Vista uses 800MB of memory WHILE IDLE????

s10010001

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 17, 2002
Messages
7,503
MaXimus666 said:
what about the fact that I have an intergrated video chipset and I only have 1 GB RAM? so i'm left out with only 200 MB to play with and then there goes the slow virtual memory :(

Id say you have to upgrade to enjoy new stuff... your crazy for thinking the world is going to wait for you.
 

mikeblas

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2006
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
12,776
PopeKevinI said:
I just recently made the switch to 2 GB and can tell you that it's only observable during heavy multitasking or running the most demanding games.
I don't think you meant to say "only" here. There are many applications which will be improved with 2 gigs of physical memory, not just "heavy multitasking" (whatever that actually is) or the more aggresive games. Maybe those are the only things you tested, or the only times you noticed it, but there's plenty of memory-hungry applications in use today.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,898
Vette5885 said:
You keep saying force. I don't understand where this force is coming from. I know people who are still running P3's and Win98 (as many other posters have mentioned above)

What do you do when WinXP is too big? Turn off they toys, or use Win2K. Its simple. If Vista is too big for you, then don't run it. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade. Only have 512MB of memory? Then stick with XP and be merry.

I think the real problem here is that people don't know how to read. If you read all of the posts in this topic, then you will realize that this topic has been settled. Vista is BETA, so it isn't fully optimized (Hell, we're running beta drivers too, so that even more potential for memory waste). Vista is scalable, so you can turn off Glass and wireless and stuff like that (Same with XP, as many turned off the advanced themes to save a whopping 8MB of memory, something that is laughed about today. Eventually that 200MB of memory difference (Thanks PXC) will be minimal too). Vista is a product, you can purchase it if you would like, but you don't have to. If you buy a new computer, and it comes with Vista (oh no!) then it will be fast enough to run it (otherwise it will come with XP).

The only acceptable points posted recently are the built-in upgrade path (i.e. one CD with all versions on it). Ok, fine, you may see that as an in-your face advertisement, but last time I checked, MS is a company that is trying to make money. What would you do? Or even better, if you have a better idea, then make your own operating system.

Actually, I think you're the one that doesn't know how to read or to understand a point.A new OS should be something revolutionary and new. Win 3.1 to 95 was that; 95 to 98 (or ME) wasn't. 9x to 2k was revolutionary; 2k to XP and XP to Vista is not. Why release a "new" OS that is generally nothing more than some addons, fixes, tweaks, new problems and a lot of bloat? Everything that could have made Vista revolutionary was taken out. At this point, the extra system resources it's using is unecesary.

From what I have heard, just about everything new or changed with Vista could have been done with upgrades to XP. Wouldn't it be nice to have an OS that was fixed and made better on the same hardware with little to no resource expansions? That's the crux of the matter. It seems most of the pro-Vista people want it because it's new. Most of the people that aren't gung ho about it are people that see that most if not all the functionality could easily be added to XP. It's a forced product cycle. This is also one of the few industires that goes with a model like this. Other industries have found upgrades, fixes and tweaks are more cost effective and better for the consumer in the long run. What kind of reliability would you get out of automobiles if they followed this same type of business model? You wouldn't have much reliability at all since as soon as the bugs seem to be worked out for the vehicle, the manufacturer drops it and comes out with a redesign with all new bugs. Instead, they incorporate changes into the old design slowly but surely improving the vehicle over time. Yes, there are leaps and drastic changes with models of vehicles, but they don't come very often and the new ones always have a host of problems that have to be worked out.

 

agent420

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 6, 2001
Messages
1,388
MaXimus666 said:
what about the fact that I have an intergrated video chipset and I only have 1 GB RAM? so i'm left out with only 200 MB to play with and then there goes the slow virtual memory :(
I'd say forget about Vista on that system.

I'm test driving 5308 on a Dell 1150 (P4 2.8, 1gb, integrated gfx) and even with eye-candy settings lowered, performance is mediocre at best and anything graphic related, like viewing photos or slideshows is horrible. I'm sure some performance tweaks will be done before the final release, but if 5308 is any indication, you're still going to need more horsepower to get an enjoyable user experience.
 

