Gaming XP SP3 vs Vista SP1

  • Thread starter Thread starter fischju
  • Start date Start date
  • Views Views 5,445
  • Replies Replies 39
the only thing I don´t like about vista is that is uses too much memory and cpu, just starting windows vista and it is using 1300MB of RAM, and XP with the same programs intalled, uses around 400..

but I guess it´s the same with all new programs, I just installed Autocad 2009 and it uses around 150MB in comparison with 2008 that uses around 50MB..
 
arctic_flame said:
Everyone hated 98SE. XP was an improvement.I seem to remember a lot of people bad mouthing XP because 98SE gave them better FPS in games.

QUOTE(Nocturno @ May 14 2008, 04:27 AM) the only thing I don´t like about vista is that is uses too much memory and cpu, just starting windows vista and it is using 1300MB of RAM, and XP with the same programs intalled, uses around 400..
Wish people wouldn't compare it like this, it's designed to use more so all your RAM isn't just, you know, sitting there doing nothing.
 
Dack said:
fischju said:
See: PCMark05

That wouldn't be because Vista cache's your most used applications on startup would it........... That would speed up the artificial testing of PC Mark just a tad
wink.gif

Windows XP does that too.. it's called "prefetching"
Check your C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder
tongue.gif


(unless you're talking about something completely different)
 
arctic_flame said:
Personal experience in a multi-user networking environment says otherwise.
Although it was probably fine for home use.
It was significantly better than 98 (plug and play whoo).

And of course it wasn't optimal for networking, thats what NT was for.
 
Urza said:
arctic_flame said:
Tir said:
All this Vista hate will die down sooner or later, it's just XP vs 98SE all over again.

Except that 98SE was universally hated for being the buggiest windows ever
What?

98SE was awesome.
QFT
there was nothing wrong with 98/SE
I think you mean WinME

arctic_flame where are you getting your facts from...?
 
Costello said:
Dack said:
fischju said:
See: PCMark05

That wouldn't be because Vista cache's your most used applications on startup would it........... That would speed up the artificial testing of PC Mark just a tad
wink.gif



Windows XP does that too.. it's called "prefetching"
Check your C:\WINDOWS\Prefetch folder
tongue.gif


(unless you're talking about something completely different)

It's different in Vista - it's Superfetching ?
wink.gif


QUOTE
To start with, SuperFetch overcomes one of the big drawbacks in Windows XP's Prefetch technology. Prefetch improves efficiency by loading the majority of the files and data needed by an application or process into memory so that they can be accessed very quickly when needed. However, because these files and data exist in memory, they are subject to the laws governing virtual memory. In other words, when other applications need access to memory, any prefetched data is moved out to the page file on the hard disk. When it is needed again, it then must be moved back from the page file to memory, which of course offsets the performance enhancement.

SuperFetch goes one step further to ensure that you get the most out of the performance enhancement. In addition to constructing the map files described earlier, SuperFetch also constructs profiles of the applications you use that include information about how often and when you use them. SuperFetch then will keep track of the applications in your profile and note when any prefetched data is moved out to the page file. SuperFetch will then monitor the progress of the application that caused the prefetched data to be moved out to the page file and, as soon as that application is done, it will pull the prefetched data back into memory. So when you go to access the application, the prefetched data will again be available in memory and the application will be very responsive.

Means that if you run the same application a few times it will be already for you in memory - 'tis one of the reasons Vista has such a large memory footprint when operating.
 
Narin said:
Microsoft has been getting hit by endless complaints for XP3, seems like after installing it, alot of people have been experiencing problems. Some of which corrupted their hard drive, they can't boot up their computer anymore, Windows simply fail to work and so on. Go Microsoft!
Yeah I got a harddrive error after I installed SP 3 too. Windows found it and fixed it though. Also seem to have trouble connecting to the internet with SP 3. I'm thinking of doing a system restore to before I installed it.
 
Westside said:
You do realize that human eyes can't tell the difference after 60fps?
Even the sharpest human eyes can only see up to 100fps.
Even then, your monitor capabilities will limit it

I always see that "fact" posted anytime there is a discussion about framerates, etc. It's just completely false. Check these out:

http://amo.net/NT/02-21-01FPS.html

tl;dr summation:

QUOTEThus, the big misconception that our eyes can only see 30 frames or 60 frames per second is purely due to the fact that the mainstream displays can only show this, not that our eyes can't see more. For the time being, the frames per second capable of any display device isn't even close to the phrase "more than meets the eye".

And this one also poses some more interesting commentary:

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm
 
Microsoft cripple XP so its as good as vista? Or Microsoft is having a really bad time, making a crappy OS, 360's with high rrod... Vista is nice, but once u start using it its crap. As with SP3 im using that right now, it froze and lagged my computer when i installed it and reboot.
hate2.gif
 
I don't see what all this hate is about. I bought and made a relatively cheap new PC recently, put Vista with SP1 on here...and I have no problems with it. Are people still going off of it's compatibility/stability from release? Because i agreed back then, and the parts and power needed to support it were much more expensive, so it just didn't make sense. Now? It's not really an issue. Stop the hate people. Or, if you hate, at least re-consider it from time to time to see if it's still worth hating.
 
CYatta said:
I don't see what all this hate is about. I bought and made a relatively cheap new PC recently, put Vista with SP1 on here...and I have no problems with it. Are people still going off of it's compatibility/stability from release? Because i agreed back then, and the parts and power needed to support it were much more expensive, so it just didn't make sense. Now? It's not really an issue. Stop the hate people. Or, if you hate, at least re-consider it from time to time to see if it's still worth hating.
There's a difference between hating it, and just thinking XP is still better.
 
Renegade_R said:
You have to use Windows Vista enough for it to grow on you. The instant search feature is really nice.
I used Vista exclusively for three months, and oh, it grew on me.

Like an annoying rash.

Instant search feature can easily be achieved in XP with superior software (mainly keystroke launchers and Google Desktop).
 
I like Vista its nice, its a nice change from xp, but it really eats up system resources, and it is buggy. I dont play much games but when ever someone doesnt work good. I like the transparency and everything, its really annoying asking to confirm every file moving/coping u do. I know u could disable it but u would also disable some security. Another thing that is bad about it is that it is way too user friendly which made it harder to use, imo. It kinda reminds me of windows ME, if anyone here used it before...
 

Site & Scene News

Popular threads in this forum