Vista or XP? 158 replies

Please wait...

Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#31 12 years ago
So...I need to ask this this...How is Vista such a ram "hog"? I have yet to encounter an instance where I did not have access to or was unable to use a program that needed ram. In fact, almost all programs open & close & respond almost instantly(even Photoshop CS3). I am running Vista Ultimate x86 with stock features(except sidebar) & it runs smoother than XPpro EVER did with the same 2 gigs ram & dual core AMD processor. So,...please explain to me how Vista is sucking & bloating up my system when it runs faster & more efficient than XP did.

Okay: this is your system:

Anyone complaining about Vista must have a last generation computer, because Vista works flawlessly for me on my dual core, 2 gig memory, 8800 gt running system.

You have twice the amount of RAM that I do, I only run a single core, and I use a 9600-series. The point of an operating system is not to push the boundaries of hardware technology, it is to provide a framework for other software. And to do that effectively, it should realistically run on as many computers as possible. And to do that, it should have as low system requirements as possible. I think this is one major area where Canonical has it right, and Microsoft doesn't. I can run Ubuntu on my system with the highest effects settings and it works perfectly smoothly. Whereas even on XP my system was slow and relatively unresponsive.




Chocu1a

Feel my heat, Heavens on fire.

45,365 XP

2nd August 2005

0 Uploads

4,209 Posts

0 Threads

#32 12 years ago
gentleman;4553147,but I still wish it wasn't such a RAM hog :(

again...please explain EXACTLY how vista is a "ram hog". Unused ram is wasted ram. And to the above poster...The point of Vista is to fully take advantage of CURRENT generation of hardware. Dual core processors have been current generation foer over 2 years now. & 2 gigs ram has been the current standard for 2 years. Hardware advances, yet you stay behind. You are running hardware(except the gpu) that was standard 3-4 years ago. Again explain how it is a bloated slow os. If you run it on old a$s hardware...sure it is going to perform less than stellar.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#33 12 years ago

And yet Ubuntu performs perfectly fine...




Freyr Advanced Member

A2Files Staff

46,877 XP

5th February 2005

11 Uploads

4,275 Posts

0 Threads

#34 12 years ago
The_Computer_Wizard;4552848just because your a moderator gives you NO RIGHT to try and rip me a new one, especially when i was just VOICING MY OPINION which is what this thread was about

And he was just VOICING HIS OPINION which he has every right to do. Nothing we signed when we became staff says we can't still have personal opinions.

Personally, I agree with Merrick. Have you tried building a serious business case for a Vista adoption? For the vast majority of businesses upgrading from XP to Vista would be a massive and expensive undertaking for which they would see little benefit.

To do an upgrade from XP to Vista you'd have to retire all hardware that was not up to the job of running Vista and the applications the users require on a day to day basis. You then need to ensure every single piece of software used by the business is completely Vista compatible and test it relentlessly to ensure there are no problems that are going to be fatal to a rollout.

Taking the average SME with 100 PC's to upgrade to Vista and 3 servers that leaves you needing:-

100x upgrade licenses to Vista Business 3x licenses for windows server 2007 and 300 CALS for the aforementioned servers (3x100)

Which costs how much? Answers on the back of a postcard please. :)

If you have worked out the cost of an upgrade, you can probably see why most businesses won't upgrade. The cost is high, and the return on investment is low to non existent, as Vista does not really do anything for a business that XP is not capable of doing.

Ultimately, the operating system is just a platform to run other programs from and there is not really a huge amount of point upgrading just because its released. You'd have to have some pressing reasons to upgrade to make it worthwhile.




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#35 12 years ago
Mr. Pedantic;4553172You have twice the amount of RAM that I do, I only run a single core, and I use a 9600-series. The point of an operating system is not to push the boundaries of hardware technology, it is to provide a framework for other software. And to do that effectively, it should realistically run on as many computers as possible. And to do that, it should have as low system requirements as possible. I think this is one major area where Canonical has it right, and Microsoft doesn't. I can run Ubuntu on my system with the highest effects settings and it works perfectly smoothly. Whereas even on XP my system was slow and relatively unresponsive.