PopeKevinI

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,880
mikeblas said:
I don't think you meant to say "only" here. There are many applications which will be improved with 2 gigs of physical memory, not just "heavy multitasking" (whatever that actually is) or the more aggresive games. Maybe those are the only things you tested, or the only times you noticed it, but there's plenty of memory-hungry applications in use today.

Okay, yes you can see some minor performance improvements running multimedia apps on certain RAM-intensive operations, but for the most part you're not going to push 2 GB of memory without running at least a half-dozen apps with at least two of them being demanding.

I'm talking about normal home and business use here, not applications you generally see on expensive workstations.
 

eeyrjmr

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Apr 23, 2002
Messages
4,363
Then turn all that extta stuff off and 1Gig will be more then enough.

Oh btw my Linux distro now using Xorg7 and Xgl and the RAM/CPU usage has only gone up a tiny bit. I dont understand why MS needs soo much resource (not this 800meg...) to do stuff that Xgl does (it does even more and is better!!!)
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,962
SmokeRngs said:
........................ What kind of reliability would you get out of automobiles if they followed this same type of business model? You wouldn't have much reliability at all since as soon as the bugs seem to be worked out for the vehicle, the manufacturer drops it and comes out with a redesign with all new bugs. Instead, they incorporate changes into the old design slowly but surely improving the vehicle over time. Yes, there are leaps and drastic changes with models of vehicles, but they don't come very often and the new ones always have a host of problems that have to be worked out.


Umm, as far as i have seen, new models of same cars come out every year, or 2 ?? not, hey take your car into the shop to get the extra 20HP in the new model out next year ?

The company comes out with a" brand new" car which you have to pay for to get the new features and add-ons...... you dont take your car into the dealship and get those new toys added on for free or cheap..... Sure it may be based off last years model,but it has new features and options to make it appealing for people to say "Hey, i want this new model" - MS is doing the same thing - they provide updates and patches for years after the release and finally just say we are putting out a new model.

People seem to think Vista is only XP with new things - Vista, as said before, has been built from the ground up - not just a copied kernal with a new GUI.
 

mikeblas

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2006
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
12,776
PopeKevinI said:
I'm talking about normal home and business use here, not applications you generally see on expensive workstations.
That's a far more approriate limiter than "only".
 

pxc

Extremely [H]
Joined
Oct 22, 2000
Messages
33,064
MaXimus666 said:
what about the fact that I have an intergrated video chipset and I only have 1 GB RAM? so i'm left out with only 200 MB to play with and then there goes the slow virtual memory :(
Look at my screenshot above. With my 1GB laptop using integrated graphics, over 500MB memory is available with a couple of apps opened in Vista. And also like I described above, unused portions of the OS and other apps are paged to disk while gaming. The file cache also grows or shrinks.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,962
pxc said:
Look at my screenshot above. With my 1GB laptop using integrated graphics, over 500MB memory is available with a couple of apps opened in Vista. And also like I described above, unused portions of the OS and other apps are paged to disk while gaming. The file cache also grows or shrinks.


Dido, i had installed 5308 in a toshiba m100 - duo core 1.6ghz / 1g of ram/ integrated intel and it ran fine on default settings @ 1280 x 768 native lcd res on a 14" screen.
 

Sabrewulf165

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
2,974
Phoenix86 said:
I don't understand this line of thinking.

If you have the RAM, use it. If you want to "save" the RAM for applications, scale down the options in the OS, but really paging will take care of this for you.

Think of the Vista desktop like a game with regard to settings and resources.

Do you enable all the options in a game on a sub-par system? No.
If a game uses 800MB memory, and you have 1-2GB, do you scale down the game? No.
When you "pan around" in a game, does it use more resources? Yes.

My operating system is not a game, nor do I want it to be.
 

MrGuvernment

Fully [H]
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
20,962
Sabrewulf165 said:
My operating system is not a game, nor do I want it to be.


