I've been using Vista on my MacBook Pro since the day it came out and didn't have any problems w/ it. While it won't make me switch from OS X, its no worse then XP. If your 5 year old computer can't run it... well, get a new computer. Its like whining about your '95 Civic not being able to participate in the 24 Hours of Le Mans...
People just like you whined about XP when it came out. All about it requiring a whoopin 128MB of RAM compared to 16 which '98 required, and about how it couldn't run on your 200mhz P2 any more.
" That's the problem, no one but Engadget said 2011.
MS said 3 years. They didn't say 3 years from now, just 3 years, which is what they said 1 year ago when Vista came out. That means there are 2 years left.
I'm sure they are very happy for you to assume they mean 3 years from NOW, which means they can let you assume wrong, and then over-deliver when it ships in 2010, 3 years after Vista launched, just as they promised.
Then again, I am sure that hating MS will still be the "in" thing then too, so you will find a reason to bash why they lived up to the expectations I am certain."
" They said 3 years or so prior to Vista being released. You can find numerous times where it was stated something along the lines of "5 years is far too long between releases, we'll be going back to a 3 year release schedule." Taking into account that Vista has been out the door more than a year now, 3 years is actually 2010, so you were wrong about '01 and wrong about '11. It's ok, I know math can be hard."
@Michael LaFramboise, stfu, People get mad when windows takes more ram for doing nothing. like right now, my vista is, idono doing some stupid search indexing crap that i will never use. yet i cant turn it off, and it hogs ram from my GAMES. you know GAMES, you mite not know what that is, you being a mac user, but games need an awful lot of power, and it sucks when vista is taking up 1/2 a gig of ram.
people like XP cuz there are less useless processes hogging the system.
seriously... isn't it a problem when they're moving on to a New OS without really addressing the problem that is Windows Vista? What makes me confident that they're going to get it right next time?
And besides... this means nothing... all it means is we can expect a few years of delays. I was hearing about "Longhorn" back in like 2001... 6 years later out pops Windows Vista.
First of all the indexing and search feature kicks ass. Second if you don't want it then turn it off. Surprise! Yes, you can turn it off if you stop complaining!
Windows 7 is completely new OS, it is going to be built from the ground up, not just XP with fancy themes, some new features and higher specs. Supposedly they are trying to optimise 7 for performance.
Vista uses all the available RAM it can get to pre-fetch files and perform background services that improve your experience. But the INSTANT any other program needs that RAM, it gives it back, meaning your game can have all 4GB if it needs it (minus the background operating system processes that keep your computer running). It's actually very smart - why not use all the RAM you have at any given time. It's more efficient.
@Juaquin Exactly. We can only explain it so many times. The "ram hogging" and "resource hogging" comes mainly from a service called Superfetch. It profiles you, and loads components of commonly used programs into memory. That's why you may have 50+% ram usage at idle. But load up a heavy program, and notice that the ram usage doesn't increase as much as it should. Superfetch just released some of the ram it had been using. Also, if you use certain programs with great frequency, they will load faster and faster. Case in point, Visual Studio. I had XP on my laptop, and Visual studio started slowly. I replaced it with vista, and it still started slowly. But after a while, it started faster, and now it starts much *faster* than it did in XP.
By the way, the FOSS equivalent of Superfetch (prefetch) will be included in Hardy, I wonder if people will complain about that?
If you really want the illusion that more free ram will help your vista system, type "services" into the start menu search bar, and select services. Disable superfetch. Done.
I've heard some good things about Windows 7, and MS seems to be going the right way these days... As much as I'm never going to buy Vista, it's not quite as bad a some make it out to be. That said, when Minesweeper takes up ~70MiB of RAM to run, there is a slight problem. But hey - it looks pretty! One person I mentioned that to joked about it running Minesweeper from v3.1, through a sequential series of emulators... thus justifying the overhead :P If they do a decent job on v7, I will probably buy it eventually, but at heart, I'm a F/OSS guy.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
John @ Mar 13th 2008 10:14AM
Screw them. I'll still use XP.
Aguiluz @ Mar 13th 2008 10:24AM
It took me a great headache to adjust from XP to Vista. I don't want to know how hard it would be to adjust to that.
Personally, I would like MS to sell "bare" versions. Meaning it is windows 7, without the performance-eating crapola designs in it.
Michael LaFramboise @ Mar 13th 2008 11:02AM
Boofuckinghoo?
I've been using Vista on my MacBook Pro since the day it came out and didn't have any problems w/ it. While it won't make me switch from OS X, its no worse then XP. If your 5 year old computer can't run it... well, get a new computer. Its like whining about your '95 Civic not being able to participate in the 24 Hours of Le Mans...
