Vista worse than XP?

[Daveoc64]

Ok, I never compared Vista to OS X, I compared Vista to XP. So go ahead and try to change the argument. For the record though, I do not see Leopard eating up RAM and CPU cycles while sitting idle the way I do see it happen in Vista.

The issue with hard drives spinning needlessly is is common issue with Vista and it is usually related to its SuperFetch feature which a lot of people are disabling because they don't want it shortening the lifespan of their drives.

Having free and unused resources is most certainly not stupid if you are not even using the computer for anything, or only for small, minor tasks. That is the exact opposite of efficient, and correct me if i'm wrong but this was an argument about whether or not Vista made efficient use of its resources.

As pointed out to you, Modern operating systems (Windows Vista, Mac OS X and Linux) USE memory instead of leaving it empty.

Efficient does not mean empty.

Having three empty seats and an empty trunk is not efficient use of the space in your car.

Having those seats filled and a suitcase in the trunk is a much better way to use that space.

When you need to use the RAM, Windows Vista (or Mac OS X or Linux) may already have cached some data in RAM (= faster loading) or it will simply drop some cached data from the RAM and load your data from the HDD like normal - totally transparent.

What you are suggesting is that somehow Windows Vista runs wasteram.exe that fills 4GB of RAM doing nothing. Logically, if that did happen, then there would be no RAM available to launch programs - that is obviously not true. Think about it. If Windows Vista was "using" that RAM for bloat/wasteful purposes it would be unable to free it when needed by a program.

 

[JNB]

I don't see why.

Microsoft designed Windows Vista to run natively on a pretty high spec PC with a graphics card that could handle all of the desktop composition stuff (just like Mac OS X does... - you don't seem to find that funny).

If you run it in a VM, you'll lose a lot of the interface's best features because they simply aren't designed to work in a VM.

Windows Server 2003 isn't as modern as Windows Vista is either.

Windows Vista was built on top of Windows Server 2003, so it's only logical that Windows Vista would have higher requirements than Windows Server 2003.

In the future, please add something to the discussion rather than posting some smartass comment.

"Modern" doesn't and shouldn't imply greater requirements automatically. That's a line of bull created by Marketing directing OS development instead of the folks writing the code.

Server is designed to carry a heavier operational load, and provide broader functionality than a desktop OS such as Vista (or XP, or Mac OS X, for that matter). You know, stuff like thousands of user & group accounts, network management, enterprise applications, heavyweight db's, that kinda thing. But, yeah, you really can't run games or watch movies on it. So, basically, it boils down to a bunch of useless eye candy ladled on top of the 2K3 code?

In the future, please think about why I made that comment instead of posting in such an offended tone.

Oh, what's even more hilarious is that Mac OS X and Mac OS X Server have the same graphics requirements...

 

[cromwell64]

As pointed out to you, Modern operating systems (Windows Vista, Mac OS X and Linux) USE memory instead of leaving it empty.

Efficient does not mean empty.

Having three empty seats and an empty trunk is not efficient use of the space in your car.

Having those seats filled and a suitcase in the trunk is a much better way to use that space.

When you need to use the RAM, Windows Vista (or Mac OS X or Linux) may already have cached some data in RAM (= faster loading) or it will simply drop some cached data from the RAM and load your data from the HDD like normal - totally transparent.

What you are suggesting is that somehow Windows Vista runs wasteram.exe that fills 4GB of RAM doing nothing. Logically, if that did happen, then there would be no RAM available to launch programs - that is obviously not true. Think about it. If Windows Vista was "using" that RAM for bloat/wasteful purposes it would be unable to free it when needed by a program.

oh god, this is ridiculous. i am not and have not said that it is not efficient for an operating system to use ram, obviously it has to in order to run. what i am saying is that in my experience, and in the experiences of plenty of other people, vista uses an alarmingly high amount of cpu cycles and ram, while also seemingly performing a lot of read/write operations that go beyond simple indexing while the computer isn't even in use. i'm not saying that vista isn't doing anything with those resources, i'm saying that a lot of the resources are being used for things people don't necessarily want, superfetch being only one example of something that a lot of vista users are disabling, and the hidden DRM "features" being another.

