|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
ecchi
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: LA & SF
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:09 am |
  |
|
| km wrote: |
| Its using 380MB of RAM right now! I have Miranda and Firefox open. One tab open in FF. ONE. |
This is because of a new technology called Superfetch or something. It uses free memory to store stuff that you're likely to use later on. If an application/game/whatever needs that memory, Windows will let that process have it. Vista is actually better at memory management than any previous version of Windows.
| Quote: |
| It's also got my CPU clocked up to full tilt for some reason, so the fan is just running fucking constantly. And yes, I made sure to tell it to feel free to clock down the CPU if it didn't need it. |
This is probably a motherboard/chipset/video card driver issue. Video card because depending on your setup it might actually be your GPU fans going crazy.
I've been running Business for a few days and have been pretty happy with it. It's XP, but better. Runs just as well, too. I haven't had any annoying issues with UAC, but I'm running under a privileged account so that might be why. I mean, it asks me for permission for installers and stuff, but I'm okay with that. I did disable the screen-dimming effect though. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
ecchi
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: LA & SF
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 11:47 pm |
|
|
| Quote: |
| All that leads me to believe that vista is legitimately using all the 380MB its talking about, or they fucked up their performance monitor really really badly. |
Yeah, I realize now that what I said wasn't the case (but Superfetch really is better than anything I've ever seen in other operating systems). I think Panoptic is right. All I know is that my computer is running better than in XP, and this is from an upgrade install so it's not the fresh reformat effect. When I click a taskbar icon the program comes up immediately, even Visual Studio -- that really wasn't the case in XP. And I only have 1gb of RAM.
| Quote: |
| Ok so I got windows 2000 because it was the first OS microsoft made with a proper stable kernel, and I still run it. I never bought XP, and I didn't miss out on a single thing. Why should I buy this operating system? |
Well, you didn't really miss out on anything major, but XP is nicer than 2k. You know -- hiding system tray icons, better out-of-the-box driver support, skinnable UI. I wouldn't have paid for XP from 2k, but I (and a lot of people) got it for free at least once. I have something like four legal licenses, two of them for XP Pro.
Vista is sort of like that, but moreso. Like I said earlier, my decently-fast computer (low-end Core Duo, a gig of ram and a crappy ATI mobility card) runs faster in Vista. The Upgrade install was flawless, and everything aside from my graphics card and some Thinkpad-specific drivers worked immediately. So already my end-user experience is pretty much identical to that of XP, but faster.
Now there are the parts where Vista is better: GPU-accelerated GUI is great for a few reasons. The wireless network handing is a lot nicer. The system tray customization is a lot better -- the 'system' items like volume, power, networking and clock have their own little section and can be toggled. The rest operate similar to in XP, but the OS is a lot better at tracking items so stuff marked as hidden stays hidden. The new Start menu is neat, though I've never been a huge fan of Google Desktop/Quicksilver/whatever so I don't use it much.
So far the only thing that's actually pissed me off is that 'Sleep' takes longer than 'Standby' used to because it stores its current state to disk before powering down. This means that I can't just close my laptop at the end of class and throw it into my backpack. The wait's usually only 30 seconds or so, but I don't like it.
I got it for free, and I'm glad I did. It hasn't changed the way I use my computer, but it's made my life nicer. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
ecchi
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: LA & SF
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:28 am |
|
|
| BotageL wrote: |
| ecchi wrote: |
| So far the only thing that's actually pissed me off is that 'Sleep' takes longer than 'Standby' used to because it stores its current state to disk before powering down. This means that I can't just close my laptop at the end of class and throw it into my backpack. The wait's usually only 30 seconds or so, but I don't like it. |
This is rather interesting/confusing. They're replaced Standby/Sleep entirely with what used to be called Hibernate? I just can't see a reason why they would do this. |
Not exactly. Hibernate is still there. Standby is replaced with Sleep, which has the quick recovery time of Standby but the data reliability of Hibernation -- so if your laptop runs out of battery while sleeping, you can wake it up as if out of hibernation. Or so I hear. I can understand the reasoning, but I prefer the old way. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
ecchi
Joined: 07 Dec 2006
Location: LA & SF
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 4:37 am |
|
|
| Baron Patsy wrote: |
| My new Dell desktop arrived today, complete with a copy of Vista Home Premium. Initial impressions: this sucks. Impressions a few hours later: this really sucks. |
What don't you like about it?
Once GPU drivers stop sucking, I'll have no problem recommending Vista to anyone with a computer built in the last few years. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
