You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, <a href="/profile.php?mode=register">join our community today</a>!
although I've heard that it will suck up 4GB of memory like nothing.
Just with Cache. With 4Gb of memory the initial no-software installed footprint wil be ca. 800MB with about 700Mb pagable (for soem reason the amount of kernel memory used, some of which is non pageable, increases with the amount of memory installed).
In high memory systems (4-8GB) I find the adaptive caching to be very useful. Somewhere between a ram disk and a most-recently-used cache, but w/o the penalties of a RD.
I've been using Vista U-64bit for about 6 months. So far I like it although it is alot more demanding on your memory. If you multi-task alot and you have 3GB or more of memory you'll like it. It just takes getting use to seeing close to 0MB of free ram. My current config is
I'm also running Vista Business x64 on both Turion X2 laptop with 4GB of RAM and my Phenom 9850 desktop with 2GB of RAM.
Vista for gaming is fine. I can't really tell the difference between XP x64 and Vista in that regard (expect that I can run DX10 mode :P). I'm using 2 HD3870 in CF and it runs perfectly fine on Cat. 8.5.
From my experience it is a good idea to devote at least 4GB Hi-Speed Flash for ReadyBoost. It helps a lot during logon and smoother overlay experience. On my laptop 4GB is handy, but on the other hand slow HDD is killing startup time (I mean from loading screen to fully loaded system). It takes up to 4-6 minutes to load Vista, AV soft, widgets, ATi CCC on a laptop (no ReadyBoost, plain 5400RPM 120GB 8MB cache HDD) compared to only around 1 minute on my desktop (ReadyBoost + Samsung F1 750GB 32MB cache + Samsung SP400GB hosting swap file).
But when my laptop will prefetch files into memory then it is fantastic fast
8)
I would suggest 4GB as a minimum for Vista and fast HDD + flash. Then your experience will be very good. On a slow machine you will probably delete Vista after first day :twisted:
4-6 minutes ? ROFL. Here is how long it takes to boot Ubuntu on my desktop; Core2 2.1 GHz, 2GB Ram, slow poke 5400rpm disk:
Once I get to see to the desktop, its immediately responsive, harddisk activity dies out almost immediately I can startup firefox and use it in 2 or 3 seconds.
I didnt even bother playing with profiling to further improve boottime nor preloading any stuff. There is just no point.
I wouldn't really recommend Vista now and I believe I am qualified to have an opinion, having deployed almost 50 Vista computers now. The specification of your computer really doesn't matter too much. It will be dead slow and hotter than before anyway. I suspect MS will give this OS a very short lifetime and few useful updates. If there ever was some MS OS to skip it is Vista and of course Millennium and possibly win95. Windows 7 looks promising though.
Personally I just migrated from Vista to Ubuntu 8.04 although this is no perfect solution. For instance firefox 3 beta5 which is standard in this distro completely crashed and rebooted the computer when browsing ikea.no (sort of unsurprising somehow..) and I lack Visual studio, Visio, Office 2007 and IE (yes I still find pages requiring it to work properly). So I think I will end up with either dual booting XP and Linux or running XP as a virtual machine. Maybe I'll run XP as a VM on a server and hope I never need XP without having an Internet connection so I can remote to it. Also I might go for a Redhat based Linux distro, but that is only because I need more redhat experience for my work where we are currently building a Rocks cluster (curse them there is no IA64 support in the latest release,have they not heard of Tukwila?).
For instance firefox 3 beta5 which is standard in this distro completely crashed and rebooted the computer when browsing ikea.no
While I have never had it bring down my OS (are you sure it wasnt something else?? did you check your log files?) and in fact it hasnt really crashed on me yet, I do agree that including the beta as default browser is plain stupid. I like some of the improvements (SPEED!, automatic restoring of sessions, etc), but it is clearly a beta and shouldnt be the default browser, especially with no easy way to go back to FF 2.
Quote:
(sort of unsurprising somehow..) and I lack Visual studio, Visio, Office 2007 and IE (yes I still find pages requiring it to work properly).
If you often need Visual Studio, switching to Linux is probably not the best of idea's. If you need now and then, it runs fine on VirtualBox (or VMWare of whatever VM you prefer) Visio, virtualization aside, you could try one of these alternatives:
http://www.osalt.com/visio Office 2007, I assume you have tried OpenOffice?
IE runs on Linux:
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/page/Main_Page
It takes up to 4-6 minutes to load Vista, AV soft, widgets, ATi CCC on a laptop (no ReadyBoost, plain 5400RPM 120GB 8MB cache HDD) compared to only around 1 minute on my desktop (ReadyBoost + Samsung F1 750GB 32MB cache + Samsung SP400GB hosting swap file). But when my laptop will prefetch files into memory then it is fantastic fast 8)
Something is wrong with your laptop, or the drivers that are running on it.
ReadyBoost bring virtually no acceleration for systems w 2GB or more of memory, and don't waste money on a driver > 4GB since that is the max capacity of RB.
I wouldn't really recommend Vista now and I believe I am qualified to have an opinion, having deployed almost 50 Vista computers now. The specification of your computer really doesn't matter too much. It will be dead slow and hotter than before anyway. I suspect MS will give this OS a very short lifetime and few useful updates. If there ever was some MS OS to skip it is Vista and of course Millennium and possibly win95. Windows 7 looks promising though.
IMO one important caveat to this is if the user needs 64bit support. XP 64 was never complete and lots of stuff is not supported or won't run correctly.
Quote:
Personally I just migrated from Vista to Ubuntu 8.04 although this is no perfect solution. For instance firefox 3 beta5 which is standard in this distro completely crashed and rebooted the computer when browsing ikea.no (sort of unsurprising somehow..)
Ubuntu 8.04 is downright awful. A real regression from previous releases of Ubuntu. X locks up about every 2 hours of actual use (no non-OSS drivers either).
I wouldn't really recommend Vista now and I believe I am qualified to have an opinion, having deployed almost 50 Vista computers now. The specification of your computer really doesn't matter too much. It will be dead slow and hotter than before anyway. I suspect MS will give this OS a very short lifetime and few useful updates. If there ever was some MS OS to skip it is Vista and of course Millennium and possibly win95. Windows 7 looks promising though.
IMO one important caveat to this is if the user needs 64bit support. XP 64 was never complete and lots of stuff is not supported or won't run correctly.
Quote:
Personally I just migrated from Vista to Ubuntu 8.04 although this is no perfect solution. For instance firefox 3 beta5 which is standard in this distro completely crashed and rebooted the computer when browsing ikea.no (sort of unsurprising somehow..)
Ubuntu 8.04 is downright awful. A real regression from previous releases of Ubuntu. X locks up about every 2 hours of actual use (no non-OSS drivers either).
If you do the updates immediately, all of those issues dissipat.
The last issue they have under Ubuntu is the programming interface. I am Windows programmer, and I am converting for fun. The SDK are still a big mess under Linux, with too many programmers trying to write an impressive piece of Code, instead of easy to read.
I've been wondering seriously about upgrading to Vista 64-bit ultimate edition.
I'm on XP Pro right now, and there's not much to dislike. It's fast, secure and very stable and has no compatability issues.
If it's not broken, don't fix it.
I use XP x64 SP2 and never had major problems with drivers, but i have only a small laser printer and an external USB 56k modem (for ADSL emergencies).
I tried Vista 32 and 64bit but they were so bloated and slow compared to XP x64 and offered nothing worth noticing (except problems).
If you care about looks, i recommend you to install something like the Vista Transformation Pack on XP.
As said by ajensen, this version of Windows should be skipped.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
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 post attachments in this forum