Your analogy about empty seats in a car doesn't make sense. Simply placing objects in empty space does not equal efficient use of space. Those objects must be of some use. I don't fill my car with luggage when I run to the store just to feel like I am not wasting space.

this entire thread started out as a question about whether or not vista would be more sluggish than xp. this is undeniably true.

 

[alphaod]

this entire thread started out as a question about whether or not vista would be more sluggish than xp. this is undeniably true.

My Vista x64 boots faster, runs more stable, and is quicker than XP.

 

[Stridder44]

oh god, this is ridiculous. i am not and have not said that it is not efficient for an operating system to use ram, obviously it has to in order to run. what i am saying is that in my experience, and in the experiences of plenty of other people, vista uses an alarmingly high amount of cpu cycles and ram, while also seemingly performing a lot of read/write operations that go beyond simple indexing while the computer isn't even in use. i'm not saying that vista isn't doing anything with those resources, i'm saying that a lot of the resources are being used for things people don't necessarily want, superfetch being only one example of something that a lot of vista users are disabling, and the hidden DRM "features" being another.

Your analogy about empty seats in a car doesn't make sense. Simply placing objects in empty space does not equal efficient use of space. Those objects must be of some use. I don't fill my car with luggage when I run to the store just to feel like I am not wasting space.

this entire thread started out as a question about whether or not vista would be more sluggish than xp. this is undeniably true.

This is why you're not part of OS development. Vista uses an alarming amount of high CPU cycles? Yeah, if you're running it on a Pentium 4. Computers today have _multiple_ cores, and their only gaining more every year. GPU's are insane. RAM is DIRT CHEAP. 2 GB is not that much. It's standard if anything. An "alarming amount" of people agree with you? On a Mac forum, yes, what a surprise. *rolls eyes*

 

[cromwell64]

This is why you're not part of OS development. Vista uses an alarming amount of high CPU cycles? Yeah, if you're running it on a Pentium 4. Computers today have _multiple_ cores, and their only gaining more every year. GPU's are insane. RAM is DIRT CHEAP. 2 GB is not that much. It's standard if anything. An "alarming amount" of people agree with you? On a Mac forum, yes, what a surprise. *rolls eyes*

ok, this is just stupid. once more someone is putting words in my mouth and clearly not understanding what i have stated multiple times already. this is pointless.

 

[Neil321]

This is why you're not part of OS development. Vista uses an alarming amount of high CPU cycles? Yeah, if you're running it on a Pentium 4. Computers today have _multiple_ cores, and their only gaining more every year. GPU's are insane. RAM is DIRT CHEAP. 2 GB is not that much. It's standard if anything. An "alarming amount" of people agree with you? On a Mac forum, yes, what a surprise. *rolls eyes*

I don't want to get into a pointless argument stridder but it has been quoted in PC mags that the best computers to run Vista on are Mac's so why shouldn't an "alarming amount of people agree with him" ???

ok, this is just stupid. once more someone is putting words in my mouth and clearly not understanding what i have stated multiple times already. this is pointless.

give up mate your right it's pointless, no one's views are gonna change

 

[Daveoc64]

I don't want to get into a pointless argument stridder but it has been quoted in PC mags that the best computers to run Vista on are Mac's so why shouldn't an "alarming amount of people agree with him" ???



give up mate your right it's pointless, no one's views are gonna change

The quote merely referred to the fact that at that point in time, Apple's brand new MacBook Pro did better in benchmarks on Windows Vista purely because it had new technology (new Core 2 Duo processor and chipset) that was not available to other manufacturers.

If anything, an Apple computer with equal spec to a PC will do worse in benchmarks because of the bloat that Apple adds with a Boot Camp installation.

 

[Stridder44]

I don't want to get into a pointless argument stridder but it has been quoted in PC mags that the best computers to run Vista on are Mac's so why shouldn't an "alarming amount of people agree with him" ???

Please point out where I said Macs are bad computers to run Vista on.

 

[Neil321]

Please point out where I said Macs are bad computers to run Vista on.

I didn't mean that, what i was trying to get at was is i cant understand why if someone owns a Mac or any other ( modern ) computer for that matter that falls well within Vista's recommended running specs why do so many people be it on here or otherwise have so many issues with Vista as i don't believe it's ignorance

 

[Neil321]

Daveoc64,Just though i'd quote this thread regarding running Vista on Mac's( this is from last week ) so why would they be advertising Vista on Mac's if they weren't up to it?