Why is Vista So Resource Intensive??

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
jim said:
If Microsoft would be in charge to make an OS that would do the functions
of one single human brain... they would need the hard disks and ram chips,
that would fill all the known universe.
Um......ok.....

They are going about things in a bad and stupid way.. they themselves are
very worried
with the way windows is built, its getting too complex and out of hand...
Click to expand...

Stupid way? What kind of way is that again? Windows code is too complex
and out of hand? That is nothing new and that is not something that stopped
them from developing Vista.
thats why they are making another kind of OS that has nothing to do with
windows...
a different technology.. this is bill gates new project...
Click to expand...

I think Bill is pulling your leg again!
windows will die and must die.. its a dinosour.
Click to expand...

Not for another 8 years it wont!
 
I can't see Vista as a resource hog.

For the past 1 1/2 years I have used this same computer for Windows XP. I
have added nothing to accommodate Vista (hardware wise). I now use the
computer to dual boot into Vista also. I am running the exact same programs
(except for utilities for which I need Vista compatibility). When booting
into, and using Vista (remember, same hardware) Vista is faster and I have
less waiting to do for the thing I want to use my computer for.

Now, when booted into XP I show 1.6 gig of RAM as free (unused and wasted).
When booted into Vista, I show zero RAM free. Gosh! It's all used. The
computer therefore must be a resource hog. Yet the computer runs faster when
booted into Vista. All of the available resources are put to good use. In XP
they weren't.


--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User
(For email, remove the obvious from my address)

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Arachnid you are wasting your logic on these guys. These guys just dont
get it.. whatever you may say to them, they reply with
the IQ of an average rock, I have not heard so much condensed stupidity
ever in my life.... either that OR they are paid by microsoft to roam
around in these newsgroups
to spread lies and propaganda about vista. In that case they are a little
smarter than a rock, but they are also diabolical, that makes them worse
than a rock.. something slimey...that lives UNDER the rock. :-)
Click to expand...

Hey take it easy on the Rock references! Rocks are people too.
 
Like Steve,
http://www.intelliadmin.com/blog/2007/01/5-sins-of-vista.html
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's a good article. The problems he highlights reflect the gist
of my grievance with Microsoft... they are so busy making the next big
thing that they never find time to go back over what they have already
created and get the details right. There's no excuse for a file search
feature that doesn't work. MS just doesn't care enough to make it work.

Charlie
 
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <[email protected]>'s wild
thoughts were released on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:05:10 -0600
bearing the following fruit:
Windows Vista is not a "resource hog". It was designed to
take advantage of new computer hardware and devices that
have hit the market in the last couple of years, as well as
supporting future hardware as it becomes available.

Windows Vista Resources for IT Professionals
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windowsvista/default.aspx
Click to expand...

You know, I've been watching this, it uses 29% of my 2 Gig
RAM on boot up. After using it for a while and after closing
down all applications it's at 50+%, rebooting takes it back
down to 29%.

Jan Hyde (VB MVP)
 
"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <[email protected]>'s wild
thoughts were released on Thu, 25 Jan 2007 11:05:10 -0600
bearing the following fruit:


You know, I've been watching this, it uses 29% of my 2 Gig
RAM on boot up. After using it for a while and after closing
down all applications it's at 50+%, rebooting takes it back
down to 29%.
Click to expand...

You'd rather it ignore all the available RAM? As long as it's not
starving for memory when you load your apps and isn't thrashing the
pagefile, I have no complaints if it uses all my memory.
 
Does anyone know a good DVD drive that can be used with a Commodore 64 so I can install Vista on it??? :-P


I installed it on an IBM PC AT. It is running fine.
 
I use the Commodore 1541. It is the recommended drive for installing Vista. See the manufacturer's webpage.
Does anyone know a good DVD drive that can be used with a Commodore 64 so I can install Vista on it??? :-P
 
Mario said:
I would love to recommend Vista to my clients. Anyone know why it is such a
resource hog and any plans to make it more lightweight?

Mario DiMarcantonio, MCSA
Progressive IT Solutions
Dallas, Tx

www.progressiveitsolutions.com
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is because Vista is using such resources effectively?


In previous versions of Windows low ram/resources was a good indicator
of efficiencies hence anything that returned "free" RAM was considered good.

In Vista it does not appear to be the same measure.

For example in XP with resources running at 500 MB or so in a 3 Gig RAM
system life seems sweet and swift.


On Vista RC1 (32 bit and 64 bit) similar resource allocations top 1.1
Gig but these are faster running applications.

I'd guess that something at machine level has changed and that change
requires a different view regarding allocated resources. Possibly with
better management of multi core CPUs to boot?
 
deebs said:
Perhaps it is because Vista is using such resources effectively?


In previous versions of Windows low ram/resources was a good indicator of
efficiencies hence anything that returned "free" RAM was considered good.

In Vista it does not appear to be the same measure.

For example in XP with resources running at 500 MB or so in a 3 Gig RAM
system life seems sweet and swift.


On Vista RC1 (32 bit and 64 bit) similar resource allocations top 1.1 Gig
but these are faster running applications.

I'd guess that something at machine level has changed and that change
requires a different view regarding allocated resources. Possibly with
better management of multi core CPUs to boot?
Click to expand...


You may well be correct.

I heard something similar along the lines that if you compare the
performance of XP and Vista on the same machine (assuming no changes other
than ram)...

With ram under 1gb .. XP outperforms Vista
Ram over 1.5 gb .. Vista outperforms XP
 
Back
Top