Why does Vista cache so much ram?

Yup, a HD can quite happily run at 60c all its life. It's when that temperature starts to vary wildly by >10c (i.e. power cycling or some screwed up cooling setup) that it becomes a problem.
 
NathanE said:
I
HDD lifespan... apparently this too is now firmly myth as well. Google did a massive research project not long ago and basically said hard drives will fail in the first few months due to manufacturing defects but once they get past this threshold should have a long life
Click to expand...

What in your opinion is classed as a long life?

I've just checked my 80Gb Samsung C drive using HD Tune and the 'power on' time says 1,123,604 hrs
 
bikes said:
What in your opinion is classed as a long life?

I've just checked my 80Gb Samsung C drive using HD Tune and the 'power on' time says 1,123,604 hrs
Click to expand...
That hours figure is wrong of course.
 
The amount of hours you stated works out at over 100 years...

Edit: Dam your ninja posting DD...

Edit2: It's probably minutes as that works out at just over 2 years.

Burnsy
 
You just have to boot into Vista to see how much faster and better it is at booting software.

When I boot into XP it takes a good few seconds before I can load Firefox.

In Vista I can have Firefox open within a couple of seconds of the desktop appearing.

Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing needs their head examined.
 
Cob said:
You just have to boot into Vista to see how much faster and better it is at booting software.

When I boot into XP it takes a good few seconds before I can load Firefox.

In Vista I can have Firefox open within a couple of seconds of the desktop appearing.

Anyone who thinks that's a bad thing needs their head examined.
Click to expand...
Aye. I wish people who haven't used Vista would give it a try before bad mouthing it.
 
dirtydog said:
/puts hand up

I've tried it.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall (I could be wrong of course :p ) in one of your posts, that your hardware spec's are a bit 'out of date' so perhaps thats where the trouble is
 
bikes said:
I seem to recall (I could be wrong of course :p ) in one of your posts, that your hardware spec's are a bit 'out of date' so perhaps thats where the trouble is
Click to expand...
P4 2.6C, 1GB PC3200, Samsung 120GB 8MB 7200rpm HDD.
 
burnsy2023 said:
What Graphics?

You shouldn't have a problem really my main rig is something similar and it has no problems.

Burnsy
Click to expand...
Geforce4 Ti 4200 64MB. But for the purposes of superfetch and caching etc. that should be academic I presume, although of course it is weak for Vista in general. It is perfect for my needs however which is why I've hung onto it for so long :)
 
Single core CPU
icon13.gif
Vista's I/O subsystem was highly tuned for multi-core/SMP systems.
 
NathanE said:
Single core CPU
icon13.gif
Vista's I/O subsystem was highly tuned for multi-core/SMP systems.
Click to expand...

In other words it needs a more powerful system. So for single core users Vista is inferior OS.

So why exactly is Vista better in this regard?
 
At the expense of a warning/account suspension, I would like to point out that this thread is now officially rubbish.
 
squiffy said:
In other words it needs a more powerful system. So for single core users Vista is inferior OS.

So why exactly is Vista better in this regard?
Click to expand...

Just becuase it's tuned for a multicore environment doesn't mean it's an inferior OS. I use Vista on a single core system without any major performance issues.

Burnsy
 
I bought Vista about a month ago and was not to pleased with the performance, especially in games. I think it had issues with my 8800 GTS as the fps was rubbish. My set up is as follows.

Core 2 Duo 2.8
2 GB RAM
8800 GTS

Last weekend Vista must have downloaded a load of updates because now its running great, I’m really happy with it and it runs faster and smoother for me than XP ever did. Im a happy customer anyway :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom