Vista... Do I? Dont I? Really can't decide!

wolfman

MercilessKiller wrote: »

ooo wolfman using some opinion there? I absolutely love itunes! What's wrong with it? Poor thing

It's fine on Macs. I just don't like it in Windows. The styling is wrong, you can't change that, it uses up a lot of resources, took a while to become Vista compatible etc...

And especially when compared with something like foobar2000, Winamp, etc... It's an ok simple player that is easy(ish) to use. I just think there's far better out there.

MercilessKiller

Fair enough! :P I personally love the podcast and music store integration as well as the feeling that its a well built package. It uses more resources yes but I think it feels and looks nicer than winamp (even with winamp skins!)

Everyone to their own I suppose!

everythingblogcast

Install it to virtual PC 2007 and that way you will still be in the EULA

hawkwind

I have a intel duo processor and 1gb of ram, whilst cpu usage is very low, memory seems to be between 51 - 58% averaging about 53% with just opera running.
The system still does seem qiute fast and very stable.
Is this memory usage about right.
I must admit i do quite like Vista and i am dual booting at the moment with xp as linux does not seem to like my new system for some reason.

JamesUK_3

Is this memory usage about right.

The memory usage is perfectly correct, in fact i'd probably expect it to be higher to be honest. It's commonly seen by people that "Vista is using nearly all my memory! Oh dear its too demanding i dont like it, im going back to XP!" - however Vista takes advantage of times when your pc is 'idle' to cache things in memory to save time if you decide to use them (think of it as a sort of 'regular items' list). If you do something else Vista releases the memory and allocates it to what you want to do. XP did it with 'prefetch', Vista has made a harder working version called 'superfetch'.

Classic PC quote: "Unused RAM is wasted RAM".

Wolf_Hook

I used Windows Vista for two weeks and then spent £1400 on a 24" iMac, that is how much I thought of Vista.

I had a Intel Celeron chip 3ghz, 256mb graphics card and 2ghz of RAM and it ran it's self into the ground.

It is such a shame that Microsoft has such market share domination.

Millionaire

Wolf_Hook wrote: »

I used Windows Vista for two weeks and then spent £1400 on a 24" iMac, that is how much I thought of Vista.

With prices today I wouldnt pay anything over 400-500 for desktop. The spec for the prices today is amazingly cheap.

Wolf_Hook wrote: »

I had a Intel Celeron chip 3ghz, 256mb graphics card and 2ghz of RAM and it ran it's self into the ground.

Well your first mistake was buying a Intel Celeron Chip. Ive said it before they are not "all that" A Pentium or Dual Core will wipe the floor with it.

Im running a 1.6Ghz Core2duo, 2G Ram, and 128 Graphics with Shared Graphics and got Vista running just as quick as XP if not quicker. I could actually run it with 1GB ram.

Wolf_Hook wrote: »

It is such a shame that Microsoft has such market share domination.

This is also in a way MAC's saving grace. While the Mac's are more secure if they had anything even remotley close to Microsofts Market share. You could bet the the Hackers/crimminals would pay more attention in attacking the OS.

At the moment its "Why attack an OS with 6% market share approx when they can attack Windows which has around 93% appprox".

And if Apple had their way we would all be forking out over £800 minimum for a basic laptop. Not exactly moneysaving.

hawkwind

JamesUK wrote: »

The memory usage is perfectly correct, in fact i'd probably expect it to be higher to be honest. It's commonly seen by people that "Vista is using nearly all my memory! Oh dear its too demanding i dont like it, im going back to XP!" - however Vista takes advantage of times when your pc is 'idle' to cache things in memory to save time if you decide to use them (think of it as a sort of 'regular items' list). If you do something else Vista releases the memory and allocates it to what you want to do. XP did it with 'prefetch', Vista has made a harder working version called 'superfetch'.

Classic PC quote: "Unused RAM is wasted RAM".

Thanks for the reply
TBH, i can not see any difference in performance between xp and vista except that xp tends to hang occasionally for a few seconds.
I was very dubious about vista which was why i went for the dual boot.
Vista appears to use more memory but does actually seem to perform better.

I`ll give it a couple of more weeks before deciding whether to wipe xp from my system.