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.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

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.

... 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)

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.

... 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.

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.

---

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 . . .

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?

---

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.

---

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 . . .

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)

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.

---

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

You will eventually.

---

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................

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

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.....

---

Veeeeeesta........we don't need to stinking Veeeeeeeeeesta.......
LOL.......just paraphrasing that old movie line...........

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."