Vista or XP? 158 replies

Please wait...

Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#151 12 years ago
The-Bleh-Bleh;4566981If one company is having trouble, it's the company's fault. If every company is having trouble, it's Microsofts fault. Too much change can be a bad thing, you know.

They aren't. Most things run just fine in Vista.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#152 12 years ago
The-Bleh-Bleh;4566981Compare that to XP: 64MB minimum (unusable), 128MB (basic tasks), 256MB worked fine, 512MB was plenty for most, 1GB was the most you'd need.

What? 512MB was the bare minimum for most people. Yes, 256MB was usable but it meant the OS was thrashing the page file which made the OS pretty slow. Even going from 512MB to 1GB there's a significant performance boost just using XP and normal programs, again because with 512MB it doesn't take much to make XP use the paging file (when you think a normal XP install uses about 350MB by itself, add a firewall, AV program etc and you don't have much headroom to run anything at all). And really, 1GB is not the most you'll ever need. For general users yeah, but there are a lot of people who use their PCs for things like games and CAD.

I believe you effectively said this yourself in the next paragraph, so quite how you can say '512MB is enough for most people' and then contradict it by saying that not having enough RAM causes programs to run slowly is beyond me...




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#153 12 years ago

¬ _ ¬;4566957This is how it works.

Vista < XP < Linux

XP < Vista < Mac OSX < Linux.

Oh yes! I had to do it!

Yes, 256MB was usable but it meant the OS was thrashing the page file which made the OS pretty slow.

I ran XP on a old computer with 288MB ram. Yes, it was usable, but it sure wasn't quick.

The other computer we have running XP has 512MB ram, and it works just fine for what its used for (internet/email, word, iTunes, things like that). I wouldn't want to try and game on it though.

So yes, your right, 512MB was the minimum amount you wanted with XP.




SiLink

(JAWA) Leader

50 XP

13th February 2005

0 Uploads

1,663 Posts

0 Threads

#154 12 years ago

XP for me, I gave Vista a good go for a few months and I just couldn't stand it at all... it was a lot slower than XP. To me it just seems like a GUI update from XP with a few new programs bundled in...

I also disliked the compatibility issues with certain games which I never got to work sadly.




The-Bleh-Bleh

Hasselhoff is my hero

50 XP

11th December 2006

0 Uploads

6,189 Posts

0 Threads

#155 12 years ago
Bs|Archaon;4567172What? 512MB was the bare minimum for most people. Yes, 256MB was usable but it meant the OS was thrashing the page file which made the OS pretty slow. Even going from 512MB to 1GB there's a significant performance boost just using XP and normal programs, again because with 512MB it doesn't take much to make XP use the paging file (when you think a normal XP install uses about 350MB by itself, add a firewall, AV program etc and you don't have much headroom to run anything at all). And really, 1GB is not the most you'll ever need. For general users yeah, but there are a lot of people who use their PCs for things like games and CAD.

I'm talking about during the time XP was actually sold. Of course in 2008 nobody would be happy with 256 MB. But on a computer without clutter, XP was very usable on 256MB back 4-5 years ago when programs weren't as demanding. I was really impressed with XP after I installed it fresh on a low end system with 256MB RAM a couple months ago. If I recall correctly, Windows and AV together used < 110MB RAM. That's a good chunk of slack for programs. I've been using that computer a while now for just about everything but gaming. The point is it runs great for everyday applications, assuming you aren't running anything too new - It runs great for anything the average user would do a few years ago. Though, if somebody doesn't pay attention to clutter, 256MB will end up too little. Anyway, my overall point is a lot of people had XP computers with 256MB RAM, and a lot of companies sold XP computers with 256MB RAM. How many companies have you seen around selling Vista with 1GB RAM? There's a reason, you know.

I believe you effectively said this yourself in the next paragraph, so quite how you can say '512MB is enough for most people' and then contradict it by saying that not having enough RAM causes programs to run slowly is beyond me...

I'm not contradicting myself: Running something that's too demanding will make your computer run slowly whether you're on Vista or XP- What I was saying is that XP has an advantage by not having to deal with such a memory hogging OS. 512MB was definitely enough for most people during XP's lifetime.

edit: Also. XP > Linux > Vista > MacOSX




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#156 12 years ago

As for how much RAM companies are putting in new machines, yes there is a reason. Mostly the reason is price. 2GB RAM costs far less now than 256MB RAM did around 2001-2002. We all ran systems with 256MB or 512MB because we couldn't afford better, not because it was enough or because it was good. Personally the first system I had with more than 512MB RAM was in 2005, a fair way off from 2001 when XP came out.

With Vista, I built this machine with 4GB straight off which even for decent Corsair RAM cost me less than 512MB would have done back then. Even the cheapest machines from Dell and the like come with 2GB. Yes, you've got a point that companies are putting large amounts of RAM in new machines because Vista needs it, but now it's so cheap that I'd question if that really matters?

Sad thing is that I remember having this argument about XP and 2000 a good few years back where some people argued that 2000 was much more efficient, needed less RAM blah blah blah. Now obviously that's true. But by that point it must've been 2004 or thereabouts, by which point RAM prices had dropped quite a lot and systems were being built with 1GB RAM and high-end machines were slowly starting to have 2GB as a viable option, which to me made the argument that 2000 runs faster on 256MB than XP does kinda irrelevant.

Oh how things go in circles...

And as for that 110MB RAM usage on your system, that's normal, Windows is using the page file to free up RAM for programs. With enough RAM a normal install of XP will use in the region of 300-350MB by itself. Vista reacts in a similar way if it's low on RAM, but obviously Vista and XP define 'low RAM' differently.

For what it's worth I use XP machines like that every day. Some of them I maintain, some of them I don't. If you'll forgive the ego trip the ones I maintain are in damn good condition, the others...vary. One thing that's constant between all of them is that they're so slow they make me want to cry.




The-Bleh-Bleh

Hasselhoff is my hero

50 XP

11th December 2006

0 Uploads

6,189 Posts

0 Threads

#157 12 years ago

Good points. You're right, I was sort of trying to compare XP in its day and Vista in its day. If I was getting a computer now, I would probably get Vista since XP isn't sold anyway.

I just don't like type of changes that were made from XP to Vista. Extra features in Vista are nice, but at its basics, some things I think could be better. I just wish they stuck with a more logically categorized layout, along with making settings easier to change. I just find the OS annoying really. While it works fine, and it's overkill for me to to say Vista sucks: I just think many of the most basic things in Vista are flawed. I always feel like it's willy nilly features that are making the OS. Willy nilly features like DirectX10 and making it shinier. It just bothers me, since these things could have been done on any OS. I don't care for a shinier interface, I care for a more usable one.

As for the page file- I mean, from start up, 110MB RAM is being used. So, I have good amount of free RAM. Even with a good amount of free RAM, would Windows be loading in to the swap? I just can't imagine it ever using 300MB. I could be wrong, since I don't use the computer often.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#158 12 years ago

Windows always loads something into the page file, but how much it loads into it depends on the RAM you've got. If you've got plenty of RAM then it'll load as much as possible into the RAM, if you've not got enough RAM it'll load more into the page file and try and keep a bit of RAM free for programs. That's why it's only using 110MB on a 256MB system, but it'll use 300-350MB on a 1GB+ system and place less stuff in the page file.




Alistar

Illuminati

50 XP

11th August 2008

0 Uploads

29 Posts

0 Threads

#159 12 years ago

I prefer XP.

I have tried Vista but I felt too much control took away from me. I feel right at home with XP.