What's new

Here's why Windows 8 will never approach Vista's awfulnes

Let's start out with the most basic reason Windows 8 isn't as bad as Vista: Windows 8 will likely gain a greater market share than Vista ever did. According to Net Applications figures, Vista's greatest market share for a year was only 17.73%, in 2009. Windows 7 very quickly eclipsed Vista after it was released.

All this doesn't mean that I've suddenly become a fan of Windows 8. I still think it was a mistake to build a single operating system for tablets and traditional computers. And saying that it's better than Vista isn't much more than damning it with faint praise. Ultimately I expect that the next major version of Windows may well fix many of Windows 8's problems, the same way that Windows 7 did for Vista.


Here's why Windows 8 will never approach Vista's awfulness | Computerworld Blogs
 

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
Windows 8 is in NO WAY the memory hog dog that Vista was. Face it, Vista was/is unusable. I delete it or update it to 7 every time I encounter it. I just did this as a matter of fact- When a 3 GHz Celeron Socket 775, runs worse than a Pentium III on a system with 128MB of Ram - You KNOW something is rotten in the state of Denmark. It took SIX (6!) Hours to update it to Windows 7 and now it is blazing fast.

If I were to put Windows 8 into it, it would be even faster. The Desktop in Windows 8 is a superior Desktop - And when Modified with an Orb replacement it becomes friendlier to the users who are used to XP and 7.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

msdos622wasfun

Member
Member
I have a question about Vista being a memory hog ... my understanding was that with Vista, memory management was handled in a new way such that if the memory was there -- it got allocated and cached, in order to speed up the system. If something else needed it, it was assigned to programs and tasks as necessary on a dynamic basis. I recall at that time some people asking, "Why are you upset that your memory is being allocated? You have it, so use it!" So people misinterpreted the fact that Vista was using all the memory to mean that it was wasting it, when in fact, it was just allocating it based on the needs of the system. Not to mention they changed the way the operating system reports such things since then.

I used Vista for a couple years on my main desktop system, and I don't recall it being terribly slow, although I admit 7 and 8 are noticeably faster in some ways.

Am I under the wrong impression with Vista's memory allocation methods?
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom built/assembled myself
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350 Black Edition
    Motherboard
    ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    Memory
    16 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Windforce
    Sound Card
    On-board audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1440
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SSD
    Western Digital Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA-3
    PSU
    Corsair HX850W
    Case
    Cooler Master HAF XM
    Cooling
    Stock
    Keyboard
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Mouse
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Internet Speed
    22 Mbps
    Browser
    IE/Chrome/Firefox
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender, Malwarebytes

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
I just had a hands on demonstration of how slow it was! 3 GHz Processor and 2 GB of Ram, It should have been hauling arse. IN XP it would have been hauling arse, in 7 it does. I got the machine 3 weeks ago, a small emachines eTower, not great machines but made well and usually fast, the cases are superior and I use them to make new machines once the MB's fry.

It's not that Vista is WASTING your Ram, of course it is using all of it all the time. And therein lies the problem. I've only ever seen Vista run quick when there was maybe 4 Gigs of memory on an original core duo. That was the ideal machine for it, and when SP1 was released it made the OS run adequately. But Adequately is not great, like Windows 7 and 8.

Remember, Vista was Microsoft's OS to comply with the then-new Core Duo CPUs- Microsoft had been poised to release a 64 bit version of XP on a huge scale, they were expecting Intel's new CPU to be a 64 bit CPU. But those original Core Duos were only 32 bit, So they made Vista to explicitly run on those. I remember, all of the new machines had XP MCE in them, until December of 2006. Vista was developed and introduced in very short order.

I had a Dell Inspiron with one of those in it, an original Core Duo. I kept XP Media Center in it, and it was pretty rapid for 1.7 GHz. Later I stuck Windows 7 in it, and it was very fast, and Aero worked great cos it had a dedicated video card. But the machine was designed for Vista, it said so on it. It did have Vista on it, which I wiped and stuck MCE in.

I've seen Vista running well on very few machines, perhaps you were lucky, you had just the right configuration for it. But if you recall, Vista was being put into PCs with Celerons and only 512 Ram. The machine I just got, it's a celeron, it had 512 in it and Vista Home Basic. It took hours to do copy and rendering jobs that I do with 7 in 45 minutes. I stuck 2 Gigs of 533 Ram in it, upgraded it to Vista Ultimate, and it was still a dog.

