Everyone classifies vista as a 'memory hog'; have you seen memory prices these days? For 1/12th of the price of a copy of XP you can get more memory then a 32 bit OS can support. There's reasons for all that memory being used, notably superfetch and prefetch.

 

 

 

Fixed the typos (I do hope you meant 1/12th not 1/2th, because one-twoth sounds weird)..

 

 

 

You have a good point though. I used to be...well, afraid I suppose is the word, of using vista, because people said it was a pain, and that it's a memory hog and all that. However, since I started using it, I've grown to like Vista. Its not really that slow IMO, especially if you use ReadyBoost (flash drives are only like 10 bucks for a 512MB or 1 gigabyte one).

 

 

 

Some tasks, like finding files, seems to be faster in Vista than XP, and opening Programs is faster because of the search bar in the Start Menu.

 

 

 

If the 32-bit version is fast to me with only about half the RAM it could have, I would love to try a maxed-out 64-bit version. I'm probably going to get Vista x64 for my next computer when I get the money to build it.

Everyone classifies vista as a 'memory hog'; have you seen memory prices these days? For 1/12th of the price of a copy of XP you can get more memory then a 32 bit OS can support. There's reasons for all that memory being used, notably superfetch and prefetch.

 

 

 

Fixed the typos (I do hope you meant 1/12th not 1/2th, because one-twoth sounds weird)..

 

 

 

You have a good point though. I used to be...well, afraid I suppose is the word, of using vista, because people said it was a pain, and that it's a memory hog and all that. However, since I started using it, I've grown to like Vista. Its not really that slow IMO, especially if you use ReadyBoost (flash drives are only like 10 bucks for a 512MB or 1 gigabyte one).

 

 

 

Some tasks, like finding files, seems to be faster in Vista than XP, and opening Programs is faster because of the search bar in the Start Menu.

 

 

 

If the 32-bit version is fast to me with only about half the RAM it could have, I would love to try a maxed-out 64-bit version. I'm probably going to get Vista x64 for my next computer when I get the money to build it.

 

 

 

What you say if true, I have the same amount of RAM on both my computers, and Vista runs as fast as XP.

[hide=Text]

Everyone classifies vista as a 'memory hog'; have you seen memory prices these days? For 1/12th of the price of a copy of XP you can get more memory then a 32 bit OS can support. There's reasons for all that memory being used, notably superfetch and prefetch.

 

 

 

Fixed the typos (I do hope you meant 1/12th not 1/2th, because one-twoth sounds weird)..

 

 

 

You have a good point though. I used to be...well, afraid I suppose is the word, of using vista, because people said it was a pain, and that it's a memory hog and all that. However, since I started using it, I've grown to like Vista. Its not really that slow IMO, especially if you use ReadyBoost (flash drives are only like 10 bucks for a 512MB or 1 gigabyte one).

 

 

 

Some tasks, like finding files, seems to be faster in Vista than XP, and opening Programs is faster because of the search bar in the Start Menu.

 

 

 

If the 32-bit version is fast to me with only about half the RAM it could have, I would love to try a maxed-out 64-bit version. I'm probably going to get Vista x64 for my next computer when I get the money to build it.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Maxed out on 64 Business/Enterprise/Ultimate is 128 GB ram, if you're talking about maxing ram lol.

 

If you can, i'd wait until Windows 7 comes out, and get the 64 bit version for your future computer.

 

I hate the Vista start menu, i prefer the menu as on Ubuntu or XP.

[hide=Text]

Everyone classifies vista as a 'memory hog'; have you seen memory prices these days? For 1/12th of the price of a copy of XP you can get more memory then a 32 bit OS can support. There's reasons for all that memory being used, notably superfetch and prefetch.

 

 

 

Fixed the typos (I do hope you meant 1/12th not 1/2th, because one-twoth sounds weird)..

 

 

 

You have a good point though. I used to be...well, afraid I suppose is the word, of using vista, because people said it was a pain, and that it's a memory hog and all that. However, since I started using it, I've grown to like Vista. Its not really that slow IMO, especially if you use ReadyBoost (flash drives are only like 10 bucks for a 512MB or 1 gigabyte one).

 

 

 

Some tasks, like finding files, seems to be faster in Vista than XP, and opening Programs is faster because of the search bar in the Start Menu.

 

 

 

If the 32-bit version is fast to me with only about half the RAM it could have, I would love to try a maxed-out 64-bit version. I'm probably going to get Vista x64 for my next computer when I get the money to build it.

[/hide]

 

 

 

Maxed out on 64 Business/Enterprise/Ultimate is 128 GB ram, if you're talking about maxing ram lol.

 

If you can, i'd wait until Windows 7 comes out, and get the 64 bit version for your future computer.

