Vista - What I've noticed so far...

Vista has a different memory manager than XP. Don't mean to come off harsh,
but expectations are, imho, a weak basis on which to evaluate system
performance. SuperFetch should leave one's PC with a very small amount of
free RAM. I have seen this box with 0MB free RAM, yet performance suffers
not a bit. YMMV.

Lang

"Leythos" <Void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.2045199c7465c361989691@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <e3dcQUSVHHA.868@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>, nook@charter.net
> says...
>> It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
>> installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat.
>
> I've designed boards and code since the 70's, worked with every version
> of CPM, SCO Unix, DOS, Windows, and focus my own IT company on providing
> MS based solutions for businesses with less than 200 employees.
>
> I alway wait for 6 months or the first SP before putting an OS or major
> application in production.
>
> Having lived through the Win311 to 95 to 98 to 2000 to XP and NT351 to
> NT4 to 2000 to 2003, etc...
>
> I expected Vista to take a lot more RAM and a lot more CPU, but, I
> really didn't expect it to take 580MB without loading anything extra.
>
> I also didn't expect to have to hack video drivers for my 1 year old
> laptop, the wireless drivers, or several other small things.
>
> What I do find most annoying is the constant little pauses while doing
> things.
>
> This laptop has a Full (not mobile) P4/3.2ghz hyper threaded CPU, 2GB
> RAM, a 5400 RPM 120GB Drive, and under XP or 2003 was fast and
> responsive and could run VS 2005, SQL, Exchange, and many other tools.
>
> Vista is "Pretty", but the cost in resources is more than double what XP
> was.
>
> I won't discuss the apps (like Office 2007), just the OS. I don't mind
> having to relearn where everything is, I kind of expected it, but, the
> dramatic increase in resource consumption is not worth the benefits of
> Vista.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com - remove 999 to reply to me.
> Using Gravity on Vista for your pleasure

And that's the "crux of the biscuit" (as Frank Zappa said...): drivers,
drivers, drivers. Windows (any version) isn't the only x86 OS faced with
that issue... and some folks just don't do their homework. I guess the
question then becomes "Is it MS's responsibility to warn, again and again,
all users of possible incompatibilities? Perhaps, I don't know... Maybe
there should be a splash screen in the Vista install that says something
like "If you don't know what a hardware driver is, postpone installation
until you've gone off and done some self-paced training on same." Yes,
harsh, I know... but I find it hard to fault MS when there are a gazillion
different possible hardware configurations out there in the world. HW and SW
vendors knew Vista was coming... can't fault MS because nVidia drivers suck.
Can't fault MS because Software Company A didn't update their stuff to run
on Vista. My two cents...

Lang

"BigJim" <bigjim@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7-adndz95qAjwkbYnZ2dnUVZ_tunnZ2d@comcast.com...
>I also have been working with MS OS since dos 3.11, what I have found is
>that I can do the same things with xp that I can with Vista. I will say
>that it is pretty stable on my system. It has better security than xp for
>the average user and setup was pretty easy.
> I don't like the cost of the OS, just cheap I guess, and finding or
> getting drivers for certain devices are nonexistence, maybe in the future
> or maybe not. Have to wait and see it the manufactures can catch up. I did
> a clean install and all the drivers for my board were included and worked.
> I think a lot of people need to read about installing Vista as an upgrade
> because their are certain things that need to be shut down before doing
> one. When I am done testing Vista I will be going back to XP until a
> service pack comes out then we'll see how it goes. I am running(testing)
> Vista Ultimate on a Asus
> P4P800se with 1 meg of dual channel ram, 6600gt nvidia 128meg agp card
> using and onboard SoundMax audio and Marvell Lan. I also have a Nec
> firewire card installed and Vista installed drivers for that. So I got
> Lucky, but I can't use my Lexmark x75 printer/scanner, no drivers.
>
> "n00k" <nook@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:e3dcQUSVHHA.868@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> It seems to me that most of the people complaining about Vista are
>> installing it and expecting a miracle to happen right off the bat. As
>> with ANY OS release there is a learning curve. A lot of the complaints
>> I've read are problems that are just part of learning where things have
>> been moved to, ie; menus, options, I had a few hiccups when I first
>> installed it, but I did my research, installed needed updates, and now
>> it's running like a champ. I have noticed a HUGE speed increase when
>> using Adobe apps, it basically smokes my XP install.
>>
>> My favorite are the people that say it sucks or is stupid that only quote
>> an article they read somewhere or a blog and don't say what their
>> experience was, if indeed they have even installed it. I'll admit, the
>> new menu system takes some getting use to, but once I got the hang of it,
>> I would hate to have to go back to the old menu hierarchy layout. I have
>> seen very few problems in here that couldn't be resolved with a little
>> research. Don't expect the OS to try and train you, you have to want
>> learn it or you might as well just go back to XP and quit complaining.
>>
>> And for those who say with all these issues, why did they release it!
>> Well, NO OS has ever been released without it's share of speed bumps,
>> Mac, and Linux included, thats what updates are for. Well, I'm done
>> ranting. Let the flames begin to rise!!! :0)
>>
>>
>>
>> "Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one, and everyones but mine
>> stinks!" hehehe
>

> I guess MickeyMouse finally clued into how childish names like My
> Documents
> and My Photos sounded. In an effort to make Vista look like a real
> operating system, they dropped that silliness.

Dropping silliness ...
what a concept

Try it sometime

heh

Rich

don't ya just love it?

In article <DBB26C2D-62A4-4124-B1DA-75A18E0C13BC@microsoft.com>,
lang_murphy@hotmail.com says...
> Vista has a different memory manager than XP. Don't mean to come off harsh,
> but expectations are, imho, a weak basis on which to evaluate system
> performance.

Wrong, based on the Windows history, and how it's been every time with
every version, I expected Vista to be slower and it is, but, I didn't
expect the OS to consume more than 580MB just sitting there doing
nothing.

> SuperFetch should leave one's PC with a very small amount of
> free RAM. I have seen this box with 0MB free RAM, yet performance suffers
> not a bit. YMMV.

Strnagely enough, a box with 512MB suffers to the point that it's not
usable for anything other than the screen saver.

I've seen boxes that are over the amount of Physical RAM, in XP and
2003, that perform, but not perform well, and it's also based on how
much RAM they have to start with. A machine with 3GB of RAM using 3.2GB
will perform better than a machine with 256MB of ram using 280MB.

--
spam999free@rrohio.com - remove 999 to reply to me.
Using Gravity on Vista for your pleasure

Well, apparently we agree to disagree. You can expect all you want, but
expectations, as previously stated, are a weak basis for evaluating system
performance.

I ran the beta code on a laptop with 512MB RAM and a 64MB video card. Aero
worked and the box performed sufficiently when browsing and maybe having one
app open. No multimedia, of course. Haven't tried RTM code on that box. And
I surely wouldn't run Vista on a box with less than a gig of RAM, with 2GB's
the preferred config. Talking about x86.

As I type this, on a Dell GX620 with 2GB RAM, I have 10MB free physical RAM,
yet this box is performing just fine, thank you SuperFetch.

Lang

"Leythos" <Void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message
news:MPG.204616e7d7f2eca989699@adfree.usenet.com...
> In article <DBB26C2D-62A4-4124-B1DA-75A18E0C13BC@microsoft.com>,
> lang_murphy@hotmail.com says...
>> Vista has a different memory manager than XP. Don't mean to come off
>> harsh,
>> but expectations are, imho, a weak basis on which to evaluate system
>> performance.
>
> Wrong, based on the Windows history, and how it's been every time with
> every version, I expected Vista to be slower and it is, but, I didn't
> expect the OS to consume more than 580MB just sitting there doing
> nothing.
>
>> SuperFetch should leave one's PC with a very small amount of
>> free RAM. I have seen this box with 0MB free RAM, yet performance suffers
>> not a bit. YMMV.
>
> Strnagely enough, a box with 512MB suffers to the point that it's not
> usable for anything other than the screen saver.
>
> I've seen boxes that are over the amount of Physical RAM, in XP and
> 2003, that perform, but not perform well, and it's also based on how
> much RAM they have to start with. A machine with 3GB of RAM using 3.2GB
> will perform better than a machine with 256MB of ram using 280MB.
>
> --
> spam999free@rrohio.com - remove 999 to reply to me.
> Using Gravity on Vista for your pleasure