The MOMENT it booted to the forst Windows 7 Screen - It was a way noticeable difference in speed. The system went from taking 5 whole minutes to boot, to 1, and right now it is a very nice usable system, despite the crippled Celeron CPU in it. I was considering even sticking my other Core Duo into it.

I swear - Even my Dell precision 370 workstation, with Pentium D running XP was faster than that emachine running Vista.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

msdos622wasfun

Member
Member
That's fair, I mean, yeah, maybe I was one of the fortunate few. I was running it on a Core 2 Duo with (at first) 2 GB of RAM, and it was basically okay, but sure, with Windows 7 and 8, for the first time a new version of Windows has less hardware requirements than the version it replaces. Yes, I believe that systems that were sluggish before can have a new lease on life with the newer OS.

But I guess my original point is still kind of there -- people thought Vista was sucking up all the RAM for no reason, and it just doesn't appear that was the case, at least the way I see it. I still could be wrong. Whether or not the OS as a whole performed well is a different issue to me (although perhaps somewhat related, I admit).
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom built/assembled myself
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350 Black Edition
    Motherboard
    ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    Memory
    16 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Windforce
    Sound Card
    On-board audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1440
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SSD
    Western Digital Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA-3
    PSU
    Corsair HX850W
    Case
    Cooler Master HAF XM
    Cooling
    Stock
    Keyboard
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Mouse
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Internet Speed
    22 Mbps
    Browser
    IE/Chrome/Firefox
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender, Malwarebytes

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
You had the ideal system then- That's the configuration the first versions of Vista were intended for. But I understand, well, I've always understood, that the SYSTEM was using the Ram. It's just stingy in releasing it to the programs that are requesting to use it.

I don't know if 7 or 8 do it the same way, but I have seen that both of my main Windows 8 systems use the ram more efficiently. I've run every benchmark imaginable and they all say that I've got way more speed compared to 7. If I could run Windows 8 on a Pentium D system, then it MUST have less strict requirements.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

SIW2

Well-Known Member
Team Member
Vista always worked great for me.

Used x64 on machine with 2gb ram

Fast, stable - decent os all round.

I have a question about Vista being a memory hog ... my understanding was that with Vista, memory management was handled in a new way such that if the memory was there -- it got allocated and cached, in order to speed up the system. If something else needed it, it was assigned to programs and tasks as necessary on a dynamic basis. I recall at that time some people asking, "Why are you upset that your memory is being allocated? You have it, so use it!" So people misinterpreted the fact that Vista was using all the memory to mean that it was wasting it, when in fact, it was just allocating it based on the needs of the system. Not to mention they changed the way the operating system reports such things since then.

I used Vista for a couple years on my main desktop system, and I don't recall it being terribly slow, although I admit 7 and 8 are noticeably faster in some ways.

Am I under the wrong impression with Vista's memory allocation methods?
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    7/8/ubuntu/Linux Deepin
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop

msdos622wasfun

Member
Member
UAC.

AUGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGHGH! :cry::)

I guess it's good that we can fine-tune this particular feature now.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom built/assembled myself
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350 Black Edition
    Motherboard
    ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    Memory
    16 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Windforce
    Sound Card
    On-board audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1440
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SSD
    Western Digital Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA-3
    PSU
    Corsair HX850W
    Case
    Cooler Master HAF XM
    Cooling
    Stock
    Keyboard
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Mouse
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Internet Speed
    22 Mbps
    Browser
    IE/Chrome/Firefox
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender, Malwarebytes

SIW2

Well-Known Member
Team Member
Yes, that was a nuisance - not for me, though. I always turn it off.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    7/8/ubuntu/Linux Deepin
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop

LMiller7

Active Member
Pro User
I have a question about Vista being a memory hog ... my understanding was that with Vista, memory management was handled in a new way such that if the memory was there -- it got allocated and cached, in order to speed up the system. If something else needed it, it was assigned to programs and tasks as necessary on a dynamic basis. I recall at that time some people asking, "Why are you upset that your memory is being allocated? You have it, so use it!" So people misinterpreted the fact that Vista was using all the memory to mean that it was wasting it, when in fact, it was just allocating it based on the needs of the system. Not to mention they changed the way the operating system reports such things since then.

There is nothing fundamentally new in the way Vista manages memory. In fact, the basic fundamentals of how Windows 8 manages memory hasn't changed since NT was first introduced in 1993. The goal has always been to use memory to the fullest possible extent. It is just that later versions have found more ways (such as superfetch) to accomplish that goal.

