Vista vs XP issues

[Chevron]

We see it a lot around here.. My guess is that Vista is not quite keen on handling various types of large applications at once like XP did. I do admit that XP had its BSOD days with Remote SQL Server (We still don't know why), but with VISTA its almost random.. Someday I'll hopefully find the source of the problem... /me thinks its something to do with our network, coz it only happens at work... But on the other hand, I don't push my laptop's memory (4gig RAM) that hard when I'm home...

Vista leaves me ... With Ubuntu and XP I at least know where to start looking for the source of the problem. (Drivers, Hardware, etc...)

That would be worth the try...

What do you use your OS for? Just Games, MS Office and Music? Coz, then it should run perfectly.

Did you know there is a multi quote option?

Were you maybe just trying to increase your post count?

 

[LazyLion]

Gary, had I not gone through all the articles it would have been a bit difficult to determine when they were published would it not?

But the only article I read thoroughly was this article and most paragraphs begin with "At Vista's launch"; so yet again you can discount these pre-SP1 comments :/

They also never mention in their tests the amount of RAM used, yes you need more for Vista, but this is hardly a problem.

So these articles remain unconvincing. But what I'd really like is not just links but opinions from Vista and XP users on this forum.

OK, well... here are their concluding comments... which about sums up my opinion on the matter...

If you already have Vista, there’s no reason not to use it, but should you go out and buy Vista today? Probably not. With Windows 7’s launch scheduled for early 2010.... If you’ve ridden out the storm on XP so far, it probably isn’t worth investing in Vista for just a year and a half of use.

 

[semiautomatix]

OK, well... here are their concluding comments... which about sums up my opinion on the matter...

Well perhaps I can agree upon that. Unfortunately that doesn't relate to question of why people thing XP is superior, which I most certainly don't believe.

We have yet to see what Windows 7 can do, but from the sounds of it its looking good. When the time comes I'll probably move to Windows 7 - and they all better have bloody Media Centre installed on all versions... pfft.

 

[LazyLion]

Well perhaps I can agree upon that. Unfortunately that doesn't relate to question of why people thing XP is superior, which I most certainly don't believe.

I dunno if I would use the word "superior" of XP over Vista. Maybe more stable because of installed base and ubiquity. Used to be cheaper. Simple to install and configure (with what people are used to). Tried and Tested. Well supported.

Vista's biggest problems to me were its resource demands, expense, lack of new features and poor [initial] driver support. Those may all be solved now... but it is too late for Vista.

You are like me when it comes to Windows Me... I installed it and used it well after its release date and it gave me no problems. But people also panned it when it was released. Something better came along though.

I still think that MS should give Vista users a BIG discount on Win 7.

 

[apogeeza]

Yeah, its like R300 for 2 gigs! Come on, thats hardly a wallet busting amount.

maybe not for desktops, but on laptops? Ja, I thought so.

I'm running 4gigs of ram on my laptop and on startup, over quarter of my ram is stolen by "required" system phuggen BLOAT.

Not to mention most the production & utulity apps that run perfectly on XP, develop a mysterious case of "install flu" or if it does install without the flu, then when you run it it dies with fatal errors. It's sick. MS releasing this junk on the world is sick joke on us. Vista note being able to run anything productive is a continuation of that sick joke. Dell forcing us to buy Vista because we want HARDWARE is just freaking SICK.

Vista is fatally sick. Let it die. If it won't die, we'll damn well kill it.
Viva La Ibex.

 

[semiautomatix]

maybe not for desktops, but on laptops? Ja, I thought so.

I'm running 4gigs of ram on my laptop and on startup, over quarter of my ram is stolen by "required" system phuggen BLOAT.

Not to mention most the production & utulity apps that run perfectly on XP, develop a mysterious case of "install flu" or if it does install without the flu, then when you run it it dies with fatal errors. It's sick. MS releasing this junk on the world is sick joke on us. Vista note being able to run anything productive is a continuation of that sick joke. Dell forcing us to buy Vista because we want HARDWARE is just freaking SICK.

Vista is fatally sick. Let it die. If it won't die, we'll damn well kill it.
Viva La Ibex.

Actually I am running Vista on my laptop, without issues

 

[apogeeza]

.. oops

 

[milomak]

I was forced into vista when I bought a hp laptop. If I had the option I would have got the laptop without it. But that’s another story.

