Have to agree with Woodinville here. There are some programs that ALONE take over 100mb RAM to run. Thats simply not an issue. Besides, I guess people read posts partially:

RAM USAGE IN VISTA SCALES ACCORDING TO YOUR PHYSICAL RAM AMOUNT.

Yeah. Whatever.

(1st items in all 3 tables)

With my hatred to XP, I have no other choice :-)

Whatever happened to progs / OSes that didn't binge off the RAM and just worked...
Thank Heavens For Open Source ™

Well, I suppose I should just let you have the last word, but I have to ask here what "binge off the RAM" means. I routinely run huge (1GB sized) MATLAB calculations that take overnight. Is this what you mean by "bloated"? Or did you miss "RAM usage scales ..."?

If we're in a world where disc is as fast as RAM, I'm not yet aware of it.

After running the bloated, monstrous horrors that are KDE, GNOME and X, I don't have a problem with running 100% Windows boxes. I challenge anybody to objectively prove that Linux is faster or requires less memory than Windows in comparable environments. I can certainly point to some OS architectural improvements that Linux has over Windows, but they've only affected my work, maybe, two or three times in my life.

Vista's graphical "improvements" are things that every other OS vendor (including Linux distributions and OSX) are already rolling into their products. Pot, meet kettle.

Not like I'm going to be upgrading in the next year or two, since I don't really have a use for the new features right now, and of course the driver support is very spotty. But I'll have no qualms with it for my next computer.

NTFS version 3.1 (XP and Server 2003) already offer symbolic links, they just arnt called that. So theres no change there. Its currently just completely command line driven, so they finally switched to a GUI.

I really dont care about how fancy it looks. Ill disable it all, switch to classic view and install backbox, job done.

Main advantages is its core changes (by that I mean user mode drivers and such) and DX10. DX10 will not be available for older operating systems.
Hopefully it will be secure too *tries to forget about IE7*

Well, I'm using the leaked Vista RTM build and I must say that it greatly surpassed my expections. It uses a bit more RAM than XP did, but it looks so nice and it feels much more responsive than XP did.

I will eat my humble pie and say that Microsoft did this one right. I've switched and I see no reason to look back.

I will be downloading the leaked build as well. Even the release candidates were still betas.

Vista looks polished with the compositing stuff. Smooth effects etc. But when you enable all the compositing goodness it needs a megafast pc. In general (without compositing) it isn't so very fast either...

I will stick with linux for now. Gives me everything I need, and then some.. including compositing eye candy that doesn't hog my computer so much.

Define megafast. My 2400+, 1GB DDR333 ram and 6600GT AGP seem to wheeze through even with the shitty nVidia drivers we have now.

On wikipedia as I read on Vista in the security section, all I see is check, verify and monitor. Isnt all that checking going to stress out the computer? I mean theres already a hell of a lota resources going to Avalon

I'm not interested in Vista one bit, and hope to never use it. My MS Windows days are nearing their end.

I'm having some probs with the RTM build 6000. It's refusing to install on the partition that I had RC1 on. (The 3rd partition) I'm wondering if MS wants to mandate that it have the first partition.



I'll probably be following you on that. I don't plan on ever using Vista as my main OS, and I'll probably use Fedora Core Linux when XP pro outstays it's welcome.

I find it odd that people feel they have to state that in every thread about vista in a vista related forum. Oh well, Each to his own.

I havn't used vista yet.

I don't plan on it. Unless there is something new in it that accually matters to me I have no reason to use it. Server 2003 will last me until I feel like using Ubuntu again.

Sure, the Aero UI looks amazing, but in my opinion it isnt worth it. I don't really trust microsoft with all the new DRM stuff they are gunning for. Windows is already secure enough for me, and if it ever becomes a problem then linux is a good candidate.

The only way I might use it is if there is some big amazement of everyone on how well it works on decent computers, and that it doesn't need really fast ones. If it is critically aclaimed and such...

1. I've used Windows Vista RC1.
2. I didn't like it.
3. Don't plan to upgrade until I can't help it.

I tried Vista RC1 on an intel Core 2 Duo with 1.5 or 2GB of RAM. I found RC1 to be a little slow. My impression of the New Start Menu and general Windows layout is, that it's superfluous. Windows always seems like a little more congestion than I like. I'm an IRIX and Mac OS X man. I think I'll stick with XP Pro on my PC for as long as I can. I'm sure by next year though we'll have a new Vista machine at work.

