Because its a Beta?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

This is my first time beta testing an OS. A question for those who beta
tested XP:

In terms of system resources used by an OS, was there a huge difference
between Beta and final release?

I'm not sure if this is just my install (although I have clean installed
Vista beta 2 about eight times already), but in XP Home on my system, a clean
start-up with anti-virus and anti-spy ware I get about 25 running processes
and just under 150mb of Ram used. On the same system with Vista Beta 2 with
not a single program running, I have 50+ processes running and just over
500mb of Ram being used.

I know each new version of windows require more resources than the previous
one, but this is quite the leap. So is this due to it being in Beta status or
is there the possibility that the final release will be this massive?
 
Your observations are in line with typical Vista usage on my computers.
Vista is a larger system than XP. The leap from XP to Vista appears to me
to be as large as the one from Win95 to XP and not at all in line with the
move from Win 2000 to XP. There is extra code in the beta (debugging code)
and the caches have not yet been optimized, so resource usage may drop a
little at release. I get closer to 50 processes on my XP Pro machine than
the 25 you are getting on Home. I do not think 50+ on Vista is any
surprise. Your ram usage is in line with the minimum system requirements of
512MB with 1GB recommended.

Just as XP matured over its five years so far, so will Vista over the next
several. Two or three years from now I fully expect 2GB of ram to be a
nominal system. I know I wouldn't dream of setting up an XP SP2 machine
today with the parameters I found acceptible when XP released in 2001.
 
That's mainly due to the drop in hardware prices (RAM, CPU, etc) and
programs that are taking more advantage of XP's features, that is using
more resources.
 
It may also be due to the CPP build being Vista Ultimate and not Vista Home,
so a comparison with XP Home as to the number of processes running, etc.,
would not be a fair one.
 
sorry but in your post you were referring to "XP Pro"

but anyways, Vista Premium Ready PCs will become bare minimum after 2 to
3 years, just like Designed for Windows XP computers of 3 years ago.
 
No, I meant XP Home because that is what the OP used in his comparison. My
point was that since the CPP edition is Vista Ultimate, his comparison of
the number of processes running on his XP Home with his copy of Vista was
not a useful comparison.
 
Rob said:
This is my first time beta testing an OS. A question for those who beta
tested XP:

In terms of system resources used by an OS, was there a huge difference
between Beta and final release?
Click to expand...

Yes, and on every other version of Windows going back before it that
I've tested in the preceding decade or more. Performance tends to be one
of the last issues worked on, and the results are usually quite dramatic
 
Thanks for all the replies.

As it stands right now, if Vista final is anything like beta 2 then on my
systems at least I'd have to steer clear from it due to general
performance/resource-utilisation issues. It’s comforting to know that there
will be a significant difference between beta and final release in this
regard.
 
This is my first time beta testing an OS. A question for those who beta
tested XP:
Click to expand...

NOTE, my friend: You are NOT "beta-testing" an OS. You are "trying
out the Community Public Preview" along with the General Public. While
it IS "beta 2" of the OS, ONLY Microsoft official "beta testers" are
"beta testing" it.
In terms of system resources used by an OS, was there a huge difference
between Beta and final release?

I'm not sure if this is just my install (although I have clean installed
Vista beta 2 about eight times already), but in XP Home on my system, a clean
start-up with anti-virus and anti-spy ware I get about 25 running processes
and just under 150mb of Ram used. On the same system with Vista Beta 2 with
not a single program running, I have 50+ processes running and just over
500mb of Ram being used.

I know each new version of windows require more resources than the previous
one, but this is quite the leap. So is this due to it being in Beta status or
is there the possibility that the final release will be this massive?
Click to expand...

The final release should be smaller in size, and use less resources.
The Community Public Preview has huge amounts of debug code in it,
which will be removed when it goes to Manufacturing. In addition, the
OS code itself will be optimized for size and resource handling.

However, on my Intel iMac, 500MB of ram being used for Vista is kind
of unreasonable. I would look at all those processes. Also, I would
think about increasing your base memory to at least 2GB.

It's also possible that Vista currently has a few memory leaks (in
fact, I wouldn't doubt that it is leaking like a sieve), and may not
be returning memory to the general memory pool when shutting down
processes.

But let's face it: Microsoft Vista is a very large OS, and is not
Windows XP, NT, or Win9x. It needs more resources to run, and even to
install. Put simply, it "does more", so needs more resources.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================
 
Rob can submit bug reports to MS via the bug reporting tools at
http://windowsbeta.microsoft.com/vista/bugs.aspx?&build=0&sku=0
and to my knowledge they are triaged and handled within the bug database
normally.

Also, it is a "Customer Preview Program," not a "Communtiy Public Preview."
'Customers' for purposes of this program are defined by MS as "Developers,
IT Professionals, and Technology Experts."

Determination of whether or not Rob is a customer in that regard is up to
Rob.
 
Donald McDaniel said:
NOTE, my friend: You are NOT "beta-testing" an OS. You are "trying
out the Community Public Preview" along with the General Public. While
it IS "beta 2" of the OS, ONLY Microsoft official "beta testers" are
"beta testing" it.
Click to expand...
Well I'm testing a beta product, part of a team, for our company so in a way
it is beta-testing an OS.

Also, whether it was meant or not, your remark came across as a snide one.
My arrogant meter just gave me a BSOD reading the first part of your post.
Otherwise thanks for the reply.
 
Thanks Colin.

