Help required - internet and the virus known as vista
- Thread starter beesonthewhatnow
- Start date
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Vista closes up some security holes by encrypting and re-encrypting stuff on the way in and out, so a part of it is the sheer number of operations it has to do on the information it's handling. There are also some strong suspicions that DRM has something to do with it - Vista does a lot of checking to make sure it approves of what you're trying to do, and this might account for more hogging of resources. Finally the Windows Search feature seems to cause a lot of problems - like an estimated eleventy million days to copy a file over - and this probably hogs a lot also.
Some have termed Vista "Microsoft's suicide note". Google results for that phrase brings up a few articles that go into more detail.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
It's far simpler to make software work with the hardware rather than knock up some software and have to design hardware so the software works properly.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
At least my trolling was knowing! Come On Taz, that's weaker than my weakest revol-ry!
It's a perfectly good OS with some much highlighted compatability issues.
As a pretty average user (verging on the power user category) I have not had one single problem with Vista, on 4 machines, using it for nearly 18 months. It's crashed thrice due to a driver issue when I upgraded to the SP1 beta, which I resolved in 5 mins by updating the drivers. That's it. I had more crashes from a single XP installation in a month.
It's fast, intuitive, secure, good looking and stable. That's everything I want and need from an OS.
Eh? That's not trollng. I'm just amazed that Vista's such a muffed resource hog, despite MS taking so long and committing so many resources - friends experience of it in audio have been lamentable, everyone returning to XP as fast as they can. It certainly ain't stable or imoproved on that score.
Yes, I know memory's cheap these day, but to come up with such a resource hog suggests inefficient and bloated code.
Yes, I know memory's cheap these day, but to come up with such a resource hog suggests inefficient and bloated code.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Maybe so, but the point is that for many people it's a very good OS. New revisions of Windows always require more resource than their forebears.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Calling it bloatware with audio problems comes across as very troll-like.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Why?
It's hardly an outlandish opinion.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
*sigh*
Fine.. I give up.. Vista is a big pile of shit, it should be laughed at and derided. You'd be a fool to use it and anyone with an ounce of sense should either revert back to XP (which was also universally derided until SP2) or preferably switch to a Mac as they have no problems and revolutionise computing.
Fine.. I give up.. Vista is a big pile of shit, it should be laughed at and derided. You'd be a fool to use it and anyone with an ounce of sense should either revert back to XP (which was also universally derided until SP2) or preferably switch to a Mac as they have no problems and revolutionise computing.
Why? It's an OS with comparatively onerous system requirements for not a whole load more utility from what I can see.
Comparable, if not more advance, OSs (take OSX) for example, aren't nearly as demanding on their systems. Even allowing for the fact that Vista's a newer platform, it feels way less responsive.
Why's it a troll to suggest that? It's hardly as though it's just macheads pinting that out.
stdPikachu
Plughole in bathtub curve
For what it's worth, I had no problems at all with the Vista install that came with my laptop. Played with it for hours at top speed before I got sick of it and proceeded with my original plan of installing Kubuntu on it. Still pop the original HDD in every now and again to see if it's improved any in the last eight months. XP does everything I want from Windows without any of the Vista annoyances.
kained&able
Here for the football.
The reason why vista is such a resourse hog is that a new os isn't coming out next year(i dont care what they say) so the o/s has to look good for computers coming out in 2/3 years time.
Its like crysis. HUUUUUGE reource hog and no machines can play it but when a machine is about that can turn on all the pretiness oh my god wow! Same with vista. I have every bit of flashness turned off now to try and get some more ram for games/rendering.
Next time i upgrade though i am going to love all the window dressing.
dave
Its like crysis. HUUUUUGE reource hog and no machines can play it but when a machine is about that can turn on all the pretiness oh my god wow! Same with vista. I have every bit of flashness turned off now to try and get some more ram for games/rendering.
Next time i upgrade though i am going to love all the window dressing.
dave
WouldBe
Dislicksick
But why not have a less bloated OS and be able to run present and 'faster' games on the system you've already got instead of having to keep upgrading your machine.
kained&able
Here for the football.
it isnt THAT bloated once you turn everything off and make it look shockingly like xp again.
