which will slow down my computer?

[Wile E]

Add another vote for XP x64. I'm posting from it now. Even my Cannon Printer has drivers. About the only things that don't have drivers are really old hardware, and some wireless cards. You just have to research that stuff to make sure it's compatible. And there are a small amount of oddball apps that don't run in x64. Those are usually apps that require a low level driver of some sort.

It's way more stable and secure than either Vista or XP x86. My favorite Win OS to date.

 

[Deleted member 3]

what tone?

Forget it, if you don't see it it's pointless.

please tell me that there is not a hint of sarcasm in that......

So first you tell me to read and now you simply deny my argument. Seems like you're incapable of a decent discussion. As you have not yet given any facts or backed up opinions and yet tried to make me look like a fool twice.


Let me make it simpler, using rough numbers here:

XP (either 32 or 64)
2GB RAM, memory in use 512MB.

Vista
2GB RAM, nearly 2GB in use.


Are those numbers far from true or is Vista actually using the RAM? So which is taking more advantage of the available memory? Vista, since it caches stuff.
Now I'm guessing you'll be saying "but but it's eating all my resources!". That's exactly the point, you have fast hardware to use it. Once other programs require the resources Vista actually releases them to whatever process requests it.


Now you tell me why XP does better, without telling me to read and writing things 3 times as large and telling me I must be making some sarcastic remark.

 

[GSG-9]

Are those numbers far from true or is Vista actually using the RAM? So which is taking more advantage of the available memory? Vista, since it caches stuff.
Now I'm guessing you'll be saying "but but it's eating all my resources!". That's exactly the point, you have fast hardware to use it. Once other programs require the resources Vista actually releases them to whatever process requests it.

I agree, I can understand what people mean, but I say buy more ram, things are advancing, 4gigs is the new 2 which was 1.

 

[kingrollo2007]

Your right about xp but semi-wrong about vista...

If vista was running 1GB RAM .... vista would eat the 1GB RAM and Blue screen of death everytime you load high end applications.... although, 3GB RAM (max) 32bit will allow the vista to have plenty of spare memory for allocating all that cache shit... I know this as my laptop has 2GB ram on ultimate (32 bit) and runs quite smooth.... Windows AutoCAD 2007 and WMP running it uses half the memory .... if you had 3GB it would take the pressure off.... but with minimal amounts of memory it could cause some major issues... especially for a 64 bit user as he needs it as stable as it gets.

 

[Deleted member 3]

I haven't experienced such crashes kingrollo, however the only system I have with 1GB of RAM runs server 2008 so it's most likely a completely different story. However, low end systems were besides my point, the point was the memory utilization being better in Vista.

And if people disagree there, answer this: which OS uses less RAM, Linux or Windows? (globally speaking)

 

[GSG-9]

.... if you had 3GB it would take the pressure off.... but with minimal amounts of memory it could cause some major issues... especially for a 64 bit user as he needs it as stable as it gets.

Thats like saying that crysis runs better with newer hardware. Newer software uses more resorces. Computers can use much more ram, thats how it works :/

 

[kingrollo2007]

He is my Laptop vista ultimate idling with 3/4 aplications open ...
59% used

LINUX ALL THE WAY MAN!! BEST SERVERS YOU'LL GET!!

 

[Deleted member 3]

Well mr rollo, type "top" in the linux shell on various systems. Look at memory usage.

 

[tzitzibp]

Forget it, if you don't see it it's pointless.



So first you tell me to read and now you simply deny my argument. Seems like you're incapable of a decent discussion. As you have not yet given any facts or backed up opinions and yet tried to make me look like a fool twice.


Let me make it simpler, using rough numbers here:

XP (either 32 or 64)
2GB RAM, memory in use 512MB.

Vista
2GB RAM, nearly 2GB in use.


Are those numbers far from true or is Vista actually using the RAM? So which is taking more advantage of the available memory? Vista, since it caches stuff.
Now I'm guessing you'll be saying "but but it's eating all my resources!". That's exactly the point, you have fast hardware to use it. Once other programs require the resources Vista actually releases them to whatever process requests it.


