why vista uses all your memory..

[yamaharacer]

you guys may have already seen this. or it probably has already been posted.
if it has, mods feel free to delete this post
but I found this article about why vista uses all of your memory for it's cache instead of leaving it free.
I keep hearing everyone bash vista for this reason, but it turns out, it's the best way to do it.
apparently, not using it is wasting it.
http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

 

[ithinkyou5.0]

while that is true he also comments on how its cacheing crap in the backround when gaming causing poor performance. and even though it is doing this you cant deny that vista's interface still actively uses alot more ram than xp ever did unless you feel like running vista with the classic skin (which on my machine made a whopping 500meg diference) though vista bashing seems to be the new tech fad its obviously taking steps in the right direction im just hoping microsoft can implement then effectively in windows 7

 

[gunslinger]

Seems to me the new tech fad is bashing people who dislike Vista. I have been kicked off of forums for my dislike of Vista and been bashed like crazy on here as well.

 

[Andyuk2007]

Seems to me the new tech fad is bashing people who dislike Vista. I have been kicked off of forums for my dislike of Vista and been bashed like crazy on here as well.

dont worry gunslinger i like vista too

 

[yamaharacer]

while that is true he also comments on how its cacheing crap in the backround when gaming causing poor performance. and even though it is doing this you cant deny that vista's interface still actively uses alot more ram than xp ever did unless you feel like running vista with the classic skin (which on my machine made a whopping 500meg diference) though vista bashing seems to be the new tech fad its obviously taking steps in the right direction im just hoping microsoft can implement then effectively in windows 7

I think all of the bashing is coming from/because people don't understand this is how the memory is supposed to be handled. instead of wasting it by leaving it free.

 

[gunslinger]

I think were its coming from is this: I will not argue that Vista uses memory differently than XP. This is a known fact. My argument is that it still used far more memory even if you factor out SuperFetch. You would think you would get lots of new and useful features or the system would be much faster because of SuperFetch. Instead what you get is a pretty GUI and a buggy slow OS when compared to XP.

SuperFetch is a great idea in theory. In the real world it makes your Vista machine no faster. For every benchmark showing that it does, I can show you a benchmark that says it does not.

Vista fans and Microsoft are simply making excuses for Vista being buggy, bloated , and a resource pig. Its as simple as that.

 

[Bullfighter]

Instead what you get is a pretty GUI and a buggy slow OS when compared to XP

This hits the nail right on the head... A new OS should be better than the previous. I really wanted to like Vista - is has some awesome deployment tools (xml based unattend, WIM technology, HAL independent) - but the user experience is terrible. Maybe in another year and a half when Windows 7 (or should I say Vista 1.1) comes out and computers are coming standard with 3+ GB of RAM will it seem like MS has taken a step forward, when in reality just the expectation has changed.

EP

 

[yamaharacer]

you are comparing apple to oranges though. windows 95 only needed 4mb of system ram. vista requires 1gb.
your argument would indicate windows 95 is a better os than everything else.
vista is made for all the new latest and greatest hardware coming out. which basically, XP can't take advantage of the new resources of the new hardware.

and if you would read the article, and try to comprehend it, you can see, it's not a resource pig, it's using the memory "properly".
not wasting it like xp does.
you are not even using all of your ram under XP basically. so all your money and all that great fast memory is sitting idle always.

this is no lie,
in my new system I have 2 drives. one is a hd of xp pro and the other is vista home prem.
it's a new HP. (because I got a great deal on it, LOL)
under xp, the computer is clearly not as fast. and can't handle as quickly the same programs. vista is still faster and less "laggy" than Xp, even though you say it's a resource hog, I don't see it dragging down the system at all.
all I can tell you is, your computer must not be good enough to run vista. try building or buying a new system. and compare it like I did. I think you'll be surprised.

 

[iptech]

After near-on fifty years I doubt if my memory's ever been max'd-out, yet I've trundled along fine. Two years after its launch Vista is still not a viable OS for the work system no matter the magnificence of it's memory handling capabilities.

Just say no - Vista doesn't work very well for the majority of users. I've tried it many times and it's failed each time.

End of.

 

[yamaharacer]

After near-on fifty years I doubt if my memory's ever been max'd-out, yet I've trundled along fine. Two years after its launch Vista is still not a viable OS for the work system no matter the magnificence of it's memory handling capabilities.

