no problems ??? one year and running HHmmmm

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blairs Carpentry
  • Start date Start date
DanS said:
All of that's just the 'SuperFetch' service. SF preloads your commonly
used
programs, which is one reason a lot of RAM seemed to be used when you are
doing nothing.

The bigger question is, for instance, Word & OO Writer load speeds....what
does that 6 seconds do for you ? You open the progrma once, and then spend
a lot of time using it. That must be the increase in productivity MS
claims
is gained by using Vista !

Of course, those are completely different programs as well, on different
platforms. What would be a better comparison would be to install OO Writer
in Vista, since there's both Windows and Linux versions, disable
superfetch, and then reboot Vista, and start Writer to get the time. Then
reboot into Linux, and start Writer there for a more accurate comparison.
Click to expand...


So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
LOL.

I have open office in Vista...its faster in Vista ( I wanted to try
it...didn't like it over Office, so I never use it )
I also prefer MS software to linux ... I think it is way higher quality.
In order to keep such software coming, I back MS with my wallet.
I would never want to be at the mercy of linux and open source software.
And Apple is too "isolated" (I know they are becoming more
compatible...still not a boat I wanna sit in).

That's my opinion, and not likely to change (totally unlikely)

I responded to someone claiming Vista was slower than XP and Linux.
From my use of all three products on a desktop PC and laptop...I disagree.
For what I use my PC for...Vista is superior.
YMMV.

I see linux as slow, cumbersome, the GUI is ridiculous and unstable.
The latest round of updates caused title bars to flicker and disappear.
Programs constantly need to be Force Quit.
Its a nightmare.
I could never be productive in that environment.
And there is little incentive to tolerate linux, when I am simply a reboot
away from Windows.
 
[signious] ^ 2 said:
So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
LOL.
Click to expand...

linux seldom needs reboots you idiot..

remember no blue screens.. ??

uptime is so good you really don't need to remember the cache between
boots...

the cache of linux is believe it or not faster than what superfetch is


I have a triple boot with linux vista and xp... I can compare the 3 on
the same hardware.

the same applies to eboostr's implementation of ram cache that in the new
beta is for vista as well..

and its caching of ram is better than vistas.... lol


no matter how you look at vista, it shows how inferior it is to all other
modern OS's including XP that still shines.
Click to expand...

LOL.
I rest my case.
 
So, in essence, you want me to dumb down Vista to help linux catch up.
LOL.
Click to expand...

I don't want you to do anything. I was simply explaining that superfetch
preloads programs you commonly use, and by starting up faster, it gives
the perception that it performs better.

I have open office in Vista...its faster in Vista ( I wanted to try
it...didn't like it over Office, so I never use it )
I also prefer MS software to linux ... I think it is way higher
quality. In order to keep such software coming, I back MS with my
wallet. I would never want to be at the mercy of linux and open source
software. And Apple is too "isolated" (I know they are becoming more
compatible...still not a boat I wanna sit in).

That's my opinion, and not likely to change (totally unlikely)

I responded to someone claiming Vista was slower than XP and Linux.
From my use of all three products on a desktop PC and laptop...I
disagree. For what I use my PC for
Click to expand...

Just wondering, what do you use it for ?
 
DanS said:
I don't want you to do anything. I was simply explaining that superfetch
preloads programs you commonly use, and by starting up faster, it gives
the perception that it performs better.



Just wondering, what do you use it for ?
Click to expand...


You got smoked.
Run along...make up more linux lies.

Linux sucks....15 years of BS can't get it above 1% usage.

I use my PC's for what I paid for them to do.
 
You got smoked.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't get 'smoked'. I was supplied a valid reason why programs load
faster with Vista than XP (or Linux, if it's the same s/w, like OO Writer).
Run along...make up more linux lies.
Click to expand...

I made up no Linux lies to begin with, and my statement applies to XP as
well. I'm not using any form of Linux, and not pushing it. Try reading
exactly what was posted, instead of trying to read between the lines, or
what someone 'really' means. Sometimes, most of the time, what is said is
exactly what is meant, plain black and white.
Linux sucks....15 years of BS can't get it above 1% usage.
Click to expand...

Good for you....don't care.
 
Vista is working fine, why does everyone have these problems. I
run various cad and picture programs, quad core lots of ram
minor issues resolved easily. Love-in it!
Click to expand...

My Vista is a retail-bought upgrade for my XP Media Center '05
based system. I had problems with Vista at first, but that was
my own stupidity because I was "experimenting." I'm not saying
that people who have problems with Vista are experimenting, just
that the experimenting was causing my problems. Once I got used
to the way Vista worked, and learned how to customize it without
destroying my installation, I stopped having problems.

Debby
 
Back
Top