So all that money you put into a high end system (if one has one of course), - you would rather sit their doing nothing while you look at your desktop ?

i would prefer knowing my $600 video card is getting some work out and not just lazing around if it makes my daily usage of my computer that much more enjoyable.
 

DeepFreeze

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 18, 2001
Messages
1,699
M11 said:
I still have yet to see one reason why anybody needs Vista. As of right now, XP, and even 2000, are more than sufficient in terms of operating system functionality at allowing most users to do everything they need.


There is a reason why GNU/Linux doesn't follow a 2-5 year release cycle, jam-packed with "new" features. In terms of groundbreaking new functionality, OSes simply aren't going to deliver in the future. Functionality growth will come as a result of innovative applications, and those applications merely need a stable, lightweight OS to run under. Vista is not lightweight by any stretch of the imagination, and is only going to sell because it is the "latest and greatest"

Do understand that OS release cycles are the invention of commercial vendors who need a constant revenue stream; OS innovation is not released in periodic cycles, but is developed constantly as needed by applications. Don't think for a minute that Vista is going to be doing you any favors. Even the eye candy and other bells and whistles are currently implementable through any number of third-party programs. WinFS is dead for now, and was perhaps the only redeeming feature of a future Vista release.

Fretting and worrying about Vista's failures is a waste of time - you're not going to have to upgrade for a long, long time, and by then, OSS alternatives will likely have eclipsed Windows anyway, and will be offering full binary compatibility. Microsoft cannot force you to upgrade, so why make yourself unhappy in watching this "inevitable" piece of bad code come to market? :p

With that said, I still refuse to stand behind this article, as it is jam-packed with FUD and baseless assumptions.

(this is coming from someone who has followed Vista closely, and has likely been using Longhorn for longer than anyone else on this forum)
this man speaks the truth.
why are so many commercials stupid? because 51% of the US population has an IQ below 100 on a scale of 0-180.

the general population of society is stupid or halfwitted.
why else spend the money for a memory hogging OS which makes you BUY MORE RAM and more hard disk space, TO RUN the program/OS in the first place?

stupidity. we dont need Vista period right now.

keep what you have. enjoy it. if anything, MAKE Micro$oft IMPROVE XP
 

beanman101283

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
3,051
Microsoft is out to make money, so they have to create a new version in order to bring in new money. SP2 for XP was a pretty hefty update to XP, and we got it for free.

Remember, most of us here build our own computers and obviously install our own operating systems. We have a much better idea of what Windows XP is and isn't capable of than the average consumer. The vast majority of home users do not upgrade their operating systems. They don't even know what an operating system is. If they get a new computer with an updated OS, then they will use Vista (or whatever is out at the time).

Personally, i'm looking forward to the BitLocker feature, built in collaboration tool, the new user interface (yes, i like eye candy), the new driver model that will hopefully reduce crashes, and many of the other features listed in that article Phoenix86 linked.
 

Phoenix86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
6,653
Sabrewulf165 said:
My operating system is not a game, nor do I want it to be.
How witty. :rolleyes:

I mean, really, you got me there.








No, really.

If you care to make a point do so, all I'm reading is "blah-blah-blah".
 

PopeKevinI

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,880
DeepFreeze said:
this man speaks the truth.
why are so many commercials stupid? because 51% of the US population has an IQ below 100 on a scale of 0-180.

the general population of society is stupid or halfwitted.
why else spend the money for a memory hogging OS which makes you BUY MORE RAM and more hard disk space, TO RUN the program/OS in the first place?

Are you aware that most people don't upgrade their OS? Vista will primarily be sold with OEM systems and to corporate customers; dirt-cheap computers have virtually guaranteed that the vast majority of consumers will not want to spend $100+ on an "upgrade" when five times that gets them the new OS and new hardware to go with it...not to mention that all-important warranty.

The fact of the matter is, you and I are in a small minority. I still regularly see people using Windows 98 because they don't want to spend the money to upgrade and run XP. Several of them took my advice to move to XP for security reasons...none of them bought upgrades, they just replaced their computers.