RC1 is outdated atm. A LOT has changed since then, if you want to try vista, you should try the RTM version.

I like it and im gonna upgrade as soon as i can. (Running a dual boot with XP SP2 atm)

The "eyecandy" uses your GPU and VRAM, so slowdowns are out of the question. If you don't have a supported gpu then it's off by default. Not many drivers available atm but that will change soon.

About the RAM, yes it uses more then XP but it also feels better and more smooth then XP and it's more stable then XP. Besides, you have the ram, you paid for it, why not use it?

My system: P4 3,0GHz HT, 1GB DDR RAM and 6600GT AGP

Nvidia has not released an RTM driver yet, only driver available is for RC2, so im using vista drivers atm.

Erm yeah, apparently most games run slower in Vista compared to XP. I cant remember where I saw it, but there were benchmarks somewhere. Ill try n find them.

I brought my RAM for games, If most of it is being taken up by the operating system then Im gona need more to satasify the games. And what about VRAM, when running a game does Vista page out the VRAM or let its UI just sit there?

I'm no "hardcore" gamer site benchmark, But i tend to see that performance fairly comparable.

That said, For the love of god, satan, and everything else, Wait for proper video drivers before judging game peformance.

Can Vista mount disc images itself or do you still need a third party app ?

I think you still need stuff like Daemon Tools.
I can't say ive heard of any OS with that functionality (as usually most image types are proprietary, like NRG).

OS X can mount ISO, IMG and DMG images. I run XP with Boot Camp but I have MacDrive installed so I can see everything on the OS X partition as well. Daemon Tools and Alcohol 120% are incompatible with MacDrive which is a right PITA. The only thing that might have persuaded me to go with Vista would have been image mounting capability but it looks like I'll be sticking with XP. I only have that installed for the kids' games and EAC anyway

subst can make a folder look like a drive, thats as far as windows goes.

Nvidias offical Vista drivers were released a few days ago...
Thats after 10 betas

I've never heard of another OS that doesn't have built-in functions to mount ISO, for example?

Well, Seems i was wrong. Though it's not something i expect an OS to perform, I guess support for standard image formats is a nice addon. Pesk MS enough, might get added in SP1?

I find it really funny that people decide which OS to use on the toll of such minuscule features. Each to his own i guess. I like looking at thing on a bigger level.

I can't really complain about XP, it has done me well over the years. I am getting a Mac next week though and I probably won't upgrade my Windows PC to Vista which I am going to keep as my desktop and have an Apple laptop. Hoping the MacBook won't give me any problems.

It's been a while, but since Vista has officially hit the store shelves and every tech store flier is trumpeting it's awesomeness, I thought I should dredge up this thread and recap and expand on this issue.
Sine my last post, I put the retail version of Vista on one of my partitions, and moved Linux onto my Pentium III machine. I still cannot do too much with Vista because there is so little support for it still, but I finally got my Sound Blaster to work with a beta driver.

Been running Home Premium for awhile, As solid as XP in terms of stability, Maybe even more (Bad bad NVidia drivers couldn't crash the system this OS around). Pretty shoddy graphic drivers and certain software support from companies like Apple, But it's all around a pretty good support sheet for Vista, Both software and hardware-wise

bigger = (little good things - (little bad things * 5))

.. And I've to find anything I'd call 'bad' in my day-to-day use (Aside from NVidia being useless).

A lot depends on the computer you try to run it on. The RAM use has gone down since rc1... About 20 megs... Still around 450+ MB even in "Windows Classic" mode. It runs decent for me because I have a P4 with 2GB of RAM but not everyone can afford that or even a new computer pre-loaded with Vista. I've seen a lot of people put WinXP on a Pentium 2 machine because they couldn't get a new machine, but needed to upgrade the OS anyway, and I expect similar things with Vista- it will just be an even bigger pain when people need to upgrade on the Celeron E-machines budget-PC platform they thought was a good deal a year ago.

Well, Vista adjusts memory usage to the physical amount installed, So I'm not sure how much we can compare based on the raw number.

The current marketing for Vista is crazy...

Beside that, I've read from computers sold with vista pre-installed that weren't able to run it properly.

Vista madness

I read somewhere that real soon, Dell won't be allowed to sell computers with Windows XP anymore, as per their agreements with Microsoft.