2GB RAM is nothing out of the ordinary, particularly on a forum like this where most people are enthusiasts and/or gamers. My last gaming PC (which is now pushing 4 years old) has 2GB RAM and is more than capable of running Vista. Even bog standard pre-built PCs now come with that much memory, if not more. For example a bottom end Inspiron 530 comes with 2GB RAM as standard, Dell doesn't even offer the option to reduce it to less than that. Increase your budget a little and buy anything other than a bargain basement system and you could be looking at 3GB (or even 4GB) RAM as standard.

No, Vista is not a viable upgrade for older systems. However that does not mean it is a bad OS. I don't know where people get the idea from that Vista is designed to be the exact same thing as XP, and run on the exact same machines as XP. It isn't. It's designed to replace XP on new machines, and as I've mentioned these new machines have the capability to run Vista well that your machine obviously doesn't.

Vista is designed for new machines. People (like me) who upgrade to Vista on machines that can cope with it are in the distinct minority. People (like you) who upgrade to Vista on machines that can't cope with it are in an even smaller minority and make me want to question if you were curious, or if you were just looking for a way to justify panning Vista despite the fact that you've completely missed the point of Vista to begin with.

PS - If XP was slow on a system with 1GB RAM and modern enough to have a 9600 then something is wrong. Granted, it may be unresponsive compared to Ubuntu but it certainly shouldn't be slow. I'm using Xubuntu on this laptop at the minute and it's using around 230MB RAM with Opera and Pidgin. In my experience XP uses around 300MB and you can add 50MB for a few bits of software (virus scanner, firewall etc). Yes XP will be using more, but surely not enough to make it slow?




Kilobyte

What does the Fox say?

69,060 XP

23rd November 2002

0 Uploads

6,468 Posts

0 Threads

#36 12 years ago
Count_Chocu1a;4553189again...please explain EXACTLY how vista is a "ram hog". Unused ram is wasted ram. The point of Vista is to fully take advantage of CURRENT generation of hardware. Dual core processors have been current generation foer over 2 years now. & 2 gigs ram has been the current standard for 2 years.

Actually, I find fault with that statement. Particularly the use of the word "current".

The "current" generation varies depending on who you interview. Inside the Tech Industry, Dual Cores & 2gb of RAM are low end, but still "Current" barely.

In the Retail industry, Dual Cores & 2gb of RAM are current.

In the real world, for customers who have PCs that do not need to be upgraded (large majority), 2ghz Single Core Processors, 1gb of RAM, and Windows XP are all considered current. Heck even 512mb is practically still current.

Vista was not really designed to take full advantage of Current machines, but was designed for FUTURE machines.

XP Pro supports dual core processors just fine. It supports 3gb+ of RAM. It supports high resolutions, and current software & hardware better than any other OS. XP supports HD video, high speed USB, Wifi-N networking, etc...

Vista will come into its own in the era of Multi-Threaded applications, 64-bit computing, and 6gb+ of RAM.




Mr. Pedantic

I would die without GF

234,620 XP

8th October 2006

0 Uploads

23,127 Posts

0 Threads

#37 12 years ago
2GB RAM is nothing out of the ordinary, particularly on a forum like this where most people are enthusiasts and/or gamers. My last gaming PC (which is now pushing 4 years old) has 2GB RAM and is more than capable of running Vista. Even bog standard pre-built PCs now come with that much memory, if not more. For example a bottom end Inspiron 530 comes with 2GB RAM as standard, Dell doesn't even offer the option to reduce it to less than that. Increase your budget a little and buy anything other than a bargain basement system and you could be looking at 3GB (or even 4GB) RAM as standard.

I got my computer nearly five years ago. Seeing as I don't really play all that many games anymore, I don't really see any incentive to upgrade my desktop in the near future (which is going to become a server, anyway). Yet, XP support (as said by Microsoft) will be discontinued after a few years, after which Vista will become the dominant OS. What then? I certainly don't want to use an OS that will become increasingly vulnerable as support for it disappears, yet I don't want to use an OS that will take nearly all my computer resources to run anyway. So what do I do? I switch to Linux, which runs perfectly fine on my admittedly ancient computer without any problems, and with perfectly functioning effects and capabilities.

