Yet another Vista question...

[Genocidicbunny]

What about when you do need that memory? Does it detect that you need it and release it? or does it just say: "Nein!" and refuse to let go?

[Ghost Ranger]

Yes, as a matter of fact it does release it.

[Genocidicbunny]

Alright, then I stand corrected. Although I havent seen this first-hand. In my experience, it holds onto it like a...a..well, I dont want to be warned..

[Ghost Ranger]

Well I can confirm that it does. (I wasn't 100% sure when I originally posted, as I had just read it )
I just resized an image in Paint.NET to 15000x15000(!) and upon closing the app, my HDD went crazy, and since I wasn't running any disk-intensive applications, I think it is reasonably to assume that Vista was caching files.

[GrandAdmiral]

Ghost Ranger is correct. 2gb is fine. 1gb will work but will be a little slow. Vista uses unused ram then drops it when there is a demand for it. On a system with 1gb ram its going to use a lot less at idle than a system with 2gb. Although I do agree that Vista should be more efficient with resources. There is some confusion over video cards and Aero as well. People were confusing bad drivers with the need for more powerful video cards than were really necessary.

Another big culprit is 3rd part pre-installed software. When you get rid of it there is a dramatic improvement in performance but most people dont know what to remove or how to remove it. On a new machine they probably shouldn't have to but that problem won't get solved unless MS releases their own hardware. For antitrust reasons there is no way they can tell computer manufacturers what to pre-install with windows. Hopefully manufacturers will stop treating their computers as billboards and try to release machines that perform better out of the box. Some of them do it but its mostly the gaming products like Alienware etc.

[Genocidicbunny]

On that topic, would it be possible to torrent a copy of Vista that matches your serial key and reinstall that clean version? I mean, technically, as long as you use your own cd-key it should be legal..although Im not entirely certain.

[Ghost Ranger]

Just find any Vista disk, as since all the disks are the same, (all include ultimate, home premium, etc.) I would highly doubt that the key is on the disk. On second thought: because of the reasons I just mentioned a torrent burnt to a DVD should work.

[Quintillus]

Vista can be forced into using decent amounts of RAM. See below:

Spoiler for 1280x800:

354 MB with Civ3 running and over 3 hours of uptime. Granted, this isn't with any old settings. I had no antivirus running, nor firewall or Windows Defender. Sidebar was also turned off (Vista Basic desktop scheme), and there was no bloatware installed. Even then it took a bit of extra work to get it this low - usually even on a fresh install you can't get below 390 MB with nothing running, let alone Civ3. To get this low I used most of the RAM (1.5 GB I think) in virtual machines, and then closed them - and the RAM usage was thereafter quite low. It is an artificially created situation, but it does show that Vista doesn't have to use tons of RAM - it just likes to very much. So theoretically you could run Vista Home Premium with 384 MB of RAM.

But regardless of that, I still highly recommend XP over Vista. There's a reason for Vista's bad rep - incompatibilities, instabilities, poor drivers, higher hardware demands, no real gains. For me, it greatly disliked Civ3, refusing to run it every so often until I reinstalled the OS (reinstalling the program didn't help), gave graphical glitches that XP does not, causing the mobile Intel processor to emit a loud high-pitched squeal (which XP only does on battery, not plugged in as well as with Vista, and not as loud as Vista even when unplugged), amongst other annoyances that I don't feel like remembering. XP may be old, but it's good. Where else would you even consider buying an inferior product simply because it's newer and has some newer but currently not helpful features?

Options for buying XP with a new PC include Lenovo (all of their PC's I think), Dell Business (which anyone can buy from), and HP Business (which again anyone can buy from). All of those three currently plan to continue offering XP indefinitely, much as Microsoft would prefer they do otherwise. Many smaller vendors also currently offer XP.

Another point: Sure, nVIDIA et. al. didn't do so great with drivers, but how can you expect them to? Vista introduced new graphics and audio subsystems, so you have to expect driver problems. And you can't expect nVIDIA to put millions into training for a new system overnight - if Microsoft really wanted a clean launch they could've helped hardware companies financially with training for the new standards and all. Expensive, yes, but with all their Windows profits not really in the grand scheme of things.

[Aramazd]

Originally Posted by Quintillus

But regardless of that, I still highly recommend XP over Vista. There's a reason for Vista's bad rep - incompatibilities, instabilities, poor drivers, higher hardware demands, no real gains. For me, it greatly disliked Civ3, refusing to run it every so often until I reinstalled the OS (reinstalling the program didn't help), gave graphical glitches that XP does not, causing the mobile Intel processor to emit a loud high-pitched squeal (which XP only does on battery, not plugged in as well as with Vista, and not as loud as Vista even when unplugged), amongst other annoyances that I don't feel like remembering. XP may be old, but it's good. Where else would you even consider buying an inferior product simply because it's newer and has some newer but currently not helpful features?

Lots of the problems Vista had were caused by 3rd party drivers, and are now fixed, and Vista performs just as well as XP assuming you have decent hardware. I don't know about the squeal, my laptop with Vista never did that. Off the top of my head, Vista has better security, precaching, DX10, and let's face it, Aero looks great; honestly, it's not what it should have been given the 5 years development time, Microsoft spent the first half goofing off.