As about everything that is wrong with vista, this gentleman said better than I ever could:
http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0226/050.html

I see no point in upgrading to Vista, honestly. I do have the hardware for that - Athlon 64 3000+, 4Gb RAM, GeForce 6600 GT - but it's not just because I have lots of resources that I will burn them away with bloat. And the far-reaching attacks against my privacy and my rights to do as I please with my PC (read Guttmann) are another nail in the coffin. Vista could probably be written off as the most expensive idiocy in history, and probably the one that spent the most time in the making. For now I'm staying with Win2000, and will probably migrate to Linux before I upgrade to another Windows version.



PS: I'm an intern at Microsoft, so I guess you can expect me to be biased :B

I would suggest that you read the replies to Guttmann's article before you take anything at all from that article.

Haha, yeah JJ, I read the Microsoft PR answer cleverly disguised as a "blog post". Didn't help me take Microsoft much more seriously.

Do you mean this article by Gutmann? http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html

Hell yeah!

You seem somewhat confused about my name, and I would further suggest that you look quite a bit more deeply into Guttman's claims before you wax so enthusiastic.

Yeah, I am confused about your name, Mr. Johnston...

http://www.hydrogenaudio.org/forums/index....mp;#entry384473

WHOOOPS!


And, let's be honest here, I'm not enthusiastic about Vista. Quite the opposite!
I did read Mr. Gutmann's article. It looked quite level headed and coherent to me - much better than the rambling whining you read from open source nerds at Slashdot against Vista. And, as far as I can perceive, that Microsoft blog post - I mean, press release - only confirmed most of Gutmann's claims, while trying to put them under some positive light.

That's too bad, then.

I suggest that you're a bit off on Gutmann's claims.

WTF? I get back from class and BOOM- THIS!

Seriously, though, I've read anything that's shown up on Dvorak.org, PC Magazine, or CDFreaks on Vista for the past year, including Guttmann's 'longest suicide note in history' article and I find it all very intresting. It's all quite amusing to see the MS-bashers and -apologists duke it out. By the way, I went to Best Buy about 3 days after the Vista release and you CAN'T GET AN XP MACHINE THERE ANYMORE!

PS: Those who have called me out on RAM usage are free to provide numbers of their own on their various machines. Over the next few weeks I'll probably have a whole dog and pony show of RAM use with various set-ups and with other programs running.

Well, I've seen quite a few claims, counterclaims, and the like, but it's interesting how much of what people assert are simply not backed up by even the lightest kind of evidence. I mean, we don't even need a DBT here, it's pure measurement.

Here is all the evidence you need, JJ:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/strea...ut_protect.mspx

It's obvious that there's no reasoning with you. I would propose moving this exchange to the "hopeless" sector.

Having said that, you are welcome to continue to be rude and insulting, after all, I won't stop you.

Someone hates Vista more than me.
I don't like the DRM either but the deal was broke long before that. I am fimiliarizing myself with Vista because I plan to do PC support and I need to know the forced status quo, but I never plan on using it as my main OS.
I look at it as the content providers dropping a deuce into a toilet that the majority have been drinking from because they can't find water anywhere else and the majority is ignorant of the alternative methods of water-drinking.
If you didn't get that analogy, deuce = DRM, toilet water = Windows, drinking = using, and water anywhere else = Linux, Mac, and such.

What is "rude" typically depends on morals - and morals dont necessarily depend on rationality. As for insults: a frontal rationally valid statement which criticices someone is also an insult. Again, depending on morals it may be branded "rude".

The point: suggesting that being "rude" and "insulting" is bad, is a moral statement. But it isnt necessarily always true from a rational POV.

On other forums for example i am often called "rude", "insulting" and "arrogant"..... not because i'm treating others unfairly or because of proclaiming without delivering - but instead for exactly the opposite reason: i often overwhelm them with founded arguments and rationally valid reasoning - they feel threatened, turn hostile because they cannot handle themselves... and then project it on me "its your fault that i feel personally threatened". Thus, common sense is totally lost and the issue becomes an emotional one, not a rational one - because people cannot cope with being wrong and others being better than themselves.

- Lyx

It will be interesting to see in a few years if vista is popular or not (or generally known to be good or bad).

I read somewhere that for most previous versions of windows, the hardware requirements were considered really big, like vista's are. I wonder if people also thought things like they are thinking now...

"Noones gonna use windows 98, it's way to bloated. Ill just use Windows 95 until it gets outdated then ill switch to Mac OS8."

Or an ethical statement. But this is so far off topic I can't even see the OP.

Maybe you consider me "rude" for spilling out your real identity, but where precisely did I insult you?