Next Vista update, and a few other things

  • Thread starter Thread starter PowerUser
  • Start date Start date
P

PowerUser

Any idea when the next publicly available update will be available? (i.e.
after 5728)

Also, has anyone experienced performance incleases after installing 5728
vis-a-vis 5600?

And finally- Can someone direct me to a site on how Memory is managed in
Vista? I have 0MB physical memory free, a few hundred are cached. I have 1
GB totally. The performance is way slower than XP, even with aero glass
turned off. I did not expect this.

Dell Inspiron 1505+ 256MB Geforce Go 7300+ Intel Core 1.6 Dual Core
Processor.
 
Have you looked at the memory statistics in task manager to see what
processes are eating your memory? Good first step is to identify the
processes then the program and stop using it until the problem is fixed.
May be a memory hole in one of the programs that will get fixed.
 
PowerUser said:
Any idea when the next publicly available update will be available? (i.e.
after 5728)

Also, has anyone experienced performance incleases after installing 5728
vis-a-vis 5600?

And finally- Can someone direct me to a site on how Memory is managed in
Vista? I have 0MB physical memory free, a few hundred are cached. I have
1 GB totally. The performance is way slower than XP, even with aero glass
turned off. I did not expect this.
Click to expand...

The Windows NT family (NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista) always has tried to find a
use of some kind for all your physical RAM; unused RAM is RAM you wasted
money buying.

Vista appears to be considerably more efficient in that quest than the
previous versions - individual processes might get a bit better about how
much they use when all the debug settings are removed / dialed down, but I
wouldn't expect a vast change in memory use patterns from this moment on.
 
Any idea when the next publicly available update will be available? (i.e.
after 5728)

Also, has anyone experienced performance incleases after installing 5728
vis-a-vis 5600?

And finally- Can someone direct me to a site on how Memory is managed in
Vista? I have 0MB physical memory free, a few hundred are cached. I
have 1
GB totally. The performance is way slower than XP, even with aero glass
turned off. I did not expect this.

Dell Inspiron 1505+ 256MB Geforce Go 7300+ Intel Core 1.6 Dual Core
Processor.
Click to expand...

5728 seems a vast improvement over RC1 here, faster, more stable on my
laptop (1.85Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, Geforce 6200 GO)
 
Hi

Thanks for your reply. My real question relates to the information Vista is
displaying to me in the TM- Under the Performance tab.

It displays my 'Free' memory as 0MB, this frequently ranges from 23MB to
nothing. Cached memory is 491MB. In Windows XP, I see in the TM that
'Available' is 448MB. I take it that XP isn't using that 448MB. Is Vista,
OTOH using everything, or is the XP TM not including cached memory? That's
why I was interested in whether Vista really manages memory differently, or
just shows TM stats differently.

BTW, the total Memory usage of the processes on Vista does not add up to
1GB, I would think that the 491 is free according to the processes list.

Also, where's the equivalent figure of "Peak commit charge" in Vista? (I
use that to analyze maximum memory usage)

Thanks everyone for your interest.
 
Really sorry about the multiple posts. I kept getting failure notices, but
apparently, everything got posted.
 
PowerUser said:
Any idea when the next publicly available update will be available? (i.e.
after 5728)

Also, has anyone experienced performance incleases after installing 5728
vis-a-vis 5600?

And finally- Can someone direct me to a site on how Memory is managed in
Vista? I have 0MB physical memory free, a few hundred are cached. I have
1 GB totally. The performance is way slower than XP, even with aero glass
turned off. I did not expect this.

Dell Inspiron 1505+ 256MB Geforce Go 7300+ Intel Core 1.6 Dual Core
Processor.
Click to expand...

What is your pagefile set at? Maybe you could increase it a little.
 
What you are seeing is a bug. MS supposedly is working on it. I suggest
using Process Explorer in the mean time.
 
5728 seems a vast improvement over RC1 here, faster, more stable on my
laptop (1.85Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, Geforce 6200 GO)
Click to expand...


There is a "publically-available" release of Vista (other than the
CPP's RC1)?

Where do I download this from?

==

Donald
===================================
 
The current version available to CPP (downloaders only) is build 5728.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Colin. Already downloaded it last night, and installed it on
my Apple Intel PC.

I am getting ready to install it fresh (and exclusively) on my Intel
iMac. Wish me luck.

