What type of primary operating system you use on regular basis?

Discussion in '3D Hardware, Software & Output Devices' started by Shtal, Oct 9, 2008.

?

See question below in bold text!

  1. Windows Vista 64bit

    34 vote(s)
    37.4%
  2. Windows Vista 32bit

    15 vote(s)
    16.5%
  3. Windows XP 64bit

    2 vote(s)
    2.2%
  4. Windows XP 32bit

    28 vote(s)
    30.8%
  5. Windows 2000

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. Windows Millennium

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. Windows 98 / 98SE

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. Windows NT 4.0

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. Windows 95

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Mac OS (any version)

    3 vote(s)
    3.3%
  11. Linux (any version)

    9 vote(s)
    9.9%
  12. Other!

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    I do understand your point, but I'm kinda person who wants to keep more memory available in reserve - just in case!
     
  2. vette3066

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2008
    Messages:
    6
    Likes Received:
    0
    But does Vista actually hit swap/page file before XP, provided they're both running the same apps, etc? A conversation I had a while back with an MS employee ended in the realm of Vista not really eating more actual ram than XP would, just caching much more when ram was free.
     
  3. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't use any. Well, unless Windows Defender counts.
     
  4. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I really don't care to be honest. I expanded my system to 6 GB because they're practically giving memory away now. I've never had problems running out of memory in Vista, and I doubt I will anytime soon.
    For me it's simple: the small investment I made in more memory resulted in a far smoother system in Vista (although XP/XP x64 didn't seem to know what to do with the extra memory, and haven't improved performance past 1 GB really). So for me it's money well spent. My system runs better than ever.

    I also have a laptop... I specifically chose a model with 2 GB installed, because of Vista, and that one runs very smoothly aswell.
     
  5. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    So did I. No problem at all with 4GB memory or issues about not enough memory, I simply don't like vista uses more memory then XP.

    Some people might say tough, memory are cheap so add more memory.
     
  6. Scali

    Regular

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,127
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think that's a VERY limited view of an OS.
    Yes it uses more memory... Then again, Windows XP used more memory than 2000, and 2000 used more memory than NT4, etc.
    But that's not the only difference between those OSes, obviously.
    Especially in the case of Vista, the overall system is just a much smoother experience for me. I don't have to wait for applications to load, I don't sit in HDD rattling all the time... The system is less noisy because of that, funny enough. I now get annoyed when I go back to XP, and hear the HDD seeking like crazy, and nothing getting done.
     
  7. Richard

    Richard Mord's imaginary friend
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes Received:
    40
    Location:
    PT, EU
    This is an important detail that often gets ignored when that argument is used. RAM is only cache until you run out of it.

    On the other topic of whether to go 64 bit or no. I see that some people believe it's only worth it when you have > 3.25 gb of RAM. The truth is that going to 64 bit will allow your processes to tap into more than 2gb of virtual address space (ignore PAE because everyone else does) even if you have less RAM than that.
     
  8. Blakhart

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2006
    Messages:
    103
    Likes Received:
    0
    I will stay with xp32 as my games run just fine, as does everything else. No need to waste faster hardware just to run the os. I want faster hardware to run my games more smoothly, not the os.
     
  9. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    481
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    You're willfully ignoring what the operating system is doing with that memory.
     
  10. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    If Windows XP can perform all tasks what next OS "Vista" could - with less memory usage / requirement, then their is absolutely no reason why Vista should eat more memory.
     
  11. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    *sigh*

    Do you know the difference between "needs" and "can use"? Needs insinuates requirement, as in it will not function without it. This is not the case with Vista, which is why your argument is invalid.

    It can use memory that is not otherwise allocated for large amounts of disk cache -- far better than it worked on XP. And if/when that ram is truly needed by an application, it is easily and quickly given up.

    So what you're actually saying is this: you'd rather that the full resources of your machine go unused for no other reason than to make you feel good about -- what? How many resources you have that are unused?
     
  12. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    EDIT: On your statement - I would agree if Vista ran quicker then XP :)

    Performs slower.
    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1016_3-6220201.html
     
    #52 Shtal, Oct 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2008
  13. Albuquerque

    Albuquerque Red-headed step child
    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2004
    Messages:
    3,845
    Likes Received:
    329
    Location:
    35.1415,-90.056
    You're using a news article from a year ago, that is talking about performance in Vista SP1 that was still months away, and was comparing it to XP SP3 which was also still months away? So you're comparing BETA software to BETA software, and declaring one a winner?

    Do you realize the massive logical fallacy you just made up?

    Why don't we try looking at benchmarks from within the last six months, maybe even try looking at benchmarks where they were testing production-released software? Here's an example: ExtremeTech does a review of Vista SP1 vs XP SP3 on an E6750, 2Gb of ram, an SB Extreme Gamer and an ATI 3870.

    Guess who won? Actually don't guess, go read the article and find out for yourself. And then come back when you realize how wrong your linked article was...
     
  14. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    Upcoming Windows 7 is what Vista should have been, but Microsoft rush out with new OS to the market!

    The top five reasons why Windows Vista failed
    http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=10303
     
  15. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    OK! With fastest hardware available "hungry beast" - Vista finally cached up to XP with some benchmarks, just because you showed me few tests does not magically means anything!
     
  16. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    481
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    You're still being dense.

    Here's some memory usage stats from a machine I administer.

    Code:
    Mem:  32942312k total, 28244864k used,  4697448k free,   155912k buffers
    Swap:  2104472k total,      432k used,  2104040k free, 26316116k cached
    
    One of those numbers is the reason why it's got 32GB in it rather than 4GB. Can you guess which one it it?

    By your argument there's a massive technical problem with the operating system which its running, which is a memory hog (and is called "Linux").
     
    #56 nutball, Oct 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2008
  17. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    So, what's your point?
     
  18. nutball

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,152
    Likes Received:
    481
    Location:
    en.gb.uk
    I think you just made it.
     
  19. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    EDIT: You simply can't compare Linux to Vista!
     
    #59 Shtal, Oct 15, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2008
  20. Shtal

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,344
    Likes Received:
    3
    Like I said before, I like Vista - but I would rather run with 8GB RAM. Only then I will get best possible experience!
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...