Why You 'Hate' Vista..?!?!

Vista Poll, Answer Now!

  • I 'Hate' Vista and don't use it

    Votes: 29 13.6%

  • I 'Hate' Vista but I still use it

    Votes: 18 8.4%

  • I Don't mind it

    Votes: 70 32.7%

  • I Love it

    Votes: 64 29.9%

  • My cat's breath smells like cat food...

    Votes: 33 15.4%
  • Total voters
    214
tlarkin said:
Yeah just like MS said the minimum for XP was like 256 or something, lol yeah right, try running XP with 256mb of RAM. Your boot time will be 10 minutes, but yeah it will boot:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That was 64mb actual,128mb minimum(recommended) according to MS there. The MS page on this is seen at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865

mep916 said:
Merged into the hate Vista thread.
Click to expand...

Don't mind that a bit since there would be too many threads with the exact same title! :eek: "we can't have that now!" :P
 
Why a little memory is used in the first place by Vista explains another question asked lately about the SuperFetch now seen in Vista superceding the PreFetch seen with XP when that was first introduced there namely a form of memory management that preloads the most commonly used programs into a standby mode seeing them load faster. I remember reading on this when Vista was first being introduced.

Under the same title, SuperFetch, the MS information goes as follows:

"Windows SuperFetch enables programs and files to load much faster than they would on Windows XP–based PCs.

When you're not actively using your computer, background tasks—including automatic backup programs and antivirus scans—run when they will least disturb you. These background tasks can take up system memory space that your programs had been using. On Windows XP–based PCs, this can slow progress to a crawl when you attempt to resume work.

SuperFetch monitors which applications you use the most and preloads these into your system memory so they'll be ready when you need them. Windows Vista also runs background programs, like disk defragmenting and Windows Defender, at low priority so that they can do their job but your work always comes first." http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/features/superfetch.aspx

This is one of the main reasons you even see upto 50% taken up out of a 2gb total.
 
hondro said:
yeah u can use the minimum but if u actually want to be able to move your mouse you'll need 256.
Click to expand...

At least! I had 98SE along with XP running on a build seeing a full 1gb installed at the time. Just before dumping the problem build altogether I brought that to 2gb of memory then moved those dimms to the next build.
 
I hate it but still use it. I, seemingly like everyone else, experience a large amount of RAM (most times 4 of 6 GB) being used when I'm just stilling watching the Performance window. Also it doesn't run my uTorrent or Nero, the two programs that i use most. I also get lots of system freezes requiring manual shut downs.
 
Look to define it all, Vista is a ram hog... But with a decent computer you can run vista perfectly fine. I use it and it works fine for me :D
 
Gooberman said:
Vista only uses 30-50% of My 2 GB of RAM VISTA RULES
Click to expand...

That is because of Vista only uses what it can when it is free. Since you have half the RAM I do, it uses less. Vista uses around 25% of my RAM is is around 1gig. It is constantly caching things out to RAM to make performance better, almost every modern OS does this.
 
This is where the SuperFetch process comes in there as the newer form of memory management. People call it a ram hog or something else but never look at the amount of hardware changes and increased capacities have been seen since 2001 when XP was first released. SP1 had to address the 136gb barrier XP saw with newer larger drives coming out then.

At this point you could say Vista is actually behind not ahead of things explaining why MS plans to dump the 32bit kernel altogether as you look at desktop boards seeing 32gb capacities! Vista a ram hog? Not likely! Already outdated would be a needed correction there.
 
teddy picker said:
I hate it but still use it. I, seemingly like everyone else, experience a large amount of RAM (most times 4 of 6 GB) being used when I'm just stilling watching the Performance window. Also it doesn't run my uTorrent or Nero, the two programs that i use most. I also get lots of system freezes requiring manual shut downs.
Click to expand...

Well, then, your computer's f***ed. Both those programs work perfectly fine in Vista (Gee, is that utorrent in my taskbar?), and come on...4gb of ram being used with nothing open?
 
Last edited:
Good grief! With 4gb in with the 32bit edition of Home Premium the task manager reports some 3.581gb total and over 2.8gb free leaving only some 700mb actually taken up by background services and the few startups like active protections like antivirus and antispyware programs.

4gb out of a 6gb total? suggests something is being misreported in Windows there for teddy picker to start with. Unless you are simply looking at the initial spike seen in the monitor when first opening it up or moving the mouse a little. After a quick peak to the top it then falls back down to the actual point.
 
I don't have a huge problem with Vista. I don't mind it. My main thing is speed. I can't stand to have my system resources wasted, even if I have no intention of using them.

I do enjoy some of the new features in Vista, however. I really enjoy the DVD Maker. I hate having to install 3rd Party Software, because I feel it bogs down my system. Maybe integrated software bogs it down just as much, but it gives the sense that it's been utilized by the operating system more efficiently.

And lastly, it just doesn't 'feel' solid. I can't explain it or give examples of where things have happened. But you can just tell. Things feel more secure and solid in XP.

Just my opinions. :)
 
PC eye said:
Do you have the latest 1.8.1 version on? That sees more support for Vista plus Mac.
Click to expand...

Eh I run 1.6 and never had issues on Vista :D


brycematheson712 said:
I don't have a huge problem with Vista. I don't mind it. My main thing is speed. I can't stand to have my system resources wasted, even if I have no intention of using them.
Click to expand...

You can disable all that if you want.


brycematheson712 said:
Maybe integrated software bogs it down just as much, but it gives the sense that it's been utilized by the operating system more efficiently.
Click to expand...

I don't think either bogs down the system myself...but I think 3rd party programs are better.

brycematheson712 said:
And lastly, it just doesn't 'feel' solid. I can't explain it or give examples of where things have happened. But you can just tell. Things feel more secure and solid in XP.
Click to expand...

I dunno....I remove all the security from both XP and Vista so I feel solid once its all disabled and I installed all my AV-Firewalls and other programs.

I feel Vista did a poor job on a lot of ideas...I think windows 7 will be the way they wanted Vista to be.
 
Last edited:
The next version will be seeing the improvement to Vista's SuperFetch with that replacing XP's own PreFetch type of memory management. The one thing to note here however is that it took Vista's delayed release date and initial disappoint for older systems to see SP3 with over 1,000 fixes come out!

When any new version of Windows has come out before the one main complaint still lingers mainly finding drivers for various things! It took a few years just to see enough for 98 then. By the time XP was first out 98 finally was seeing adequate support. SP2 Beta 2 for Vista is on now without one problem being seen showing that MS has decided to get it in gear a little for Vista before 7 is ready!
 
I don't see how you can love the next version this soon since Windows 7 won't reach the Release Candidate beta stage until June 2009. The final look hasn't even been decided on at this early stage.

There will be some rather different changes seen on the next version giving everyone something to speculate on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top