vista slower than xp, even on better computers

[Mateo]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487;_ylt=AifrqrOsKBzyooUZRYBrx2MFLZA5

comments are pretty funny, some at least.

[loserboy]

V for Viruses I for Intrusion S for Spyware T for Trojans A for Adware

haha

[Polygon]

Memory is critical, with 2GB being the sweet spot for Vista.

that is completely unacceptable. What the hell is vista running in the background that requires you to have 2 gigs of memory for it to run smoothly?? 2 Gigs is more then most hardcore gamers have!

[Mega_slayer]

That is ridiculous, when I get my new laptop (which I will run Ubuntu on), I will most likely have a free copy of vista, or vista upgrade. Maybe I should get one of my friends to pay me to "leave" the OS at their house....

[The Noble]

At first, I thought vista was going to use the 2 gig of memory for some crazy swap scheme for really speeding up the system, but now I think it has something to do with the built in indexing. But, still, 2 gig is as much as both my swap partition _and_ my RAM. What the hell are they running, becuase it sure as hell doesn't seem important.

[Choad]

i've used it, and it takes up more than 512 when nothing is running, so really a gig should be sufficient for general needs. 512 is all you need with XP, and that uses up a good hundered by it's self

still, when im running all my usual apps (bittorrent, im, music, browser, maybe burning a dvd, beryl and so on) ubuntu uses just 300 mb... i dont know where they have gone wrong, but they HAVE gone wrong.

vista is the best news linux has had in ages. talk about irony.

[DrainBead]

i've used it, and it takes up more than 512 when nothing is running, so really a gig should be sufficient for general needs. 512 is all you need with XP, and that uses up a good hundered by it's self

still, when im running all my usual apps (bittorrent, im, music, browser, maybe burning a dvd, beryl and so on) ubuntu uses just 300 mb... i dont know where they have gone wrong, but they HAVE gone wrong.

vista is the best news linux has had in ages. talk about irony.

A good OS will pretty much occupy all available memory at all times, cache is a proven strategy and unused memory is wasted memory.

What HAS gone wrong if Ubuntu would only use 300MB while using the system for a while is Ubuntu, but of course it doesn't do that unless you force it and only a nimrod would even consider doing that.

:guitar:

[DrainBead]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/13487;_ylt=AifrqrOsKBzyooUZRYBrx2MFLZA5

comments are pretty funny, some at least.

Vista will perform better than XP on a fast computer, that is pretty much an accepted reality, both will be faster than Ubuntu pretty much all of the time, neither has the potential of an Ubuntu system though.

[Polygon]

the gnome system monitor counts the amount of ram being used by applications, not cache. Using the system monitor applets and enabling the RAM one, i see that most of my ram is taken up by cache (especially when using bittorent)

and XP takes up 300 megs of memory on a first boot, how do people get it down so low? =/

[TheOtherLinuxFreak]

haha
lol

[DrainBead]

the gnome system monitor counts the amount of ram being used by applications, not cache. Using the system monitor applets and enabling the RAM one, i see that most of my ram is taken up by cache (especially when using bittorent)

and XP takes up 300 megs of memory on a first boot, how do people get it down so low? =/

XP does not take up 300 megs of application memory on first boot, if it did it would be impossible to run it on any less, yet you can run XP on 64MB.

What it takes up is cache, and cache should fill our memory to the limit if it's a good daemon because the more it uses, the faster your system will run, Win does use preload in cache if the memory is there, that is a good thing. (KDE uses the same technique which is why, even though it usually has a larger memory footprint even applicationwise, it is faster than Gnome.

[DrainBead]

That is ridiculous, when I get my new laptop (which I will run Ubuntu on), I will most likely have a free copy of vista, or vista upgrade. Maybe I should get one of my friends to pay me to "leave" the OS at their house....

Only if you intend to leave your laptop there, OEM versions will not validate on any other machine than it was sold with.

Even if it did it would be illegal.

[liljoe76]

funny, i just listened to these podcasts today. this is why vista is bloated and sloooooow, blub blub blub....
http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm
episodes 73, 74, 75
good stuff

[tikal26]

Yeah I noticed that plus if you run XP you will notice that IE7 is slower than anythign outthere and I am not the only one that feels this way.

[MkfIbK7a]

lol

hehe looks like that is causing some discontent among windows users:D

maybe they will get linux...

[loserboy]

Yeah I noticed that plus if you run XP you will notice that IE7 is slower than anythign outthere and I am not the only one that feels this way.


i hate to be the guy that takes part in the next "lets make fun of MS products" but heres a little story

We have a family owned business and my dad's office is next to mine, i run dapper of course, but he still has xp on his comp cuz of our printer system, anyway I always hear him yelling at me about his comp wanting to update and I always tell him which ones to do and which not to do, finally he just ran all of them and part of it was IE7 before i could rip the keyboard out of his hands he had it installed and now he cries to me everyday about how it killed any speed he had left....its a shame they will allow you to install it on an already underpowered comp without warning.

well i thought it was funny and i'm not gonna fix it cuz im mad at him lol

[PatrickMay16]

What HAS gone wrong if Ubuntu would only use 300MB while using the system for a while is Ubuntu, but of course it doesn't do that unless you force it and only a nimrod would even consider doing that.

