Vista vs XP issues

[proximiti99]

Running Ultimate 64 bit for a year and a half, no serious issues. (6GB ram) My laptop however was dog slow, so I moved to XP. Vista is ok for desktops, but useless on laptops, imho.

 

[apogeeza]

@Isengard - When I load a few heavy graphic apps (eg PhotoShop & Dreamweaver etc) why does Vista not give me my RAM back ??

@timgaul - Yes, my memory maxed out while working on a Flashed Map app for Fifa LOC, so much so that I lost the job. In Performance Monitor, both cpu cores were maxed out at 97%-99% and RAM also maxed out.

I have this memory slot on the side that is not being used at the moment, [laptop not with me at the moment so guesssing at this: ] that does an "instant-on" or "turbo boot" kind of thing. I understand it is supposed to speed up boot times and assist on board RAM while booted. Anyone have experience with this? Does it actually work? NAND ... mmmm, turns to google

 

[flyweb]

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..

Could you post the location of the services article by any chance?

 

[apogeeza]

Could you post the location of the services article by any chance?

If I was bright enough at the time and hit "bookmark" then yes, will check later at home though [laptop not with me now]

... and I actually do have this NAND thing on the side, but it's not called NAND, and since it's not something I routinely look at, it's name eludes me for now. So far the consensus seems to be 20%-30% better boot-up times, and about 2x faster app launch. ... I have a new project. goodie, I feel like a kid again. [claps palms] Maybe this Vista thing won't irritate me so much then.

 

[d0b33]

Maybe this Vista thing won't irritate me so much then.

/face palm

 

[semiautomatix]

I have this memory slot on the side that is not being used at the moment, [laptop not with me at the moment so guesssing at this: ] that does an "instant-on" or "turbo boot" kind of thing. I understand it is supposed to speed up boot times and assist on board RAM while booted. Anyone have experience with this? Does it actually work? NAND ... mmmm, turns to google

That does sound like a Robson memory slot, mines on-board though.

 

[semiautomatix]

@timgaul - Yes, my memory maxed out while working on a Flashed Map app for Fifa LOC, so much so that I lost the job. In Performance Monitor, both cpu cores were maxed out at 97%-99% and RAM also maxed out.

Though with both cores being maxed out like that it sounds like a different issue, the application is obviously very intensive but the CPU would be maxed out on any OS then. If this were indeed that case you might not be better off in XP then.

 

[anathema]

I have still to date not received a convincing argument as to why Vista (with SP1, of course) is perceived to be a worse operating system than Windows XP.

I have been up and running for a year now and have yet to notice anything that is severely problematic. Indeed I find the OS much more stable than XP.

I understand the RAM requirements are a bit heavy, but did you not find the same problem migrating from Windows 98 to Windows XP?

Please would you list why you feel Vista is a step backward (or why not); because I am clearly failing to notice any terrible problems.

I have been running Vista for almost a year and recently a new laptop with XP and I must say XP is inferior to Vista.

In some aspects XP can be incredibly light-footed compared to Vista, but overall performance, speed and reliability I much prefer Vista.