Jump to content
SubSpace Forum Network

Vista or XP?

PoLiX

By PoLiX
in General Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

doc flabby Newbie

»doc flabby

Posted
Posted (edited)
!@#$%^&*, I was just about to play devil's advocate for Vista. I have only 1 GB RAM on my Desktop, and Vista is running alright for me. There are some tricks you need to know in order to get Vista to work:

 

1) The first thing you should do is turn off all the visual crap that comes with it. You probably should also turn off the stupid sidebar, as all of the options there seem nice, but have an evil twist. (A 'performance' gauge which drastically decreases your computer's performance, a weather program that only gives the local weather at present and thus is just as good as looking out the window, and news feeds which actually are evil propaganda from MSNBC.)

 

2) When running games which aren't specifically formatted for Vista, 9 times out of 10 it won't work unless the option "Run this program as an Administrator" in the properties menu is on. The good news is that if your program isn't working, 9 times out of 10 this is all you need to do to solve the problem.

So basically you change the settings in Vista to make it as much like XP as possible blum.gif

 

Free Ram is misleading in VISTA as it uses it more efficiently. Having ram free is essentially ram being wasted. In vista alot of it for disk caching (similar to linux, in linux is rare to have any free ram)

Edited by doc flabby
PoLiX Newbie

PoLiX

Posted
  • Author
Posted
True, but my video card allocates that free ram when it needs it. I went from 30fps in MG in spec to 145fps... And I capped my card now on XP (wasn't in the options in Vista for some reason) so it could maybe go higher if I wanted.
Ceiu Newbie

»Ceiu

Posted
Posted
I haven't bothered reading any of this thread, but I can strongly say: XP. Vista is terrible. First-child-having-down-syndrome-and-killing-mother-in-the-birthing-process terrible.
Admiral Kirk Newbie

»Admiral Kirk

Posted
Posted

Wow, I thought I was going to have to go on a huge crusade posting links to Benchmarks and professional analysis of Vista and XP, but apparently popular opinion was actually almost right on the mark for once blum.gif . At this point in time thier is virtually no reason at all for using Vista unless you are DESPERATE to play Halo 3 Online (Halo 3 single player can be made to work on XP).

 

Through my own tests and observations, using fresh installs on a Athlon64 X2 with 2gb of ram, and also upon reading various benchmark results which agree with my own observations. Ive come to the conclusion that Vista sucks. It introduces no notable improvements in the realm of operating system tools or abilities. Its "superior" security has more to do with its lack of adoption right now rather than any technical abilities. Thier has already been several proof of concept root kits designed for it, but none of them appear in the wild right now just because no one has really bothered to infect Vista.

 

Bottom line, it sucks up almost twice as many resources, both memory and processing power to perform tasks at about 3/4th the speed of windows XP. While at the same time providing no notable technical benefits. Unless you count the fancy new interface as a benefit which, while looking spiffy, also requires a fair amount of retraining as most everything is no longer where it was before. I have nothing against change, in fact I embrace it, change is the only way to progress. But I prefer change for a _good_ reason, as in improving usability in an UI or something of the like. Not changing stuff just to make it look different so you can spin it as "revolutionary".

 

Hmm, didn't mean to make this into an novel that no one will likely read lol. Oh well.

L.C. Newbie

L.C.

Posted
Posted

lol, Vista is the turn of the century. All the newbies "brainwashed" or forced to "upgrade" with the new machines (pushed for by companies like Dell). They don't know any better.

 

Windows XP will idle with only a 256MB memory usage and almost no CPU utilization with 1.5GB of RAM. Vista idles with 1GB+ of RAM usage if you have 2GB of RAM.

 

That's what I call inefficient and a waste of resources. If you switched back to XP (!@#$%^&*uming you had 2GB of RAM), you could get far more work done than you could with Vista. Vista is a major downgrade that will unnecessarily deplete your system resources.

 

XP is probably the best OS Microsoft has ever made; couple it with SP2 and it's perfect.

 

XP runs pretty smoothly for me on a laptop with 192MB of RAM (one of those old IBM laptops).

Admiral Kirk Newbie

»Admiral Kirk

Posted
Posted
In regards to the memory "free" shown by Vista, someone mentioned earlier that Vista manages memory differently than XP, which is correct. It dedicates a great deal more memory to caching of both m!@#$%^&*-storage files and previously loaded applications and application-extensions. However even taking that into account, Vista _still_ uses far more memory for its core operating system than XP does. And spends a great deal more processor power maintaining those caches than is really necessary.
L.C. Newbie

L.C.

Posted
Posted
If you aren't a Linux guru, go with Ubuntu.
OpenSuse is probably better. I try Ubuntu annually with an open and honest heart, and to be honest, I find Ubuntu to be quite crappy and less flexible than Windows XP. I think I even found a few bugs.

 

And my 56k modem doesn't work with Ubuntu, period (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4313963).

 

Whenever I have free time I plan on trying out a few other Linux distros, such as OpenSuse, XPde, Linux XP and some other ones.

 

By the way -- the nVidia drivers for Ubuntu is a piece of crap. I can't get it to work with my 6800XT -- actually I couldn't even install it without some Linux guru doing a bunch of scary stuff in the non-GUI mode of Ubuntu for like 30 minutes before getting just a little part of it to work. Then I ****ed it up when I tried to turn on the "Advanced Graphics" or whatever from the Change Background window, and now it doesn't work any more.

Admiral Kirk Newbie

»Admiral Kirk

Posted
Posted
Unfortunatly both LinuxXP and XPde (which LinuxXP uses) are more or less dead in the water. Neither has had any updates in over a year. I havnt realy had a chance to hunt around for any alternatives yet, but if you find one let me know. Id be interested particularly in a distro that worked as much like XP as possible with WINE preconfigured for minimum win32 support.
Cancer+ Newbie

Cancer+

Posted
Posted
If you aren't a Linux guru, go with Ubuntu.
OpenSuse is probably better. I try Ubuntu annually with an open and honest heart, and to be honest, I find Ubuntu to be quite crappy and less flexible than Windows XP. I think I even found a few bugs.

 

And my 56k modem doesn't work with Ubuntu, period (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=4313963).

 

Whenever I have free time I plan on trying out a few other Linux distros, such as OpenSuse, XPde, Linux XP and some other ones.

 

By the way -- the nVidia drivers for Ubuntu is a piece of crap. I can't get it to work with my 6800XT -- actually I couldn't even install it without some Linux guru doing a bunch of scary stuff in the non-GUI mode of Ubuntu for like 30 minutes before getting just a little part of it to work. Then I ****ed it up when I tried to turn on the "Advanced Graphics" or whatever from the Change Background window, and now it doesn't work any more.

 

I have heard that Ubuntu is for the newbs of Linux. That is all I know about it. I have it dual booting on my laptop, but I don't mess with it much. The only problem I have had with it is my wireless drivers. I found a way to fix it though, just havent had the chance.

tcsoccerman Newbie

tcsoccerman

Posted
Posted (edited)

I see why you all complain about vista but i think it helps if you look at the big picture.

 

In vista they really overdid themselves with the graphics, which means that microsoft progressed in that area. But those overloaded graphics led to performance problems. Now microsoft has lots of room for improvement in the next version of windows (performance wise).

 

Will the next version of windows be vista+good performance?

 

I think microsoft was in a way setting themselves up for the future. You can't "win" everytime.

 

Don't get me wrong though, i do think there are some other problem with windows. Unfortunately i can't test drive any linux distro until i get a better graphics card that supports linux. (Intel 8210 Graphics accelerator card is not supported anymore by intel :D ).

Edited by tcsoccerman
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...