Much of the confusion comes from the way memory statistics were shown in XP and earlier versions. Vista and later show values for "Available" and "Free" memory, emphasizing that they are not the same thing while XP and earlier versions showed only "Available". It was widely believed that XP available memory was all free. That is not the case. Available memory in NT has always been the sum of Standby and Free memory, just as in Vista. Unfortunately, to see these values in XP and older you needed some pretty sophisticated and difficult to use tools. Standby memory is usually the bulk of available memory with free memory being much smaller, but not as small as Vista.

Unlike XP which has only one, Vista has 8 prioritized standby lists. Vista was also the first to show Standby memory in Resource monitor, leading many people to believe this was something new. But it has been in NT since the very beginning.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
It all depends on how the memory was managed. Vista would simply not release memory that had been allocated, close an app and that memory was still being allocated to it 15 minutes after it was closed. In Vista I would use a Memory Manager which was part of Yamicsoft Vista Manager, it would force the release of the ram once the application was no longer using it.

I just noticed this in Windows 8, there is a thing called "Runtime Broker" which seems to be in charge of the ram now - Anmd Yamicsoft Windows 8 manager no longer has the Memory Manager app which has been part of the package since XP.

broker.png
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

msdos622wasfun

Member
Member
There is nothing fundamentally new in the way Vista manages memory. In fact, the basic fundamentals of how Windows 8 manages memory hasn't changed since NT was first introduced in 1993. The goal has always been to use memory to the fullest possible extent. It is just that later versions have found more ways (such as superfetch) to accomplish that goal.

Much of the confusion comes from the way memory statistics were shown in XP and earlier versions. Vista and later show values for "Available" and "Free" memory, emphasizing that they are not the same thing while XP and earlier versions showed only "Available". It was widely believed that XP available memory was all free. That is not the case. Available memory in NT has always been the sum of Standby and Free memory, just as in Vista. Unfortunately, to see these values in XP and older you needed some pretty sophisticated and difficult to use tools. Standby memory is usually the bulk of available memory with free memory being much smaller, but not as small as Vista.

Unlike XP which has only one, Vista has 8 prioritized standby lists. Vista was also the first to show Standby memory in Resource monitor, leading many people to believe this was something new. But it has been in NT since the very beginning.

Thanks for the info.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom built/assembled myself
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350 Black Edition
    Motherboard
    ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    Memory
    16 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Windforce
    Sound Card
    On-board audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1440
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SSD
    Western Digital Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA-3
    PSU
    Corsair HX850W
    Case
    Cooler Master HAF XM
    Cooling
    Stock
    Keyboard
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Mouse
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Internet Speed
    22 Mbps
    Browser
    IE/Chrome/Firefox
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender, Malwarebytes

Sammystech

New Member
The Truth

I rather use ubuntu:shock: then windows vista:eek: and trying running photoshop on a w8;) and vista:eek: and windows 8;) is way faster. If that dont proof enough to you my vista:eek: laptop took 10 mins! No exaggeration to start up and my dell inspiron 15R;) With windows 8;) takes 30 seconds.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    pro Windows 8 64-bit
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Dell Inspiron 15R
    Browser
    Chrome
    Antivirus
    AVG

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
Same Laptop? 5 Mins for Vista, 30 secs for 8? That's what I have been trying to say!
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

Sammystech

New Member
Also Heres My Specs Of My Vista Laptop If Having Vista Ain`t Bad Enough I had a Toshibia Satellite.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    pro Windows 8 64-bit
    Computer type
    Laptop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Dell Inspiron 15R
    Browser
    Chrome
    Antivirus
    AVG

msdos622wasfun

Member
Member
Hey, when I ran MS-DOS 6.22 and loaded my ANSI.SYS driver on my 20 MB Seagate hard drive, it took 10 minutes!! ;)
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8.1 Pro x64
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Custom built/assembled myself
    CPU
    AMD FX-8350 Black Edition
    Motherboard
    ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0
    Memory
    16 GB Crucial Ballistix DDR3 1866
    Graphics Card(s)
    Gigabyte Radeon R9 280X Windforce
    Sound Card
    On-board audio
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Dell UltraSharp U2713HM 27" LCD
    Screen Resolution
    2560 x 1440
    Hard Drives
    Samsung 840 EVO 250 GB SSD
    Western Digital Caviar Black 2.0 TB SATA-3
    PSU
    Corsair HX850W
    Case
    Cooler Master HAF XM
    Cooling
    Stock
    Keyboard
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Mouse
    Logitech MK520 wireless
    Internet Speed
    22 Mbps
    Browser
    IE/Chrome/Firefox
    Antivirus
    Windows Defender, Malwarebytes

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
On an IBM PX-XT with the "full 640k of Ram?" You bet! I wish I still had that museum piece, it ran great for 16 years, I used it for AutoCAD. I even had a Math Co-Processor!