 

I hate the Vista start menu, i prefer the menu as on Ubuntu or XP.

 

 

 

Windows 7/Vienna/Can't remember that last name will be only available in 64 bit. Vista is the end of 32 bit OSes as well as NTFS OSes. Vista was supposed to be on the new filesystem until last minute, maybe that's the reason they had to report the date to later until they got it out, and it was still too early with all the bugs it had in the beginning of all the people using it.

Vista sucks.

 

 

 

I get the classic 'page doesn't respond' error every 10 minutes when I use Vista Internet explorer.

 

 

 

with firefix i get it maybe once a month.

 

 

 

That's nothing to do with Vista, that's IE7, and IE7 runs on XP too. Firefox and IE are just browsers and not OSs.

 

 

 

 

Vista is the end of 32 bit OSes as well as NTFS OSes. Vista was supposed to be on the new filesystem until last minute, maybe that's the reason they had to report the date to later until they got it out

 

 

 

Well not 100% true, Vista was supposed to ship with the WinFS file system which boasts a relational database making file searching and indexing much faster. However, due to reasons mentioned below, vista had to be delayed and they stuck with good old solid NTFS. With Windows 7 you will still be able to use NTFS of FAT32 if you wish, but doing so would be silly as you will loose a lot of the advantages that comes with WinFS. It's a bit like using FAT32 on NT, 2K, XP, or Vista. Compared to NTFS, FAT32 is slower and lacks any form of security, you would be mental to use FAT32 on your Windows based HDDs these days.

 

 

 

Another thing about Windows 7 is that finally the kernel will be built from the ground up using MiniWin technology. Making the kernels codebase much smaller and a lot faster. I personally can't wait as I have been fed up of Windows 2nd hand code lurking around.

 

 

 

One point on Vista being delayed was oddly enough to do with XP. During the development of Vista some bunch of numpties found a load of security holes in Windows XP and released a mass of viruses into the wild. This was known as "The Summer of Worms". MS then halted development of Vista to concentrate on fixing the security issues in XP, thus Vista was put on a temp hold which led to WinFS not being used. I think it was pretty amazing they got Vista released when they did!

Vista's not really so bad if you have a machine that is decent enough to handle it. In short, don't put it on your older PC since it probably can't handle it too well.

 

 

 

One point on Vista being delayed was oddly enough to do with XP. During the development of Vista some bunch of numpties found a load of security holes in Windows XP and released a mass of viruses into the wild. This was known as "The Summer of Worms". MS then halted development of Vista to concentrate on fixing the security issues in XP, thus Vista was put on a temp hold which led to WinFS not being used. I think it was pretty amazing they got Vista released when they did!

 

 

 

Yeah, it's a bummer about WinFS, but I think that the reception for Vista would've been much more positive had they held off releasing it when they did, and waited to iron a few more issues out. New Windows 7 kernel sounds promising, too.

Vista sucks.

 

 

 

I get the classic 'page doesn't respond' error every 10 minutes when I use Vista Internet explorer.

 

 

 

with firefix i get it maybe once a month.

 

 

 

Firefox w/ the IE Tab Add on = Problem Solved.

Vista sucks.

 

 

 

I get the classic 'page doesn't respond' error every 10 minutes when I use Vista Internet explorer.

 

 

 

with firefix i get it maybe once a month.

 

 

 

That's nothing to do with Vista, that's IE7, and IE7 runs on XP too. Firefox and IE are just browsers and not OSs.

 

 

 

 

Vista is the end of 32 bit OSes as well as NTFS OSes. Vista was supposed to be on the new filesystem until last minute, maybe that's the reason they had to report the date to later until they got it out

 

 

 

Well not 100% true, Vista was supposed to ship with the WinFS file system which boasts a relational database making file searching and indexing much faster. However, due to reasons mentioned below, vista had to be delayed and they stuck with good old solid NTFS. With Windows 7 you will still be able to use NTFS of FAT32 if you wish, but doing so would be silly as you will loose a lot of the advantages that comes with WinFS. It's a bit like using FAT32 on NT, 2K, XP, or Vista. Compared to NTFS, FAT32 is slower and lacks any form of security, you would be mental to use FAT32 on your Windows based HDDs these days.

 

 

 

Another thing about Windows 7 is that finally the kernel will be built from the ground up using MiniWin technology. Making the kernels codebase much smaller and a lot faster. I personally can't wait as I have been fed up of Windows 2nd hand code lurking around.

 

 

 

One point on Vista being delayed was oddly enough to do with XP. During the development of Vista some bunch of numpties found a load of security holes in Windows XP and released a mass of viruses into the wild. This was known as "The Summer of Worms". MS then halted development of Vista to concentrate on fixing the security issues in XP, thus Vista was put on a temp hold which led to WinFS not being used. I think it was pretty amazing they got Vista released when they did!

