Windows Vista Has Just 30 Days to Live

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Mar 14, 2017.

  1. DocSavage

    DocSavage 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,409
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    Like other people said, a lot of systems were sold with sub-par specs and Vista at release had some sort of bug that would destroy filesystem speeds. I remember it taking over an hour to copy someone's word documents from the old hard drive to their new Vista machine. It was maddening.
     
  2. exiled350

    exiled350 [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,029
    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2013
    I've been thinking about digging out some old hardware and spinning up an install of longhorn M4 for nostalgia sake... This may be a good enough reason.
     
  3. vegeta535

    vegeta535 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,957
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2013
    People still claim Vista was a memory hog. I never had a issues with Vista. It was a great upgrade from XP. I had mostly a modern pc at that time so I didn't feel the growing pains much.
     
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2017
  4. TheSmJ

    TheSmJ 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,694
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    It's funny because the memory management system is the same in every Microsoft OS since Vista. Linux/Unix kernels were using such a system years earlier and that was one of the reasons people liked it. Unused RAM is wasted RAM!
     
    vegeta535 likes this.
  5. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,739
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Vista needed more ram for its basic functions.
    There was less left for programs.
     
  6. TheSmJ

    TheSmJ 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,694
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Have a source on that?
     
  7. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,739
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    Yes, me.
    The internet is a fair backup.
     
  8. TheSmJ

    TheSmJ 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,694
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
  9. Nenu

    Nenu [H]ardened

    Messages:
    18,739
    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2007
    You would think you would actually research the problem.
    The memory management system wasnt the main problem, its the amount of free memory left over after the system had finished taking what it needs.
    And remember that it caches data on the hard drive.
    So when you needed to use what was in the cache and memory was already full, it would start thrashing.
    This was common on systems with less than 2GB ram.

    Even when memory wasnt full it could still take a while to respond because hard drives were so slow.
     
  10. TheSmJ

    TheSmJ 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,694
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006

    Have a source to back up these facts?
     
  11. DocSavage

    DocSavage 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,409
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2002
    I don't know about the ram management claims, but Wikipedia mentions this about Vista service pack 1:

    A white paper, published by Microsoft on 29 August 2007, outlined the scope and intent of the service pack, identifying three major areas of improvement: reliability and performance, administration experience, and support for newer hardware and standards.[129]

    One area of particular note is performance. Areas of improvement include file copy operations, hibernation, logging off on domain-joined machines, JavaScript parsing in Internet Explorer, network file share browsing,[126] Windows Explorer ZIP file handling,[130] and Windows Disk Defragmenter.[131] The ability to choose individual drives to defragment is being reintroduced as well.[126]
     
  12. TheSmJ

    TheSmJ 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,694
    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    What does any of this have to do with what I said about RAM management?