Thanks; Toshiba Oem PC are a litle tricky cause it's hard to know what to remove,they put all kinda stuff in it , advirtizing software, one time i did remove some stuff that i did never use and the Computer just did not work right, i had to do a repair.
What's so bad about Windows Vista?
- Thread starter Calin
- Start date
Thanks; Toshiba Oem PC are a litle tricky cause it's hard to know what to remove,they put all kinda stuff in it , advirtizing software, one time i did remove some stuff that i did never use and the Computer just did not work right, i had to do a repair.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
It took 2 seconds because the evidence is so numerous.
High guys; let me throw some thought to this discussion;
i think Vista runs Better on a low resources harware then Win7 and Win8,if i put win 7 or 8 in my toshiba Satellite 355 it would run slower then Vista for sure,so each machine has to have the right OPS for it's hardware resources.
i think Vista runs Better on a low resources harware then Win7 and Win8,if i put win 7 or 8 in my toshiba Satellite 355 it would run slower then Vista for sure,so each machine has to have the right OPS for it's hardware resources.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
You think? It might? No. Windows 7 has a far lower resource footprint than Vista.
S.T.A.R.S.
banned
I have to agree with you on this one.
I'm not contradicting you on win7 cause i've never run it! but i would assume only!and i'm not gonna try cause ain't paying any money for win7,i have linux (ubuntu ISO cd free), right to be installed and i'm sure it will run a lot better then win7
Last edited:
DMGrier
VIP Member
Windows 7 is lower in resource compared to Vista, just not enough to justify upgrading the OS. If someone wanted to spend the money in a upgrade I would recommend upgrading the RAM or to a SSD as this would yield far better performance increase then a OS upgrade.
Yes any Linux distro is far less in resources and faster then any version of Windows, but depending on a persons needs or passion for open source it is not always the best solution. For most of us it is a good option but if you got someone who wants to play the latest PC games and needs to have certain game titles or even a need for certain proprietary software to run natively Windows is a better option.
(someone who wants to play the latest PC games)
That doesn't apply to me, since i hate games,so i'm set.
DMGrier
VIP Member
As I said Linux is good for most of us, but for some not. Never called you out directly on that one.
okedokey, don't know how you figure Linux double commits ram? All my 64 Bit Linux boxes use between 400 MB to 600 MB of RAM and I am rarely able to get above 3 GB of RAM with a VM in use among many other things. My Windows notebook I easily get above 4GB no problem running many of the same task. Actually I have only seen low memory messages on Windows never on any of my Linux boxes. But this is coming from the guy who also said the Linux Kernel and the Mach Kernel are the same. I run both Linux and Windows, I am not in denial on which one is uses less resources, multitask better and more secure. I only use Windows for my proprietary needs and that is it.
Okedokey
Well-Known Member
Hahah you sprout crap from years ago..
Windows 8.1 is faster than any other OS right now, and linux distros have always over committed ram... fact... and that fact has always been misused by linux freaks to say that linux uses less resources... fail
Windows 8.1 is faster than any other OS right now, and linux distros have always over committed ram... fact... and that fact has always been misused by linux freaks to say that linux uses less resources... fail
http://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-9.html
DMGrier
VIP Member
That crap was from sometime last year, not years ago. I found articles on the over commiting of ram, all very old. All I am saying none of my Linux boxes have ever ran out of RAM so whatever is taking place sure is doing better then Windows, Fact. Further more where is your fact on Windows 8.1 being faster? With Vista you quickly put bench mark scores to prove a point but you will not find on Windows vs Linux. Please grace me with some real information of Windows 8.1 being faster then Linux other then start up and shut down times as any person worth their salt knows that is a unfair comparison due to the fact Linux does a complete shut down and Windows 8.x does not as it uses a hybrid shutdown. The only area I have found Windows to prefrom better which I already gave it credit for being better at is gaming but that is more of an argument of better graphic drivers due to having a larger community of gamers.
Actually what I am curious to and maybe you can answer is why does Windows use crappy NTFS? A file system which requires the user to maintain the file system otherwise it will get all fragmented. Would it be possible for Windows to use something like ext4 or btrfs which is a maintenance free file system? I know they would not use those but come on when will they realize NTFS is completely crap?