:guitar:

Obviously they meant the usage of the memory, ignoring the memory used for buffers/cache. Like you see in the output of the free command:



-/+ buffers/cache: 224 1295

[Josh1]

that is completely unacceptable. What the hell is vista running in the background that requires you to have 2 gigs of memory for it to run smoothly?? 2 Gigs is more then most hardcore gamers have!

directx, like running a game 24/7

[RAV TUX]

moving to the windows forum

[FuturePilot]

that is completely unacceptable. What the hell is vista running in the background that requires you to have 2 gigs of memory for it to run smoothly?? 2 Gigs is more then most hardcore gamers have!
I have 2 GB of RAM in my desktop and I'm not exactly a hardcore gamer. With Windows there comes a point where you could add more RAM until your computer blows up and it won't make a difference. After a while XP just gets slower and slower with the more programs you install. I'd hate to know what Vista will do over time. Vista is just XP but like 1000x more bloated. But 2GB RAM with Ubuntu. Whoa! does it fly:biggrin:

[Kateikyoushi]

that is completely unacceptable. What the hell is vista running in the background that requires you to have 2 gigs of memory for it to run smoothly?? 2 Gigs is more then most hardcore gamers have!

After I disabled some unnecessary services like caching, indexing, etc. it ran relatively fine on my smaller notebook, of course XP was faster so it is not that bad, as long as you run the free beta version.
Does not worth 200USD.
2 days ago there was an hour long show about the new features of vista on TV, and I already saw it in 7-11, not the first palce I would run for a software but might be good if you get bored just pick up one and brign the system to it's knees. :confused:

[randomnumber]

I liked how one of the comments that was for vista was saying it is tens times as stable and more secure. Maybe it is, but I really doubt this comment had done any testing to support his comment.

I think it is funny that somehow he said it was 10 times more stable. Consider how long he could have had vista installed to see how stable it was. His xp install must have been really unstable. I doubt he actually left his computer on for any length of time. Linux machines can be left on for years at a time without rebooting.

As far as the security, I doubt that has been tested and if it has it probably failed. I think vista is going to need security software to keep ms spy ware etc off your machine.

[xhaan]

Computers are strange to me anyways... I think computers in general are just getting too bloated, no matter what the operating system.

I currently have two machines,
one is 2.2ghz with 512mb ram, dual booting Ubuntu and XP
and the other is a 200mhz with 64mb ram with Win98

The newer 2.2ghz boots only marginally faster than the 200mhz, and basic programs such as browsers, email, file manager etc. run at about the same speed or even slower on the 2.2ghz than they do on the 200mhz, and this is in Ubuntu also, not just XP.

So has my new email client really gained so many features that it still runs the same as it's ancestors on a machine that's like ten times more powerful?

I think not...

[mysticrider92]

you guys really talk without even testing the OS. Well i could truely said that this OS is ten times more stable then XP and also more secure. That beacuese i had it since January 1st.It also has lot's and lot's feature never seen before: the one i like the most that you can use flash drives as Ram boost. Also not only the that interfarce Aero is wicked nice looking.
I find this funny. It is more secure because the end user has no control over it, and more stable for the same reason. You can use flash drives as a ram boost. You wouldn't need to do that if the os really was better. The Aero interface is Beryl with no user control, and massively bloated. Sorry if that sounds rude, but I think M$ is losing it. It was interesting to see the large number of comments about Linux being so much better.

[erlyrisa]

Alot of Vista's Software , ie WPF,WCF and the such are running ontop of .net3

-Vista's software is in effect written for the Virtual Machine - which always has been a slower way of doing things eg. Java.

-Vista will have advanced backgroud services that work on NGENing .net components to aid in speed and memory saving while the app is running. - a good example of a really slow peice of software is Microsofts Accouting - programed entirely as .net - it is slow as! -but with ram and processor power should be just as fast (if not faster) than a similar compiled program on the same machine.

The only thing is - they designed everything for the computers of the future....

minimum requirements.... dual core (But the cell processor will be the next big thing anyway - stackable behind Intel dual cores) plenty of ram - 2gig will be nothing in two years time 1gig is already becoming a standard requirement of off the shelf PC's, GPU's will be amazingly advanced and will probably illicit dualcore tech or cell processor tech. Solid State memory will (and already has) drop in price expect to see decagigabyte usb keys.

So in effect just like XP required that you buy something half decent, Vista will again push the PC manufacturers to drop prices for the best technology.

[whitefort]

I've just been reading an article in this month's Linux Magazine, where they point out that:

"Vista has a modified version of the protocol SMB 2,0, which is currently supported by the latest Windows operating systems only. For this reason, Windows Vista automatically downgrades to SMB 1.0 if the requesting operating system is not compatible - or so Microsoft says.

"As our test revealed, this generosity does not extend to Linux at present. It is not possible to open Vista shares using a Linux client."

Apparently it works OK with other operating systems. Just not Linux. Sheesh. You'd almost think Microsoft doesn't LIKE Linux, or something...

[cunawarit]

Yeah I noticed that plus if you run XP you will notice that IE7 is slower than anythign outthere and I am not the only one that feels this way.

Slower than other browsers? I haven't noticed that at all, if anything it is pretty darn fast. The only time I have noticed that Firefox beats IE7 in terms of speed is when using Zen based themes with Rainbow Portal, IE7 is much much much much MUCH better than IE6 at this, but still slower than Firefox. I haven't looked into the themes deep enough to find why this is so.