So I occasionally use vista and I have to say that with 2GB of RAM on the laptop, it performs fairly well. For the gaming, internet and word processor/spreadsheet tasks I do it has never crashed. From my experience I wouldn’t give either Vista or XP a clear advantage over the other. Which is an issue for Vista if you ask me.

 

[apogeeza]

October 2001 = XP Launch ref: http://news.cnet.com/2100-1001-274939.html
April 2007 = XP SP3 Launched ref: http://www.trustedreviews.com/software/news/2008/04/29/Windows-XP-Service-Pack-3-Launched/p1

30 Jan 2007 = Vista Launch ref: http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/jan07/01-29VistaLaunchPR.mspx

On Jan. 30 the most significant product launch in Microsoft Corp.’s history

Vista SP2 expected launch = http://www.techshout.com/general/2008/01/microsoft-windows-vista-sp2-to-launch-in-april-2009/

6 years and change for 3 XP service packs

It was not even one year after the VISTA launch and they were already busy with Vista SP2

What more proof do you need? Vista SUCKKS

 

[stefan9]

UAC, disturbs alot of things for 1 COD4, cant play with UAC on.
Steam doesn't update, maybe thats just me haha

But i prefer Vista to

Steam updates fine for me using vista x64 sp1.

 

[apogeeza]

damn I'm seeing double today ... Kinda wish I had drunk yesterday

 

[apogeeza]

Actually I am running Vista on my laptop, without issues

Well, count yourself lucky that the Vista Flu didn't hit you, as it did the millions of others who were forced into the MS tax by Michael Freeking Dell. (would some-one please shoot him in the bloody foot with a barbed crossbow so he too can feel our pain !!! )

 

[apogeeza]

So I occasionally use vista and I have to say that with 2GB of RAM on the laptop, it performs fairly well.

Doctor, please, increase this man's medication. He is clearly delirious.

I believe you feel it performs well, but I am convinced that if you toss Vista (assuming the fine print in your warranty precludes you from removing Vista) then revert to XP, it will run much better.

My system on startup (Vista Home Basic) with all non-essential services removed (I have tried slim-lining wherever I can without compromising stability, eg: I don't need the "required" network monitor that manages connections to my non-existent networked printer, so it got tossed - sorry for you Bill.) and it still boots into 1.32 Gig's of RAM used - just to sit idly on the table and do NOTHING. That abusive waste of my EXPENSIVE LAPTOP RAM is just downright criminal, or at least it should be. And they should also make it criminal to force us to pay for something we don't want or need when other alternatives do exist and are preferable to the cash-holder. cue "The Conservative Nanny State"

He begins by examining the richest man in the world, Bill Gates, and Microsoft, noting that it was not Gates hard work or brilliance, or the superiority of his software, but his government provided monopoly based on IP law that made him today's Croesus.

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=2456074#post2456074

 

[semiautomatix]

.. oops

 

[semiautomatix]

Doctor, please, increase this man's medication. He is clearly delirious.

I believe you feel it performs well, but I am convinced that if you toss Vista (assuming the fine print in your warranty precludes you from removing Vista) then revert to XP, it will run much better.

My system on startup (Vista Home Basic) with all non-essential services removed (I have tried slim-lining wherever I can without compromising stability, eg: I don't need the "required" network monitor that manages connections to my non-existent networked printer, so it got tossed - sorry for you Bill.) and it still boots into 1.32 Gig's of RAM used - just to sit idly on the table and do NOTHING. That abusive waste of my EXPENSIVE LAPTOP RAM is just downright criminal, or at least it should be. And they should also make it criminal to force us to pay for something we don't want or need when other alternatives do exist and are preferable to the cash-holder. cue "The Conservative Nanny State"


http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=2456074#post2456074

Funny, I'm running a full Oracle database plus dev tools (including 2 browsers) and seldom get higher than 1.5 Gigs. I did also pay up 1 Gb Turbo Memory - wonder if that helps?

 

[apogeeza]

Funny, I'm running a full Oracle database plus dev tools (including 2 browsers) and seldom get higher than 1.5 Gigs. I did also pay up 1 Gb Turbo Memory - wonder if that helps?

Turbo Memory != DDr2 ??

