Wow vista does use alot of ram!

J

JustinMcG67

New Member
INTELCRAZY said:
Have 4Gb Modules hit the market yet?
Click to expand...

Yes I believe so.

One thing I would like to elaborate on is the...

New things = New Requirements.
Click to expand...

True..however.

With new things comes a new standard. A standard to which very few people can match. 2GBs of RAM in a PC and still having system lag is ridiculous. Why? Because think of what XP needed, compare that to Vista. The difference is substantially different. Also, look at the speed of the RAM needed to operate Vista versus XP. XP needed barely any RAM, and the speed could be that of old SDRAM. Which is super slow compared to today's standards.

We're using Crossfire/SLI, Quad & Dual Core, 2-4GBs of RAM @ DDR2 & DDR3 speeds, and STILL getting system lag. Do new things require new equipment? Absolutely! But when the new things are STILL performing poorly on the absolute best hardware available, clearly something needs to give.
 
I

INTELCRAZY

banned
JustinMcG67 said:
Yes I believe so.

One thing I would like to elaborate on is the...



True..however.

With new things comes a new standard. A standard to which very few people can match. 2GBs of RAM in a PC and still having system lag is ridiculous. Why? Because think of what XP needed, compare that to Vista. The difference is substantially different. Also, look at the speed of the RAM needed to operate Vista versus XP. XP needed barely any RAM, and the speed could be that of old SDRAM. Which is super slow compared to today's standards.

We're using Crossfire/SLI, Quad & Dual Core, 2-4GBs of RAM @ DDR2 & DDR3 speeds, and STILL getting system lag. Do new things require new equipment? Absolutely! But when the new things are STILL performing poorly on the absolute best hardware available, clearly something needs to give.
Click to expand...

That is not ridiculous, that is called advancing technology.
 
M

madtownidiot

New Member
if you want to split hairs... I meant to say vista was designed to be capable of supporting memory as I stated in the earlier post

You might find this amusing:
The computer industry as I see it
Half the hackers in the world are designing software that uses as much of the available resources as possible and the other half are trying to find ways to destroy or compromise it. The hardware companies have been increasing capabilities at an exponential rate for the last 20 years with no end in sight, but somehow the prices for a top-of-the-line system and for an average system have stayed about the same since the 80s. In five to ten years the standard for a PC's CPU will be about 100 teraflops/sec (100 trillion calculations/second - which by the way is the only true benchmark - a qx6800 OC'd to 4Ghz performs at about .16 teraflops)
And people will still be complaining their new OS is too slow
 
J

JustinMcG67

New Member
INTELCRAZY said:
That is not ridiculous, that is called advancing technology.
Click to expand...

Advancing technology that performs EXTREMELY well on XP should perform slightly under on Vista, but it doesn't. It's ridiculous. Advancing technology means advancing the equipment used with the equipment it's ran on. Hardware is far ahead of software; and given how "advanced" Vista is supposed to be, it's very far behind. If you want evidence of this look at Crossfire benchmarks on XP then compare them to Vista. Compare data compression times on XP to Vista, or better yet, compare memory usage. If you think Vista is fine then you seriously have another thing coming.

Point is, Vista is no more then the bay used to harbor DX10. Everything else is complete crap. I can run the SAME graphics as Vista on XP via a transformation pack, all the while getting better frames, faster compression rates, and significantly less memory usage.

So i ask you this...What's the point of Vista again?:confused:
 
I

INTELCRAZY

banned
JustinMcG67 said:
Advancing technology that performs EXTREMELY well on XP should perform slightly under on Vista, but it doesn't. It's ridiculous. Advancing technology means advancing the equipment used with the equipment it's ran on. Hardware is far ahead of software; and given how "advanced" Vista is supposed to be, it's very far behind. If you want evidence of this look at Crossfire benchmarks on XP then compare them to Vista. Compare data compression times on XP to Vista, or better yet, compare memory usage. If you think Vista is fine then you seriously have another thing coming.

Point is, Vista is no more then the bay used to harbor DX10. Everything else is complete crap. I can run the SAME graphics as Vista on XP via a transformation pack, all the while getting better frames, faster compression rates, and significantly less memory usage.

So i ask you this...What's the point of Vista again?:confused:
Click to expand...

To be compatible with the world's software monopoly
 
patrickv

patrickv

Active Member
if vista uses that much ram, MS should focus thier new OS (vienna) to be more like XP,simple and effective, yet fast.
i don't know how long i could hold Xp , i have some pc with 1gb of ram with C2D cpu but thats not enough because the guys run a lot of apps and they don't want their pc to lag
 
M

madtownidiot

New Member
If you want a fast OS the only real choice is a Mac. I have G5 powerbook that boots up cold in 17 seconds - 6 seconds to the login screen, 2 seconds to login, and 9 more seconds before I can start using apps
 
ADE

ADE

banned
madtownidiot said:
If you want a fast OS the only real choice is a Mac. I have G5 powerbook that boots up cold in 17 seconds - 6 seconds to the login screen, 2 seconds to login, and 9 more seconds before I can start using apps
Click to expand...

mine used to boot up in 25 seconds. its not that fast now, but hay, if your into things like not playing games. and using an OS that does not have over 15% of what the population uses than sure. it doesn't load as many applications as a PC could, but i bet that's why its got a better loading time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top