i only tried upto rc2, but i found that it was the sheer amount of hd thrashing for simple things like right clicking the mouse that slowed the os more then anything else. sometimes te hd never stops !

as for ram, the cpu/mem meter sidebar prog shows 70% ram (of 1gb) used after boot (untouched , no tweaks or additions) so i refuse to belive anyone can use vista confortably on 256meg unless all thats done is staring at the desktop picture ;). xp just barely gets by on 256, but wont be playing any games with it.

Wile EUmm, no. It's been tested that the os alone uses more than 700MB of ram with Vista. And OS X runs perfectly fine on 512MB. My OS X machine uses less ram than my XP machine, and my XP is partially stripped with nLite and currently on a week old install. From a fresh boot, my OS X (10.4.8 fully updated) is using 187MB of ram. XP is using just north of 200MB with my 3rd party startup programs and services disabled (except anything hardware related). Note that none of my 3rd party apps were disabled for the OS X testing. The XP numbers need retested to be confirmed, that's going from memory. Once I retest, I'll edit the final number.

EDIT: My guess was correct, 201MB for XP.

were di you get that? i have rc2 and with a fresh install 1 restart after the first boot im using like ~348mb ram

Solaris17were di you get that? i have rc2 and with a fresh install 1 restart after the first boot im using like ~348mb ram

It's actually been said by a few. But I guess that it depends on your config. Either way, 348MB ram is still a helluva lot more than 201 (or 187, for that matter) Are you running it the same as Ultimate, with every option enabled?

Aero + Vista = bloat
enough said!!!

Lets be real Aero is best suited in operating some sort of multi tasking business. It's only a novelty at best for home use. Blah, Blah, Blah you can "invent" some uses for Aero but we are thinking masses of users. A few fanboys with a creative flair for novelty don't count in this aspect.
With that said, the amount of raw power you need simply won't reach target business groups IMO. I mean business buy computer not video cards, ram and CPU with Vista ready chipsets. You cannot treat this segment of consumers as though they are enthusiastic that will nick pick system requirements. They want a ready made complete package in bulk that won't break the bank just to use Aero.

Aero will not sell Vista and will fail IMO but we will see.

Musselsi've ran vista on a P4 2.6C, 6800GT 256MB and 1GB DDR400 (single channel) and it ran perfectly without a hitch. This was at 1024x768 res at 85Hz on a CRT.

I believe it, and it probably will run on a great deal lower of a hardware configuration, IF you don't opt to use AEROGLASS...

MusselsAero doesnt slow a PC, its just using 3D hardware thats not in use...

I stated that above pretty much, which is WHY I listed a good vidcard (prefereably DirectX 10 API capable unit & drivers for it) is going to be paramount to run VISTA (nice to have Dx10 capable one, for upcoming games based on said display API), while using the AEROGLASS interface, vs. a "Windows Classic Style" one.

Musselsalt-tabbing works fine with 3D games too (i'm on a vista rig now, testing it for work) Using transparency i reccomend 6800GT/7600/X1600 or higher video card however, as that did slow things down a bit more.

Agreed, & I believe it... transparency effects, implemented in Win32 GDI also impose a performance hit, but greater afaik, than the DirectX AEROGLASS one does believe-it-or-not...

And, it is COOL to know that "wild looking" tilted tile that ALT+TAB gives you for 2d apps does the SAME for 3d based games too... I didn't know that!

(Again - I have STILL yet to try VISTA, period! So, there is a great deal I do NOT know about it)

Musselsin my experience, 1GB ram, a 2500+/2.4GHz intel (or higher) with a 6600GT or above will happily run vista, and anything above that will run aero without a hitch unless you have a HDTV for a screen.

I'd again wager, that a Windows 2000 capable rig could probably push VISTA w/ out AEROGLASS interface in use as well... & just fine.

MusselsYou CAN run a 98 look, but it doesnt really go any easier on the hardware. except for +10C GPU temps (at idle, load was the same) i see no difference between vista and XP. Gaming is a tad slower however, mostly due to audio.

Why? Do the native WHQL audio drivers in VISTA behave badly?? Just curious...

MusselsAs for ram, i'm running aero glass w/ transparency, 8 tabs in firefox, MSN messenger, yahoo messenger, nod32 antivirus and winamp, and its only using 598MB ram. so the 2GB thing is BS.

