Good.

 

Yeah, right.

Wasn't Vista meant to be, like, secure? =/

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosser13 Yeah, right. Wasn't Vista meant to be, like, secure? =/

Vista have UAC

 

Your point being?

"PC Tool's study involves analyzing the number of malware threats per thousand computers. Their results indicate Vista lets 639 threats through in contrast to 586 for Windows 2000, 437 Windows 2003, and the heavily malware riddled XP coming in at 1,1021 threats."

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosser13 Yeah, right. Wasn't Vista meant to be, like, secure? =/

Well think about it this way: if vista can't even run on a computer once installed, then isn't it 100% secure?

It actually is a lot more secure than XP though...

 

The point of UAC in Vista was to get software developers to stop using administrative privileges for everything.

 

I decided a while back that I am skipping Vista and *might* go try Windows 7 whenever its released. I see no real reasons for me to leave XP behind at the current time.

 

Ok, I'm waiting . . . %-)

 

Watch this eat 1GB RAM at idle, makes Vista's 750MB at idle look great. While XP's 350MB at idle pulls ahead another 50 miles.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosser13 Your point being? "PC Tool’s study involves analyzing the number of malware threats per thousand computers. Their results indicate Vista lets 639 threats through in contrast to 586 for Windows 2000, 437 Windows 2003, and the heavily malware riddled XP coming in at 1,1021 threats."

Please see my post in that thread to see why that information is aboslutely useless. Besides, even by that data Vista is more secure than XP so why not whine about XP while you're at it if we are going to base our opinions off of bad data?

 

All of you who are waiting and skipping vista should know its not backwards compatible. That means no games or firefox until its remade, which is unlikely for the games.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJS All of you who are waiting and skipping vista should know its not backwards compatible. That means no games or firefox until its remade, which is unlikely for the games.

So then someone makes an emulator that runs less efficient than Vista and people will find yet another reason to whine.

 

Since when has Vista been a resource hog? It just is a smart use of resources. Un-used resources are wasted resources.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by RickJS All of you who are waiting and skipping vista should know its not backwards compatible. That means no games or firefox until its remade, which is unlikely for the games.

How long do you really need your OS to support Myst? One of the biggest problems with technology, especially PC related tech, is obsolescence and legacy support. Even the new 64 bit windows API has many of the same stupid quirks and structures that were made obsolete during the switch to 32-bit. Apple's switch from Mac OS Classic to OSX was one of the major turning points in Apple's climb from the brink of bankruptcy. Ditching backwards compatibility is always extremely painful, but it has to happen sometime. Every new OS that Microsoft releases that includes full support for apps written in 1985 makes it that much more bloated, buggy, vulnerable, awkward, and inconsistent as a platform.

Windows is just one example of the need for revolutionary change. From Intel's instruction set to your BIOS to the structure of the web, the evolutionary nature of computer systems creates a buildup of obsolete, bloated deadweight. Every once in a while it reaches critical mass for somebody, and right now that somebody is Microsoft

 

I hope it is.

 

I don't see the issue with Vista's RAM usage, the RAM is there, why not use it? Meaning it puts all available RAM to use whereas XP just uses it when its really needed. This means Vista can starts your programs much faster (among other things.) And when you need more RAM it dumps the cache, simple and effect concept.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GigaByte Watch this eat 1GB RAM at idle, makes Vista's 750MB at idle look great. While XP's 350MB at idle pulls ahead another 50 miles.

Why don't we go back to Windows 98? That only used like 25MB right?

 

So they're going to make it use as much as Windows 2000?

312MB. Yep, that sure is hogging resources.

Mind you, that's with a new firefox window open, so lets make it. 290MB.

 

After using XP and Vista on similar machines, at similar usage levels, after similar install time, I quite prefer Vista. After a bit of tweaking, just like XP, Vista runs more smoothly, recovers from GPU resets much faster, opens programs faster, and starts up faster. It barely ever uses more than 20% of my system memory at idle, which, cost-wise, amounts to $30 of RAM. At the current prices, no one can really complain about RAM usage. If you cannot afford the extra RAM, why buy Vista in the first place?

Meh.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by LegendaryC So they're going to make it use as much as Windows 2000? 312MB. Yep, that sure is hogging resources. Mind you, that's with a new firefox window open, so lets make it. 290MB.

Wow nice. Mine usually idles at about 700mb, but if I kill off all the unnecessary processes, it goes down to 400 or less.
Not to mention by the time Windows 7 comes out the typical PC will have 12gb of RAM.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by igob8a Wow nice. Mine usually idles at about 700mb, but if I kill off all the unnecessary processes, it goes down to 400 or less. Not to mention by the time Windows 7 comes out the typical PC will have 12gb of RAM.

I use about 1.2-2.0gb here usually (4GB of RAM and Vista doesn't mind stretching it's wings.)

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zulli85 I decided a while back that I am skipping Vista and *might* go try Windows 7 whenever its released. I see no real reasons for me to leave XP behind at the current time.

I'm with you. I was in all the Vista beta programs, and while it had some cool new features to play with I didn't see anything that I used often enough or that made a massive enough difference in my productivity to justify the purchase price.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdattilo Since when has Vista been a resource hog? It just is a smart use of resources. Un-used resources are wasted resources.

I like the way you think.

I noticed when I upgraded from 2GB of RAM to 4GB, Vista uses more RAM at idle. It was, however, around 25-30% in either case.

I mean, what's the point in a ton of free RAM? If it's there, use it.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GigaByte Watch this eat 1GB RAM at idle, makes Vista's 750MB at idle look great. While XP's 350MB at idle pulls ahead another 50 miles.

I'm not so sure what is hard to understand about Vista.

1.) Vista uses more resources.
Yes, slightly. My Vista caches 1gb of my 2gb of RAM, but only for performance reasons. I've found that Vista truly only needs around 310mb on my system with my anti-virus stuff, and a couple other small bg apps running. XP can run on much less however, under 200mb I believe. But come on people, 310mb isn't the end of the world, get over it.

Want to test this fairly easily? Run MemTest, let it have "All RAM", let it run for 10-15 seconds. Stop it. Run it again, same settings, for another 15 seconds. Stop it. How much RAM is Vista using?

2.) Vista is insanely more secure than XP.
I seriously think I use an anti-virus out of habit from the previous windows. Running my ad-ware removers is worthless, they haven't found anything since I got Vista 17 months ago. I used to get 30-40 things every couple of weeks in XP, with a firewall going.

3.) Vista is slow. Is it really? Seems to run just like XP on my computer. Games may run a couple percent slower FPS, but does it really matter that much?

There aren't huge reasons to switch to Vista if you already have XP. For me the biggest reason is the security of Vista, it is so much easier now getting spyware, popups, and other fun things I don't want.

 

Bill does keep his promises