Shoutbox

For reference: my computer is 2 1/2 years old, I didn't upgrade a thing in it since I got it and Vista works like a charm on it. Boot time with Vista is faster than it was with XP on the same system.

Each new OS is excpected to be using more RAM then previous generation.

If your really that worried about it USING ram, then use MS-DOS(1) again
[me making crap things sound good]
It used under 1mb . And the boot times were fantastic. Used very little processing power, so you could really focus on the application and not background processors. The interface is really simple and basic. Had great combability at its time, everything made for it ran on it!
[/me making me crap things sound good]

MS-DOS does sound like a great OS. Maybe we should all convert?


And i seriously dont think that Vista has many combatability problems.....Except for AV's i dont know anything that didnt work for me. Most things if it didnt run well at first, i could just right click and make it "Windows XP" combatability. It fixed majourty of problems if anything arised...... Or havent you found that button yet?


In folder options there is an option to make "List" or "Thumbnails"
and etc the deafult.

And are you running Virtrull Machines on your Laptop? Or is it just another computer at home your using.

And secondly, 256MB of ram sucked on XP as well... 512 wasnt great. 1GB was comfortable for Applications + the  OS itself.

And yes, you can limit how much RAM it can use, and how much Virtrull Ram it can use (Stores data on HDD in System Information i think).


And back to the Music thing. Some Metal Bands do alot of covers. Most dont. Megadeath hasnt done a single one, Avengend sevenfold has done 3, Tool have done none, Three Days Grace have done 1. Most pop music these days are covers with a 'twist'. Im talking about the majourty of ones on the Radio.

And although yes, the CD media used by Music Artists is higher quailty, but they do it in mass bulk. It would only be abother 5c more per CD compared to Vertabrain ($16 for 50). And yes, they have to cover costs, sure. Thats a givin. But, theres a "covering costs" and theres a "over pricing". I was reading an article a while ago (it might be wrong, this was in a magizine btw), they said that for every $25 cd sold, the ARTIST makes $16.

Another reason why Digital Downloads (Buying) has become so much more popular .

And if you do a few service and start item tweaks (and doing tweaks to XP as well) you can make it boot far FAR faster. And both on deafult my Vista boots faster anyway (4GB 800 ram and 3.6ghz q6600 (quad)).

Ubuntu boots far slower then my Vista as well... So i wouldnt really complain about Vista's booting time. Its not bad at all.

PS: Sorry for typos, bells went Might edit when i come home.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CookieRevised

I wouldn't have bought an extra GB just to let it rot away

---

Neither - but the problem is I often end up using all my ram as well as the page file (if I use a page file).

quote:

---

All preferences, not flaws!

---

I consider it to be a flaw, because ergonomically it reduces my production rate etc trying to do things I'm used to with all Windows operating systems which are now in weird and wacky places. To be fair though you can't just stick to the same thing forever, and I'm probably just not used to using Vista (how can I booting 6 operating systems) but my other friends who do have Vista solely agree with me that things such as the layout of the start menu are poorly designed and frustrating to use.

quote:

---

Where are those posts talking about compatibility and people bashing MS and hating Vista because it still supports old stuff, isn't "innovative" enough and all that because it still needs to be compatible, and how MS should break their road map and start building things without taking in account old stuff...

---

Realistically that frustration of programs not working should be directed to the software makers who haven't come out with a newer version that actually works with Vista. They don't HAVE to but they do keep on pumping out regular updates and bug fixes. Some even claim vista compatibility when there is actually none! Best example of that: Alcohol 120%. For some people it works, for other it doesn't!

quote:

---

but you could change that too by letting Vista only use a certain amount of RAM.... (is possible in XP too btw).

---

Cool didn't know that.

quote:

---

I think he meant compared to XP on that very same machine of his.

---

Yeah that's what I meant too. I've got XP and Vista both on my computer and I often compare the boot time differences.

EDIT: @mattisdada
I actually have MS-DOS 6.22 installed (and Windows 3.11 too, of course )
And this is all on the same laptop.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
uses way too much ram (I might as well say my 2gb computer is 1gb when using Vista)

---

It's called Superfetching and it actually makes your computer faster by preloading programs you frequently use.

quote:

---

Originally posted by http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx

Windows SuperFetch

A new memory management technology in Windows Vista, Windows SuperFetch, helps keep the computer consistently responsive to your programs by making better use of the computer's RAM. Windows SuperFetch prioritizes the programs you're currently using over background tasks and adapts to the way you work by tracking the programs you use most often and preloading these into memory. With SuperFetch, background tasks still run when the computer is idle. However, when the background task is finished, SuperFetch repopulates system memory with the data you were working with before the background task ran. Now, when you return to your desk, your programs will continue to run as efficiently as they did before you left.