==

Donald
===================================
 
Any idea when the next publicly available update will be available? (i.e.
after 5728)
Click to expand...

No, this one was just released. In fact it was surprising they released
5728 publicly.
Also, has anyone experienced performance incleases after installing 5728
vis-a-vis 5600?
Click to expand...

Yes, it appears to be more responsive. Some bugs have been fixed.
 
I predict driver issues. As far as I can tell, the Mac Drivers for XP won't
cut it.
Click to expand...

Apparently, this build (and build 5600) have the wireless drivers
already on the RC1 distribution media. I was able to get online as
soon as I seleted a Wireless access point (we only have one in our
house).

Actually, Colin, I had absolutely no driver issues, other than the
SigmaTel audio, which I had to install from the extracted BootCamp
1.1.1 Drivers disk. The same is required for the Apple Keyboard,
Apple Bluetooth (if one has Apple Bluetooth devices, such as an Apple
mouse or keyboard), the Display Brightness control, and

This build broke the iSight camera, however, except for its built-in
microphone, which works once sound gets installed.

Since then, I've had no problems at all. This build is smooth as
silk, and getting pretty close to being ready for RTM. Much better
than RC1 Build 5600.

By the way, Vista installs as the only OS on Intel Macs (at least on
my Intel iMac) just fine. I was able to remove all OS X partitions,
including the EFI partition, during Vista installation. This is
because the Apple Firmware update necessary to use BootCamp was
already installed. This update adds a BIOS-compatibility module to
the EFI chip software which makes it possible for non-Apple OSes to
boot using the Apple BootStrap Loader without using an EFI partition.

In fact, my HD was as clean as it was when the technician took it out
of the box when it was installed, when I installed Vista.

Donald
========================
 
I predict driver issues. As far as I can tell, the Mac Drivers for XP won't
5728 seems a vast improvement over RC1 here, faster, more stable on my
laptop (1.85Ghz Pentium M, 1GB RAM, Geforce 6200 GO)
Click to expand...

It's also much more stable on my Apple Intel iMac (1.83GHZ, w/2GB,
300GB SATA-2 HD.

In fact, it actually feels like an RTM build. But I'm sure a few more
bugs need to be worked out, though I've not encountered any.

Also, it needs more driver and software support.

Donald
========================
 
Robert said:
The Windows NT family (NT, 2000, XP, 2003, Vista) always has tried to
find a use of some kind for all your physical RAM; unused RAM is RAM you
wasted money buying.

Vista appears to be considerably more efficient in that quest than the
previous versions - individual processes might get a bit better about
how much they use when all the debug settings are removed / dialed down,
but I wouldn't expect a vast change in memory use patterns from this
moment on.
Click to expand...

Now, if only Microsoft would retry on the 9x Windows family that ended
sadly with ME then perhaps we could have a true replacement for the 98
Second Edition computers in our school and across the United States for
schools that have some older Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS (Microsoft Disk
Operating System) software that just will not function on XP. This
Classic Series would be based on the 9x source code but would be
overhauled to make 9x source code as secure as possible while its
primary job would be maintaining backwards compatibility with older
software that was for Windows 3.1 and Windows 98 Second Edition. If you
want to hear even more about this idea then check out some posts in the
98 general newsgroup. I could provide a list of titles if someone is
interested.
 
Rock said:
No, this one was just released. In fact it was surprising they released
5728 publicly.


Yes, it appears to be more responsive. Some bugs have been fixed.
Click to expand...

Rock, I have recently talked with Microsoft Support and the real deal is
this that Microsoft really wants Windows Vista to be a stable and
powerful product so Microsoft is going to a great deal of trouble to
allow a great deal of users to test their builds for errors. I think
when Bill Gates or another powerful Microsoft icon presents Vista as
ready in a presentation then perhaps they can avoid a Blue Screen of
Death or an automatic restart or even an error about a potential Blue
Screen of Death. This would certainly be embarrassing and I think it
happened with Windows 98 or 98SE.
 
This
Classic Series would be based on the 9x source code but would be
overhauled to make 9x source code as secure as possible
Click to expand...

Not gonna happen, 9x codebase was insecure from the ground up, which is
where the requirement for NT came from, which lead to Win2k, XP, and Vista.

Somewhere along this codebase, Win2003 and Professional x64 was branched
(not sure where).
 
Back
Top