why? 2GB is becoming more of the standard at the low end of RAM these days. tho most pc's only come with 1 GB neither major OS is happy with any less than 2, ESPECIALLY vista
this is what happens as tech advances, the minimum specs MUST increase
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Microsoft to Respond to Apple's 'Get a Mac' Ads
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
why? 2GB is becoming more of the standard at the low end of RAM these days. tho most pc's only come with 1 GB neither major OS is happy with any less than 2, ESPECIALLY vista
this is what happens as tech advances, the minimum specs MUST increase
sounds like you're using the factory install of Vista. reinstall Vista. it will be much faster. the factory install comes with tons of programs installed that you will never need. you'll see significant increase in speed.
a bad workman quarrels with his tools.
If that's true, ( and I'll try it), why wasn't it slow at first? Weren't those programs there at the beginning?
A good workman doesn't tolerate crap tools!
Faster, better performance, more stable and more secure.
There's no value in releasing a new OS every 18 months if most businesses operate a 3-5 year refresh cycle.
Well since Vista isn't a detrimental chemical that caused birth defects it's not a valid analogy. We could just as easily compare the uncountable billions of anitbiotic shots that have improved the lives of virtually everyone on the planet.
You misundertand. They will run XP if people choose to, it's just that the vast majority of people wont.
True. When bashing Vista people tend to forget that Leopard requires similar specs to run properly, has more lines of code and about the same footprint.
Exactly. That's why MS was forced to update Vista by SP1 and WU. And, hey, it worked.
Faster? Not. XP still outperforms Vista in several areas. Better performance? Not in terms of agility and responsiveness. This is especially true running on slightly older machines. More stable and more secure, perhaps, but much more cumbersome overall.
Contrary to companies running Windows, companies and consumers running OS X, for the most part, trust new system releases enough to install them, and most find the new and innovative features to be very useful.
The hell it isn't. Any operating system which has been responsible for over 274 hours of downtime per year, and over $36,000 in additional IT service is a detrimental operating system, especially considering that the move to OS X reduced downtime to less than 21 hours per year, and requires virtually no additional IT services. Compare Windows to antibiotics? How about a giant virus magnet - an inoculation of every deadly virus known to the human race, with hundreds of new viruses mutating each day, not to mention spyware, adware, and malware.
However, a vast minority of companies and individuals will continue to run XP as long as possible.
Same footprint, entirely different level of quality in terms of well written code. Comparing Vista's error ridden code to Leopard's comparatively cleaner and more efficient code would be highly unfair for Vista.
Yes, MS transformed their tools made of flintstone to a solder/iron alloy, which rusts and corrodes easily. When MS offers tools made of materials such as Tungsten, i.e. an OS which does not have to be perpetually defragmented, restarted and re-installed on a regular basis, and which can actually outperform XP, perhaps more people will consider migration.
Attachments
My opinion: Apple does well at estimating the number of new features to include in a next revision rollout. For example, the timemachine feature included with leopard is compelling enough to upgrade from tiger. The improvements and additions to tiger were compelling enough for people to upgrade from panther. And so forth.
On the other hand, microsoft released when intel needed another wave of new business . . . and when their OS began to look dowdy when held up to a Mac.
Competition is a good thing.
Actually, every day it is getting harder and harder to run XP on new PCs because companies are no longer producing drivers for XP, for example. Downgrading a new PC that was built for Vista to XP can be a minefield!
Based on what evidence? I don't deny there are inefficiencies there, but the Mac OS X isn't even in the same ball park as Windows Vista when it comes to unnecessary convoluted bloat.
"Apple is years ahead of technology than Microsoft is. "
Please... In what respect? Blu Ray? HDMI out? 64 BIT?!?!? (laughs hardest)
And why cant I watch Netflix on a Mac? Because Apple dont want any competition to their sacred Itunes and wont let them use the DRM... So mature
Please... In what respect? Blu Ray? HDMI out? 64 BIT?!?!? (laughs hardest)
And why cant I watch Netflix on a Mac? Because Apple dont want any competition to their sacred Itunes and wont let them use the DRM... So mature
No...Vista with 1 GB is good (nothing less) for everyday use. I have a Tablet PC with 1.5 GB because I use it for sketching and it runs pretty good.
well iguess you lucked out, windows has a very bad habbit of taking any and all RAM it can for absolutly nothing, i havnt seen vista run well on anything less than 2GB
Dunno about lucked out. Once video drivers issue got fixed, Vista got faster.
Regarding Vista taking more ram is concern, it more like Vista super fetch feature. Rather leave idle unused ram, super fetch loads most freaquent used application to idle ram to speed up application load times. This feature can shut off.
Here's some superfetch numbers:
LINK
My tablet PC is over 3 years old with 1.1 GHz and it runs fine with Vista. I'm sure your Dell should be able to handle Vista.
But I wouldn't be surprise is your Dell runs slow. PC vendors are notorious for bloating their system with bloat ware and running outdated drivers. I would clean everything and re-install everything. Dell should provide update drivers, but I wouldn't count on that, so you probably have to do it yourself.