I knew the 8088 up and down, I was a god with "debug"
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

Ex_Brit

Older - But No Wiser
Pro User
Well I happen to love Vista and mine is no memory hog either.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Win 7 Ult SP1 + Win 10 Pro - (x64)
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Alienware® ALX X58
    CPU
    Intel® Core i7-975 Extreme 3.86 GHz 8MB Cache
    Motherboard
    ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 Socket 1366 Core i7, Dual Triple Channel DDR3 Mem
    Memory
    24GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3 SDRAM at 1600MHz - 6 x 4096MB
    Graphics Card(s)
    1792 MB NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 295/Hauppauge HVR2250 TV Tuner
    Sound Card
    Onboard Soundmax® High definition Sound
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Samsung XL2370 LED
    Screen Resolution
    1920 X 1080P
    Hard Drives
    2 X 500gb SATA
    1 X 1TB SATA
    1 X 3TB external eSATA
    (Non-RAID)
    PSU
    Alienware® 1200 Watt Multi-GPU
    Case
    Alienware® P2 ALX Chassis with AlienIce 3.0 Video Cooling
    Cooling
    Alienware® High-Perf. Liquid Cooling + Acoustic Dampening
    Keyboard
    Microsoft® Wireless Entertainment 8000 + Logitech® G15 Wired
    Mouse
    Microsoft® Wireless Laser 8000 + Logitech® G9 Wired
    Internet Speed
    1tbs
    Other Info
    Using non-RAID on purpose as I find it too fussy and temperamental.

jimbo45

New Member
VIP Member
Guru
Hi there
Photoshop CS6 extended 64 bit on Win 8 i5 Sony laptop with a W7 X-64 4 GB Virtual machine also concurrently running (Laptop has 8GB RAM) takes less than 7 secs to start (on the HOST machine) -- mind you I am using an SSD.

However VISTA probably would also have run decently on a laptop with proper hardware in it and especially with an SSD.

My REAL gripe with VISTA was two fold -- the totally BONKERS UAC "feature" and the fact that the OS was released long before adequate hardware was ready for it.

Under the hood - VISTA is quite similar to W7 -- amazing isn't it --W7 gets glowing reports from almost 100% of the users -- whereas poor old VISTA is totally maligned --remember no VISTA then there wouldn't have been W7 -- and can you imagine if you'd had to go straight from XP to W8 without W7 being available.

Cheers
jimbo
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Linux Centos 7, W8.1, W7, W2K3 Server W10
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    Monitor(s) Displays
    1 X LG 40 inch TV
    Hard Drives
    SSD's * 3 (Samsung 840 series) 250 GB
    2 X 3 TB sata
    5 X 1 TB sata
    Internet Speed
    0.12 GB/s (120Mb/s)

XweAponX

New Member
VIP Member
Pro User
I know that there are some who actually like it - And to tell the truth, there were quite a few things I DID like.

1) Dreamscene 2) Gadgets 3) The Aero Transparency.

What sucked and still sucks? UAC. It should never have been put in.

Vista was designed, as I said, for a specific Intel 32-but Core Duo Processor - And it worked WELL within that environment - Provided you had at least 2 GB of Ram, 4 GB was better, and it was also what they suggested.

But what did the OEMS do? They did not stick to that format, they started installing it to Celerons and Athlons and Durons and later Semprons, and even eventually Atoms. To make the system CHEAPER, they would only install 512 MB!!

512 MB on a CELERON! The last system I worked on, which had a Celery and 512 - I finally put more RAM in there and installed Windows 7! What is the excuse for this E-Machines eTower - When it had VISTA - IT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE.

It took 5 minutes to boot - going from one program to the other, which is instantaneous in Windows 7 and 8 - feels like you are swimming in MOLASSES. The little CPU/MEMORY gadget - Showed CPU and Memory PEGGED - ALL the time. The moment it booted to Windows 7, the CPU/RAM gadget went back down to normal.