Aha! No doubt... this is another "good thing to know", especially on the RAM amount required...

APK

P.S.=> The ONLY things I didn't like that I have heard about VISTA was that Ms was "phasing out" OpenGL being implemented natively, & that instead chose to "emulate its API calls over to DirectX" & from the looks of it, it was NOT as good looking as native OpenGL display is on Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, & also slower... overheads of translation of OpenGL API calls to DirectX ones most likely... so far @ least, but I also heard here that this is NOT going to be the case & MS is going to put OpenGL back in for 'native support', but the user has to install it back into the OS after install (or, something along those lines)... apk

wazzledoozleWhat Vista build is that? RTM?

Yes, that was on RTM.

Wile E: No it doesnt use over 700MB as i just showed. I can even take screenies of it when i'm on that rig next.

Mad-Matt: Yes, HD usage was up. I'm running a single Samsung SP2504C (samsung SATA-II 250GB) and it works fine with everything, but defragging weekly seems to make it all happy.

Alec: the cool trippy alt-tab only works for games in windows (not fullscreen), i've only really tried company of heroes on there since it isnt my personal rig, and it sadly didnt work there.
The reason for audio sucky is that vista doesnt support hardware accelerated audio, therefore anything usign 3D audio will be slower. Also, that rig has shitty onboard AC97 audio :D


I dont know about openGL, i've avoided gaming on there until proper stable drivers are released (X1800XL atm on the vista rig, but the drivers are still beta so i dont want to make any wild claims until its stable)

MusselsWile E: No it doesnt use over 700MB as i just showed. I can even take screenies of it when i'm on that rig next.

OK, I guess I was just mistaken. I swore I read 700+ somewhere, but I'm probably just remembering things wrong. Maybe it was just stating that 700+ was recommended? Either way, the main purpose of my post was to disprove newtekie1's claims that OS X uses more ram than Windows. I still wouldn't be comfortable gaming or heavily multitasking on a Vista system with 1GB of ram. If someone made dual channel 1.5GB kits, I'd probably be comfortable with that.

EDIT: I wouldn't mind seeing screenies anyway. I'd like to get a better idea of what kind of resources Vista uses. You think you could throw a shot of the processes that are running after a boot, also?

Willie E, my brand new Macbook Pro booted up and was using ~315MB of RAM on the very first boot. Start up a few programs like safari or even start to open up a few config pages and it shot up to well over 500MB, and drastically slowed down on the machine as the page file started to be used, which only had 512MB in it at the time.

On the other hand my freshly installed XP machine uses just over 200MB on first boot, and stays under 300MB with roughly the same windows open(an internet browser, IE, and a few config/explorer windows).

However, XP is actually noticeably more repsonsive when there is less RAM in a system, which is the main concern to me. To me More sluggish=More bloated. Even with 2GB of RAM OSX still seems sluggish sometimes.

newtekie1Willie E, my brand new Macbook Pro booted up and was using ~315MB of RAM on the very first boot. Start up a few programs like safari or even start to open up a few config pages and it shot up to well over 500MB, and drastically slowed down on the machine as the page file started to be used, which only had 512MB in it at the time.

On the other hand my freshly installed XP machine uses just over 200MB on first boot, and stays under 300MB with roughly the same windows open(an internet browser, IE, and a few config/explorer windows).

However, XP is actually noticeably more repsonsive when there is less RAM in a system, which is the main concern to me. To me More sluggish=More bloated. Even with 2GB of RAM OSX still seems sluggish sometimes.

You might want to get that thing checked out. OS X never uses that much ram for me. Like I said, 187MB on a fresh boot. That's with MenuX, Menu Meters, the Toast kernel extensions, Stuffit kernel extensions and helper apps, FrontRow helper app, and 1 or 2 more I can't recall. With Firefox running 3 windows with 2 tabs each (and no less than 15 extensions), VLC running a Divx&Mp3 encoded 640x480 res video, and Activity Monitor open and set to refresh at the fastest interval, my Mac still hasn't hit 500MB, 489MB to be exact.

That's on a 1GHz iMac G4, and the only time OS X feels sluggish for me is when the CPU is maxed out. Before I got my G5, I ran a rogue OS X installation on my PC, and OS X was far more responsive and used less ram than XP. You might want to check your start up items on OS X, you could have an app or two eating that ram.

EDIT: I was just looking at Activity Monitor and there are some possible confusing values there. You might be going by the Used ram value, which is wrong. That value also adds in the Inactive ram. You need to add Wired and Active together to get your ram usage in OS X. If you don't believe that, just compare it to your Free ram value. Wired+Active+Free=Total ram installed. I have never figured out why they add Inactive into the Used ram total. As a side note, my total page file size is 128MB with only 25MB of data written into it. Much, much smaller values than my XP pagefile values.

EDIT: EDIT:I just got OS X down to 121MB on a fresh boot, by disabling my start up apps and helpers.

Ok i have a screeny for proof. 755MB ram used, and you can see MSN windows and all sorts running. Aero glass + transparency was in use, but its tricky taking screenies of that (esp. with that alt-tab mode)

sorry for the quality, but it only allows 200KB images here...

MusselsOk i have a screeny for proof. 755MB ram used, and you can see MSN windows and all sorts running. Aero glass + transparency was in use, but its tricky taking screenies of that (esp. with that alt-tab mode)

sorry for the quality, but it only allows 200KB images here...

So that was with how much stuff running? I obviously saw Firefox and Task Manager, but what else?

WooHoo Wile e. You figured out that if you disable everything that starts up with OSX it uses less RAM. Congrats. But guess what, and I know this will sound amazing to you, you can do the same thing with Windows XP. But then you don't exactly get a functional computer, or at least not one I would consider functional.

We can argue RAM usage till we are blue in the face. The fact still stands that I consider OSX bloated because even doing things on a fresh install with 2GB of RAM the OS is sluggish at times. And I am talking OS functions, not other things that involve 3rd party apps. Like openning the Wireless configuration, for instnace. This is usually the very first thing I do on a fresh install so I can have internet access. It never fails, click on icon, wait 4-5 seconds, configuration finally comes up. Waits like that make the OS seem bloated, even if it isn't using a lot of RAM, hell it seems to do that no matter how much RAM is installed. There are a lot of parts of the OS that are inefficient.

On a completely bare fresh install of either OS, they will use roughly the same amount of RAM, however to get a comfortable experience in OSX I can't stand using less than 1GB of RAM, however with XP and Vista I work perfectly fine with 512MB. OSX is, in my eyes, far more bloated than Windows at this point. Now I am done with this topic.

Wile ESo that was with how much stuff running? I obviously saw Firefox and Task Manager, but what else?

you can see firefox, photoshop 7.0, MSN messenger, yahoo messenger...

newtekie1WooHoo Wile e. You figured out that if you disable everything that starts up with OSX it uses less RAM. Congrats. But guess what, and I know this will sound amazing to you, you can do the same thing with Windows XP.

Looks like someone hasn't that much of a clue. Nothing disabled OS X (10.4.8) (no need to mess with disabling stuff - that's PC thinking that doesn't apply to Macs) 164 MB (Active+wired) for Mail, Safari, TextEdit and Activity Monitor. No multi-second delays on a 1.33 GHz eMac. Can't really get my XP box to less than 190MB and that is stripped down, add AV, Steam and BOINC and I'm already up to 470MB (commit charge). No contest.

BOINC? Seriously, you are actually comparing an XP machine running BOINC, a program that does nothing but use processing power and eat up RAM, sometime over 300MB on its own, AND Steam to an OSX machine running essentially nothing.

Perhaps you didn't read his original post. I qoute it for you to make it easier.

Wile EI just got OS X down to 121MB on a fresh boot, by disabling my start up apps and helpers.

It isn't just Windows thinking there Slick.

newtekie1BOINC? Seriously, you are actually comparing an XP machine running BOINC, a program that does nothing but use processing power and eat up RAM, sometime over 300MB on its own, AND Steam to an OSX machine running essentially nothing.

Perhaps you didn't read his original post. I qoute it for you to make it easier.



It isn't just Windows thinking there Slick.

Yeah, but what you fail to realize is that 121MB is the entire OS. I disabled nothing involving OS X, just the third party apps. If you go back to my original ram usage post, you'll see that when I boot XP with third party apps disabled, and a partially stripped OS, on a fresh install (only a week and a half old) I can only manage 201MB. If you feel OS X is running sluggish for you on a MacBook (Pro or not), then you should probably have it checked out. OS X doesn't even run sluggish for me on a 1GHz iMac G4. The only time it lags is when I max the CPU (which, unfortunately, isn't that hard with a 1GHz cpu. lol) The fact that you have a notebook drive might be making it feel sluggish, too, but that would also affect Windows (if you're using boot camp). I say look into it further, there may be a problem.

And I will argue this till I'm blue in the face because you are wrong on this subject. OS X is far less "bloated" than windows. It uses less resources all the way around.

Wile E, I manage over 100 Macs, ranging from G3 iMacs to Mac Pros with 4GB of RAM, they are all sluggish in the same areas. The OS is inefficient and bloated in areas regardless of RAM usage. I have never, not once, seen an OSX machine use anything below 200MB, to see one below 250MB is surprising, even on a litterally fresh install(not 2 weeks old, litterally the first boot after the OS is installed).

The fact still remains that I can comfortably run XP on 256MB of RAM(with themes disabled) or 512MB(with themes on), while I need at least 1GB to comfortably run OSX(regardless of what it enabled or disabled). I don't care what RAM figures you want to throw out and what processor you want to say you use, I can't stand to use an OSX machine with less than 1GB of RAM, that makes the OS bloated in my eyes. Period, end of discussion, OSX is bloated.

newtekie1BOINC? Seriously, you are actually comparing an XP machine running BOINC, a program that does nothing but use processing power and eat up RAM, sometime over 300MB on its own, AND Steam to an OSX machine running essentially nothing.

Perhaps you didn't read his original post. I qoute it for you to make it easier.



It isn't just Windows thinking there Slick.

Nothing apart from Safari which makes BOINC look like an amateur in the RAM eating stakes. As Wile E says, the Mac OS footprint is for the full OS install, the XP is after a good deal of work and judicious paring and it still doesn't come close.

To Wile E, my eMcc was a 1GHz before I overclocked it (not for the faint-hearted) but the 1/3 increase in speed has given it a new lease of life esp. in WoW, delayed getting a new iMac by a good 6 mths or more.

DrashNothing apart from Safari which makes BOINC look like an amateur in the RAM eating stakes. As Wile E says, the Mac OS footprint is for the full OS install, the XP is after a good deal of work and judicious paring and it still doesn't come close.

To Wile E, my eMcc was a 1GHz before I overclocked it (not for the faint-hearted) but the 1/3 increase in speed has given it a new lease of life esp. in WoW, delayed getting a new iMac by a good 6 mths or more.

I had mine overclocked as well to 1.33 iirc, but I decided to solder it back to stock because it kept overheating, and I didn't want to cut the case or hard drive/burner cage to install fans. Stupid passive cooling. lol

newtekie1Wile E, I manage over 100 Macs, ranging from G3 iMacs to Mac Pros with 4GB of RAM, they are all sluggish in the same areas. The OS is inefficient and bloated in areas regardless of RAM usage. I have never, not once, seen an OSX machine use anything below 200MB, to see one below 250MB is surprising, even on a litterally fresh install(not 2 weeks old, litterally the first boot after the OS is installed).

The fact still remains that I can comfortably run XP on 256MB of RAM(with themes disabled) or 512MB(with themes on), while I need at least 1GB to comfortably run OSX(regardless of what it enabled or disabled). I don't care what RAM figures you want to throw out and what processor you want to say you use, I can't stand to use an OSX machine with less than 1GB of RAM, that makes the OS bloated in my eyes. Period, end of discussion, OSX is bloated.

Well to each his own I guess, but your fresh install OS X ram usage figures are wrong, period. I had 1GB in the iMac, until my 512MB SODimm died, now it's down to 512MB. There is absolutely no speed difference, in fact, the only time I ever exceeded 512MB of usage is when I tried to run Photoshop with Garageband already running. (Never tried that again. lol) Your definition of bloated must differ greatly from mine.

newtekie1Period, end of discussion, OSX is bloated.

Unoptomized, on a system with 2GB of ram.

Bloated my ass.

Gonna be hard to backup your FUD when I have a brand spanking new macbook pro.

Note: This is processes for ALL users. Root included. (Obviously)

Dippyskoodlez

Unoptomized, on a system with 2GB of ram.

Bloated my ass.

Gonna be hard to backup your FUD when I have a brand spanking new macbook pro.