We've been submitting a lot of feedback. I see it benefiting us in the long
run anyways.
 
This is my first time beta testing an OS. A question for those who beta
tested XP:

In terms of system resources used by an OS, was there a huge difference
between Beta and final release?

I'm not sure if this is just my install (although I have clean installed
Vista beta 2 about eight times already), but in XP Home on my system, a clean
start-up with anti-virus and anti-spy ware I get about 25 running processes
and just under 150mb of Ram used. On the same system with Vista Beta 2 with
not a single program running, I have 50+ processes running and just over
500mb of Ram being used.

I know each new version of windows require more resources than the previous
one, but this is quite the leap. So is this due to it being in Beta status or
is there the possibility that the final release will be this massive?
Click to expand...

As pointed out by others, the beta 2 if the Ultimate edition and comes
with a lot of stuff running that will be of little of no interest for
the normal home user. Take a look in the thread "Disabling some
un-needed services gave a huge performance boost" for some tips of
things you can turn of to make Vista a bit less memory hungry.
 
The final product will be self-scaling too, so will adjust to whatever
harware you have. Though this is a big OS and I don't think it's gonna run
to well on any older hardware. Ideally you want to throw as much hardware at
is as you can afford.
 
I understand that Vista scales to older hardware better than XP ever did.
People do confuse Vista with Aero Glass, though. Vista should just about
run on a Kenmore washing machine as long as it has the minimum required
memory.

Aero Glass is another matter.
 
Colin said:
I understand that Vista scales to older hardware better than XP ever did.
People do confuse Vista with Aero Glass, though. Vista should just about
run on a Kenmore washing machine as long as it has the minimum required
memory.

Aero Glass is another matter.
Click to expand...
Right...I've got it loaded on an old Celeron 1gig, 512 ram (dimm) using
an older ATI Rage Fury 128 with 32 megs of ram. It runs fine albeit a
little slow and with just basic display.
Frank
 
Rob can submit bug reports to MS via the bug reporting tools at
http://windowsbeta.microsoft.com/vista/bugs.aspx?&build=0&sku=0
and to my knowledge they are triaged and handled within the bug database
normally.

Also, it is a "Customer Preview Program," not a "Communtiy Public Preview."
'Customers' for purposes of this program are defined by MS as "Developers,
IT Professionals, and Technology Experts."
Click to expand...

Ok, Colin, I was wrong about the name of the Public program release.

But, the Preview is STILL open (or has been open) to the "General
Public", so stop letting your "chain be jerked". Of course, it may
now be closed. I haven't checked lately.

Whether you like it or not, Colin, even the "General Public" are
"customers" of Microsoft. In fact, many MILLIONS of the "General
Public" are "Microsoft Customers", and we have contributed a
substantial amount of money into Microsoft's coffers. Some may be
"developers, IT professionals, and Technology Experts." But I doubt
seriously whether many who have taken advantage of Microsoft's
generous offer to the "General Public" through the "Customer Preview
Program" are.

And we STILL aren't "beta testers". Some MIGHT be, but most probably
aren't, and are simply like me, members of the "General Public" who
paid our few dollars for the CD, or downloaded the ISO (or whatever it
is).

Of course, those who have paid beau coup bucks for the MSDN releases
are probably "beta testers", but does it really matter? But of
course, anyone who can afford to pay the $500 or so for the Operating
Systems release of MSDN can be a "beta tester". I don't see any kind
of "membership requirements" other than a valid credit card on the
MSDN sign-up page.

I bet THAT really pulls your chain, huh? Elitists just don't like the
"General Public", it appears, whether they are Microsoft Elitists, or
Mac Elitists. Elitists are elitists, not matter what colors they
wear.

Nevertheless, the MAJORITY who have taken advantage of the "Community
Preview Program" are probably mostly hobbyists like myself. Of
course, I can't speak for Rob. But I doubt seriously whether he is a
"beta tester" in the true sense of the word, since he himself states
that "this is the first time I have beta-tested an OS."

But for the sake of ending argument, I will call him a "beta tester",
as he calls himself. Hopefully, this will help you to stop feeling
like your "chain is being pulled".

By the way, Colin, haven't you learned yet to "bottom-post"?

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================
 
Well I'm testing a beta product, part of a team, for our company so in a way
it is beta-testing an OS.

Also, whether it was meant or not, your remark came across as a snide one.
My arrogant meter just gave me a BSOD reading the first part of your post.
Otherwise thanks for the reply.
Click to expand...

I apologize most sincerely, Rob. I assumed you were one of the many
hobbyists who post in this newsgroup, like myself. I suppose I should
have learned a long time ago that " assuming only makes an 'ass' out
of 'u' and 'me' ".

I, however, cannot call myself a "beta tester" (even though I have
been a "beta tester" for various Microsoft products through the years,
at least one of which was by invitation from Microsoft Beta), and I do
respect you and those like yourself who are truly "in the trenches" at
work. But I spend at least 8 hours per day at my keyboard, so I
believe that my work is just as valid as anyone's. I do not get paid
for my work in any other way than my own satisfaction, and the
satisfaction of those I am able to help.

I am, and have always been, a "hobbyist", for which I do not
apologize. I have had a running battle with elitists over the years
on the Usenet. I dislike them as much as they probably dislike me. I
guess it's true that we usually become like those we love or hate.

Again, please forgive me for any arrogance I might have displayed.

==

Donald L McDaniel
Please Reply to the Original Thread.
========================================================
 
Back
Top