Go Back   nV News Forums > Software Forums > Microsoft Windows XP And Vista

Newegg Daily Deals

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-06-07, 01:50 PM   #85
nekrosoft13
I'm Geralt
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Chicagoland, once a year in Poland
Posts: 24,366
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by six_storm
I understand about what you said. I bought my RAM to help my PC perform better in GAMES, not Firefox, Putty or Windows Explorer. When I'm away from the computer, I would like for my PC to run as low as possible instead of maxing out my RAM 100% of the time. That's like me keeping my car running with a jack underneath and a brick on the gas pedal when I'm at home. It's just wasting resources. I built this computer to play games and that's about it. It's rare that I use FF or any other app on here that is not a game. My Mac is "snappier" than Vista when it comes to Firefox, Mail, iLife apps, Photoshop, etc. Am I making sense?
thats one hell of stupid comparison

if your ram is at 2% used or at 100% used it uses the same voltage. why would you compare it to rev'ing the engine? Engine on high RPM uses more gas/air/oil. Generates more heat and polution.
__________________
Windows 8 the next big failure, right after Windows ME
nekrosoft13 is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 02:17 PM   #86
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilghost
Cache is good. Linux does this as well. What good is the RAM if it isn't being used. When a program is executed the contents are copied from HDD to RAM and executed, if you have the available RAM then 'caching' the application by leaving it in RAM eliminates the slow loading from HDD->RAM.

The key is to purge cache as more physical RAM is needed.
And Vista does this... but you and I have been through the ringer on this so I'll agree to just continue our "agreement to disagree".
Redeemed is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 02:24 PM   #87
evilghost
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,606
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed
And Vista does this... but you and I have been through the ringer on this so I'll agree to just continue our "agreement to disagree".
No, I wasn't arguing against Vista, what I meant was this is what Vista is doing. Consuming available RAM for caching. This is a good thing as long as the memory manager will quickly and successfully free cache as applications need RAM.

We're on the same side on this issue
evilghost is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 02:30 PM   #88
six_storm
Registered User
 
six_storm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashvegas
Posts: 11,575
Send a message via Skype™ to six_storm
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

I'm all for things being speedy and whatnot. It's just the fact that I built this rig for gaming and nothing else. Guess you can say that "caching" on Vista doesn't really matter? Fair enough.
six_storm is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 02:30 PM   #89
JasonPC
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,103
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by nekrosoft13
its called cache, why don't you google it
Actually no, the ram usage reported by monitors does not include the cache. If it included the cache it would usually report 90-100% ram usage (you can check this in task manager). Let's face it Vista does require a good deal of ram and has a lot going on. But anyway, the biggest offender seems to be one of the svhosts, which loves to occupy around 120 MB of ram. However, I've noticed whenever my system really needed the ram, that svhost would use less and then go back to its original ram usage after I was done. I love the superfetch feature though. Vista feels so much more repsonsive and quicker (to me) than XP. You just need enough ram for it to really find its sweet point. 2 GB seems to be the consensus.
JasonPC is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 02:31 PM   #90
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by evilghost
No, I wasn't arguing against Vista, what I meant was this is what Vista is doing. Consuming available RAM for caching. This is a good thing as long as the memory manager will quickly and successfully free cache as applications need RAM.

We're on the same side on this issue


Did you just... indirectly compliment... Windows... sincerely? Surely the world is going to end! FLEE FOR YOUR LIVES!!!
Redeemed is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 11:36 PM   #91
ViN86
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,486
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed
And that is exactly why Linux distros are running on 90% marketshare and Microsoft is in danger of bankruptcy...

I bought this RAM so it can be used, as such I want my OS to USE it. I bought this hard drive to be used, so I want my OS USING it. I bought this CPU to be used, as such I want my OS to use it. Heck, my whole purpose for building my computer was to make use of each piece of hardware on it- and I want my OS doing just that.

Vista takes up so much for multiple and VERY GOOD reasons. It is caching all of your most commonly used apps in RAM instead of on the hard drive. Hence why Vista, on a properly equiped machine, feels significantly more responsive than XP. I would recomend no less than 1gig for Vista x86, and no less than 2 for Vista x64. For XP, I'd recommend no less than a gig either. It just becomes too sluggish when using less than that.

And I have useb Ubuntu and Kubuntu- and I like 'em a lot- but they definitely fall short of the functionality Windows offers. The average Joe has no idea what a command prompt is, let alone how to use one.

Vista was designed to never leave your computer Idle- it is always using the hardware there for one thing or another- typically that would translate to it using the RAM to keep you most frequently utilized items cached, and regularly utilised Windows features cached, thus enhancing the over all responsiveness of your system.

Last night I was playing a game of CS:S with some friends, and while waiting for it to switch levels I'd alt+tab out and either browse nVnews in IE7, or continue in my Rise of Legends game that I had paused. Never once did I get a crash, and never once was the computer "unresponsive".

If I buy a sports car, you'd get mad if you found out they sacrificed horsepower to improve it's efficiency in gas consuption. As such why should microsoft do the same? You RAM is sitting, why not have the OS use it in a way that improves overall system performance? And with Vista x64 it has to load both the 32 bit and 64 bit files for backwards compatibility- hence the requirement for more RAM- also if you understand what 64-bit means then you should also understand why the OS would need more RAM as well. Sure, you can use the 64 bit version with 512MB of RAM- but don't expect to get stellar system performance when you are doing anything that would stress the system. Forget content creation or web design, forget gaming or video editing, for get animation and music creation. Vista supports more hardware than any Linux distro (in regards to compatibility and driver support), Vista is "Plug and Play"- while I've yet to get that same functionality from either Ubuntu or Kubuntu. Heck, in Kubuntu it didn't even recognise my camera when I plugged it in to download the pictures to my computer. Should I have to go into command prompt just to get it to recognize my camera? No. That function should be automatic- as it is with Windows.

If you don't like Vista- don't use it. Nobody (atleast I wont) will hold that against you. But don't bash it when your claims are extremely off-base and exagerated.
your missing the point. the car analogy doesnt work because it wouldnt be sacrificing horsepower, it would be like channeling horsepower towards more necessary functions.

when i buy hardware, i dont just want to use it, i want to get the MOST out of it! im just asking for some greater efficiency, that's all, and needing 2-4GB just so the machine feels quick/responsive, is not efficient, no matter what way you slice it.

also, i could do all those things you mentioned with my XP machine, and linux isnt popular because it's not as easy to use and it's not shoved down the consumer's throat constantly (i know it's not popular, but damnit it should be lol). also, how long does it take to load CS:S levels? takes me all of 10 seconds usually and im also usually the first one in the map in the server. (maybe you mean download them?)
ViN86 is offline  
Old 08-06-07, 11:54 PM   #92
Redeemed
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 17,982
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by ViN86
your missing the point. the car analogy doesnt work because it wouldnt be sacrificing horsepower, it would be like channeling horsepower towards more necessary functions.

when i buy hardware, i dont just want to use it, i want to get the MOST out of it! im just asking for some greater efficiency, that's all, and needing 2-4GB just so the machine feels quick/responsive, is not efficient, no matter what way you slice it.

also, i could do all those things you mentioned with my XP machine, and linux isnt popular because it's not as easy to use and it's not shoved down the consumer's throat constantly (i know it's not popular, but damnit it should be lol). also, how long does it take to load CS:S levels? takes me all of 10 seconds usually and im also usually the first one in the map in the server. (maybe you mean download them?)
Okay, so explain to me how Vista is so inefficient with it's management of system RAM. Prove that it is actually being wasted primarily on bloat ware that has no real-world effect on the performance while using Windows the end-user will experience. I eagerly anticipate your response to this...
Redeemed is offline  

Old 08-07-07, 01:05 AM   #93
Rakeesh
 
Rakeesh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sonoran Desert
Posts: 6,870
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by six_storm
This thread is my thoughts and rants on Vista Ultimate x64. People here bow to it so I thought I would try it out, especially since it was 64-bit (I've never used a 64-bit Windows OS before). Experience is the best teacher and I've learned from it.
But if the mac is so much better, then why have a PC to test it with?
__________________
Want to listen to audio without your computer going to sleep? Try this.

Core i7 2600k 4.4Ghz 1.385v | Corsair H60 | 8GB Corsair Vengeance 1600 8-8-8-24 | MSI P67A-G45 | OCZ Vertex 3 | Sapphire 7850 OC to Max settings

Rakeesh is offline  
Old 08-07-07, 05:05 AM   #94
grey_1
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

WRT the above debate on ram and resource usage, I don't understand what you guys are carrying on about.

Remember when having 1 gig was ZOMG! People were finding 512-1 gig necessary and actually happy about a reason to pack so much in there, then 1-2 gigs, now 2-4 gigs. Oh well, have fun!
 
Old 08-07-07, 07:35 AM   #95
six_storm
Registered User
 
six_storm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Nashvegas
Posts: 11,575
Send a message via Skype™ to six_storm
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlphaWolf_HK
But if the mac is so much better, then why have a PC to test it with?
My Mac isn't my test machine, but my PC rig is. I've also never tried Vista on my iMac yet either, but now that I know Vista Ultimate x64 sucks with low-mid hardware, why bother?
six_storm is offline  
Old 08-07-07, 07:55 AM   #96
ViN86
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 15,486
Default Re: Vista Ultimate x64 Thought/Rant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redeemed
Okay, so explain to me how Vista is so inefficient with it's management of system RAM. Prove that it is actually being wasted primarily on bloat ware that has no real-world effect on the performance while using Windows the end-user will experience. I eagerly anticipate your response to this...
i guess the real question is how much memory is consumed by the desktop by the "eye candy"? (not in games, cause if i remember correctly, the performance is the same with eye candy on/off in games)

i guess it just comes down to turning those things off tbh. and, i just dont want to drop $$$ (cause i developed into a cheap bastard over the past two years of college) on 4GB of RAM to make my computer feel snappy.

EDIT: seems this is why 2-4GB is needed to make the system feel snappy

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...uperfetch.mspx

good idea as long as it's freed when required (like ghost said).
ViN86 is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Windows 8 could be the next Vista News Archived News Items 0 06-15-12 10:30 AM
Like XP or Vista: how will businesses treat Windows 8? News Archived News Items 0 06-06-12 09:10 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.