Vista retail not sellling - surprisingly..

wolfman

Millionaire wrote: »

Of course its a resource hog, Do you know how many ridiculious amounts of services that are switched on that are not required from standard installation. I turned quite a few of them off manually as I didn't need them.

It does have a lot of services enabled, but that's just it being generic to suit most users. Even Ubuntu has services running that you may not need.

I too turn them off, in fact I use vLite to make a nice lite automated install of Vista. Works a treat.

Millionaire wrote: »

Your point about the memory proves my point. 2GB to run it smoothly because at one 1GB it hogging the whole memory on just running the system.

I used to barely have any memory left on my basic use on 1GB and you know what starts happening then, it starts paging to the harddrive slowing it down because it doesn't have any free memory.

I run Vista on 1Gb just fine. It's the aggressive prefetching that eats up all the memory. But in most cases, it's memory that I'm not using and is just sitting redundant. When I use Ubuntu about 75% of my memory isn't being used.

I've not found it to slow down. And I'm using it with Visual Studio, often debugging. I've tweaked the hell out of my system though, which might make the difference.

Millionaire wrote: »

I don't think its intelligent use of memory to load it with applications that you used on previous days but have no intention of using on that day.

Why make the computer do all the extra work if its not required for minimal effects of speed if any, throw something heavy at it and then its working away try to free memory up.

It'll work for some but not others. I typically open Firefox, Visual Studio etc... each time I use Vista. I find it to be quite intelligent especially when searching through all my commonly used files.

For the record Ubuntu has something similar in the form of Tracker. It's generally quite light though, although I've come across occasions when it kills your system (try leaving it running while you're updating a virtual machine).

For some people it'll be a performance gain, for others a loss. If it's the latter, just turn it off. I do in both cases (on Vista and Ubuntu).

Conor_3

sleep2much wrote: »

I must admit my Vista systems, (3pc one lappy) all take about half the RAM available,

Of course they do. It's called superfetch. It preloads frequently accessed programs to speed up startup and the RAM is released as needed.

Personally, I'd rather have Firefox sat in RAM ready to start in under a second than have 2.5GB of RAM that's not needed sitting there doing nothing.

Conor_3

Thomas99 wrote: »

So why is Uncle Bill slashing the price?

If you actually bothered to read the articles and were capable of seeing through the red mist your Microsoft hatred has created, you'd notice that the prices were being dropped in poorer markets and markets with higher rates of piracy.

Conor_3

Millionaire wrote: »

Kiss my ......

It is still hogging alot of memory for normal system use. giving it a name in this case "superfetch" doesn't change those circumstances.

You've just done an excellent job of displaying your ignorance and lack of knowledge about computers. Well done.

Oh and I'm sure those seeing application load times 50%+ quicker than in XP are quite chuffed about superfetch even though they don't know that's what does it.

Are you using XP?

Conor_3

Millionaire wrote: »

Kiss my ......

It is still hogging alot of memory for normal system use. giving it a name in this case "superfetch" doesn't change those circumstances.

You've just done an excellent job of displaying your ignorance and lack of knowledge about computers. Well done.

Oh and I'm sure those seeing application load times 50%+ quicker than in XP are quite chuffed about superfetch even though they don't know that's what does it.

What would you rather it did, sit there doing nothing at all? It gets released in nanoseconds if it's needed so what's the problem?

Are you using XP? If so, why?

Thomas99

Conor wrote: »

If you actually bothered to read the articles and were capable of seeing through the red mist your Microsoft hatred has created, you'd notice that the prices were being dropped in poorer markets and markets with higher rates of piracy.

So you class the US as a "poorer market"? Clearly, your comprehension skills need honing. "In the US, prices for Vista Ultimate will fall from $399 to $319". You must hold a deep affection for Ballmer.

Cerro

OEM sales have always been more popular than retail sales for Windows and I doubt that will ever change. OEM is cheaper and is what is sold with most PCs (like a Dell machine).

The only downside of buying OEM Vista means that you are stuck with whatever motherboard you first registered with. Although I have heard of people getting MS support to allow them to re-register a Vista OEM license when they have replaced their motherboard.

Anyway, this reduction in the cost of Vista was bound to come at somepoint. And surely a reduction in the price is a good thing?

chunter

boatman wrote: »

I swap between vista and xp regularly. Not had any issues with Vista, its been fine.
I think if your buying a new computer and it comes with Vista, don't worry about it, it works. If you already have XP don't bother moving to Vista, your not missing much. Not sure what else you can say.

Quite succinct and accurate.

amonra

I dont object to paying for a product that is vastly superior to my present one, but I'm afraid Vista isn't ! I cant see any significant improvement for the average user like myself. I'll stick with XP till I've got to change.

Zahc

Conor wrote: »

You've just done an excellent job of displaying your ignorance and lack of knowledge about computers. Well done.

Oh and I'm sure those seeing application load times 50%+ quicker than in XP are quite chuffed about superfetch even though they don't know that's what does it.

What would you rather it did, sit there doing nothing at all? It gets released in nanoseconds if it's needed so what's the problem?

Are you using XP? If so, why?

All hail the great trucker Conor..... <shakes his head and walks away>

Any how, Vista is OK, as is XP; I just wouldn't 'upgrade' to Vista for the hell of it. I've a lap top with Vista Home Basic on and had to disable a considerable amount of services to get it moving, but it is a basic laptop with 1 Gb RAM and it all works fine now.
The discussion is pretty much the same as when XP came out and no doubt something similar will come along 5 years down the line.
Playing around with xubuntu at the moment on a P3 700 (ish) PC and that flies and takes very little resources.

Zahc