So, despite what COOL things Vista had - The OS was SO BAD that nobody could enjoy those things unless they were rich and could by an Alienware machine.

Vista SUCKS and Microsoft even understood this - But I say again - they were railroaded in to developing it by INTEL! Intel Promised MS a dual HT 64-bit processor, handed them a 64 processor all right - But as DUAL 32!

So from within the framework of a System running a Core Duo of any speed - Then and ONLY then, will Vista act more like Windows 7 does - On ALL Processors.

Anybody who wants can run whatever OS they want - But Vista SUCKS. And if it were "Just Like Windows 7" or even SIMILAR - Then my 3.3 GHz, 2 GHz Ram Celeron system should run it as well as it runs Windows 7. BUT IT DIDN'T. Anyone running Vista where it seems to be running fast and smooth, is running that OS in the environment intended for it - 32 bit Core Duo, 4 GB Ram, 500 GB Hard drive, 3/4 full so that there is a huge Pagefile.

The other thing that Vista was made fore was Vanderpool (Hyper V as it was originally called, aka Virtualization) - You had to have 4 GB of Ram, if you had Vanderpool turned ON on the BIOS, it would take 1 GB of that ram off the top and assign it for Virtualization - That was the ONLY way to run it and have the Hosted OS act like it was supposed to act. But it never really worked until Windows 7 came out and introduced "Windows XP Mode" which worked even with 2 GB of Ram.

Not to mention, as Jimbo says - for the first 9 months, it was VERY hard to find drivers for your hardware - Even for systems "Designed for Vist-sh'iite"


I remmeber finding the drivers for a Toshiba Satellite one item at a time, on the net - For XP Drivers - Once I got XP in there and found the drivers - It ran great. It CAME with Vistcrap in it, it was a totally unusable notebook. When 7 came out, in it went and its been running great for the last 4 years. 5 years? When DID Vistapoodoo come out, Winter of 2005 right? When did 7 come out... Ya know, I cant remember cos the era of Vista was deep in the era of Bush, and it was kinda like The Dark Ages. When 7 came out, it was like a Ray of Hope.

Windows 8 is in NO way as bad a Vista was, I;ve updated SO many machines to Windows 7, I really havent seen one single working install of Vistphart out in the field, for 5 years... And then I got this Tower - Guess what, it was a Celeron, 512mb Ram. 100 gb Hard Drive, with Vista on it.

Well, I could not allow that puter to suffer so as fast as I could, I updated it to 7. It only took, 6 hours to do it... Windows 7 to 8? Takes 1 hr 45 min max... I'm talking about Upgrading a system, keeping all of your files and settings. Vista to 7 took 6 hours... An In-Place Windows 7 install, has never taken me longer than 2 hours. Those are facts, and they say something. They say Vista is wholly inadequate for how pretty it is. Widows XP and 7 are workhorses, like Windows 8 can be with a little tweeking- it can be a great OS.
 

My Computer

System One

  • OS
    Windows 8 Pro with Media Center/Windows 7
    Computer type
    PC/Desktop
    System Manufacturer/Model
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus § DualCore AMD Athlon 64 X2, 2300 MHz (11.5 x 200) 4400+ § Corsair Value Select
    CPU
    AMD 4400+/4200+
    Motherboard
    Asus M2N-MX SE Plus/Asus A8M2N-LA (NodusM)
    Memory
    2 GB/3GB
    Graphics Card(s)
    GeForce 8400 GS/GeForce 210
    Sound Card
    nVIDIA GT218 - High Definition Audio Controller
    Monitor(s) Displays
    Hitachi 40" LCD HDTV
    Screen Resolution
    "1842 x 1036"
    Hard Drives
    WDC WD50 00AAKS-007AA SCSI Disk Device
    ST1000DL 002-9TT153 SCSI Disk Device
    WDC WD3200AAJB-00J3A0 ATA Device
    WDC WD32 WD-WCAPZ2942630 USB Device
    WD My Book 1140 USB Device
    PSU
    Works 550w
    Case
    MSI "M-Box"
    Cooling
    Water Cooled
    Keyboard
    Dell Keyboard
    Mouse
    Microsoft Intellimouse
    Internet Speed
    Cable Medium Speed
    Browser
    Chrome/IE 10
    Antivirus
    Eset NOD32 6.x/Win Defend
    Other Info
    Recently lost my Windows 8 on my main PC, had to go back to Windows 7.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top