---

More information about superfetching: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windows...ls/superfetch.mspx

If you don't like it, disable the Superfetch service.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
It used under 1mb (Smilie). And the boot times were fantastic.

---

It can also work with less than 640KB of ram.
Also, boot times are horrible for an 8MHz computer (but I'm speaking about MS-DOS 5).

I know what superfetch is, I have disabled it - Vista still uses a lot (of ram) though.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patchou
For reference: my computer is 2 1/2 years old, I didn't upgrade a thing in it since I got it and Vista works like a charm on it.

---

Your 2.5 year old alienware that was ridicilously powerful at the time when you bought it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
I know what superfetch is, I have disabled it - Vista still uses a lot (of ram) though.

---

But it's not being wasted, why the fuck would you want ram that wasn't being used? =/

But it IS going to be used - that's the problem! I can't do everything I want to at once because Vista is STILL using way too much ram! It's not like I'm using 1.7gb of my 2gb ram here - I use all of it (or as much as I can without everything starting to lag)

Also if I'm on battery power Vista really drains it fast (which is why for obvious reasons I use XP or Ubuntu when I'm on battery power, but still - I do use Vista sometimes too)

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada
I was reading an article a while ago (it might be wrong, this was in a magizine btw), they said that for every $25 cd sold, the ARTIST makes $16.

---

Although it always depends on extremely many things, and you should take in account "reduction of royalties", that rate would be very wrong (even if you don't take reduction of royalties in account). A more realistic rate would be $1 for the artist* out of $17 for the retail price of a CD. And then there is also something like "recoupment" which makes that bands wont even get that $1 before they first sell a certain amount (in the hundreds of thousands usually) of CDs...

* And that $1 is based upon the full royalty rate for when the CD is sold at full price in a retail store. If the CD is discounted (in that same retail store) or sold in clubs, smaller stores, or oversees, or whatever, you even get a far lower royalty rate (quite often 50% less). And most CDs do not sell at retail stores at all.

And before you say: "well then, lets all download some music more since most of the CD retail price goes to the record companies":
- Even that $1 (if that is even what they get) is hard earned money for the artist and he needs it to be able to make his living (which is always hard! Most artists never go in retirement because they simply can not effort it!!! They must keep working to earn a living).
- Many artists need record companies. So even if you would think you would kill off the record company by not buying CDs anymore, you would also bring down the artists with it, because its the record companies who make sure the artist sells, who watch for copyright, who make promotion, buy radio time, who make sure the artist has an audience, is known, etc etc.
- There are artists who make their CDs independant of a record company. They recieve more for each CD sold, obviously. So if you don't buy their CDs, but steal their music instead, you would actually kill them even faster...


Again, I'm talking about the majority of all artists. Not about the extremely rare mega artists, single success wonders who have 5 houses, their own record company and be able to buy an island or whatever, which many people like to use as an example of how "rich" artists are.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aardvark
But it IS going to be used - that's the problem! I can't do everything I want to at once because Vista is STILL using way too much ram! It's not like I'm using 1.7gb of my 2gb ram here - I use all of it (or as much as I can without everything starting to lag)

---

Well, I don't know what you use that uses more than 1.7gb of RAM, seeing as I can multitask WoW and VS 2008 on 1gb of RAM on Vista without much lag.
Even with the Superfetch service disabled [which is stupid btw, we'll get to that soon] Vista isn't using as much memory as you think. After you've just booted you'll probably notice ~40% memory being used, but if you fill the memory and then close those programs, you'll notice it goes down to ~20-25%, as Vista paged out the stuff that it wasn't using. [You'll not be able to see this using taskman, as taskman shows all memory usage, including page].

quote:

---

Also if I'm on battery power Vista really drains it fast (which is why for obvious reasons I use XP or Ubuntu when I'm on battery power, but still - I do use Vista sometimes too)

---

Ubuntu drains the battery faster than Vista for me. If you set Vista to use Performance rather than Power Save, then obviously it will drain it faster. Power Save on Vista gets roughly the same as XP for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mattisdada

It used under 1mb (Smilie). And the boot times were fantastic.

---

Yes, but unfortunately DOS 1.1 didn't use 32-bit memory addresses so it couldn't address that 2 gig that Aardvark uses. [Also even DOS 2.0 had a partition limit of 10MB for FAT12...]

---

I still use XP.