PS - If XP was slow on a system with 1GB RAM and modern enough to have a 9600 then something is wrong. Granted, it may be unresponsive compared to Ubuntu but it certainly shouldn't be slow. I'm using Xubuntu on this laptop at the minute and it's using around 230MB RAM with Opera and Pidgin. In my experience XP uses around 300MB and you can add 50MB for a few bits of software (virus scanner, firewall etc). Yes XP will be using more, but surely not enough to make it slow?

Unless I have missed something, I am under the impression Xubuntu was designed with older hardware in mind. And I'm not talking about slow out of the box, I'm talking about slow because of disorganization and useless stuff in the registry, random fragmentation, etc. And yes, it was slow. 6 seconds to open My Documents?




Bs|Archaon

I would die without GF

50 XP

15th March 2006

0 Uploads

5,910 Posts

0 Threads

#38 12 years ago
Mr. Pedantic;4553287I got my computer nearly five years ago. Seeing as I don't really play all that many games anymore, I don't really see any incentive to upgrade my desktop in the near future (which is going to become a server, anyway).[/quote] Why is upgrading to improve performance with normal software any less important than upgrading to run games? You can't run modern Linux or Mac software on obsolete machines either. Windows suffers from it particularly badly, but because it's a problem with any software I don't see it as a reason to pan Windows in particular.
Mr. Pedantic;4553287Yet, XP support (as said by Microsoft) will be discontinued after a few years, after which Vista will become the dominant OS. What then? I certainly don't want to use an OS that will become increasingly vulnerable as support for it disappears, yet I don't want to use an OS that will take nearly all my computer resources to run anyway.[/quote] If your desktop is going to become a server in the near future why the hell does it matter to you that XP isn't going to be fully supported after mid-2009 (or at all after 2014)?

Mr. Pedantic;4553287So what do I do?[/quote] Spend $30 on a RAM upgrade, genius. :rolleyes:

(That's (sort of) meant tongue-in-cheek. Read below before you slap me for telling you how to spend your cash.) [QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4553287]I switch to Linux, which runs perfectly fine on my admittedly ancient computer without any problems, and with perfectly functioning effects and capabilities.

Obviously that is your choice, and I use Linux in a fairly casual manner myself. But as much as 'easy to use' distros like Linspire, Ubuntu and Mandrake try it's never going to be a replacement for the ease of use offered by Windows (and Mac). For everyone else, the RAM upgrade or a new PC every few years is the choice. There's a reason that Linux has a minute market share. And here's a clue: it's not the free software, (normally) free support, excellent stability and performance and relatively low hardware requirements.

Upgrading your machine to cope with a new version of Windows every 5 years may turn your stomach, but for the vast, vast, VAST majority of people it's the easiest way to go and they don't mind paying for it every 3, 4 or 5 years. Microsoft caters for that market. End of.

Personally I think 5 years is a hell of a long life for one machine, so I don't think you've really got a huge amount to complain about there? [QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4553287]Unless I have missed something, I am under the impression Xubuntu was designed with older hardware in mind.

Xfce uses less resources than KDE and Gnome. Not enough for it to matter when we're discussing relatively modern machines that can run any of them without breaking a sweat. If anything, the fact that a normal Ubuntu system uses more resources than Xubuntu actually supports what I was saying about how slow your XP system is. The RAM footprint of Ubuntu is (slightly) closer to that of XP than Xubuntu. [QUOTE=Mr. Pedantic;4553287]And yes, it was slow. 6 seconds to open My Documents?

Like I said, something must have been wrong with it if it was performing like that with 1GB RAM and I'm sure virtually anyone here - even Linux and Mac fanboys - will support me on that. If you're basing your opinions of XP and Windows in general on that experience then I really don't know what to say. I know you're inevitably going to say "Linux doesn't do that blah blah blah" which is true, but unless something bad actually happens then maintaining Windows is a simple matter of having protective software installed, leaving them to do their thing and then clicking a few buttons each month.




Ḷëģöläš-OLD

You'll never walk alone.

99,355 XP

17th June 2008

0 Uploads

9,518 Posts

0 Threads

#39 12 years ago

where can you download vista ?:confused:




conorlord

(< my guitar) Gold Thread FTW

50 XP

21st September 2007

0 Uploads

1,361 Posts

0 Threads

#40 12 years ago

it all depends on what u want it for familys and people that are new to computer might prefer vista casue its user friendly but for gaming xp is better so its what u want vista or xp for