People just like you whined about XP when it came out. All about it requiring a whoopin 128MB of RAM compared to 16 which '98 required, and about how it couldn't run on your 200mhz P2 any more.
Neal @ Mar 13th 2008 11:17AM
Sometimes it's nice to say "I told you so"
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/28/windows-7-isnt-headed-for-2009-says-microsoft-more-like-2011/
" That's the problem, no one but Engadget said 2011.
MS said 3 years. They didn't say 3 years from now, just 3 years, which is what they said 1 year ago when Vista came out. That means there are 2 years left.
I'm sure they are very happy for you to assume they mean 3 years from NOW, which means they can let you assume wrong, and then over-deliver when it ships in 2010, 3 years after Vista launched, just as they promised.
Then again, I am sure that hating MS will still be the "in" thing then too, so you will find a reason to bash why they lived up to the expectations I am certain."
" They said 3 years or so prior to Vista being released. You can find numerous times where it was stated something along the lines of "5 years is far too long between releases, we'll be going back to a 3 year release schedule." Taking into account that Vista has been out the door more than a year now, 3 years is actually 2010, so you were wrong about '01 and wrong about '11. It's ok, I know math can be hard."
Motoken @ Mar 13th 2008 11:45AM
@Michael LaFramboise, stfu,
People get mad when windows takes more ram for doing nothing. like right now, my vista is, idono doing some stupid search indexing crap that i will never use. yet i cant turn it off, and it hogs ram from my GAMES. you know GAMES, you mite not know what that is, you being a mac user, but games need an awful lot of power, and it sucks when vista is taking up 1/2 a gig of ram.
people like XP cuz there are less useless processes hogging the system.
Hax Or @ Mar 13th 2008 11:46AM
Neal... ahaha.
Get over it.
Tom B @ Mar 13th 2008 12:07PM
seriously... isn't it a problem when they're moving on to a New OS without really addressing the problem that is Windows Vista? What makes me confident that they're going to get it right next time?
And besides... this means nothing... all it means is we can expect a few years of delays. I was hearing about "Longhorn" back in like 2001... 6 years later out pops Windows Vista.
jhaks @ Mar 13th 2008 12:16PM
@ Motokin
First of all the indexing and search feature kicks ass. Second if you don't want it then turn it off. Surprise! Yes, you can turn it off if you stop complaining!
Cal @ Mar 13th 2008 1:34PM
@ Tom B
Windows 7 is completely new OS, it is going to be built from the ground up, not just XP with fancy themes, some new features and higher specs. Supposedly they are trying to optimise 7 for performance.
Chebwa @ Mar 13th 2008 2:11PM
Congratulations on being unable to adjust to new technology. Idiot.
T-Bone @ Mar 13th 2008 2:30PM
@Motoken
You say GAMES like games are important(while demonstrating you have no idea how Vista actually uses RAM).
Evan @ Mar 13th 2008 3:02PM
@Cal
They said Vista was a completely new OS, but at it's core it's based on Windows Server 2003.
Juaquin @ Mar 13th 2008 3:37PM
Vista uses all the available RAM it can get to pre-fetch files and perform background services that improve your experience. But the INSTANT any other program needs that RAM, it gives it back, meaning your game can have all 4GB if it needs it (minus the background operating system processes that keep your computer running). It's actually very smart - why not use all the RAM you have at any given time. It's more efficient.
insertAlias @ Mar 13th 2008 4:11PM
@Juaquin
Exactly. We can only explain it so many times. The "ram hogging" and "resource hogging" comes mainly from a service called Superfetch. It profiles you, and loads components of commonly used programs into memory. That's why you may have 50+% ram usage at idle. But load up a heavy program, and notice that the ram usage doesn't increase as much as it should. Superfetch just released some of the ram it had been using. Also, if you use certain programs with great frequency, they will load faster and faster. Case in point, Visual Studio. I had XP on my laptop, and Visual studio started slowly. I replaced it with vista, and it still started slowly. But after a while, it started faster, and now it starts much *faster* than it did in XP.
By the way, the FOSS equivalent of Superfetch (prefetch) will be included in Hardy, I wonder if people will complain about that?
If you really want the illusion that more free ram will help your vista system, type "services" into the start menu search bar, and select services. Disable superfetch. Done.
Jeff @ Mar 13th 2008 8:00PM
I've heard some good things about Windows 7, and MS seems to be going the right way these days... As much as I'm never going to buy Vista, it's not quite as bad a some make it out to be. That said, when Minesweeper takes up ~70MiB of RAM to run, there is a slight problem. But hey - it looks pretty!
One person I mentioned that to joked about it running Minesweeper from v3.1, through a sequential series of emulators... thus justifying the overhead :P
If they do a decent job on v7, I will probably buy it eventually, but at heart, I'm a F/OSS guy.