[Computerpro3]

People who complain about Vista eating up resources have no clue what they are talking about.

XP appears more effecient because it left a greater amount of memory un-utilized.

Vista appears like it's using more memory because it IS - it's taking the memory that XP left sitting there doing nothing and prefetching your most commonly used applications with it.

If you have a slow graphics card, revert to classic interface and vista is still vaster than XP at loading programs and other day to day uses.

The only area where you can say it is slower than XP is in gaming, and with the latest drivers the difference is now around 5-10FPS at most. Not only that, there are now multiple games where Vista is much faster than XP.

I am a technet subscriber and have been using Vista for over a year before it was available to the public. I know it inside and out, and it's by far the best OS Microsoft has ever produced.

I was not thrilled with Microsoft over a lot of things in XP. I considered going Ubuntu for a while. As a Boston Red Sox fan, it's nice rooting for Microsoft for a change. This is what it must have felt like to be a Yankees fan in the late 90's. No matter what happens, Vista still wins.

 

[evilking]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edwood /img/forum/go_quote.gif Have you ever actually used Windows XP Tablet PC edition on a daily basis? Just doing a right "mouse button" click in explorer is maddening. Vista is far better Tablet PC apps than XP..... -Ed

Um, could you go into a little more depth please? I'm ordering a tablet pc soon (Fujitsu T2010) and can't decide on the OS. I don't have many requirements, I just need to write/draw indefinately

. Is Vista better regardless of use/purpose/application on tablet PCs? Are there any cons? Any pointers/tips/tricks when getting started?


Thanks

EDIT: Also, does Vista hibernate quickly and without problems?

 

[Computerpro3]

On my toshiba tablet, XP tablet edition is quite annoying. I actually haven't tried installing Vista on it (I never even use it anymore) but I hear it's much improved. Sorry I can't be more specific.

 

[beer]

It consumes too much resource. And I think XP still perform great for me.

 

[Gautama]

Quote:

Originally Posted by beer /img/forum/go_quote.gif It consumes too much resource. And I think XP still perform great for me.

Isn't it better to consume more resources? Vista loads your usual programs into the RAM so you don't have to wait when you use them, if something else needs the space Vista will drop it. Also, I haven't seen anywhere that it uses more CPU power, probably less as the GUI is driven by the GPU.

 

[003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by spaceace76 /img/forum/go_quote.gif For those of you who are skeptical about Vista because of its obvious memory eating habits, there is a little known new feature of this new OS. If you can get hold of a decent flash drive (a sandisk micro cruzer will do fine), it can be used as extra RAM for your PC. Just plug it into your usb port and open up the drive's properties. Click on the ReadyBoost tab and click use this device. Windows will test the drive to make sure it has a fast enough write speed to be used as RAM, and hopefully you've got one that works. If not, try googling your drive to be sure. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...eadyboost.mspx

I know about that, and it's a TERRIBLE idea. First of all even the fastest flash drive is WAY slower than your RAM and it will be a bottleneck once it starts being used.... most HDD based virtual memory would be faster...

Not only that, but if you do that, watch your flash drive die or slow down big time in a few months ... every time you read and/or write to your flash drive, it's life time is decreased. Using it as memory is a surefire way to kill it asap.

shigzeo:
x64 can be a pain if you don't have the right 64 bit drivers that are not betas or buggy, etc... but it does use the most stable kernel of windows to date. 2003 server also uses the same kernel.

 

[esuko]

1. No need
2. $$$
3. Slow

 

[marvin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 003 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I know about that, and it's a TERRIBLE idea. First of all even the fastest flash drive is WAY slower than your RAM and it will be a bottleneck once it starts being used.... most HDD based virtual memory would be faster... Not only that, but if you do that, watch your flash drive die or slow down big time in a few months ... every time you read and/or write to your flash drive, it's life time is decreased. Using it as memory is a surefire way to kill it asap.

This isn't a replacement for RAM, although it does happen to mitigate the effects of insufficient RAM on responsiveness. ReadyBoost leverages the fact that HDD based caches are faster to read, but flash based caches are faster to search.

The implementation stores small, often accessed files in flash in order to avoid the seeking penalty associated with hitting the hard drive for access and free ups the hard drive for other tasks. The impact of writes on flash drive lifespans is mitigated by simply not writing to the drive much. Also modern flash lifespan is more than long enough to allow this type of usage.

The upside is that it works very well in keeping responsiveness up in memory limited (read: price sensitive) systems. However, it doesn't scale very well when limited to affordable flash.