• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

DX11 to be announced in 2~ weeks, nvidia to talk about it too...

  • Thread starter Thread starter mrk
  • Start date Start date
I've never understood people's complaints about Vista using ram when idle or not doing much. What's the point in having so much memory and not using it? I'd far rather have common apps load quicker than having Windows sit like a brainless fool not using the system.
 
Emlyn_Dewar said:
I've never understood people's complaints about Vista using ram when idle or not doing much. What's the point in having so much memory and not using it? I'd far rather have common apps load quicker than having Windows sit like a brainless fool not using the system.
Click to expand...
Apparently, for some people, it "slows their system down to a crawl bawww" but I've used Windows Vista with 2GB and 4GB of RAM and never experienced this myself. Then again, I don't have lots of garbage running in my system tray and needles processes in the background, and I've noticed people with this problem generally do.
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Apparently, for some people, it "slows their system down to a crawl bawww" but I've used Windows Vista with 2GB and 4GB of RAM and never experienced this myself. Then again, I don't have lots of garbage running in my system tray and needles processes in the background, and I've noticed people with this problem generally do.
Click to expand...

To be fair, during beta I tested Vista on a machine with 2gb ram, and an older 7200rpm hard drive, and the combination of the slow disk, superfetch and indexing, the system took forever to even boot into vista, and once it was there it was slow for about 35 minutes!

Disable superfetch and indexing and it was pretty nippy even on the rubbish hardware I was testing with.

On the other hand, on my main computer, with a good hard drive, I dont notice any slowdown from indexing, and superfetch finally does more good than bad. So really it does depend on the PC.

I have Vista on my office PC, as I do tech support, for vista users, so found it essential. But on my home machine I still use XP 64bit, and it does everything I need. Really no incentive to pay out more money for yet another MS operating system.

Next round of upgrades, I'll probably buy a Nehalem, loads of ram, Raptors etc etc, and go for Vista, while my current PC will be modified into an HTPC, media hub, and general file server using my XP license :)
 
*puts mac on

XP was good when SP1 came out, i was running it fine for years, i only updated from it about a fortnight ago when i put SP3 on. :p

*takes mac off.
 
Corasik said:
To be fair, during beta
Click to expand...
Sorry if this looks like a rude snip, I did read the rest of your post.

But you did said during beta, and to be fair, Vista has come a long way thanks to updates. I tried Vista when the RC versions were out and I hated it, then I tried Vista a bit after launch and I still hated it, but since SP1 rolled around I think it's just as good as XP (better in some regards).
 
Imo vista had one problem when it came out, and that was lack of drivers from companies. Took companies months catching up to release working drivers for an os that had been delayed a few times.
 
RizlaKing said:
Vista is a disaster is it and here i have been using it for over a year with zero problems and actually finding my system more stable then it was under xp how stupid do i feel now finding out from someone that it is so bad i will uninstall it immediately :rolleyes:.
Click to expand...

Let me guess you didn't do much on it ?

Vista was the most unfinished OS released ever.

I bet if XP32 could use more than 4gb memory and DX10 was there as well we would hardly ever find anyone going vista ...

--------------------

And *DOH* at the DX11, they just started making games for DX10 and got already probs with it yet and they work on 11 already ?
 
Correct me If I'm wrong but when WinXP was just getting going didn't games still run better on Windows 2000?

Seems like ages ago now jeeps!
 
Yeah i only play games, encode video and burn dvd's as well as all the usual office stuff same as i did on XP and it is better on Vista and more stable so your point is what phoenix ???. How long did you use vista for before deciding it was "the worst os ever" and obviously you either weren't around when xp was released or your yet another convinient amnesiac.
 
Big.Wayne said:
Correct me If I'm wrong but when WinXP was just getting going didn't games still run better on Windows 2000?

Seems like ages ago now jeeps!
Click to expand...

No. Driver support was poor and it was slow.

Best OS at the time was Windows ME ( 16 Bit )

I was developing software all through alpha and beta on XP and even then it was a rock solid platform. More so than Vista is even now. :eek:

Microsoft is making a big mistake.
 
why so much negativity over ppl preferring xp over vista ?
when xp was released it wasnt quite as fast as 98se in games but it was still good enough all round to be better....i never went back to 98se after i installed xp.
i dont remember xp getting slated so much either what ppl are claiming or are they the ones that were slating xp ?

sp1 made xp much much better same as sp1 has done for vista... but the way i see it is vista wasnt as good as xp at its launch state so it has more catching up to do.
vista has come a long way but its still not there yet and its nothing to do with hate clubs what ppl seem to keep going on about.

ive heard that vista is a lot more responsive than xp...im yet to witness that especially when vista is constantly thrashing the hard disk...if it guesses what your going to load next then yay but never happened to me yet.

if you have vista 64 then maybe its a much better experience for you since you have more resources to play with...but the guys with 2gb ram(not many with 32bit systems have more than 2gb) well im not sure vista32 will ever catch up to xp since it seems to want more resources for doing the same job.....it maybe the way forward as has been proven in the past but im thinking vista 64 users probably will have it best in a couple of years time.
 
I don't really care what os people use but i get a bit tired of constantly hearing how lousy vista is when i have used it since day one and it has been more stable for me then xp used to be and for a lot of other people as well. Vista has such a bad rep as certain people with access to the internet were able to put the negative side across very quickly to a larger group of people. I remember when xp was released this was not an os welcomed by the masses either this is all history repeating itself happens everytime MS release a new os. For me if your happy with what you've got and it does everything you want to do does it really matter what anyone else uses be happy and carry on :).
 
Not exactly the same.

XP Was a lot better when it came out, and it wasnt packed that much with useless stuff that you need to disable and actually reconfigure the whole system if you want it to work right.

There's never been so many troubles with any other windows OS.

And just because it's running fine for ppl that just do some basic stuff and don't know whats going on in their system.

Anyways, most vista users pretty much just get it for the eyecandy and for the sake of it being new - which not always means better.

I would grab Gentoo over it anytime :/.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom