Is it good to use Vista ?
-
I use Windows Vista, and have been doing so for about the past year. It has gotten better with time, (i.e. more stable etc.) If you have enough RAM, vista, in my mind, will be a good experience. More than just looking nicer, the integrated search is really nice. For me it is a big productivity enhancer. The OS feels a lot more secure, too. I like the UAC. (unlike many others) Vista does suffer from a perception problem, though. If that doesn't bother you, I recommend it.
jwhite9 wrote:
Vista does suffer from a perception problem, though. If that doesn't bother you, I recommend it. Quote Selected Text
...and if it does bother you just get Mojave instead. :laugh:
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
These limitations are due to the Win32 memory model. Win32 memory model was concepted in early 90's, when desktop machines were delivered with 4MB; at those times, 4 GibaByte was a really huge amount of memory. Microsoft decided to divide the addressable space (4GB) in two, 2GB, sections - one for the OS, the other for applications. Therefore, no Win32 application shall access more than its 2GB share of memory. Under this model, a machine running with 4GB is using intensively the 2GB share for apps and the first giga of the OS - the second is not used, in most desktops. Microsoft has noticed exactly this: the OS rarely uses completely its share of 2GB; so, they decided to support PAE (an hardware feature), to divide memory differently in 3GB for applications and 1GB for OS. However, few applications are prepared to PAE (mostly, server applications), so, the probability of having an app using the extra 1GB is relatively small. So, under the PAE model, you usually fall on the classic Win32 model: apps using franticly their 2GB (because they were not developed to take advantage of the extra giga), and OS kernel running in 1GB.
As far as I know, PAE is not used to modify the 2GB split between kernal and O/S, PAE is used to address memory ranges higher than 4 GB on 32 bit machines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension[^] The /3GB switch is used to modify the 2GB split to 3GB for apps and 1GB for kernal. As far as the memory issue goes for the 3.xx cap on 32 bit machines, this also is explained through the way the 32 bit system works. A certain amount of addressable space must be reserved for video and other devices. This article by Crucial explains in detail http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=4251[^] Hope that helps - John
-
As far as I know, PAE is not used to modify the 2GB split between kernal and O/S, PAE is used to address memory ranges higher than 4 GB on 32 bit machines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension[^] The /3GB switch is used to modify the 2GB split to 3GB for apps and 1GB for kernal. As far as the memory issue goes for the 3.xx cap on 32 bit machines, this also is explained through the way the 32 bit system works. A certain amount of addressable space must be reserved for video and other devices. This article by Crucial explains in detail http://www.crucial.com/kb/answer.aspx?qid=4251[^] Hope that helps - John
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
I will never use vista, the only thing I liked was being able to drag a file from a partially obscured window without that window steeling focus. That in noway makes up for the total waste of system resources. I had been given a tempory laptop with a 1.8Ghz celeronM with 512MB of ram, running vista. It was so slow. I think its basic UI performance was about on par with amigaOS on a 14mhz 68EC020 and 2MB of ram! Below is the link to a rant about vista that I loaded onto my little web site some time ago, Its an amusing read, apparently. But has the worst spelling and grammer that you can imagine. www.mjsstuf.x10hosting.com/documents/minirant.txt
-
Anyting that is written on Vista, will work, of course. But I'm saying that a lot of older apps probably would need changing.
Christian Graus No longer a Microsoft MVP, but still happy to answer your questions.
I develop on XP SP2, but test everything on Vista. So far I've not had to change anything and the apps actually seem to run faster and better on Vista than on XP. Of course it goes with out saying, I'm not using any special Vista features.
The PetroNerd
Walt Fair, Jr. Comport Computing Specializing in Technical Engineering Software
-
Haven't tried it myself, but I've read before that you have to use the /PAE switch when starting up Windows. And a few other things to get it to work with all 4GB... This for example, http://www.ocmodshop.com/ocmodshop.aspx?a=989[^]...
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
I think this is fixed in Service Pack 1 of Vista :)
Always Keep Smiling. Yours Pankaj Nikam
-
I think this is fixed in Service Pack 1 of Vista :)
Always Keep Smiling. Yours Pankaj Nikam
Do you have any link supporting this?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
-
Haven't come across any app that run in XP but gives problems in Vista, with the exception of driver related issues.
only two letters away from being an asset
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users, while following M$'s former "best practices" guidelines of keeping said data in the Program Files folder. This particular problem took us weeks to figure out how to work around (after taking a few days to figure out that Vista's virtualization is evil). Still haven't figured out why Vista disables Aero for one of our programs (while no such problems are encountered for other programs that use the exact same core). Also, this isn't so much of an app problem, but my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
-
Yes, they have, the driver issues are mostly solved now, even 64 bit drivers are generally available.
Mostly solved? As posted in another reply earlier, my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
-
Mostly solved? As posted in another reply earlier, my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
Sounds like a driver problem, are you running the most recent version for your gfx card?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Well folks for you who have a 40 GB hard drive and only a 15 GB system partition, single core or less than 2 GB ram stay away from Vista. For those of us not living in the Stone Age, Vista is really great.
The computer I am talking about is a Dell laptop with 320GB hard drive, Core 2 duo running at 2Ghz, 4 GB RAM and 256 MB dedicated video RAM. I just said that repartitioning is not an option, the hard drive is otherwise big enough. So Vista does have 15GB entirely dedicated to it, but it seems that even this is not enough.
-
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users, while following M$'s former "best practices" guidelines of keeping said data in the Program Files folder. This particular problem took us weeks to figure out how to work around (after taking a few days to figure out that Vista's virtualization is evil). Still haven't figured out why Vista disables Aero for one of our programs (while no such problems are encountered for other programs that use the exact same core). Also, this isn't so much of an app problem, but my dev machine dual boots XP and Vista. XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768 (or was it lower than that? I don't switch over to Vista if I don't have to). Exact same hardware, but Vista doesn't work right. Go figure.
Trevortni wrote:
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users...
Yes, I have
Trevortni wrote:
XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768
Dah, drivers are different :rolleyes:
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Sounds like a driver problem, are you running the most recent version for your gfx card?
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
6 months ago, I was checking for updates pretty regularly, figuring that they would fix this bug sooner or later. Over the last few months, I've given up on them ever fixing the problem. I suppose I could check again, but (a) that would require logging in to Vista and (b) the last time I tried this, it took me a while to get things returned to the lesser evil after the attempt.
-
Trevortni wrote:
You haven't used any apps that have data shared between multiple apps and/or users...
Yes, I have
Trevortni wrote:
XP lets me set the resolution on my monitor up to 1400x1050, which is about perfect. Vista maxes out at about 1024x768
Dah, drivers are different :rolleyes:
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Do you have any link supporting this?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer "Real programmers just throw a bunch of 1s and 0s at the computer to see what sticks" - Pete O'Hanlon
sure here it is http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003/[^] :)
Always Keep Smiling. Yours Pankaj Nikam
-
sure here it is http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946003/[^] :)
Always Keep Smiling. Yours Pankaj Nikam
It's purely a GUI change. To avoid confusing (uneducated) users they're reporting the amount installed, instead of the amount the OS is able to use.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
I Installed Vista on a 15GB partition and in two months it grew so much so that now there are only 500MB free on that drive. All other software I am using is on a different partition so those 14.5 gigs are just for OS! For one thing it constantly updates and requires restart. But the big problem right now is that I can't install SP1 because it requires 2GB of free space! I tried freeing up some space but didn't manage to get enough. Turns out that the Winsxs folder takes nearly 8GB, and there is nothing one can do about that. Unfortunately repartitioning is not an option at this point. So the only thing I can do is create a new Vista CD with SP1 integrated and reinstall. :wtf: This is my first experience with Vista, draw your own conclusions. If I were you I would definitely stick to XP.
For a slightly less extreme option www.hardforum.com[^] has a recent thread in the OS forum where someone found over a gig of unicode fonts you won't need unless you're using an obscure character set, and other stuff that's almost never needed that can be deleted out of the OS folder. That might be enough to get you going. If not, vLite out stuff like the multigig driver DB as well so you have a bit more space to work with when you add the SP.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Yes, I have
And you haven't had any problems? You're lying somewhere.
Mark Nischalke wrote:
Dah, drivers are different
So that can just be swept under the rug then?
Trevortni wrote:
You're lying somewhere
No need to be insulting
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
I'd wait for Mojave :-D
only two letters away from being an asset
-
Hi there. I'm using WinXp SP2. I'd like to know , it's good to use Windows Vista now ? Why? What are your reasons ?
My advice: stick to XP. Some will agree, some will disagree. My experiences, however, have not been particularly great. Vista is pretty, and some features are very nice. But Vista can be slow and clunky where it doesn't have to be; Vista settings can be a pain in the neck; and Vista is not compatible with a lot of things. I have it on one of my machines; it won't be going on any others, and, if I had time to wipe it and download the billion plus drivers (it's a high performance laptop that came with Vista) that I need for all my hardware, I'd get rid of it. Honestly, it's not as bad as I've heard some people say (if it was, I'd make time to get rid of it); but it's not worth getting, either.