Sorry your browser is not supported!

Same Same, everytime I add a new line or something lol

Go Kentaree! Wise Dutch roots, eh?

Or you could just use XP instead...

I only have 1GB and run Vista.
No compalints here about performance, especially next to XP... it was just stupid having to constantly wait for applications to acknowledge they had been started; ridiculous booting times and shut-down could take anywhere upto 35minutes (no freaking joke!)

Vista does it all in SECONDS, hell I was happily running it on 256MB to begind with; once Aero was shut-off and I setup the memory to only work in the 256-768MB virtual space; it was running AS quickly as XP was.

It's only games where Vista's performance used to suffer, but even that is a thing of the past now really.



Yup, Vista will also use the most physical memory in order to make sure applications you're currently using will have presidence.
It'll instally swap these between the Pagefile when you do something more tasking or even create a hibernation memory file for them if you move to a video game; as it'll give such programs the entire system resources minus basic desktop requirements.

Actually, Vista boot's up faster than Ubuntu here, and I have way more things at startup on Windows...

My computer doesn't suck, it just needs all the ram that I can get. Using 2+ gigs of the swap file doesn't get my anywhere even when I have 3 gigs of ram. You just pass it off without a though, as if "ah, who gives a crap if my computer eats as much ram as it wants? the more the better." Honestly, snap out of the "Microsoft knows best" illusion. If you got money to flush down the toilet, hey, kudos, I like to save mine instead.


Cool, you must've beat my 24 seconds. Also, I'd like to ask why you have "way more" things start up on Windows. Critical processes that need to be started, or just printer and msn crap?

Only critical start up proccesses in Ubuntu, but things like sidebar, msn, wifi, my d link Internet manager in Windows, I've disabled other stuff, my startup time in windows is about 8 seconds, and about 20 in Ubuntu.

Once I managed to get XP work with less then 100 mb ram... Still do not understand how I did it. But it was an clean installation without any antivirus, firewall or even installed external drivers, so it was entierly worthless, but it did work. Not saying your Vista was worthless, but that was not my point. My point was that it is amazing how much you can strip down an OS if you really try (in my case, I did not do anything, just installed it and it was like that).

Anyway, I congratulate you on having vista-friendly hardware. I do not, and to make it run as fast as XP even with Aero off would just not work for me. As an side note, I have 4 gb RAM installed, so it has to do with other stuff then that.

But it does work, and I can even play newer games on it, like Team Fortress 2, even if it is a bit slower then XP.



Then you got good hardware and drivers.



True, that feature is called SuperFetch. It is the main reason Vista is called an big resource hog by many (including myself).



Vista has an optimised boot thingy that Ubuntu does not have, which answers why it may boot faster. Still prefer Ubuntu though, but that is because I just get along better with it.

EDIT:



I agree with what you are saying, but to talk about flushing money down the toilet will only lead to an bashing war .

The system takes what it needs, when it needs based on service/application priority. Just because it's always using 50%+ doesn't mean it'll often rise above that much.

In-fact you might be interested to checkout the RAM useage gauge on the sidebar, while looking at how much is allocated/free in Task Manager.

At any give time this system will say it's using between 40-65% idling; however Task Manager will only have 5-32MB free at any given time unless dumping memory for another task.

So with 1GB, there is what... a good 30-55% unaccounted for at any given time; which is part of the beauty of how Vista works; and actually Ubuntu (and any Linux really) works in a very similar mannor, so don't really say anything unless you know what you're damn well talking about.



On here (from cold boot):
Ubuntu - 38seconds
Windows XP - 1minute 12seconds
Windows Vista - 16seconds

XP will boot in almost half the time, if it's freshly installed but within a week will be back to over a minute guarenteed without manually shutting off and disabling ALOT of Services.

From Hibernation XP also generally takes about 30-40seconds.
Vista from Hibernation takes about 5-10seconds, it depends entirely on what I had running previously.



Hardware it's running on is fairly mid-range in all mate.
AMD Athlon X2 4800+ (2MB)
1GB DDR2 667MHz
ATI Radeon (Sapphire) 2600 XT PCI-e 16x 256MB
Gigabyte NForce 405 Motherboard
300Watt Antec PowerSafe PSU

as I said, it's fairly mid-range in all; but Vista runs like an absolute dream with extremely stable drivers. Most here have far "better" as they tend to put it, hardware running these GeForce 8800 cards with far more RAM.

I've built systems for quite a few years now, and I have come to know what hardware works well with each other and what doesn't.
Usually poor performaning systems are down entirely to people who feel throwing in the best hardware = better performance.

It's a bit like believing that throwing a 1,000 BHP engine in a Mini = Very Fast Car. Unless it's setup to handle it, something will give and require you to either drive very slowly or part will start esploding(sic ) on you.

Vista does use more resource in all if they're there; but Windows on the whole always has. Atleast now, those resources are being put to good use and what the system is using isn't being wasted anywhere near as much.

People often compare Vista to Linux in terms of why Linux is better; and XP in terms of performance. Frankly though the only way to get better performance from XP after more than a few weeks of useage is to just throw RAM at it. Vista DOES NOT SLOW DOWN, it's like Wine. It improves with age.

More ironically is many aspects Vista have, are clearly based on Linux (or atleast Unix) technologies.. yet in a way that offers compatibility and support still. The Memory Usage for example, is one of those aspects that is heavily based on how Linux does things.

Cache is done via Physical rather than Virtual memory. Allowing much quicker performance throughout the OS... people will often say they have worse performance with say 4-8GB of Memory.

I'm not bloody surprised. Vista keeps track of where everything is in the memory, unlike XP. With Windows XP it took part of the memory, then it's just kinda leave something there; and take some more.