Here's a story how Vista got blamed when their printer didn't work with their Dell running Vista. They later found out the guy has been using XP drivers. LINK
Vista's SLOC is about 50 million. Leopard's we know is greater than Tiger's which is 84 million.
You know, you could find this out yourself quite easily.
The amount of SLOC has nothing to do with bloat. Bloat refers to the percentage of code which is laden with errors, convoluted redundancies, sloppy patches, and as a result, is quite hindered by an entanglement of inefficiencies, a plethora of unnecessary services, thus requiring roughly twice the hardware resources to deliver comparable performance to even XP. In fact, compared to Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or 3, Vista requires roughly twice the hardware resources to deliver comparable performance.
Leopard, on the other hand, outperforms Tiger, regardless of the increase of code, because the code is clean, contains few errors, redundancies, and is therefore efficient, agile, responsive, fast, and more refined. An OS containing a high quantity of high quality code will easily outperform an OS of a comparable quantity, which is instead bloated by errors, RAM hogging resources, and burdened by inefficiencies. I have Leopard running on a Powermac G4 (867 Mhz, 1G RAM) and it is snappy, agile, and more responsive than Tiger. However, I would never dare attempt to boot Vista onto a PC of a similar configuration.
lol, this is first time I heard this definition, whats the point of making things up? your definition has no practical way of measuring, and you expect people to follow? how?
how about: Vista does more and provide more, compatible with more hardware/softwares with 40% less codes?
"badly written"? who went through vista's 50m and say how much is badly written?
and who went throu OSX's 84m and said how much is badly written?
if you want to totally avoid this discussion,(since with your definition there would be no meaningful discussion) you can find something solid first.
you run leopard on 876Mhz+1G and happy, and previously you said you run vista with 2G RAM and not happy? Please, you really expect these stuff to be trusted by general users? At least saying something that is reasonable.
Why not? I own over 45 computers - mostly Macs and some PCs of various configurations. Much happier with Leopard running on a G4 than Vista running on a Dell Dimension. While enlightening you with the facts that Vista is teaming with error ridden code, sloppy patchwork, a defective file system, (due to having to trash WinFS) and loads of redundancies, may I direct to to an indepth analysis written by By Randall C. Kennedy on March 17, 2008:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/08/03/17/12TC-vista-versus-xp_6.html
caption:
"Windows Vista is a bloated pig of an operating system. In fact, compared to Windows XP with Service Pack 2 or 3, Vista requires roughly twice the hardware resources to deliver comparable performance. Even stripped to the bone, with every new UI enhancement turned off and every new background service disabled, Vista is a good 40 percent slower than XP at a variety of business productivity tasks.
The above is no generalization. I've run the tests (repeatedly). I have the hard numbers. (You can see the full range of my results at exo.performance.network, or take in a quick snapshot of Vista/Office 2007 versus XP/Office 2003 results here; see the Test Center Daily for info on the Clarity Studio OfficeBench test script I used for these tests.) Upgrading a user from Windows XP to Vista, without upgrading their hardware, is tantamount to crippling their PC. Think of users with torches lining up outside your datacenter. It's not a pretty picture.
So just wait for the next hardware upgrade cycle and hit them with Vista then, right? Maybe. But consider this: For every CPU cycle wasted bringing Vista's bloated image on par with XP's, you could be providing your users with an actual performance increase across their core applications. If there were some compelling reason to run Vista over XP a quantum leap in usability or manageability I could see why the investment might be worth it. But upgrading hardware just to maintain the status quo seems silly.
Decision: Would you rather throw new hardware cycles at offsetting Microsoft's code bloat and voracious appetite for CPU bandwidth, or at a tangible, measurable improvement in application throughput and user productivity? Enough said."
Wow! I can pretty much take the same article and replace Vista with XP from an article that was written in 2001. It talks about XP being bloated and people should not bother upgrading.
"If you have Windows 9x or NT 4 workstations in your organization, your best move would be to begin upgrading them to Win2K Pro before the end of the year. Microsoft probably will not sell licenses of Win2K Pro much longer than that. Once you make the upgrade to Win2K Pro, you should skip the WinXP Pro upgrade and wait for its successor to see which direction Microsoft goes with future upgrades and licensing."
LINK
I guess trash talking XP was the flavor of that time.
And rightly so. In 2001, the following was indeed true:
WinXP Pro hogs even more resources than Win2K Pro. One of the things that many of us have liked the least about Win2K Pro is that it requires a lot of resources. Generally, most administrators would not load it on anything less than a machine with a 300-MHz Pentium II (or equivalent) processor and 128 MB of RAM. However, WinXP Pro requires even greater resources. IT professionals who have tested XP even more thoroughly than I have say that in a production environment, you would not want to load XP on anything less than a 500-MHz Pentium III (or equivalent) processor with 256 MB of RAM. So a far more significant hardware investment is required. Its ridiculous to have to allocate this much power to end users who simply access a couple of productivity applications and a couple of line-of-business applications.
History repeats itself quite predictably with certain companies