Now you tell me why XP does better, without telling me to read and writing things 3 times as large and telling me I must be making some sarcastic remark.

your point stands to the difference of xp with vista, while mine stands to the difference of 32 and 64 op. systems

so I quote:

Written By:
Professor Windows and Amit Marlov, Windows XP Regional Director, Microsoft Israel

Reviewed By:
Brian Marr, Senior Product Manager, Microsoft Corporation and Brian Shafer, Project Manager, Microsoft Corporation
Introduction

It is a known fact that software advances in the footsteps of hardware. As a variety of 64-bit (x64) hardware is getting more and more available, we're getting close to a new breed of Windows - The Windows x64 family.

64-bit Windows is aimed at technical computing, focusing at mathematical applications, medical applications, gamers and more. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition currently supports up to 32 GB of RAM, with the potential to support up to 16 terabytes of virtual memory as hardware capabilities and memory sizes grow. These amazing performance leaps are worth getting ready for x64 editions of Windows, today.

This article will focus primarily on Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.
What's in Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

64-bit means 64-bit CPU registers -- this makes quite a difference when implementing SIMD (Single instruction multiple data). In fact this means much greater performance with less utilization.

The following table outlines the memory space advantage of 64-bit Windows:

Memory Space Advantage of 64-bit Windows


piece of advice: when you argue with " last time I checked", be careful... this is usualy translated as sarcasm..... I have nothing against you, just the way you start your arguments. I also must apologize about my remark.... truly sorry!

 

[Deleted member 3]

which will slow down my computer?

XP 64bit?
or
Vista 32bit?

I believe the answer is... both!

but, XP 64bit will take better advantage of the cpu and possibly the memory.... However there will be incombatibilities....

So how exactly should anyone have known you were talking about XP32 compared to XP64? How am I reading it wrong? This is the first time you're saying Vista has nothing to do with your point.


"last time I checked" isn't sarcasm, it is a way of saying "as far as I know".

 

[tzitzibp]

my bad...

 

[BumbRush]

Mind giving a source for that?

It is a fact that win98 uses to crash at 512MB or more. And going past 4GB on 32bit via means of PAE slows down. But I don't know of any reason why having more RAM matters on a 64bit system. Not with the limits we have now anyway.

humm, server 2003 ent never gave me a slowdown when i went from 2-4gb ram....infact it got faster...........


as to vista vs x64pro/xp64/2003 x64(diffrent names same os) i find that x64pro manages ram very well, by default it dosnt use that much ram, i tend to keep it lean, but i can leave all my serices enabled and all my apps on auto load and it will use 768-1gb ram after startup, but i dont use those memory hogging apps all the time, so i dissable their auto load.

yes caching can be good but its a bit useless if you dont use the same apps every time windows loads

 

[Darknova]

yes caching can be good but its a bit useless if you dont use the same apps every time windows loads

Yeah, but let's be honest. How many times do you load up Windows and do something entirely different to what you did last time?

I certainly don't. Upon load up, Live Messenger, Live Mail and Winamp all get opened up. Then possibly my bittorrent client, and my browser depending on my mood. I'd be quite happy to have Windows cache the necessary files to make loading those up quicker.

 

[asb2106]

I have windows load utorrent, mp11, & TPU!!

Its real simple just to throw it in the startup folder, and I have not noticed it add even a second to the boot time

 

[Wile E]

Your right about xp but semi-wrong about vista...

If vista was running 1GB RAM .... vista would eat the 1GB RAM and Blue screen of death everytime you load high end applications

No it doesn't. I've run Vista on 1GB, and loaded AutoCAD and Inventor (not at the same time, mind you) and it never once BSOD'd on me. You had a conflict of some sort. I'm guessing the pagefile was too small. With only 1GB of ram, any of the Autodesk apps are gonna punish the pagefile hardcore.

 

[BumbRush]

Yeah, but let's be honest. How many times do you load up Windows and do something entirely different to what you did last time?

I certainly don't. Upon load up, Live Messenger, Live Mail and Winamp all get opened up. Then possibly my bittorrent client, and my browser depending on my mood. I'd be quite happy to have Windows cache the necessary files to make loading those up quicker.

but xp/2003/x64 support that kinda catching, its stuff like it catching every app you ran last boot, i dont use the same apps all the time, infact each day i probbly load 20 apps or so........caching would just be silly in that case.

 

[Wile E]

but xp/2003/x64 support that kinda catching, its stuff like it catching every app you ran last boot, i dont use the same apps all the time, infact each day i probbly load 20 apps or so........caching would just be silly in that case.