If you have a good system or dont use your puter for anything too taxxing you turn em on and get to go ooooh. If you aint got the system to do it or need the extra power then everything off for now.
chris seeing as you actully like vista! do you know if the 64 bit versions are up to scartch yet? i want more ram!
dave
If you have a good system or dont use your puter for anything too taxxing you turn em on and get to go ooooh. If you aint got the system to do it or need the extra power then everything off for now.
chris seeing as you actully like vista! do you know if the 64 bit versions are up to scartch yet? i want more ram!
dave
WouldBe
Dislicksick
kained&able
Here for the football.
nope. I wouldn't upgrade from xp to vista unless you have a very decent machine. If you gte a new machine or have to reinstall the o/s then might as well ge vista.
Its the equivilnet of having an amazing stereo in the back of a shit old vauxall nova at the moment. A normal puter wont do it justice at the moment like i say uness you don't do a lot with your computer.
Mates got it on his lap top and it looks so danm pretty with everything turned on but i need the power for now!
dave
Its the equivilnet of having an amazing stereo in the back of a shit old vauxall nova at the moment. A normal puter wont do it justice at the moment like i say uness you don't do a lot with your computer.
Mates got it on his lap top and it looks so danm pretty with everything turned on but i need the power for now!
dave
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
Vista caches in memory things you have been using recently. Its called SuperFetch and acts a bit like a intelligent RAM disk. You can turn it off if you want and the 'in use' memory will go down to more respectable levels, applications will not load as fast.
The term bloatware is IMO a discredited and meaningless term. Its used either by Linux heads to slag off windows or by people who lack a solid understanding of computer resources and resource management. Debian Linux, the full install comes on 3 DVD's + some updates. That a vast 12Gb-15Gb of data. Does that make it 'bloatware'?
Its mostly free, open-source programs that do what they set-out to do. They're supplied on disk just in case you don't have a net connection and can be installed/uninstalled with a simple package manager. Rather than pay-for-play monsters with features no-body uses and all blasting out adverts. You'll also find modern Debian distros don't require 2gb on RAM to look good.
Again, Linux is slagged off by windows-heads who lack a solid understanding of it.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
Pish and bollocks. It's one thing to provide a whole load of install options, it's another to make your default installation a hefty beast that feels noticeably less responsive that previous versions of the OS, with far more onerous system requirements.
ExtraRefined
Better than you at everything you love
Mac OS X 10.0 minimum requirements - 233 MHz CPU, 64MB RAM, 1.5GB HDD
Windows XP minimum requirements - 233 MHz CPU, 64 MB RAM, 1.5 GB HDD
Mac OS X 10.5 minimum requirements - 867 MHz CPU, 512 MB of RAM, 9 GB HDD
Windows Vista - 800 MHz CPU, 512 MB RAM, 20 GB HDD
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
IIRC, 512MB RAM is "Vista compatible" - minimum recommended is 1GB RAM and in reality the performance remains sluggish up to 2GB RAM.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
WouldBe
Dislicksick
My PC has 256Mb of memory and runs fine. Mind you it's still running windows 98. But if you need 1Gb of memory to run it's clearly bloatware.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
My PC has 256Mb of memory and runs fine. Mind you it's still running windows 98. But if you need 1Gb of memory to run it's clearly bloatware.
That's just about the most idiotic thing ever posted on this forum
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
Its mostly free, open-source programs that do what they set-out to do. They're supplied on disk just in case you don't have a net connection and can be installed/uninstalled with a simple package manager. Rather than pay-for-play monsters with features no-body uses and all blasting out adverts. You'll also find modern Debian distros don't require 2gb on RAM to look good.
Again, Linux is slagged off by windows-heads who lack a solid understanding of it.
Another Linux head reading a post regarding x and coming to conclusion wibble.
Or : Someone battling yet *more* FUD...
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
Heafty beast? Again meaningless hyperbole, garnered from second hand opinion. You clearly don't use Vista.
I have Vista and its none of the above, I use XP for work and Vista and Ubuntu for home and Ubuntu is the slowest of them all.
Similar threads