DeepFreeze said:
stupidity. we dont need Vista period right now.

keep what you have. enjoy it. if anything, MAKE Micro$oft IMPROVE XP

XP has at least five more years of extended support before it goes away. We'll probably see a third service pack a year or so after Vista is released that will give XP users whatever patches are needed to keep pace with Vista. MS doesn't typically hang you out to dry just because you don't buy the newest OS. They were patching Win98 well after XP was released, and 2000 still has three or four years left before its end of life.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,898
StalkerZER0 said:
Ya, like thats going to happen. :rolleyes: :(

And don't you see that as the underlying problem? MS will not spend it's very capable and massive resources into fixing something they already have out. They rush products out the door with a lot of issues they know about. Many times they don't fix issues from the previous OS and so you have those along with all the new issues they have managed to create.

Their main objective is to add bloat and "features" which in some cases have a negative impact on the OS. There isn't a need to make a resource hog like Vista. Most people say turn off the eye candy in Vista. I will already do that since I have no use for a fancy display. Yet, that will not drop the resource level down to what XP is. Hell, XP was a resource hog compared to 2k.

MS needs to refine, optimize and fix their OSes before they are relased. Not wait until they are about finished with the next OS before they get a lot of the bugs worked out.

Remember, bigger isn't always better and most people prefer quality over quantity. About the only thing MS has done recently is add quantity.

 

beanman101283

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
3,051
SmokeRngs said:
About the only thing MS has done recently is add quantity.

I have a really hard time agreeing with that when it's been 5 years since XP came out, the longest they've taken between OS releases. Remember they stopped Vista's development to get SP2 out the door. I have a feeling that if you talked to the developers they would take issue with the charge that MS is only out to add more bloat. I'm willing to bet they actually care about what they are doing and aren't just out to add bloat.

Since this thread was originally about performance, one thing i'm happy to see is that the speed of the Remove Programs windows has finally been improved.. no more waiting interminably while the list was populated.
 

Phoenix86

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 28, 2002
Messages
6,653
PopeKevinI said:
Are you aware that most people don't upgrade their OS?

Don't forget Vista supports upgrading between versions. Click me.

Pretty swank feature for those of us who will need it. :)
 

AMV

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 16, 2004
Messages
154
just think of the poor sods buying up the Dell machines with 256 Mb ram and 80Gb hdds, I am sure they will love paging 500+ mb back and forth just for the operating system, nevermind all the spyware they start getting hit with.
 

boredguyatcomp

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2005
Messages
448
Ive run Vista on a laptop with 512 mb of ram before. It ran smoothly also so 800mb cant be right (this was 32bit vista)
 

Autopia

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
246
A key improvement to the root file system and memory management of Vista is a technology called SuperFetch. SuperFetch learns which applications and bits and pieces of the OS you use most and preloads them into memory, so you don't have to wait for a bunch of hard drive paging before your apps or documents load. Microsoft has developed a pretty sophisticated prioritization scheme that can even differentiate which applications you are most likely to use at different times (on the weekend vs. during the week, or late at night vs. in the middle of the afternoon).

The scheme is also smart enough to make sure background tasks like virus scanners don't get priority over the foreground tasks you're working on. In fact, the whole I/O system now has a priority structure not that different from services, so your computer shouldn't bog down when some peer-to-peer file trading program has to do a hash check on a big file or something. SuperFetch also takes advantage of external memory devices—plug in that spare 256MB USB key (any size will work, really) and Windows can cache a lot of the working set to it. It's not as fast as your system RAM, but it's much faster than randomly grabbing small bits of data from all over your hard drive.

I came across this, man there is enough stuff running in the back ground on Xp now, why have Vista put more.
 

M11

Does Not Follow Instructions.
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,336
beanman101283 said:
I have a really hard time agreeing with that when it's been 5 years since XP came out, the longest they've taken between OS releases. Remember they stopped Vista's development to get SP2 out the door. I have a feeling that if you talked to the developers they would take issue with the charge that MS is only out to add more bloat. I'm willing to bet they actually care about what they are doing and aren't just out to add bloat.