Fortunately for you, that's not how it works. It caches based on frequency of use, not based on the last time you used the prog.

 

[BumbRush]

vista for me was cacheing every app i used over the last few days, why does it need to eat up 4gb ram on shit im not using? i know it can just dump it, but still, im SURE that takes at least 1-5 clock cycles, to dump the shit im not using so it can load the app i wana use.

vista sucks, sure its got some good ideas,but the emplimentation of those ideas sucks.

 

[GSG-9]

vista for me was cacheing every app i used over the last few days, why does it need to eat up 4gb ram on shit im not using? i know it can just dump it, but still, im SURE that takes at least 1-5 clock cycles, to dump the shit im not using so it can load the app i wana use.

vista sucks, sure its got some good ideas,but the emplimentation of those ideas sucks.

I have no paging file, 3.5 gigs of ram, and load nothing at boot but Utorrent, ATI Suite/Hydravision, Rivatuner, FRAPS and TweakVI. My computer boots up fine, it normally uses 42%-46% ram or so. It has valid issues, but I don't have any of the ones listed by others above.

 

[panchoman]

vista 32..

xp is more streamlined and less bloated and less full of resource eating crap and xp 64 will definently be faster

 

[Deleted member 3]

vista for me was cacheing every app i used over the last few days, why does it need to eat up 4gb ram on shit im not using? i know it can just dump it, but still, im SURE that takes at least 1-5 clock cycles, to dump the shit im not using so it can load the app i wana use.

vista sucks, sure its got some good ideas,but the emplimentation of those ideas sucks.

I think if your opinion is "it sucks" you should at least back it up, otherwise it's just flaming. What ideas are implemented badly for example?

 

[BumbRush]

humm lets see, example Areo=poorly done, the same effects can be done with NO video hardware support and VERY little system load, check out enlitenment e17 and even older versions, i use to run it on vectorlinux soho, trans parncys, animated backgrounds infact in many ways it looks better then areo, yet i was able to run it on a 300mhz pentium with mmx(233@300) with 208mb ram and a 2mb s3 videocard that didnt even have real linux drivers(used the vesa drivers)

just one example, i would list more but you clearly love vista and your a mod so argueing with or proving you wrong will just get me hit with the banstick

 

[GSG-9]

humm lets see, example Areo=poorly done, the same effects can be done with NO video hardware support and VERY little system load, check out enlitenment e17 and even older versions, i use to run it on vectorlinux soho, trans parncys, animated backgrounds infact in many ways it looks better then areo, yet i was able to run it on a 300mhz pentium with mmx(233@300) with 208mb ram and a 2mb s3 videocard that didnt even have real linux drivers(used the vesa drivers)

just one example, i would list more but you clearly love vista and your a mod so argueing with or proving you wrong will just get me hit with the banstick

He did not say or act he loved it, he just wants something more relevant/debatable than general statements. I never used any of the above listed os/transparency programs so I don't know how they compare from never seeing them myself it sounds like comparing Unreal 1's lens flare and fov effects to Chronicles of Riddick. One is just better than the other, but as I never used any of the programs you listed I cant say something like that as more than a feeling.

 

[Deleted member 3]

humm lets see, example Areo=poorly done, the same effects can be done with NO video hardware support and VERY little system load, check out enlitenment e17 and even older versions, i use to run it on vectorlinux soho, trans parncys, animated backgrounds infact in many ways it looks better then areo, yet i was able to run it on a 300mhz pentium with mmx(233@300) with 208mb ram and a 2mb s3 videocard that didnt even have real linux drivers(used the vesa drivers)

just one example, i would list more but you clearly love vista and your a mod so argueing with or proving you wrong will just get me hit with the banstick

So you shoot down an OS due to an extra graphical feature which isn't even available in the basic version. ie it's not a core part of the OS. It's like saying Windows sucks because you don't like notepad.
So now that we got half an argument from you, why is Vista basic bad?


Besides you seem to be quite a negative person, assuming you're getting banned for disagreeing with me.

 

[farlex85]

You can always turn aero off too if it doesn't suit your fancy. All of the "bloat" of vista can be turned off if thats what you wanna do, and can also be altered in just about any way you see fit.