why is vista a hog

Dicehunter · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:35

I was reading and i saw that vista in some thing requires a lot more mem, cpu speed and space on certain games or appas than xp, why is this.

div0 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:40

Why does XP require more resources than 98? Why did Win95 require a better spec than Win3.1?

Oh and Vista also makes better use of the resources available to it. So it looks like it is 'hogging' more - but actually it just minimises the amount of resources being wasted and sitting doing nothing, when they could be getting put to good use.

knowledge123 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:41

Vista uses more RAM to cache recently used programs, afaik. I don't see the point in having RAM sitting unused and empty, tbh. Mine idles around 1GB of 3GB used, and I don't think I have any games which dent the 3rd gig of RAM.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:43

Vista needs more resources, but it also uses what it has much more efficently. The memory manager has had a lot of work done on it.

Burnsy

badbob · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:44

I'd rather have a OS that's low on resources, and only loads system files in RAM- NOT programs! If I want Photoshop in memory I'll open the darn thing.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:47

badbob said:
I'd rather have a OS that's low on resources, and only loads system files in RAM- NOT programs! If I want Photoshop in memory I'll open the darn thing.

What is the point in having RAM thats not being used? It's a waste of resources and it does speed up the loading of commonly used programs.

Burnsy

div0 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:48

badbob said:
I'd rather have a OS that's low on resources, and only loads system files in RAM- NOT programs! If I want Photoshop in memory I'll open the darn thing.

What if its already loaded system files into RAM and it sees a gig of RAM doing nothing?

If the O/S can tell that you use photoshop regularly, then why not make use of that spare RAM if it can?

As Burnsy has said, the memory management has been improved - such that if another program suddenly needs the RAM, then Vista will happily free it up.

badbob · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:50

Why would I need the dozens of applications pre-loaded? DVD Shrink takes about one quarter of a second to load on XP.

Burnsy2023 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:51

div0 said:
such that if another program suddenly needs the RAM, then Vista will happily free it up.

Just a small point to make.

It won't free it up, it simply overwrites it so there is no loss of performance either. So you can get programs loaded faster with no performance degredation. WIN!

Burnsy

Burnsy2023 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:52

badbob said:
Why would I need the dozens of applications pre-loaded? DVD Shrink takes about one quarter of a second to load on XP.

But what about larger programs that you use that take longer in XP, why wait for them to load?

Burnsy

badbob · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:55

Then I'd just load them in startup section in start menu. Regardless I've gone back to XP due to rubbish LAN and HD transfers in Vista, so you can praise Vista all you like. It's still buggy.

div0 · 5 Dec 2007 at 12:56

Burnsy2023 said:
Just a small point to make.

It won't free it up, it simply overwrites it so there is no loss of performance either. So you can get programs loaded faster with no performance degredation. WIN!

Burnsy

I used the term 'frees it up' very losely

But thanks for the correction

div0 · 5 Dec 2007 at 13:00

badbob said:
Then I'd just load them in startup section in start menu. Regardless I've gone back to XP due to rubbish LAN and HD transfers in Vista, so you can praise Vista all you like. It's still buggy.

I had this problem originally and it was the worst problem I had with Vista. But it seems to have been resolved now.

I transferred a few gigs of music over my LAN the other day and the transfer speeds seemed as quick as when I was running XP.

Can't say I've done a timed benchmark to say exactly how close transfers are to compare Vista and XP in detail. But the Vista times are hugely improved compared to what they were, and do 'feel' as quick as I expect to get with XP.

apatia77 · 5 Dec 2007 at 13:03

XP fanboy LOL

Slinky1989 · 5 Dec 2007 at 13:06

Did you actually download ANY updates? :confused:

They fixed pretty much all my problems for me to do with transfer rates and it's just as fast as xp for me now.

point decay · 5 Dec 2007 at 13:39

i think some will find fault with vista regardless, dont understand it myself but there you go..

Fire Wizard · 5 Dec 2007 at 13:52

The only people that I feel people don't like Windows Vista is because they just don't like change. (Minus the odd problem like the Network and Hard Disk transfer rates that has already been stated by badbob which will be fixed in Service Pack 1)

badbob · 5 Dec 2007 at 13:54

justinwilkin said:
Did you actually download ANY updates? They fixed pretty much all my problems for me to do with transfer rates and it's just as fast as xp for me now.

Yes latest updates

div0 · 5 Dec 2007 at 14:08

When did you go back to XP?

Just incase you missed it - the transfer speeds have now been fixed.

(Well for me at least the transfer speeds are now the same as when I was using XP and miles faster than when I first changed to Vista)

modo77 · 5 Dec 2007 at 15:51

The hotfix for the speeds didn't fix it for everyone. Guess badbob was one of the unlucky few (assuming he got Septembers hotfixes).