Computer Hope
Other => Computer News => Topic started by: kpac on December 24, 2008, 04:21:30 PM
-
Microsoft's tricky balancing act in 2009 will be to phase out Windows XP while boosting demand for Windows Vista and building anticipation for Windows 7.
http://starlite-media.blogspot.com/2008/12/can-microsoft-juggle-3-operating.html
-
Yes.
-
You think so?
I think they can, it would want to go better than Vista though...
-
My benchtest machine has every MS OS on it from Win98SE except any Server versions...
XP/Vista is on the new build.
-
From what I've tried, WIndows 7 is going to be pretty good. Definately something I'll get.
-
I happen to like Vista so far which puts me in a very small minority...
-
I'm with you :)
-
I like Vista as well :)
-
Umm hasn't Microsoft already done this in the past? I recall a few years ago Microsoft phasing out Microsoft Windows 98 and NT while having Windows ME and 2000 with the development of XP. I couldn't imagine them having a problem with their current situation.
-
I don't know anything about Windows 7 yet. But I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****. Who's tried Windows 7 and is it memory intensive like Vista? Vista is the worst choice for gaming.
-
I suppose it won't be long before game developers stop supporting the XP platform. :/
-
I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****
False. Vista uses RAM in different way, than previous Windows versions.
-
I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****
False. Vista uses RAM in different way, than previous Windows versions.
Your right, it does, it uses way more than previous version :P If you look at the system requirements for new games they always say something like 1Gb RAM (And 1.5Gb Vista) why is this? ???
Do the games run in a different way in Vista that requires more RAM? The way Vista uses RAM is bad for wanting to run a lot of processes at once... right?
-
No. Read here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
Every single Windows version uses more RAM, than the previous one. Are you surprised?
Vista wants 2GB of RAM. Period. If you want use less, use some other OS.
-
I haven't switched to Vista because it's a RAM eating son of a *****
False. Vista uses RAM in different way, than previous Windows versions.
Your right, it does, it uses way more than previous version :P If you look at the system requirements for new games they always say something like 1Gb RAM (And 1.5Gb Vista) why is this? ???
Do the games run in a different way in Vista that requires more RAM? The way Vista uses RAM is bad for wanting to run a lot of processes at once... right?
wrong. you need to do some research on Vista's Ram handling.
basically- Free RAM is bad RAM. There would be no point buying extra RAM if the OS is just going to try it's best to page everything to disk to keep it free. Vista uses unused RAM for caching Often used data and executables. When another application requests RAM- it gives it up. It's called Superfetch, and it reduces paging.
I'm sure there are ways to disable it, but I'm also sure there would be a noticable decrease in performance (unless your running Vista without sufficient RAM in the first place, in which case SuperFetch wouldn't have any Free RAM to use)
As for the requirements- why do some say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x? the VMM in XP is a way better then the primitive (by comparision) Win9X memory manager.
No. Read here: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html
Every single Windows version uses more RAM, than the previous one. Are you surprised?
Vista wants 2GB of RAM. Period. If you want use less, use some other OS.
codinghorror :) That's where I first read about superfetch too.
-
So... to discover where all these rumours came from about Superfetch... I googled "superfetch sucks".
lol
you'll never guess at the misinformation.
http://www.vistadiscuss.com/windows-vista-superfetch-technology-sucks/2006/09/
I don't think a single statement in there is factual.
-
why do some say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x?
Very good point...with a little adjustment :)
XP will run on 256MB, but we all know, that 512MB would be REAL minimum, 1GB preferable.
XP was introduced in 2001. Around 2000 1GB of RAM was selling for almost $1,000. If at that time, someone was advising to get 1GB for XP...are you nuts?!
-
okay... so the proper thing to have said would have been:
why do did people say 128MB for Win9x and 256 for WinXP? does that mean Windows XP is worse then win 9x?
But come on now- I ran WinXP with 96MB! I don't recall it being painfully slow... although I wasn't exactly conditioned to enjoy speed after working with a 386 prior to that, so I doubt it would have been enjoyable to anyone else. ;) Heck- I was just happy I could use the SetLayeredWindowAttributes() Function.
-
Every single Windows version uses more RAM, than the previous one. Are you surprised?
Vista wants 2GB of RAM. Period. If you want use less, use some other OS.
Wrong...
Vista is said to require 2GB of RAM. Win 7 is advertised as requiring 1GB. It appears that either win7 doesn't use RAM in the same way as vista (implying superfetch isn't as good as they thought) or that there's been some serious streamlining of windows services?
FB
-
Win 7 is advertised as requiring 1GB
Says who? M$?
-
I'm not sure i get your point
FB
-
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx
# 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor
# 1 GB of system memory
# Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128 MB memory (to enable the Aero theme)
...which is ridiculous
Remember, that M$ says very same thing about Vista: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/system-requirements.aspx
# 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
# 1 GB of system memory
# 40 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
# Support for DirectX 9 graphics with:
* 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)
-
Actually in MS's defense ( i can't believe i would ever type this in Public ) to test it i removed 1G from my new build to see how Windows 7 was...practically no noticeable difference between 1 and 2G ...so they may just have gotten it right this time...
-
say, did I mention I ran XP with 32MB of RAM?
ahh, and then the fun of running windows 3.1 on my 286 with monochrome graphics and 384K of extended memory... wow. I have not used the terms extended or conventional memory in a long time.
-
patio
I'd like to see what would you have to say after running 7 for several months, and have bunch of programs installed.
I believe, a pristine Vista installation will run on 1GB just fine, too.
Probably same goes for new XP installation on 256MB, or maybe even 128MB.
-
256MB, or maybe even 128MB.
say, did I mention I ran XP with 32MB of RAM?
Although- it wasn't pleasant.
-
Although it's not a full build Broni i can see your point...however i have about 20 different apps installed on the W7 side and it's still pretty snappy on 1G.
Wait let me throw AutoCad and Photoshop at it..... ;)
-
hmmm. I only have 1GB in this PC, and it's maxed out...
It's kind of weird that my laptop is way more powerful then my desktop. It just... feels wrong.
say did I mentio <SLAP>