Windows Vista is much more aggressive about caching things in the
background. It will use around half of the available RAM to do so, so if you
through another gigabyte of RAM in there, you'd see around a gig of that
used during idle periods. From what i've heard, Linux and Unix have done
this for years.
When another program requests memory, Vista will happily give it what it
needs at the expense of caching, so that idle memory usage won't affect your
programs and games. So don't fret. If anything, be glad that the memory you
paid for is constantly being used instead of just sitting there."
As for Vista compatibility, its pretty good based on my experience, you have
read reports running Office 97, 2000, XP on it, although these version have
not been certified. I have used Photoshop version 7 and later on Vista x86
and I haven't had any problems. My old HP Deskjet 840c works just fine with
Vista including my HP Scanjet 2400. My Motorola c350 phone now works just
fine with Vista x86 since they released the 4.5.0a update.
A lot of the compatibility issues with applications are attributed to the
new user priviledges in the OS, prior to Windows Vista, applications were
written with the mind set they will always have full Administrator
privileges, but since Vista works differently, applications need to conform
to the new methodologies and it will only take time.
As for bloat, you have understand there is a convergence going on, we are
living in a world of multimedia, not 1995 where the operating system was
just known to be a traffic cop for your applications and devices. Consumers
and businesses expect certain features and functionality to come with OS,
basic out of the box management of photos, videos, DVD burning and so on.
Vista compared to open source solutions is even more conservative, it does
not include two independent user interface environments like Linux
(KDE/GNOME) which stress systems since it has to load two different sets of
libraries to support both environments, which means two different media
players, two different office productivity suites and so on.
So, the argument that Vista is bloated and memory hungry is pretty much mute
when you take into account the needs and aim of the OS. When look at Vista's
security record its so much better, better setup for attacks because built
in functionality like Device Driver signing, Patch Guard, Address Space
Layout Randomizer, Hardware DEP. Vista really is a powerful worthy operating
thats easy to use and much easy to move to compared to 'migrating' to
another platform such as OS X or Linux.
I am not much of a gamer, so maybe somebody can talk about the benefits
there.
--
Andre
Blog:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry
"RMZ" <> wrote in message
news:b6aed196-2566-4f59-9dc5-...
> First of all, I am not some anti-Microsoft, Linux or Mac flag waving
> fan. I have tried Linux a few times and keep an eye on it's progress,
> MacOS has strong lure at this stage, since Apple is really proving to
> be the innovation leader and since Parallels allows it to run Windows
> XP as well as any PC
>
> So I have a fresh 32-Bit Vista machine (out of the box on Friday) and
> have installed only a few games on it.... A quick look at the running
> processes would confirm what you are saying, there are over 50
> processes running in the background on startup, using 634-MB of RAM
> with only a web browser running, that's just ridiculous compared to
> what XP Pro was using and I guess based on what the Linux folks tell
> me in our IT shop, XP Pro was a bit bloated even.
>
> So, why Microsoft, why? You've bloated the OS and claim all this
> "magic" under the hood of Vista, but all the end user gets is a lot of
> frustration dealing with XP devices and software that are incompatible
> with Vista and we get a even more bloated OS. It essentially
> frustrates more and eats up more resources. Vista is like a really fat
> man at the buffet who fills his plate when the good stuff arrives.
> Let's not get started on DirectX10 and think at this point it's
> failure speaks for itself and just fuirther confirms the performance
> issues and the "bloatedness" of the OS.
>
> So I'm assuming Vista has some supporters out there, I'd like to hear
> a good case for why I should stick with Vista and not format my drive
> and install XP Pro on this new system. Can anyone defend Vista and
> perhaps provide another side of this argument?
>
Linear Mode