All I am saying is that from what I have read and personal experience Linux blows the doors off Windows. Under Linux it never slows as I open more and more applications, I have never ran out of resources, I never have to do maintenance, I am provided with a fast and secure way of downloading application, I only have to reboot after updates if the kernel was updated and finally I just put in a Ubuntu disc and checked on this brand new Lenovo in my specs is 100% compatiable which means I could do a install right now in under 45 minutes including all my updates. Couldn't even come close to that on Windows with needing all my drivers installed and how Windows has to install updates in series as it could not handle a mass update as it would probably break Windows. Plus lets not even start to talk about good old Windows BSOD's.
Actually what I am curious to and maybe you can answer is why does Windows use crappy NTFS? A file system which requires the user to maintain the file system otherwise it will get all fragmented. Would it be possible for Windows to use something like ext4 or btrfs which is a maintenance free file system? I know they would not use those but come on when will they realize NTFS is completely crap?
All I am saying is that from what I have read and personal experience Linux blows the doors off Windows. Under Linux it never slows as I open more and more applications, I have never ran out of resources, I never have to do maintenance, I am provided with a fast and secure way of downloading application, I only have to reboot after updates if the kernel was updated and finally I just put in a Ubuntu disc and checked on this brand new Lenovo in my specs is 100% compatiable which means I could do a install right now in under 45 minutes including all my updates. Couldn't even come close to that on Windows with needing all my drivers installed and how Windows has to install updates in series as it could not handle a mass update as it would probably break Windows. Plus lets not even start to talk about good old Windows BSOD's.
Last edited:
TrainTrackHack
VIP Member
The overcommit behaviour is a total red herring as far as resource usage comparison goes, both Windows and Linux report the amount of memory actually used, not the amount of memory charged. Of course, you can just turn it off anyway; I've done it and it shows *absolutely no difference* in reported memory usage.
DMGrier
VIP Member
okedokey, So I just read the article you posted in depth and my question is did you actually read it completely or stopped where you found it necessary? The over commit not being done properly started in Linux Kernel 2.1 but as of 2.5 according the article you posted is "Very Satisfactory" meaning it is now working as a benefit. Plus I would like to point out as you probably don't know that we are on Linux Kernel 3.10 - 3.12 depending on your Linux distibution which means these articles are highly out of date. This would be like hitting you with security problems from XP even though they are not a concern today. Lets just agree that that Windows is a great platform but lacks in speed,stability and security over most open source projects which includes more then just Linux and good sir that is a fact.
S.T.A.R.S.
banned
I agree with the file system fragmentation happening.I kinda always hated that in NTFS.
I sometimes loose too much unneccessary time to maintain the file system in order to keep it fragmentation free.
So yea lol...it would be good if Microsoft makes a new file system which does not require maintenance.
I guess this is one of the reasons why so many people use Linux and their file systems...
I am not saying NTFS is bad.I like it too.I use it after all lol.
On the other hand some people just cannot use Linux and must use Windows instead if they are making programs for Windows systems using programming tools from Microsoft such as .NET development...
So in this case Linux is not the best option.
Many people (not all of course) who use Linux are happy with it because they don't know a lot about computers and all they mostly do is surfing the internet and listening the music,watching movies and so on...They don't do any programming or some advanced computer stuff so even simple Linux system is more than enough for them.
Of course...there ARE people who do advanced things on Linux systems so in this case Linux is again good option for them IF they are doing things FOR Linux.
However if they are programming for Windows systems instead then Windows is better option than ANY Linux system.
If you are programming for Ubuntu for example,you will logically use Linux.
If you are programming for Windows 7 for example,you will logically use Windows.
Of course...you can always make Windows programs on Linux or vice versa (make Linux programs on Windows) and then test them in the virtual Windows or Linux OS using virtual machine.
But most people will use the actual OS if they are making programs for that OS.
As for Windows Vista...
That OS is not so big crap like people say...It worked just fine on my 15 years old PC...so come on...Hell I was even able to run aero just fine.
