Vista - Re: Re: Two disappointing aspects of Vista – or am I wrong?

In article <1199283744_127@xxxxxx>, Christian <a@xxxxxx> wrote:Canon hasn't published a vista driver for this yet. C'est le
la vie. Buy an HP...
The Dec 19 release of the ForceWare drivers seems to support
the 7800 GTX under Vista. Get it here:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winxp_169.21_whql.html

In article <flgjjq$31b$1@xxxxxx>,
the wharf rat <wrat@xxxxxx> wrote:I mean get it _here_

http://www.nvidia.com/object/winvist...9.25_whql.html

In article <ebF4ERXTIHA.4104@xxxxxx>,
David <dgprozzoLEAVE@xxxxxx> wrote:Lol. "Vista does not require 4% of the CPU and 500MB of RAM!
Why, I've got it working here and it only uses a few percent of the
CPU (as opposed to 2-4% - wr) and 40% of my 2GB (which is 800MB of what
the person to whom I/m responding must have meant 2GB as vista won't
install on 128MB never mind 2 - wr)"

I have no idea of your point.

The previous poster seemed to be saying that there was something wrong with
a system that uses 2-4 % of it's CPU power when it is just sitting there.
My system does that. I have 2GB of installed RAM, of which about 40% is in
use by Vista. My computer works quite well.

(Sorry for the mistake, I meant 2GB, not 2MB, but you appeared to realize
that.)

What are you trying to say?

"the wharf rat" <wrat@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:flgrlc$n6j$1@xxxxxx

"David" <dgprozzoLEAVE@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:u32acdYTIHA.1164@xxxxxxThe same thing that you are, Dave.... that having a system that essentially
CAN NOT IDLE is acceptable. I don't think any OS that and draws 80 to 100%
of CPU just to open a program, and requires (as you say) 800Meg of ram just
to be turned on, is EVER going to be what I'd consider a "stable" platform.
I think you and I just have different requirements. I find VISTA to be slow and
cumbersome on the latest motherboards, and faaar too busy with polling and
background processes to trust that high quality motion graphics rendering
with be carried out glitch-free.

Sure... you can type on it, you can surf the net and e-mail on it, you can watch
your favorite DVDs and if you load it down with ram you can play games.
That's not what I do with a "platform" for my software. VISTA isn't a quiet
and stable "platform"... it's a small city that never sleeps.

"David" <dgprozzoLEAVE@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:OMArwSXTIHA.280@xxxxxx
So is VISTA... and I'm sure that if you've read this group for the past
12 months as I have, you know this to be a fact... not conjecture.
Exactly. Just like VISTA. :-) Any system that takes more ram to
stay open than serious software takes to operate, is *not* going to
be risk-free.
Experience _is_ a fact, Dave.


I'm happy that you're happy with VISTA. That's an opinion.

I'm not. That's a fact. So indulge me already. ;-)


--
David Morgan (MAMS)
Morgan Audio Media Service
http://www.m-a-m-s DOT com
Dallas, Texas (214) 662-9901
_____________________________
http://www.januarysound.com

In rapid succession I opened Nero 7, Nero Vision, Picasa, Aus Logic
Defragmenter, CCleaner, Canon My Printer, DVD Shrink, and MPEG Video Wizard
DVD, watching the resource monitor as I did. All programs opened right
smartly and are still open, plus Vista Live Mail. I started off with 40%
RAM utilization and now am at 47%, with nine programs open. At no point
when I opened the programs did either core of the CPU reach anywhere near
100%. Max was 80% (Nero) and then only for an instant. All of the others
caused a jump to only 30-50%. Currently the CPU is fluctuating between
0-2%.

I capture video from my mini-DV camera, create .mpegs from the .avi file,
edit the .mpeg, create DVDs. All of these tasks proceed without a hitch,
nor any apparent interference from Vista's background processes. The
computer and the OS is designed to do more than one thing at once. It's
called multi-tasking, not instability.

The RAM is there to be used. That doesn't make anything unstable either.
Of course if there isn't enough then Vista (or XP for that matter) will make
heavy use of the page file, slowing things down.

Most people refer to "instability" as lockups, random reboots, error
messages, hardware that won't work, programs that don't work as expected,
etc. On my system there is none of that whatsoever.

In my hands, Vista is a mature stable product.

Good luck with your Vista installation. Maybe you can get it working as
well as mine.



"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@xxxxxx-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:7D_ej.8305$4m5.5730@xxxxxx

"David" <dgprozzoLEAVE@xxxxxx> wrote in message...

I keep playing with the OS for a few weeks at a time, and then give it
away by including it in a new PC build for a client... when I can find a
client that wants it.

I have no intention of committing to VISTA on any of my machines
for several years to come. I *may* consider throwing it on a drive
that can go into a removable bay and experimenting more over a
longer period... but I've crashed the OS more times than I care to
admit simply trying to make it actually sit IDLE and not be churning
the hard drive, gobbling up ram and tasking CPU.

I never said it "didn't work". I said, I don't like the way it works **unceasingly**.

;-)

"trying to make it actually sit IDLE"

You don't say what you mean here, but if you are tinkering, maybe you should
simply install it, be sure that all drivers and software are
Vista-compatible and leave it alone to work as designed. That's what I did
and Vista runs like a thoroughbred.

"David Morgan (MAMS)" <findme@xxxxxx-a-m-s.comC/Odm> wrote in message
news:Ii1fj.2392$Ug5.1552@xxxxxx

"David" <dgprozzoLEAVE@xxxxxx> wrote in message news:use3wphTIHA.1184@xxxxxx
There is only one definition of "idle," and I have it reiterated in three posts;
I won't do so again.
No where near as much as VISTA. And yes, according to you I am "tinkering".
I am tinkering because I don't want this piece of junk shadowing my work,
constantly running unwanted processes in the background, or building a
reportable profile on the PC as an end user.
I don't think you understand. It's been installed by me several times, and
removed or sold as a package to someone else. It's a bloated POS that
is constantly running background processes.
duh. (sheeesh....)
In other words, you don't care if the hyperactive OS causes all sorts
of interruptions or glitches because you don't use the computer for
any serious work that must be guaranteed to clients, but rather for
basic office and playing around. That's fine. You'ld never know
what a hog it was under those circumstances and thus you obviously
don't care about those potential issues. If you like seeing your hard drive
light continuously flashing and don't have the curiosity to question why,
then you're seriously not in the same end-user league. There's no problem
with that.... as I said, I'm happy that you're happy. I think personally believe
that it's unacceptable.
Sure.... one that 500 pounds overweight and will never win any races,
even though it will 'show' well on the surface.

That's all in this thread for me.

I understand your points and I think you understand mine... and maybe the OP
even understands both of our trivial conversations.