 

But why must the answer always be another OS? "Oh, people are fed up with Vista, let's start Windows 7." While I can agree, Vista is not as bad as a lot of people make it out to be, but it does have its issues. I hope Microsoft learned from Vista and ME, but that's just me.

 

Another thing about Windows 7 is that finally the kernel will be built from the ground up using MiniWin technology. Making the kernels codebase much smaller and a lot faster. I personally can't wait as I have been fed up of Windows 2nd hand code lurking around.

 

 

 

The Kernel is not supposed to be built from the ground up with miniwin. That was a rumor well over a year ago. The kernel is supposed to be cleaned up, but not built from the ground up. Windows 7 is being built upon Vista. One goal of Microsoft is to be able to boot Windows in 30secs with a dual core and 2GBs of ram.

 

 

 

Miniwin is going to be used for another Microsoft product, atleast that is what Microsoft said a while ago.

 

 

 

If you guys are hoping for huge improvements from Vista, don't count on them. Vista was the huge improvement version, but all the propaganda hate blinded everybody.

 

 

 

I have been testing out Windows 7 M3 (milestone 3) in a virtual machine, it doesn't seem that different, but it is faster.

Oddly enough you're right, but in a way so am I, I just found out miniwin is basically a stripped down kernel. we already have it in Vista :|

Maxed out on 64 Business/Enterprise/Ultimate is 128 GB ram, if you're talking about maxing ram lol.

 

If you can, i'd wait until Windows 7 comes out, and get the 64 bit version for your future computer.

 

I hate the Vista start menu, i prefer the menu as on Ubuntu or XP.

 

 

 

I thought the OS could only use 8 GB of RAM?...128 GB of ram... :shock:

 

 

 

Alright..I meant I want to see it with what I though was the max, which is 8 GB.

Maxed out on 64 Business/Enterprise/Ultimate is 128 GB ram, if you're talking about maxing ram lol.

 

If you can, i'd wait until Windows 7 comes out, and get the 64 bit version for your future computer.

 

I hate the Vista start menu, i prefer the menu as on Ubuntu or XP.

 

 

 

I thought the OS could only use 8 GB of RAM?...128 GB of ram... :shock:

 

 

 

Alright..I meant I want to see it with what I though was the max, which is 8 GB.

 

 

 

Ha, you have to think about the motherboard limit :lol:

Maxed out on 64 Business/Enterprise/Ultimate is 128 GB ram, if you're talking about maxing ram lol.

 

If you can, i'd wait until Windows 7 comes out, and get the 64 bit version for your future computer.

 

I hate the Vista start menu, i prefer the menu as on Ubuntu or XP.

 

 

 

I thought the OS could only use 8 GB of RAM?...128 GB of ram... :shock:

 

 

 

Alright..I meant I want to see it with what I though was the max, which is 8 GB.

 

 

 

Ha, you have to think about the motherboard limit :lol:

 

There's a greater difference in performance between 2 and 4gb of ram. You won't notice much difference between 4 and 8, unless you're multitasking or using heavy-program-x.

 

I've used 64bit Vista for a while now, and i must admit it's running very nice. Haven't run into any problem (except for using 64bit browser).

 

 

 

Straight off-hand i can think of, is 16gb "normal" mobo's.

 

Here's a (server) motherboard for Urbestfriend and his maxing ram lol - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813151162

Here's a (server) motherboard for Urbestfriend and his maxing ram lol - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813151162

 

 

 

... :shock: ...... =P~ =P~

 

 

 

16 ram slots...and its $450...Gentlemen, I believe I need new pants.

Here's a (server) motherboard for Urbestfriend and his maxing ram lol - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813151162

 

 

 

... :shock: ...... =P~ =P~

 

 

 

16 ram slots...and its $450...Gentlemen, I believe I need new pants.

 

That's nothing, they've got servers over at some high end graphics places that'll beat the crap out of any of those.

 

 

 

I was looking at screenshots, think 64 core processers and 2 terabytes (Yes, terabytes) of ram. I don't even remember how many petabites the hard drives were. Anyway, vista will run fine on any of them, probably faster then XP would anyway.

Here's a (server) motherboard for Urbestfriend and his maxing ram lol - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813151162

 

 

 

... :shock: ...... =P~ =P~

 

 

 

16 ram slots...and its $450...Gentlemen, I believe I need new pants.

 

That's nothing, they've got servers over at some high end graphics places that'll beat the crap out of any of those.

 

 

 

I was looking at screenshots, think 64 core processers and 2 terabytes (Yes, terabytes) of ram. I don't even remember how many petabites the hard drives were. Anyway, vista will run fine on any of them, probably faster then XP would anyway.