Windows XP was like living with a messy room-mate. It'd only clean up when it ABSOLUTELY had to; even then it'd start finding pizza from like a week ago growing new life. Windows Vista always makes the best of what it has available though. Alright so it leads itself to being a bit anal retentive in the sense that it'll make sure everything is in the right place; so unless the RAM is quick enough to handle the extra space your performance suffers, but atleast once it's finished it'll just put things away neatly and cleanly once it is done.

This is what this all boils down to really though.
You guys claim it's like flushing money down the toilet, but seriously; I have a Quarter the memory you have, with what sounds like better performance.

Vista (per system) cost me £60, to get another 3GB of Memory at 667MHz or quicker would cost me the better part of £100 (as I'd have to replace my 1GB stick with 2x 2GB sticks)

So that's a saving of £40 right there! Which is great cause that £40 can be happily used to get a 2-year subscription to Live OneCare, an AV/AS program that is just as good as AVG (on Vista) and uses a fraction of the resources other AV/AS applications do.

Seriously you barely notice the performance hit, unlike the rest.
That said; I still feel quite safe without it right now. Run regular weekly scans from another system, and still not contracted any virii in the 3months I've not had an AV/AS active scanner.

My system:

Processor: Mobile AMD Sempron(tm) 1.79 GHz 3500+
RAM: 2.8/2.9 GB (4 GB installed)
Graphics card: Radeon Xpress 1150 128 MB (think it is shared memory)

I would call my system mid-range. It is not super good, but it does have what it takes to do the stuff I need, and it does it good.

Overall Vista runs a bit slower then XP with Aero turned off. However, you are completely right in that Vista does not slow down over time, but on my system, nor does XP (think it´s because of all my RAM).

Vista have some very good points, but I just do not like its way to do things and do not like it using all that resources. Not that bad, but not that good either. And just so you know, I have been using it a while now, so I talk from the experiance I have, do not say yours is not valid .

If we like an OS or not evenually comes down to that it is something subjective. Some OSes we work with, some we do not, and it is something that varys between individuals what OS we prefer. Vista and I do not really click, but appearently you and Vista does so, so ending up in an discussion where we start screaming to each others that an OS suck or rocks is just pointless.

Discussing what we like or not can, however, be fun, if we just do not end up with bashing.



The story of UAC is quite interesting. It came from Linux or Unix (or possibly both), have existed there for a long time, MS took patent on it, and now they use it in Vista. However, I think that UAC works a bit different then the Linux system, you you look at the way it is done, but Linux/Unix is where the idea comes from...



I personally do not think Vista is worth the money, but that is me. How much we would pay for it is an subjective thing, as are what we think of it.

OK you guys convinced me enough... Installing after this post!

Well, the only way you will find out if it is something for you is to install it or test it in some other way . If you like it, that is great, if you do not, then you at last know how it is and what you think of it. Good luck.

And I´m getting curius about what you think, so please post it.

Well vista's install was nice and clean, all my drivers and such have been downloaded through Windows Update wich is nice.
It seems really quick and clean, I dont regret installing vista as of yet. I love the sidebar, I always did its great.

My gaming performance, I'll tell you later cos I havent got any games on here yet.

Turn UAC off if you don't like it. And if you feel you "need" it turn it on (That's why you have XP, right?).

How is it unorganized? Everything is in a MUCH better layout than Windows XP, though different its still better. That's like an old-80 year old b****ing about someone using digital cable or satellite instead of the "bunny ears".

What security and portability issues??? All of 3 pieces of software don't work. Some DOS programs don't work either, but that's why you can use programs like DosBox or QEMU to emulate 'em (Even under emulation they'd run about the same speed).

And what printer issues? How old is your printer? In fact if you're having ANY issues with hardware - your hardware's TOO OLD. Get upgraded, then b**** about it not working (If it doesn't). Seriously, its trying to be about the new hardware, and then people complain about old hardware not working on it! "My 286 doesn't work with Vista, Microsoft - WTF?!" - General note: My printer worked just fine (Canon Pixma iP 1600). In fact Vista seemed to like me so much it even installed the drivers for it automatically!

About the mouse, plug it in BEFORE your machine starts up, it'll install the driver automatically or use common port writing/reading routines to use it. Your not supposed to unplug your mouse while the machine is on.

"and when I finally did, the system restarted!" - Funny, remember back in the 90's when pretty much every operating system had to restart just to change the display resolution? Amusing how even some today do (Namely Linspire). Is it REALLY that big of an inconvenience?

"I could have written half an LFS OS with all the time wasted dicking around Vista's monotonous, redundancies." Well, then do it. You obviously had the time to b**** about Vista.


Cheers,

-naota

for some reason..vista asks me for the drivers of the Hard driver.......I'm like wtf? i wasn't aware that HDDs needed drivers now.

I just ran into a sh!tload of problems with vista!
But I'd say its my own fault as soon as I installed it I started windows update, and while I did that I installed crysis. It said something about Windows not being able to update features while they were being used.

Either way crysis doesn't work right but I updated the system properly and its running silky smooth its allm good!

But! I'm now repairing crysis and looking at a dialog box that says "215 Minutes Remaining"

Lol, install updates on their own, not whilst installing a game!

Ok well in all, I do like windows vista, surprisingly I got a significant performance increase while running crysis in DirectX 10 all on Very High, wich is beyond me...

Although installing things seems to take a lot longer I'll get over it.

Now to install DBPro and al my plugins.

Well, if Crysis utilises DX10 in an good way and if you would have an multicore processor that would not be suprising. I have however yet to play an game that ran better on vista then xp, but it has much to do with hardware and drivers.