Another point: Sure, nVIDIA et. al. didn't do so great with drivers, but how can you expect them to? Vista introduced new graphics and audio subsystems, so you have to expect driver problems. And you can't expect nVIDIA to put millions into training for a new system overnight - if Microsoft really wanted a clean launch they could've helped hardware companies financially with training for the new standards and all. Expensive, yes, but with all their Windows profits not really in the grand scheme of things.

Microsoft gave 3rd parties plenty of time to write drivers, but they didn't start until the last minute.

[GrandAdmiral]

Originally Posted by Quintillus

Another point: Sure, nVIDIA et. al. didn't do so great with drivers, but how can you expect them to? Vista introduced new graphics and audio subsystems, so you have to expect driver problems. And you can't expect nVIDIA to put millions into training for a new system overnight - if Microsoft really wanted a clean launch they could've helped hardware companies financially with training for the new standards and all. Expensive, yes, but with all their Windows profits not really in the grand scheme of things.

On Microsoft's part, writing drivers for Vista was difficult and they made some last minute changes that cause problems for companies like nVidia.

The part about training and financial support isn't accurate, especially with NVIDIA who received a lot more attention, funding and office space on MS campus. Training and support was the thing that both parties did invest in heavily. What the hardware companies complained about was the difficulty of writing the drivers and updates to documentation. Also NVIDIA did waste a lot of time and resources writing drivers for old hardware that was never going to be supported under Vista.

[J-man]

On the web are plenty of sites that explaine how install Xp after Vista (you'll have Vista and Xp) Just google them.

[Speedo]

Originally Posted by stickciv

And the fact that it uses up ungodly amounts of memory. Dont get Vista unless you plan on having more than 3 gigs of RAM and no legacy drivers and dont care for a new UI or etc.

The main problem Vista has is that most people trying to use it are stupid and/or ignorant.

[Genocidicbunny]

So you pipe in to call me stupid and ignorant?

Id like to think that with 15 years of experience, I know what makes a good OS and what makes a bad one. And in my book, Vista isnt horrible, but its definitely down there.

[Speedo]

Originally Posted by stickciv

So you pipe in to call me stupid and ignorant?

It doesn't take long watching most Vista bashing to see that the people involved generally have no real idea what they're talking about. Your comment about its memory usage eximplifies those kinds of arguments, and yes, it's completely ignorant of how the OS functions, it's stupid, and I'm getting tired of hearing it repeated after a year and a half.

Id like to think that with 15 years of experience, I know what makes a good OS and what makes a bad one.

You started working on computers when you were 2? Riiiight.

[Genocidicbunny]

You wanna see the baby photo's of me sitting on my dads lap watching him work on the computer?

I learned how to read using a computer..

Originally Posted by Speedo

It doesn't take long watching most Vista bashing to see that the people involved generally have no real idea what they're talking about. Your comment about its memory usage eximplifies those kinds of arguments, and yes, it's completely ignorant of how the OS functions, it's stupid, and I'm getting tired of hearing it repeated after a year and a half.

Maybe some of those people have used Vista, and while they may not know how it works deep down, they know that it doesnt work for them.
To repeat, I have used Vista, and still have to at work. Its one of the reasons I choose to sit at the terminal in the server room instead of in a cubicle, because at the terminal, I don't have to put up with Vista. For me, it just doesnt work. It does a few things well, but for the most part its introduced more annoyances over XP. My comment on memory usage was a question, and it got answered by Ghost Ranger. I now know that what I thought Vista does isnt what it really does and I also stated that. So you picking on me being uneducated and ignorant about that topic is a bit nekulturno.

[lutzj]

Originally Posted by stickciv

When the system itself uses up 1 gig at idle? Maybe I did have searching and indexing on..but still.

2 gigs is plenty for most people, even though the system uses half of it. As an example, Firefox is currently using about 110 megs on my Vista laptop. A 6000x3000 image in Paint uses 250 megs. The average user simply isn't going to need much more than 1gig free.

[Genocidicbunny]

I guess its unfortunate that some users arent 'average' then? Because you know, they don't matter.

[Aramazd]

Originally Posted by stickciv

I guess its unfortunate that some users arent 'average' then? Because you know, they don't matter.

Or non average users could just buy some more RAM, it's dirt cheap.

[Genocidicbunny]

So the suggestion is to throw money on the problem till it goes away? Doesn't that usually fail?

[taper]

Except for a limited number of niche users, there's really no need to use Vista. DX10 might be one of them, but even the games that use it still mostly support 9. If you like the eyecandy of Aero, go to youtube and look at Compiz Fusion. If you're still impressed by Aero, then I'll never change your mind. Security, there's nothing Vista has that can't be done on XP with free 3rd party programs, and that goes for pretty much all of the other "features". Sure, the average user can be perfectly happy with Vista, but they can be just as happy for cheaper with XP. Or you can be happier still and learn Linux. It's not nearly as hard as most people think, and except for a slightly larger niche group, will do everything you need.