 

 

 

Yes, but what do you expect for 440$?

 

(this thread has gone much off-topic lol)

 

That's nothing, they've got servers over at some high end graphics places that'll beat the crap out of any of those.

 

 

 

I was looking at screenshots, think 64 core processers and 2 terabytes (Yes, terabytes) of ram. I don't even remember how many petabites the hard drives were. Anyway, vista will run fine on any of them, probably faster then XP would anyway.

 

 

 

I definately need new pants...and if someone finds the bottom of my jaw, please replace it.

 

 

 

2 terabytes of ram?.... :shock: doesn't even begin to explain it.

 

 

 

I wonder how much a petabyte of memory would cost...or how much storage that actually is..Because, I know I'd probably have trouble filling up half a terabyte...but 2000x that?...It's beyond my comprehension I guess, unless I actually go and see it.

 

 

 

And I suppose that would cost much more than 440 dollars, which is why I made my statement anyways. I would think that's pretty cheap for the amount of RAM it supports, but I'm not exactly an expert on the subject (as is well apparent).

Here's a (server) motherboard for Urbestfriend and his maxing ram lol - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813151162

 

 

 

... :shock: ...... =P~ =P~

 

 

 

16 ram slots...and its $450...Gentlemen, I believe I need new pants.

 

That's nothing, they've got servers over at some high end graphics places that'll beat the crap out of any of those.

 

 

 

I was looking at screenshots, think 64 core processers and 2 terabytes (Yes, terabytes) of ram. I don't even remember how many petabites the hard drives were. Anyway, vista will run fine on any of them, probably faster then XP would anyway.

 

 

 

That means the processors are 128 bit and the OS is 128bit?

Here's a (server) motherboard for Urbestfriend and his maxing ram lol - http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6813151162

 

 

 

... :shock: ...... =P~ =P~

 

 

 

16 ram slots...and its $450...Gentlemen, I believe I need new pants.

 

That's nothing, they've got servers over at some high end graphics places that'll beat the crap out of any of those.

 

 

 

I was looking at screenshots, think 64 core processers and 2 terabytes (Yes, terabytes) of ram. I don't even remember how many petabites the hard drives were. Anyway, vista will run fine on any of them, probably faster then XP would anyway.

 

 

 

That means the processors are 128 bit and the OS is 128bit?

 

 

 

Has to be. If your paying that much for a computer you can afford some good software development to use that power.

 

 

 

Fastest super computer has 103TiB of memory.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Roadrunner

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

thats bloody insane. I just timed my boot sequence, and it was 33 seconds to desktop. thats more than freakin' double the time. Words cant describe how incredibly jealous of your PC I am.

 

It's all due to the miracles of SSDs. I uninstalled my HD benchmarking programs, so no screenshots, but my read and write times are both well north of 100 MBs. My random access time is .34 miliseconds; that alone tells you the story. And its in a standard LAPTOP form factor. Did I mention 1/4th the power consumption of mechanical hard drives, the 0 vibration due to no moving parts, the virtually 0 heat production for the same reason, the 1,500G shock rating, or the huge reliability increase over moving hard drives? Oh, it cost $260, a bit more then a typical hard drive, but not really considering the advantages. I'm tellin ya, SSDs are the hard drives of the future. Every build of mine from now on is going to come with onoe.

 

 

 

dude, from now on I'm gonna ask for the specs of your lastest computer/laptop whenever I need to buy one...

 

 

 

I think I love you

2 terabytes of ram?.... :shock: doesn't even begin to explain it.

 

I can imagine that, and those processors, would come in handy if you're hosting something like eBay.

 

 

 

As well as several fans.

2 terabytes of ram?.... :shock: doesn't even begin to explain it.

 

I can imagine that, and those processors, would come in handy if you're hosting something like eBay.

 

 

 

As well as several fans.

 

Rack servers.

I'm glad I stuck it out with XP. My laptop had that option to upgrade to Vista Home Premium when Vista came out, but I didn't take the risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have a family desktop that uses Vista. I honestly prefer XP because it feels more crisp? I guess. Vista to XP is like Opera to Firefox for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll get Vista when I build a new computer though. Vista MC is really nice.

I'm glad I stuck it out with XP. My laptop had that option to upgrade to Vista Home Premium when Vista came out, but I didn't take the risk.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We have a family desktop that uses Vista. I honestly prefer XP because it feels more crisp? I guess. Vista to XP is like Opera to Firefox for me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll get Vista when I build a new computer though. Vista MC is really nice.

 

 

 

Just wait for windows 7?

 

 

 

Just wait for windows 7?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How long is the wait?