Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Shut Up About Vista, Already

<< < (7/9) > >>

nontroppo:
So VSC does nothing more than copy a file when opening it and backup is not proactive; OK. I (mis)intepreted the article as suggesting Vista had to keep scanning to know which files are changed, and would have to do this in the background...

I'm still not sure why you'd want VSC doing its stuff in basic/home Vista unless you had software that could make use if it, does the basic backup function also use it?

Carol Haynes:
Presumably yes - because basic backup allows you to backup the registry and it must produce a consistent result. Not sure if it uses VSC to achieve that but it would be logical. I presume basic backup also deals with files that are in use at the time of the backup - or does it warn you that some files cannot be backed up?

Okke:
I really didn't like Vista at first. Too many annoying things. Now I've tweaked it a bit I prefer it
over working on XP actually. There are some things I replaced instantly though like the file explorer.
It annoyed the hell out of me. I didn't like the changes at all.

The biggest reason I'm using Vista vs XP though is the performance which is rather ironic since most
are complaining about Vista's performance being worse than XP. XP in my case is much slower
than Vista. It mostly has to do with the quad-core processor in the system. XP just doesn't make good
use of it. Multitasking in XP is hardly possible. I've tried some multi-threaded programs on XP vs Vista.
Vista was able to make 100% use of all cores where XP only managed to use 70-80% with the same program.
In Vista things got done quite a bit faster. Startup of programs when other things are running is also way
faster on Vista.

When you have to run an Oracle database, web application server, java ide and all kinds of other stuff
simultaneously it really starts adding up.

Vista has it's share of problems and a lot of things definitely need fixing but right now it will have to do.

f0dder:
Vista was able to make 100% use of all cores where XP only managed to use 70-80% with the same program. In Vista things got done quite a bit faster. Startup of programs when other things are running is also way faster on Vista.
-Okke
--- End quote ---
Are you sure that it's just not Vista itself taking those last 20-30% CPU time? ;) joking aside, perhaps the Vista scheduler tries to keep thread on the same core, instead of trying to balance load equally across cores... I've seen speedups on XP when I manually lock thread affinity (so threads stay on one core), probably has to do with better core cache memory utilization...

As for faster program startups, the more aggressive prefetching of Vista is certainly something I wouldn't mind having.

But in whole, I'll be sticking with XP until the child diseases of Vista have been rooted out, and I'm sure I can cut off all the fat and useless crap.

wasker:
And it's suggested to have at least 2 gigs of mem if not 6 or 8.
-cmpm (November 30, 2007, 11:52 AM)
--- End quote ---

From my experience 2 gigs required, when you're using the shitty onboard video card, which cuts a huge portion of your lovely gig. I've had Vista Ultimate running on 1 gig with dedicated video card -- works as fast as XP.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page