Note: This is processes for ALL users. Root included. (Obviously)

you totally missed his point: he said even with low ram usage its SLOW, not that it uses a lot of ram.

Musselsyou totally missed his point: he said even with low ram usage its SLOW, not that it uses a lot of ram.

I've run os X on everything from 64mb to 2Gb.

Ofcourse theres a huge performance difference, as there is in windows too. Pagefile out the ass.

Difference is, you can have the same UI no matter the ram and GPU. Its the same UI experience. If you wanna compare os x and XP with 64mb ram, OS X is still VERY VERY USABLE. Even on a 300mhz G3. Normally, the bottleneck actually lies in the hard drive. STick a 7200rpm drive in, and its a hell of a lot faster. Faster swapping ftw.

This was shown verymuch so with hackintosh x86- No GPU acceleration, and all people lost was the waves of adding widgets to the dashboard.. everything else ran flawlessly.

Whereas vista craps out.

OS X with 64mb ram sucks, but atleast its usable. Windows XP is too, but damn, it sucks. However, OS X doesnt spam your screen with ZOMFG YOU'RE OUT OF RAM YOU FOOL bubbles every 2 minutes. :banghead:

newtekie1I have never, not once, seen an OSX machine use anything below 200MB, to see one below 250MB is surprising, even on a litterally fresh install(not 2 weeks old, litterally the first boot after the OS is installed).

Now you have. ~186Mb not including itunes. Loaded with 2Gb ram, OS X stretches its legs a little. (See picture above)

And this is not a slimmed down system, not at all... I use it daily, and often. I have never went in and tweaked processes (you can see a few that need kicked out as it is right now anyways)..

I'm not gonna say its bad to buy the extra ram, as I saw huge performance increases from going to 2Gb up from 1, but I also run Photoshop, Parallels, Visual studio, Dreamweaver, and various other apps at the same time... When windows eats 512mb alone, it makes a big difference :/

DippyskoodlezDifference is, you can have the same UI no matter the ram and GPU. Its the same UI experience. If you wanna compare os x and XP with 64mb ram, OS X is still VERY VERY USABLE.

No it is not usable, not at all. It runs like a slug. This is how the experience on OSX with 64MB of RAM usually goes: Open Safari, go make a sandwich, eat sandwidch, go wash car, fly around the world 3 times, wait another 15 minutes, finally be able to use safari.

DippyskoodlezOS X with 64mb ram sucks, but atleast its usable. Windows XP is too, but damn, it sucks.

I wouldn't say either is usable with 64MB of RAM. Though I run XP on 128MB daily and it does just fine, even with themes enabled. It works great for basic internet browsing and running Office. As long as you don't start getting a bunch of useless crap going, like running 3 IM programs and Winamp, they run fine. I can't say that about the 128MB Macs I encounter running OSX. I can't stand working on them. Everything that is already sluggish about the OS is amplified once you get under 1GB of RAM, and once you get under 512MB every action you do you just sit and wait, and wait, and wait. The curser is almost a constant spinning pinwheel of death(pretty to some, makes others eyes bleed)

DippyskoodlezHowever, OS X doesnt spam your screen with ZOMFG YOU'RE OUT OF RAM YOU FOOL bubbles every 2 minutes. :banghead:

Turn up the page file size and you won't get that message, I would expect that even a computer novice would be able to read "Your page file is low" and be able to figure out that if you increase the size of your page file the message will go away, but somehow that conclusion eluded you. Or even better, you can just leave it set to the default option of "Let windows control my page file" so it behaves identically to what OSX does.

i dont give a flying fuck whats said, as longs all that pre-applied spyware crap is in vista allowing basically anyone to walk right on in your pc, collect and delete any info they want, then promptly piss the fuck off again and not be held accountable for any loss of data, im not touching vista. nevermind the fact vista goes nuclear after 2 weeks if it doesnt have a net connection to "call home", lack of OGL still (as far as i know) making games like quake 4 look like shit, excessive hdd wear, increased gpu temps, being a memory hog... i rest my case.

well done microsoft, you created the biggest piece of shit to date.

ed- for the record im running vista transformation pack 6 done by mr. windows x, making xp look like vista, but wthout all the negatives (well most anyway) and without a clean restart an just FF closed, RAM usage is 166MB. beat that vista.