Just say no - Vista doesn't work very well for the majority of users. I've tried it many times and it's failed each time.

End of.

again, you can't expect it to run on 4 year old computers. it's made for the latest hardware to come. dont' even try to tell me your company uses the latest and greatest computers either.. I know better. I've seen so many companies still using windows 2k on pentium 2 computers and wondering why things are not working anymore. LOL

 

[Bullfighter]

Um.. Windows 95 was a dog... I'd still run Windows 98 if the driver and app support was out there... it was a fantastic OS.

I have a brand new Dell d830 - after two months of running Vista I formatted and installed XP, because it ran really badly (not to mention the bugs that drove me crazy). Please note that my laptop has a nice little "Windows Vista" sticker on it...

Please do not try to tell me that Vista is using my 2GB of ram "properly" when it is slower than XP.

Does it run the same as XP with 3.5 GB of RAM, maybe... but as I said before when everyone adjusts to this requirement it will be the norm and we'll carry on like we are with XP... until then for the average pc running 2GB of ram or less, XP is still the superior OS.

BTW, these are the minimum requirements for Vista:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output


Go ahead and run it on a machine like that and let me know how it works out. Even the 1GB for the other versions of Vista is torture.

EP

 

[gunslinger]

and if you would read the article, and try to comprehend it, you can see, it's not a resource pig, it's using the memory "properly".
not wasting it like xp does.
you are not even using all of your ram under XP basically. so all your money and all that great fast memory is sitting idle always.

I did read and understand it. Vista still uses more RAM and system resources than XP by far no matter. To say it does not is very ignorant.

all I can tell you is, your computer must not be good enough to run vista. try building or buying a new system. and compare it like I did. I think you'll be surprised.

Really? Intel core 2 duo, e6600 2.4 GHz, 4 GB PC-6400 RAM, 320 GB SATA drive. Thats my personal rig.

My friends rig: Quad core 3.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 8800 768mb graphics card.
Vista ran like **** on both. I personally tried 4 different versions on mine.

Not to mention the dozens of customer computers I have worked on.



Like I have said before, anyone who thinks Vista is fast has never used a fast XP machine, or used OS X.

 

[iptech]

again, you can't expect it to run on 4 year old computers.

I didn't, I built a new Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 PC with 4Gb of DDR2 RAM and 2 x 80GB SATA II HDD in a striped RAID. I also tried it on my laptop with 3Gb RAM and a 2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo T7300 processor.

It didn't do very well on either machine and I have no intention of reinstalling it, XP is a far more robust and speedier platform to use for my work needs.

I do use Vista on my 3.2 Ghz P4 Media PC though - the Media Center is actually quite good, but I wouldn't want to use the PC for any other computing work though!

 

[yamaharacer]

I did read and understand it. Vista still uses more RAM and system resources than XP by far no matter. To say it does not is very ignorant.




Really? Intel core 2 duo, e6600 2.4 GHz, 4 GB PC-6400 RAM, 320 GB SATA drive. Thats my personal rig.

My friends rig: Quad core 3.0 GHz, 4 GB RAM, 8800 768mb graphics card.
Vista ran like **** on both. I personally tried 4 different versions on mine.

Not to mention the dozens of customer computers I have worked on.



Like I have said before, anyone who thinks Vista is fast has never used a fast XP machine, or used OS X.

could you say that if xp handled the memory the same way?
again, you are comparing apples to oranges with the memory argument.
you are basically saying a os that requires 4mb can do the same processes one that requires say 500mb.
the faster you need/want to go, the os has to handle things differently.
who knows, maybe vista in a few years will be considered the "windows ME". but I honestly have not seen one vista equiped machine run badly.
maybe there is something about mix n matching your hardware that messes vista. computer companies like hp etc put a little bit of research into matching hardware. maybe that's why you see custom built computers having so many problems.

you also have to keep in mind, vista runs more background services on purpose than xp. there is a lot more security features in place for one.
something everyone bitched they wanted for many moons, but now they don't seem to like the way it has to use the system resources.
you should see how many resources ubuntu uses. mine has 65 background services running using up 39% of it's memory. that's just the os and nothing else running.

 

[gunslinger]

you are basically saying a os that requires 4mb can do the same processes one that requires say 500mb.

