For those of you not 'in-the-know', Microsoft Vista is being released this January to 'replace' Microsoft Windows XP. Essentially, it's just a Windows XP that's more 'pretty' then it's older counter part.
If you're interested ... a computer with 1GB of RAM, yes 1GB of RAM with internet explorer (6, not 7!) running and the office applications loaded BUT NOT OPEN ... soaks up 77% of memory utilization.
Ouch!
Even at 2GB of RAM, you're looking at 35% utilization.
One of the key enhancements to Windows Vista is the Aero interface. Aero is the new graphical interface that uses sophisticated 3D graphics to make it easier for you to view, find, and manage information.
If it is so cumbersome that is bogs down my machine, is that really making things easier for me? I think things are pretty easy as they are (at least when they work).
Problem with cheap memory is it makes software progrmmers less efficient. Old timers must remember projects to see who could do a program interface using the fewest lines of code or the least amount of memory. Not because it was good for you, but because system resources in those days would demand it.
Open up a compiled print out. Repeat after repeat of loops due to inefficient compilers and programmers.
Vista really isn't that bad of a hog, I've been using various builds of it for a while on a test computer. (currently running what is likely to be the official version). It used to use up major amounts of resources, but now it really isn't that bad. If you turn off the flashy graphical effects, and the Sidebar....it only uses up about as much as XP.
You said it... From what I've seen so far, a great deal of the visual enhancements they've added look to be a direct rip-off of apples OS. The difference being, you don't have to turn off your dashboard or expose features on a mac in order to free up needed memory.
"Also, to those who hate boarders? Check yourselves - we saved the ski industry and without us you’d be riding two-person chairs paying 200 dollar lift tickets..." NYTimes Blog
Dr. NO wrote:Problem with cheap memory is it makes software progrmmers less efficient. Old timers must remember projects to see who could do a program interface using the fewest lines of code or the least amount of memory. Not because it was good for you, but because system resources in those days would demand it.
Open up a compiled print out. Repeat after repeat of loops due to inefficient compilers and programmers.
Give 20 Gig and they will use it.
Old APL programmers joke: APL programmers spend the morning writing the program. Then they spend the afternoon trying to rewrite it on one line.
I don't know that the problem is lazy programmers as much as bloat is. MS Word is a perfect example. Word is a huge, feature laden program. Yet 90% of it's features seldom get used. You could probably cut Word's footprint in half and not materially affect the way the majority of people use it. That's pretty typical of MS - and many others - in general.
What is not possible is not to choose. ~Jean-Paul Sartre
millerm277 wrote:Vista really isn't that bad of a hog, I've been using various builds of it for a while on a test computer. (currently running what is likely to be the official version). It used to use up major amounts of resources, but now it really isn't that bad. If you turn off the flashy graphical effects, and the Sidebar....it only uses up about as much as XP.
Once you turn off the flashy graphics and sidebar ... you're left with XP, are you not?
BigKahuna13 wrote:
Old APL programmers joke: APL programmers spend the morning writing the program. Then they spend the afternoon trying to rewrite it on one line.
I never did APL, but I did do Fortran on PDP 11 machines and did spend many hours debugging programs, putting in print statements, only to blow the overlays. Then having to rework the overlays so you could compile the stupid program with the print statements. What a nightmare those days were! And no screen editor either.
millerm277 wrote:Vista really isn't that bad of a hog, I've been using various builds of it for a while on a test computer. (currently running what is likely to be the official version). It used to use up major amounts of resources, but now it really isn't that bad. If you turn off the flashy graphical effects, and the Sidebar....it only uses up about as much as XP.
Once you turn off the flashy graphics and sidebar ... you're left with XP, are you not?
No. Vista and XP operate under two very different models. Vista provides the means to write low-level code that will only crash the app that is currently using it. Theoretically, Vista is far more stable then XP could ever dream of being.
On XP every piece of code that accessed hardware was considered privleged; it had power far beyond what it really needed. Given the design of XP, a bug in privleged code was deadly. It almost invariably took out the system; the infamous Blue Screen of Death. Vista curtails that to a large degree so that a serious bug in most code will only take out the application that has the bug and not the entire system. Time will tell if the re-design is succesfull.
As for the aero-glass stuff -- most of the load for that is being put onto the video card. It doesn't take a whole lot of graphics processing power to do the fancy visual desktop stuff. Modern graphics cards are extremely fast; showing some transparent title bars and fancy icons is a yawner. I agree it's a gimmick, but it shouldn't slow stuff down.
millerm277 wrote:Vista really isn't that bad of a hog, I've been using various builds of it for a while on a test computer. (currently running what is likely to be the official version). It used to use up major amounts of resources, but now it really isn't that bad. If you turn off the flashy graphical effects, and the Sidebar....it only uses up about as much as XP.
Once you turn off the flashy graphics and sidebar ... you're left with XP, are you not?
No. Vista and XP operate under two very different models. Vista provides the means to write low-level code that will only crash the app that is currently using it. Theoretically, Vista is far more stable then XP could ever dream of being.
On XP every piece of code that accessed hardware was considered privleged; it had power far beyond what it really needed. Given the design of XP, a bug in privleged code was deadly. It almost invariably took out the system; the infamous Blue Screen of Death. Vista curtails that to a large degree so that a serious bug in most code will only take out the application that has the bug and not the entire system. Time will tell if the re-design is succesfull.
As for the aero-glass stuff -- most of the load for that is being put onto the video card. It doesn't take a whole lot of graphics processing power to do the fancy visual desktop stuff. Modern graphics cards are extremely fast; showing some transparent title bars and fancy icons is a yawner. I agree it's a gimmick, but it shouldn't slow stuff down.
Very interesting.
Although, to the novice user .... Vista is just XP with a make-over. I don't know about you, but BSOD's have greatly been reduced and I haven't had to cold-reboot my PC in years.
I don't know, I guess I was looking for more after 6+ years then some re-written low level code.
millerm277 wrote:Vista really isn't that bad of a hog, I've been using various builds of it for a while on a test computer. (currently running what is likely to be the official version). It used to use up major amounts of resources, but now it really isn't that bad. If you turn off the flashy graphical effects, and the Sidebar....it only uses up about as much as XP.
Once you turn off the flashy graphics and sidebar ... you're left with XP, are you not?
No. Vista and XP operate under two very different models. Vista provides the means to write low-level code that will only crash the app that is currently using it. Theoretically, Vista is far more stable then XP could ever dream of being.
On XP every piece of code that accessed hardware was considered privleged; it had power far beyond what it really needed. Given the design of XP, a bug in privleged code was deadly. It almost invariably took out the system; the infamous Blue Screen of Death. Vista curtails that to a large degree so that a serious bug in most code will only take out the application that has the bug and not the entire system. Time will tell if the re-design is succesfull.
As for the aero-glass stuff -- most of the load for that is being put onto the video card. It doesn't take a whole lot of graphics processing power to do the fancy visual desktop stuff. Modern graphics cards are extremely fast; showing some transparent title bars and fancy icons is a yawner. I agree it's a gimmick, but it shouldn't slow stuff down.
First post on a Killington related forum and it's about computers. Either the weather sucks or you really like computers.