Since this thread was originally about performance, one thing i'm happy to see is that the speed of the Remove Programs windows has finally been improved.. no more waiting interminably while the list was populated.
The gap between XP's release and Vista's release is merely a result of necessity. The early Longhorn builds were resource intensive, and as development progressed, the OS kept consuming more and more resources. Longhorn/Vista kept being pushed back not only because of development woes, but also because of resource considerations. Microsoft has to appeal to the least common denominator, at least in theory, and at the time that development concepts were being tossed back and forth, the vast majority of existing systems and upcoming systems simply couldn't handle the bloated OS adequately, let alone everything that was to be piled on top of it. Releases had to be postponed while hardware prices fell enough for the average person not to be completely turned off by their next OS release.

Seeing as Microsoft has millions of people worldwide locked into their software, they'd take advantage of a fast release cycle if they could - Microsoft's Office and groupware products are evidence of this. In their defense, though, their productivity apps have seen major improvements between releases, most notably to networking (not the TCP/IP kind) and collaborative features.
 

M11

Does Not Follow Instructions.
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,336
beanman101283 said:
Microsoft is out to make money, so they have to create a new version in order to bring in new money. SP2 for XP was a pretty hefty update to XP, and we got it for free.
Yep, and we were lucky to even get SP2, for that matter.

SP2 was released mainly to combat the massive amount of malware that was running rampant months before its release. If Microsoft had not begun to address security concerns, they would have lost an immense amount of marketshare among the non-idiots and corporate customers, many of whom would have used the steady stream of worms as an excuse to bite the bullet and switch to Mac/Linux.

Microsoft certainly may not make the best product or take the best care of its customers, but there is a breaking point at which people will decide enough is enough.
 

M11

Does Not Follow Instructions.
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
2,336
I'm just curious: how many of you with an opinion on the matter, one way or the other, have actually run a current version of Vista, or any appreciable quantity of its development builds?


I'm all for intelligent discussion of the issue, but if your only source is hype-laden reviews, and other things from Microsoft's PR department, then you should probably reserve judgement until you actually have run Vista, or have witnessed extensive consumer use of Vista. Remember, Vista is not available for purchase by critics, only "evaluation" by those willing to abide my Microsoft's no-criticism policy.

Most beta/development versions prohibit the publishing of unauthorized reviews.
 

mikeblas

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - May 2006
Joined
Jun 26, 2004
Messages
12,776
Autopia said:
I came across this, man there is enough stuff running in the back ground on Xp now, why have Vista put more.
I'm not sure you undrestand how threads and processes work. If there's no work to do, tasks that are loaded can block and take zero CPU resources, at all, until they actually have something to do. As such, they have little impact on performance profile of the system.
 

Vette5885

Gawd
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Messages
629
M11 said:
I'm just curious: how many of you with an opinion on the matter, one way or the other, have actually run a current version of Vista, or any appreciable quantity of its development builds?
I've run Feb06 5308, both 32-bit and 64-bit; Dec 5270 32-bit for a little bit, and the previous (forgot the month) 5231 64-bit. I've been testing my .NET apps (written for work) on them, looking for performance differences as well as any potential problems. I'm also trying out the betas to weigh in on whether to buy XP x64 or wait for Vista x64. I've even just downloaded the 130 day XP64 demo for comparison.

Expreience with Windows in general: I've used evey MS OS dating back to the (in)famous Windows 3.1.
 

PopeKevinI

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Messages
2,880
Autopia said:
I came across this, man there is enough stuff running in the back ground on Xp now, why have Vista put more.

Maybe I missed something, but didn't everything you just posted indicate that Microsoft is implementing a better way of handling application launches and process management?

In other words: if that is correct, shouldn't Vista actually imporve performance due to better handling of resources?
 

beanman101283

2[H]4U
Joined
Nov 4, 2004
Messages
3,051
I've been running the 32bit Feb CTP for a couple weeks now at work. I've been unable to get the 64 bit version installed at home.
 
Top