Vegnagun666

I agree w/ you.. I've been on Vista for about a week now.. And i'm never going to be looking back.. I'm on 2gb of ram.. and it runs almost as smooth as my xp did.. I'm a happy camper .. PLUS! its perty

__________________
Offical Member of the AM2/AM2+ Club

0xygen

There's also that price tag would make you feel awful if you went back to XP.

__________________

The Hundred Gunner

If it still supported software, then sure.

FF does NOT use only 32MB of RAM...
=================================
Anyhow, they ought to make 7 more efficient with the resources. Lots of you guys like to say that vista is using resources efficiently, yet it can't run on a system with 512MB of RAM, nor can it utilize its aero interface with a weak GPU and slow CPU (at least the experience won't be fun.) Linux, on the other hand, can run with special effects up quite fast with low RAM, a slower CPU, and a $30 GPU, pretty much a system with a quarter of the specs that vista requires. If the open source community could do it, why couldn't the boys in redmond?

They BETTER make 7 more efficient, seeing how they will likely raise the price again while introducing 40 more "versions."

__________________
"But you would be amazed by how many people think that the only reason to have a computer is to play games, and that playing games is all that anyone with a computer does." - dangerousHobo

"Linux is everywhere, it is all around us, even now in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window, or you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work, when you go to church, when you pay your taxes. " - mbp

"I have used a mac before. And they still don't have right click I mean come on. - aakar

Blah, blah, can't hear you

Danbeme32

trusting Bill Gates is like trusting a crack head to go get you cigs and come back with your change.

__________________




e8500 4.2@1.34
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=389218
e6850 3.9@1.46
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=361138

dglkn

umm... yeah... good analogy(?)

If Vista was cheaper, I'd upgrade. However, I'll probably just wait for Windows 7, and dual-boot with XP since 7 won't be backwards compatible.

Champcar

What wrong with using a lot of ram though. As long as you have enough, wouldn't more things running off the ram equal a fast and snappier OS....in theory?

__________________
Resident Pilot
8800GT Owners Club!!!

Choggs396

In my experience with Vista, absolutely. Superfetch is great. I've run 2GB and 4GB. Programs/games that I use frequently load up almost instantly. Some people brag about how little memory their PC uses at idle. Good for them. Quicker loading programs are more desirable to me.

__________________
Je pense, donc je suis
- René Descartes

Overclock.net Professionalism Initiative

If you can’t afford to replace it, don’t overclock it.
- [p]wnzor

Champcar

That has been my experience also. I really like Vista, I think 2-3gb would be plenty but my 64bit with 4 gigs of ram is the most responsive OS I've used yet.

With the price of ram these days, I don't see why not use it.

__________________
Resident Pilot
8800GT Owners Club!!!

Brutuz

Vista isn't a resource hog, I've noticed that when I play a game that uses a lot of ram, Vista's system ram usage goes down, It just goes up when your not using it, ala. F@H's CPU usage.

__________________

binormalkilla

This is for all of the noobs complaining about Vista's Superfetch actually using all that available RAM that goes to waste idling....instead of holding commonly used data ready for execution
The voltage is still going to the modules.....so why let it just sit there and waste? All of my maps in BF2142/COD4 load in less than 5s......in XP it would take about a minute.

I typically have 20-30 Mb of memory free after Superfetch preloads my games' maps and texture files........just how I like it. When a game loads I can see it free up RAM.