And yes...Windows 7 and 8.0 and 8.1 are better than Vista for many reasons (the RAM usage is just one of them)...
And that's okay and logical.
I mean...Microsoft would never earn a lot of money if they make new systems which are worse and worse every time when they come out.
Sure there were few exceptions like Windows Millennium,but that was a long time ago.
Windows Vista is not even close as bad as Millennium was lol.
So...
If I was able to run Vista just fine on my super old PC WITH AERO ENABLED then come on...
If Windows Vista works fine for your needs then USE IT.
Look...both Windows AND Linux are great.
So which one is better OR THE BEST???
That answer CANNOT be answered since the one which you will choose REALLY DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
There IS NO the BEST OS.
The best one is the one which suits your needs the best.
For some it is Windows 8.0.
For some it is Ubuntu 9.04.
For some it is Windows XP.
For some it is Windows 7.
For some it is Fedora.
And so on and on and on and on and on blablabla...
"The best operating system (Windows/Linux/Unix/Mac/or whatever" = "the level of it's ability to suit all your needs".
S.T.A.R.S.
banned
EXACTLY!
But the problem is...people who say that Vista is faster never tryed Windows 7 or 8.0/8.1 lol.
DMGrier
VIP Member
+1
To all post above from Spirit and S.T.A.R.S. as all great points. I would not argue that Linux and other open source projects are the best to all needs just where it does excel in performance but I guess to be honest that would also depend on the specific projects as I have used some distributions which just down right suck. Windows has it place on some peoples needs and so does Linux.
Now my question to you both is if you had a decent machine running Vista would it be more valuable in terms of performance to upgrade to Windows 8 or leave vista on and upgrade the hardware like RAM, CPU or to a SSD saying the user is on a budget?
To all post above from Spirit and S.T.A.R.S. as all great points. I would not argue that Linux and other open source projects are the best to all needs just where it does excel in performance but I guess to be honest that would also depend on the specific projects as I have used some distributions which just down right suck. Windows has it place on some peoples needs and so does Linux.
Now my question to you both is if you had a decent machine running Vista would it be more valuable in terms of performance to upgrade to Windows 8 or leave vista on and upgrade the hardware like RAM, CPU or to a SSD saying the user is on a budget?
Well I'll answer it like this: I had Vista and 7 running on exactly the same hardware over the winter of 2011 - i5 760, 8GB RAM and each on a Crucial M4 128GB (obviously I had one installed, then reformatted and put the other on). Windows 7 was much quicker than Vista. So just by installing a better OS on the same hardware, I was seeing a performance increase. Not to mention that buying a copy of 8.1 may end up being cheaper than upgrading hardware, depending on what hardware you were intending to buy. Now this may have been because Windows 7 runs better than Vista on SSDs anyway (it supports TRIM for example), but likely it is because Windows 7 is just a faster OS.
You can look at numbers and benchmarks all day long until your eyes bleed (and the majority are going to agree that Vista is slower than 7), what ultimately matters is how you feel and which you think feels faster because you are the one using it. Windows 7 felt faster for me - and the vast majority of people.
Never had Vista on my current setup, but it wouldn't take an expert to realise that Vista is going to be slower on it than 7 and 8.1.
The fact remains that 8.1 is much newer and much more modern than Vista. It is also far more stable. Far more stable than Windows 7 in my opinion (and 7 was hardly 'unstable'). The stability alone is a good reason to upgrade. As is the fact that Microsoft are trying to get users off Vista by requiring that you have at least Windows 7 SP1 in order to install things like Office 2013 and the latest Visual Studio. Whilst you may still be happy with an older version of Office for now, the time is going to come where you're pretty much going to have to upgrade - or switch to another product (and yes, I am aware there are free alternatives to Office which will work perfectly fine on Vista).
Vista's been a dead end since Windows 7 came out nearly 5 years ago.
I'm not saying that Vista is the worst OS in the world, but really it has some flaws and I don't know why you'd still want to run it everyday today when 7 and 8.1 are much better operating systems.
Last edited: