the Vista control panel...

It's good to be back in OSX... ;)

(That's right people, I just couldn't wait for the 64-bit-er.)
It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .
ID: 750286 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20400
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 750373 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 11:16:00 UTC - in response to Message 750260.  

GSP's Money (Accounts), Starfish's Sidekick (PIM), both of which I have used for years on W98SE & XP. Calendar Creator 9, I just can't get to work under Vista whatsoever.

Those will likely work fine under WINE.

But then again, there are lots of more recent accounts and pim and calendar applications...

Or do you not agree with the "need" to "upgrade"?


Cheers,
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 750373 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24881
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 750513 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 17:39:49 UTC - in response to Message 750373.  

GSP's Money (Accounts), Starfish's Sidekick (PIM), both of which I have used for years on W98SE & XP. Calendar Creator 9, I just can't get to work under Vista whatsoever.

Those will likely work fine under WINE.

But then again, there are lots of more recent accounts and pim and calendar applications...

Or do you not agree with the "need" to "upgrade"?


Cheers,
Martin


Yes & No. I understand that eventually I will have to upgrade but I have yet to see programs with their simplicity & effectiveness. Haven't tried QuarkExpress v5.0 on Vista yet & if that don't work, there's no way I'm going to buy an upgrade just to run it on Vista.
ID: 750513 · Report as offensive
Michael Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Aug 99
Posts: 4608
Credit: 7,427,891
RAC: 18
United States
Message 750602 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 20:43:40 UTC - in response to Message 750513.  

there's no way I'm going to buy an upgrade just to run it on Vista.



You will eventually.
ID: 750602 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51469
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 750609 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 20:51:44 UTC - in response to Message 750602.  

there's no way I'm going to buy an upgrade just to run it on Vista.



You will eventually.

When my last dying computer can no longer reboot................
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 750609 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24881
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 750627 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 21:17:58 UTC - in response to Message 750602.  

there's no way I'm going to buy an upgrade just to run it on Vista.



You will eventually.



Nope, I still have my old AMD 850 Duron running Win3.11WFG because of the programs I still use. In fact that rig was the original Seti cruncher. Emmmmmmmm, 64mb ram 2x 40mb hd's, no bloated software, those were the days. Exiting Windows into Dos & running QuickMenu to avoid using the command line, what joy.

Now if those programmers kept up to date with their programs, then maybe.....
ID: 750627 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51469
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 750628 - Posted: 9 May 2008, 21:20:39 UTC

Veeeeeesta........we don't need to stinking Veeeeeeeeeesta.......
LOL.......just paraphrasing that old movie line...........
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 750628 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 . . . 11 · Next

Message boards : Cafe SETI : Windows Vista


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.