Kuu Wrote:SkyDX Wrote:Please... not again comments about RAM usage of Vista... I can't take it anymore.... no offense, but one last time..... if your OS sucks all you RAM it's GOOD! I mean why do you have RAM if it's empty all the time like in XP? The OS should work with everything it gets... if you start an application which needs much RAM Vista will free up as much as it needs, this process was proved to be working. Vistas RAM handling is superior over XPs and Mac OS and Linux are using a similar RAM handling to Vista and I've heard no one complaining there...
You my friend get props.

Superfetch is stupid. With lots of RAM (where it performs well) it's a disk thrash, especially if you use the RAM (if you don't, then you wasted your money on it).
It's high RAM usage means less room for static preloading (which, used correctly, pwns Superfetch any day).
With less RAM, it's probably worse (near useless in terms of performance boosting).
Most people just think Superfetch is wonderful and improves speed a lot. I'll admit it's better than nothing, as an automated approach for newbies, but statically preloading avoids issues of dodgey AI and is far more powerful.
Plus eBoostr > Superfetch - it's at least more configurable, and you can make it much less of a disk thrasher.
bboy_sonik Wrote:Yeah I reckon, stop bashing Vista. I've been using Vista for nearly a year now, but have been using Server 2008 for about 3 months [basically the same but hell faster with the downside of even lower compatibility]
Server 2008 uses the same kernel as Vista, so it shouldn't be any faster (assuming a fair comparison - you've probably got additional things loaded on your Vista install, after all, Server configurations often disable loading stuff like graphics/sound acceleration).
Anyway, not saying Vista is horrible. It works (most of the time), and if that's all you care about, then I'm not here to change your view :P Personally though, Vista adds nothing truly beneficial though.
ZiNgA BuRgA Wrote:Anyway, not saying Vista is horrible. It works (most of the time), and if that's all you care about, then I'm not here to change your view :P Personally though, Vista adds nothing truly beneficial though.
correction it works most the time NOW after yearsof patches
don't forget sky's gotlike 4gb ram and a quadcore
my friends idiot mom bought him a new pc
old pc had amd athlon 1.8ghz non dual core and 512mb ram and XP
new pc ( i lol'd and facepalmed)
has 2ghz celeron D (single core)processor and 512mb ram and nvidia card 6000-7000 series
and has vista home
no people still sell pcs like ths with vista and lappys
is it really an upgrade
I have a dual core 2.2ghz and 3 gigs of ram vista runs fine
if only the physical components *cough keyboard *cough were that stable
My PC has only 2GB RAM and before the quad I had a dual core and Vista was running fine... anyway I have to admit before the Performance and Reliability Update Pack Vista was kind of slow and sluggish.
SkyDX Wrote:My PC has only 2GB RAM and before the quad I had a dual core and Vista was running fine... anyway I have to admit before the Performance and Reliability Update Pack Vista was kind of slow and sluggish.
yeh you had a dual core also
ever tried running vista on a single core that's even 2.8ghz
still sluggish and i had 2gb ram
because everyone loves vista eating 60+ processes on clean install yeh that really makes it useful using processses that are not needed at all
My lappy has been perfect with Vista since i got it, since the patches, etc. its just gotten better and better. Only thing is iTunes' animations lag, which is highly irritating, i think its my Graphics.
Also, i have to do disk cleanup regularly to remove shadow copies that take up loads of space.
My processor is Dual Core 2.0GHZ, 2GB RAM and it runs perfectly......Vista Ultimate...
squee666 Wrote:SkyDX Wrote:My PC has only 2GB RAM and before the quad I had a dual core and Vista was running fine... anyway I have to admit before the Performance and Reliability Update Pack Vista was kind of slow and sluggish.
yeh you had a dual core also
ever tried running vista on a single core that's even 2.8ghz
still sluggish and i had 2gb ram
because everyone loves vista eating 60+ processes on clean install yeh that really makes it useful using processses that are not needed at all
computers actually run better like that...
with programing experience I have found out that it is much more efficient (faster, less lagy and whatnot) to run tons of little process instead of several really large ones. It is easier (for some reason) for the computer to process it faster. And the system doesn't hang because it is trying to process such a big request.
Jeeez... how come no one has stated the obvious? Use
A. A restore point, somewhere in control panel
B. A vista install disk to restore your pc.
C. If your pc came with a restore disc use that.
D. MAKE SURE you back up your stuff somewhere.
I'm no stranger to doing these things, also my friend. I end up fixing his every other week or so because he tries to make vista "better". I'm sticking with vista till Win 7 is out, already got a dual boot of the pre beta. oh and ie 8? doesn't change much, only give it a slightly faster, redesigned ui.
Well about the DualCore thingy... Vista was never supposed to really run on old hardware, and a SingleCore is old hardware these days... and about iTunes... every Apple app runs like poo poo on Windows, even with my QuadCore, 2GBRAM and RADEON 4850 it's lagging.... ~~