Before I start my web-servers and before any of my dB's load before anything, just getting into Vista Home Basic chomps 1.3gig of my 4Gig total. Last year I found a personal blog by a guy from MS that gave tips on which services are safe to chop from the starting block without Vista crashing. I went through that with a fine tooth comb because I wanted (and still do) to extract every bit of performance possible. So I guess I'm looking for more ways to cull that list of "required" start-ups - the ones that threaten you with instability if you dare touch this process..

 

[Isengard]

Turbo Memory != DDr2 ??

Before I start my web-servers and before any of my dB's load before anything, just getting into Vista Home Basic chomps 1.3gig of my 4Gig total. Last year I found a personal blog by a guy from MS that gave tips on which services are safe to chop from the starting block without Vista crashing. I went through that with a fine tooth comb because I wanted (and still do) to extract every bit of performance possible. So I guess I'm looking for more ways to cull that list of "required" start-ups - the ones that threaten you with instability if you dare touch this process..

I don't post too often on the forums but I felt this was one worth saying something in. There's this popular misconception that Vista is a severe recourse hog when in fact all it's doing is making use of otherwise wasted unused RAM.

Let me explain.

Vista monitors which apps you use frequently and unlike XP remembers it then loads in into RAM on next boot so it will start more quickly. For example I use Word 2007 and Firefox quite a bit so my page file usage usually sits between 500 and 600 mb (used to be up to 800 before clean install), so now when I start Firefox it starts in one second rather than the several it takes on XP after a clean boot. Here's the kicker, when you start up a RAM heavy app like say a game, Vista clears all that out of the RAM and you get to play without chop. Wanting to always have as little ram used as possible is such a silly idea, because thats just a waste of free RAM that could be used for something like say faster application startup. I get tired of seeing the same argument for this when no one bothers to research why it is so.

 

[d0b33]

Turbo Memory != DDr2 ??

Before I start my web-servers and before any of my dB's load before anything, just getting into Vista Home Basic chomps 1.3gig of my 4Gig total. Last year I found a personal blog by a guy from MS that gave tips on which services are safe to chop from the starting block without Vista crashing. I went through that with a fine tooth comb because I wanted (and still do) to extract every bit of performance possible. So I guess I'm looking for more ways to cull that list of "required" start-ups - the ones that threaten you with instability if you dare touch this process..

If you are so concerned about memory usage then just use linux... my Ubuntu system uses between 300MB - 500MB and I'm not sacrificing eyecandy or extras.

 

[semiautomatix]

I don't post too often on the forums but I felt this was one worth saying something in. There's this popular misconception that Vista is a severe recourse hog when in fact all it's doing is making use of otherwise wasted unused RAM.

Let me explain.

Vista monitors which apps you use frequently and unlike XP remembers it then loads in into RAM on next boot so it will start more quickly. For example I use Word 2007 and Firefox quite a bit so my page file usage usually sits between 500 and 600 mb (used to be up to 800 before clean install), so now when I start Firefox it starts in one second rather than the several it takes on XP after a clean boot. Here's the kicker, when you start up a RAM heavy app like say a game, Vista clears all that out of the RAM and you get to play without chop. Wanting to always have as little ram used as possible is such a silly idea, because thats just a waste of free RAM that could be used for something like say faster application startup. I get tired of seeing the same argument for this when no one bothers to research why it is so.

I agree, rather than writing to disk or the swop file use my RAM which is a lot faster. At most times I still have 2 gigs free to play with.

Turbo Memory is an on-board NAND flash memory module, frequently used data is loaded to this module. As such reliance on hard drive reads is reduced, also the aforementioned data is not kept in the RAM, until needed, and reduces memory usage all round.

Turbo Memory != DDr2 ??

So no, turbo memory is not DDR2, nor does it pretend to be faster; however, it does reduce your memory footprint until required.

 

[semiautomatix]

Turbo Memory != DDr2 ??

Before I start my web-servers and before any of my dB's load before anything, just getting into Vista Home Basic chomps 1.3gig of my 4Gig total. Last year I found a personal blog by a guy from MS that gave tips on which services are safe to chop from the starting block without Vista crashing. I went through that with a fine tooth comb because I wanted (and still do) to extract every bit of performance possible. So I guess I'm looking for more ways to cull that list of "required" start-ups - the ones that threaten you with instability if you dare touch this process..

And does your memory ever max out?

I know running several enterprise class databases, a few browsers and several IDEs I can barely pass 2 Gigs.