No, what I am saying is that my XP machines that run great on 256mb to 512mb will do the same things as Vista. If you can get the same things done with less than 1/4 the RAM it means XP is far more effecent than Vista any way you slice it.

you also have to keep in mind, vista runs more background services on purpose than xp. there is a lot more security features in place for one.
something everyone bitched they wanted for many moons, but now they don't seem to like the way it has to use the system resources.
you should see how many resources ubuntu uses. mine has 65 background services running using up 39% of it's memory. that's just the os and nothing else running.

I for one never bitched about lack of security in XP. I can install Spywareblaster, Kaspersky internet security, and super antispyware, (use firefox as my browser) and still use less than half the RAM that Vista would use just to boot up. I don't think anyone would be stupid enough to argue that a stock Vista machine would be more secure.

I'm not sure how many things are running in the background with Ubuntu. I do have it installed on my Mac so I'll check it out. I do know this: Ubuntu will run on 512 ram, and flys on one gig. Lets see a Vista machine do that. Oh, and I also don't think anyone would argue that Vista is more secure than Linux.

 

[JRDtechnet]

No, what I am saying is that my XP machines that run great on 256mb to 512mb will do the same things as Vista. If you can get the same things done with less than 1/4 the RAM it means XP is far more effecent than Vista any way you slice it.

So what you are saying is that Windows 2000 is even more efficient then XP since it could run just great on 128mb or ram? Or that Windows 98 was ultra super duper infinity efficient since it only needed like 32mb or ram.

 

[gunslinger]

So what you are saying is that Windows 2000 is even more efficient then XP since it could run just great on 128mb or ram? Or that Windows 98 was ultra super duper infinity efficient since it only needed like 32mb or ram.

Again that is not what I'm saying. Windows 98 could not do what XP can. Windows XP has far more useful featurs that both myself and many others use daily. XP can do anything Vista can do other than DX10, and with less than half the system resources.

Windows 98 was good. It was fast and it worked most of the time. Windows XP improved on that a lot, and now with 3 service packs is rock solid, stable and fast and can be made to run smoothly on 512mb of RAM or less.

With Vista Microsoft took many steps backwards. It offers only a few new features most of them useless. It uses more RAM, takes up more HD space, and has far more useless background services running, and anyone that would argue that its anywhere close to as stable as XP is insane.

Now, other than DX10 (Only important if you are a gamer) can you name me some useful features that most people will use than you cannot do with XP?

 

[yamaharacer]

my point I'm making is, xp requires more ram and processor to do it's job versus ME,2000,98 etc.. Vista requires more processor and ram to do it's job versus XP. it's just the evolution of the beasts.
if it has to do more things, of course it's going to use more resources. but while it's doing all it does, it also doesn't affect the machine as much.
I guess the only fair comparison would be to run both on the same computer with the same background services running. because comparing 2 different machines there are too many variables.
you'll come to use it and probably like it. there were haters of xp too. it had it's fair share of major bugs too.

I also wouldn't call vista's features useless. for example the advanced settings of the firewall.
it's like having norton etc installed. now I don't have to pay for another program. it also has window defender that gives me updated definitions free for ever . again, another program I don't have to buy.
and the memory diagnostic tool.

 

[gunslinger]

you'll come to use it and probably like it. there were haters of xp too. it had it's fair share of major bugs too.

I do use it already. I don't like it. It may get better with another SP and that may change.
XP got better with each SP and I expect the same will hold true with Vista.

Today people have more good choices than they did in the days when XP was new. Today we if we don't want to use Vista we can use XP, and when they stop support for that we have Ubuntu and OS X. All three are far better than Vista. All three are cheaper, heck one is free.

 

[yamaharacer]

I do use it already. I don't like it. It may get better with another SP and that may change.
XP got better with each SP and I expect the same will hold true with Vista.

Today people have more good choices than they did in the days when XP was new. Today we if we don't want to use Vista we can use XP, and when they stop support for that we have Ubuntu and OS X. All three are far better than Vista. All three are cheaper, heck one is free.

ubuntu isn't all it's cracked up to be. there is a bunch of stuff on the internet that still don't work for me after I installed every package available to play internet media.
check out the linux thread I started. I've even asked this on a ubuntu forum. I can't get anyone to confirm it plays for them. it plays just fine in windows.
OS X would be the better choice by far. even though it's still hard to find things to work with it. I come across printers that don't support it still.