Windows 7
- Thread starter Samlaptop
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,417
- Location
- Cork, Ireland
as far as i can see superfetch is about the only thing vista has going for it. tried it. went back to xp. I find xp much more responsive - navigating the system etc..
looks like windows 7 is much the same
FYI - OS X had prebinding before Vista had SuperFetch and Linux has had "preload" since 2005 - all do pretty much the same thing - MS behind the curve as normal.
looks like windows 7 is much the same
FYI - OS X had prebinding before Vista had SuperFetch and Linux has had "preload" since 2005 - all do pretty much the same thing - MS behind the curve as normal.
Last edited:
well windows 7 boots up faster for me than vista
one of my friends who is a xp-a-holic and swears by it, came over to play with vista and the same afternoon he wiped his system and installed vista 64, ...hes not looked back since
one of my other friends hates vista and is still using xp but suprisingly he likes windows 7 .....go figure
i think hes a anti vista fanboy 
one of my friends who is a xp-a-holic and swears by it, came over to play with vista and the same afternoon he wiped his system and installed vista 64, ...hes not looked back since
one of my other friends hates vista and is still using xp but suprisingly he likes windows 7 .....go figure
i think hes a anti vista fanboy Windows 7 rocks, the taskbar layout the new control panel layout. I love media player 12, the now playing features and the dual monitor support is good.
Much better than vista even at this early stage, cant wait for the completed product. I hate having to use xp at work its soo fisher price.
Much better than vista even at this early stage, cant wait for the completed product. I hate having to use xp at work its soo fisher price.
It seems to me that you're the one being fooled, because your base hatred of Vista is so great that you can't accept that it might be better in some ways than XP.
As has been explained over and over again on these forums, Superfetch runs at a low I/O priority, meaning that if you want to use your hard drive for something else whilst it's running, Superfetch will give way.
Whether you turn your computer off at night or not, SuperFetch IS useful.
First scenario: I get up in the morning and turn my computer on. By the time I've brushed my teeth or checked my email, Superfetch has preloaded all my favourite programs so my computer feels like it's been on for days.
Second scenario: I play a game which uses all of my RAM, closing all my other applications. What happens when I quit the game? In XP, that free memory just sits there. If I open a program, even if it's five hours later, I'll have to wait ages whilst XP grinds the hard drive. Under Vista, my commonly-used apps will have loaded back up within minutes, so there'll be no trace that I played the game at all.
I can't see how you can spin this feature as a disadvantage! It's simple: empty memory is wasted memory. It's doing nothing apart from running up your leccy bill.
masterluke said:
You realise that putting that at the end of your post instantly reveals you as being rabidly anti-MS, and thus I'm not really inclined to take anything you say seriously?
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 2,417
- Location
- Cork, Ireland
im not going to get into a slagging match over this - xp feels a lot snappier on my machine than vista does - that is a fact
Im not rabidly anti-ms. If i was i wouldnt be using xp!!!
Im not rabidly anti-ms. If i was i wouldnt be using xp!!!
Windows has had prefetch since XP (2001). Superfetch is just more advanced.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prefetcher
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 143
- Location
- London
Please tell me how dual screen support has improved in Windows 7! I was hoping someone would answer my question about whether the taskbar can span both screens too?
Im wondering the same thing. As good as Ultramon is, native multi-monitor support of this ilk would be fantastic...
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 9,682
- Location
- On the pale blue dot
Pressing Window-P brings up an alt-tab-like bar that you can flip between the various multi-screen modes: one screen only, duplicates, one of the screens as primary, the other one as primary. I think its main purpose is making hooking up a projector simpler.
It can't, and apparently it won't and isn't particularly high up any priority list - most users don't use multiple monitors.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 143
- Location
- London
It's so poo! I wouldn't have thought that designing a taskbar to have an instance per monitor would be that much work, considering they're redesigning it. Lots of people use multi-monitor systems in industry! Ah, well.... looks like I should start researching into how to go about hacking the current windows taskbar so we can have a multi monitor taskbar that actually works like the native windows one
No, it can't. But when you start your computer, do you really load all your apps at the same time? It's far more likely that you start one or two apps like your web browser or email client, in which case Vista will be able to preload your other common apps whilst you check your email, etc.
You obviously don't like Vista, but even so, I'm not sure why you're wasting time criticising an area of Vista which is quite clearly superior to XP, when there are much more valid criticisms of Vista!
You obviously don't like Vista, but even so, I'm not sure why you're wasting time criticising an area of Vista which is quite clearly superior to XP, when there are much more valid criticisms of Vista!
You start your computer and load everything up do you? Because myself and most other people switch the computer on and load a program up, say msn or internet explorer etc. Both operating systems load this at the same speed effectively. While i'm typing in an address into explorer or looking for a bookmark to my favourite forum vista starts prefetching things. I don't notice it doing this, until i go to switch itunes on as i've just found an interesting topic that i want to read on the forum and some music would be nice while i'm reading.
Itunes pops up instantly on vista and its a minute or so later on xp because i have lots of tunes and xp has been sat around eating pies rather than getting to work. Vista is currently winning speed-wise. All of this in the first few minutes of the computer being on.
Vistas way is clearly better.
Yes it can and yes I will.
Just because Superfetch has to pull everything back into memory again from a fresh boot doesn't mean it won't be faster than XP. Superfetch starts its pre-fetching as soon as the Vista boot splash screen finishes.
Typically most people will not log on to their computer instantaneously either. They'll be making a cuppa or something. So in those crucial few minutes Superfetch has already pre-fetched pretty much all the key applications that you're likely to immediately load once logging on.
Attend a Microsoft seminar to get clued up on this, or something. Just stop trying to talk the talk when you don't really have a clue.
This is true. There are far more worthy areas of Vista for an "XP fan" to attack. The Control Panel for instance is a complete abortion.
Superfetch is one of its trick cards and anyone that slates it either looks incredibly naive or just foolish.
How would that be different from putting those apps in your startup folder in XP...
Superfetch only works well if you have ReadyBoost and a huge amount of RAM, 4 gigs or more. Even then it 'guesses' what apps to prefetch, and sometimes gets it horribly wrong.
Given that the vast majority of machines have 2 gigs or less, Superfetch is not all it's cracked up to be and the disadvantages outweigh the benefits.