Vista Rocks!!!

re: Vista Rocks!!!

lexp — Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:21:29 GMT

Vista by default takes ~450-500 MB of RAM! After launching WMP and several explorers it Vista consumes as high as 700 MB RAM! What the hell is going on with its memory manager? If you guys won't fix this till release nobody will convert from XP to Vista.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Chad — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 19:18:06 GMT

haha, 450-500MB of RAM -- I wondered why I put 5GB of RAM in my new machine. I guess this is the rational. Running SQL2k5, VS, office12 and a host of virtual machines is probably a good reason to upgrade your machine.

I believe the reason things are using so much memory in the MSFT world are two-fold:

1) It's OS on top of OS on top of years of kernels on top of DOS

2) Corp. relationship with RAM manufacturers?

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Ben Connor — Fri, 16 Feb 2007 19:00:54 GMT

Kay other comment people

it does not take 500+ ram

it takes 250 at most(with the useless sevices turned off)

hope it continues to work!

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Chris — Wed, 28 Nov 2007 05:54:13 GMT

"Vista by default takes ~450-500 MB of RAM! After launching WMP and several explorers it Vista consumes as high as 700 MB RAM! What the hell is going on with its memory manager? If you guys won't fix this till release nobody will convert from XP to Vista. "

Actually, Vista will never "overflow" in that sense. Even though it does use an absurd amount of memory, it manages that better than Windows XP, thanks to the Server 2003 kernel. So while you may see your RAM filling up, it won't run into the "Out Of Memory" issue that DOS had.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Karsten — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:28:46 GMT

Switched over to 64 Bit Vista Ultimate...and have not even thought about XP since....have no idea why people are complaining so much about it, Im running the version that will have the most driver issues and I have yet to see any....

re: Vista Rocks!!!

asd — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:25:59 GMT

vista seriously suck.. it lags all of my 3d games totally.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Mathew — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 19:20:02 GMT

I had vista for a year now, and i cant live with out of it. My computer is so fast now that i got vista. It works better than a stupid mac!

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Colin — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 23:29:26 GMT

Vista is brilliant:

- The memory management may sue more than XP, but it uses better RAM

-Games are not affected by it as it reverts to certain XP feastures reducing the ammount of RAM used.

-I have had very few BSODS

-it just plain rocks

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Juriaan Bakx — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:54:34 GMT

Could not agree more, vista rocks!!!!

re: Vista Rocks!!!

anon — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 02:35:24 GMT

Couldn't agree more, running vista ultimate X64, and the only BSOD i've had was because of beta graphics card drivers

Can’t understand the Vista loathing | Fading Whispers: The Chronicles

Can’t understand the Vista loathing | Fading Whispers: The Chronicles — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 22:50:57 GMT

PingBack from http://fadingwhispers.org/home/2008/10/19/cant-understand-the-vista-loathing/

re: Vista Rocks!!!

die — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 12:52:17 GMT

Did you guys EVER try ubuntu/any other distro?

Linux/GNU wont play your 3d games (Sorry)

But for anything else its 10 times faster.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

kt315i — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 04:47:42 GMT

Vista Rocks! I have Vista Ultimate x64, Quad Core 2 and 6GB Ram. And it idles with 1.5 GB used minimum. And after today's updates it just flies!

re: Vista Rocks!!!

HTPCman — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 21:17:52 GMT

I've had VHP for over a year now on my first HTPC build. I couldn't be happier. Like others, I don't get all the negative press. Must be an equipment issue (ill-equipped pcs) cause there is no better OS - in my opinion - EVER.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Karol — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:48:41 GMT

I have vista ultimate. For those who claim that this os is bad, you're stupid.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Karol — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:49:17 GMT

I have vista ultimate. For those who claim that this os is bad, you're stupid.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Killervalon — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:35:06 GMT

I love it.

After i got my new computer i was forced for Vista. And all my friends said it sucked and you got BSOD and so on.

BUt they bought it also

I had no problems except my Graphic Card getting low but thats only because of that im on my old Graphics Card.

I also love the search thingy. it helps me ALOT!

-Killervalon

re: Vista Rocks!!!

Motorhead — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:05:52 GMT

Tried Vista Ultimate out.... Seems nice and flashy...But... My two systems were as follows 1) P4 2.8(800fsb) O.C. to 3.5(1000fsb) 2gigs of DDR 400, ATI 3850 AGP, 250gig HD 16mb Cache... 2)AMD 2.1ghz Dual Core 800FSB(1600HT), 2gigs of DDR2800 ram, ATI 3870 PCI-E, 300GIG HD 16mb Cache. Vista seems ok after upgrading from XP PRO at first... then I tried to multi-task and guess what ... not as fast as XP PRO for multi-tasking, Tried playing GUILD WARS and Browsing Guild Wars Wiki at the same time...what a chore for VISTA... My conclusion after reverting back to XP PRO and Setting VISTA ULTIMATE on a shelf as a novelty item is that if you want performance in vista... buy 8gigs of ram right off the bat... don't mess around. 2gigs is ok for XP but not for VISTA. As for Ubuntu Linux in a different post... My XP PRO machine beats UBUNTU to the desktop and when i click on firefox simultaneously my XP PRO machine open firefox many, many seconds before UBUNTU opens it up. Everything in all LINUX versions that I’ve tried seemed buggy and S-L-O-W.... compared to side by side simultaneous comparisons with XP PRO.... oh and stop looking at me like that ... I've seen that dumbfounded look by Linux lovers 100,000 times and the side by side simultaneous comparisons on brand new installs don't lie! XP PRO is quicker!

re: Vista suxc

hata — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 03:15:15 GMT

Vista is so full of fail why do you think they are releasing W7 so close after the release of Vista. That's right, cos' Vista sucks.

re: Vista Rocks!!!

abhinaba — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 08:59:25 GMT

hata WM7 is not being released close to Vista. It's just the Vista shipped way later than XP doesn't make WM7 release early.

WM7 is being released on the *right* time line.