Vista Gets PWNED

New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 13, 2003
Messages
2,904
Best answers
0
If I say I lolled, does that make me even more of a geek?
 
Freelance Mappzor
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 21, 2003
Messages
17,065
Best answers
0
Location
Stairing at the Abyss
Tell the people in all of the lands "Microsoft just got Owned by a student"
 
Base belongs to me.
👑 Administrator
🌠 Staff
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
10,861
Best answers
0
Location
Netherlands
I don't see how this is pwning, I've used vlite half a year ago when I installed Vista on my pc (Using XP again). All it does is removing some parts, so what? :p. New features of Vista may be big, yes.. But I seriously don't see how this is pwning. Sure 15gig is big, and 1.3 - 1.5gig is hella lot better, but removing some pretty big features on the installation, is not pwning at all.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2004
Messages
3,055
Best answers
0
Location
Round Rock, TX
I don't see how this is pwning, I've used vlite half a year ago when I installed Vista on my pc (Using XP again). All it does is removing some parts, so what? :p. New features of Vista may be big, yes.. But I seriously don't see how this is pwning. Sure 15gig is big, and 1.3 - 1.5gig is hella lot better, but removing some pretty big features on the installation, is not pwning at all.
It's giving you freedom that Microsoft themselves don't give you. That's pwning.
 
Base belongs to me.
👑 Administrator
🌠 Staff
✔️ HL Verified
🚂 Steam Linked
💎Légéñdārý
Joined
Nov 30, 2002
Messages
10,861
Best answers
0
Location
Netherlands
It's giving you freedom that Microsoft themselves don't give you. That's pwning.
Even though vlite has been out for ages.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
Huh...Well, at least it gives me more reason to bother upgrading to Vista in the future. I've only considered it because of Direct X 10 really, but since I know that Vista's processes tend to devour your resources even when idle, I can't have that much crap slowing me down. I work in 3D animation, and the better performance I can get, and the faster the rendering times, the better. With something like this, I might just get the best of both worlds. Sounds pretty win-win to me. Just have to wait for people to sign off on Vista as being beyond it's Beta stage and actually being a stable OS.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
4,765
Best answers
0
Location
The Netherlands
Rendering probably won't get much faster with freeing up disk space. RAM and CPU are waaaay more important.
 
Active Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 6, 2005
Messages
1,037
Best answers
0
Rendering probably won't get much faster with freeing up disk space. RAM and CPU are waaaay more important.
I guess it removes uneeded processes. And that frees up RAM and CPU.
 
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
May 28, 2006
Messages
1,094
Best answers
0
I guess it removes uneeded processes. And that frees up RAM and CPU.
Exactly. I hear Vista, as it is now, runs so many background processes even when idle, that it's like running Half Life 2 in the background of everything you do. If that could be adjusted, I'd be much more convinced to upgrade to Vista.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
Well, nothing new here. XP has been pwning Vista for over a year now.

I might check this out... might. I'm pretty cozy as it is with XP, and should I tire of that, I need simply boot into Ubuntu.

In fact, Vista has so many issues that there is an entire page devoted to it on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_Vista
Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Windows_XP

Or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Linux

Or the criticism section of the Windows 9x, Windows ME articles.

No difference.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Mar 29, 2003
Messages
4,765
Best answers
0
Location
The Netherlands
Exactly. I hear Vista, as it is now, runs so many background processes even when idle, that it's like running Half Life 2 in the background of everything you do. If that could be adjusted, I'd be much more convinced to upgrade to Vista.
It's not running that many processes in the background, at least not a lot more than XP is. The problem is that some of the processes take a ****load of memory to use. Specifically 2, one being dwm.exe, which is basically the Aero desktop. The other being explorer.exe, which regulates the entire indexing thing Vista does(you know, for the instant searching of files on indexed disks.)The sidebar also uses a lot of memory. But as you can see all these things are more or less optional, so you can save some memory with that. But unless this mini version of Vista disables those (which I doubt, because they are the features that makes Vista, Vista) you probably won't save that much memory.
 
New Member
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Apr 7, 2003
Messages
1,478
Best answers
0
It's not running that many processes in the background, at least not a lot more than XP is. The problem is that some of the processes take a ****load of memory to use. Specifically 2, one being dwm.exe, which is basically the Aero desktop. The other being explorer.exe, which regulates the entire indexing thing Vista does(you know, for the instant searching of files on indexed disks.)The sidebar also uses a lot of memory. But as you can see all these things are more or less optional, so you can save some memory with that. But unless this mini version of Vista disables those (which I doubt, because they are the features that makes Vista, Vista) you probably won't save that much memory.
This is not true. I don't know how many times I've heard this fallacious argument. Vista has higher requirements than XP, yes. But the high RAM usage (which is a good thing) is not indicative of that high requirement.

XP's architecture is built around using as little memory as possible. So as little as possible would be loaded into RAM as possible, meaning when it came time to use something, ALL that data had to put fed into the RAM from the slow hard drive.

Vista's architecture is based around a function called "SuperFetch." It keeps more things in the RAM, ready for quick, faster-than-hard-drive access, so you get it FASTER (i.e. MORE PERFORMANCE) when you need it. If you're using MS Office every day from 2:00 to 4:00PM, Vista will load much of it into memory, decreasing your start-up and access times, whereas in XP, it'll have to load all of it into RAM when you click the open button.

Vista tries to anticipate your habits and plan accordingly.

Even on my system, which has 4GB, the OS usually has around 2.6GB loaded into RAM. This doesn't mean that the system is "bogged down"--it means it's taking ADVANTAGE of my RAM. If you need the RAM for something intensive, such as a game, it'll quickly/instantly flush everything out and replace it with the game, which is what would have happened anyway under XP.
 
Active Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Oct 27, 2004
Messages
2,462
Best answers
0
Eh, even if a lot of the stuff is superfluous, when I buy Vista eventually, I want my money's worth.
 
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 29, 2004
Messages
1,626
Best answers
0
Eh, even if a lot of the stuff is superfluous, when I buy Vista eventually, I want my money's worth.
If you hold off long enough, you'll be able to get Windows 7.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom