OT: Vista a hog? Say it ain't so!

tyrolean_skier · Post by **tyrolean_skier** » Nov 28th, '06, 22:16

RJSVermont wrote:
KevinF wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
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.

Welcome aboard!

or should I say, welcome to Junior High.

Give him a break! He was probably just a lurker and since he had something to contribute to the subject matter, he made his first post. Welcome, KevinF, to this forum and thank you for contributing even it was only about a new computer OS. It was informative.

millerm277 · Post by **millerm277** » Nov 28th, '06, 22:27

RJSVermont wrote:First post on a Killington related forum and it's about computers. Either the weather sucks or you really like computers.

My guess would be both....

Post by **SkiDork** » Nov 28th, '06, 22:36

KevinF wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
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.

So you're saying Vista is to the NT kernel what the NT kernel was to 9X/DOS with User mode code?

RJSVermont · Post by **RJSVermont** » Nov 28th, '06, 23:17

tyrolean_skier wrote:
RJSVermont wrote:
KevinF wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote:
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.

Welcome aboard!

or should I say, welcome to Junior High.
Give him a break! He was probably just a lurker and since he had something to contribute to the subject matter, he made his first post. Welcome, KevinF, to this forum and thank you for contributing even it was only about a new computer OS. It was informative.

How was I in any way giving him a tough time.....You'd think I was HD or something by the reaction of your post......

Seriously, this place needs snow....

Oh and TY incase you missed it the first time:

Welcome aboard KevinF!

tyrolean_skier · Post by **tyrolean_skier** » Nov 29th, '06, 00:02

RJSVermont wrote:
tyrolean_skier wrote:
RJSVermont wrote:
KevinF wrote:
XtremeJibber2001 wrote: 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.

Welcome aboard!

or should I say, welcome to Junior High.
Give him a break! He was probably just a lurker and since he had something to contribute to the subject matter, he made his first post. Welcome, KevinF, to this forum and thank you for contributing even it was only about a new computer OS. It was informative.
How was I in any way giving him a tough time.....You'd think I was HD or something by the reaction of your post......

Seriously, this place needs snow....

Oh and TY incase you missed it the first time:

Welcome aboard KevinF!

Yep, you're right - I did miss the Welcome aboard. Sorry for getting so grumpy with you.

KevinF · Post by **KevinF** » Nov 29th, '06, 18:03

Thanks for the welcome everybody. I guess this was an interesting thread for my first post as it has nothing to do with skiing or Killington. But yeah, long-time lurker, first-time poster. There's some good info to be obtained on these forums regarding Killington early / late season conditions, predicted openings, etc. (i.e., last season's weekend October opening -- thank you!) I don't ski Killington except if it's early season (or late...) -- I'm much more of a Cannon person myself. Therefore, my Killington knowledge pales in comparison to what some people here know, so I've never bothered posting before.

But then along came a Vista thread, and my job has involved writing Vista code on and off for a while now, so I figured I'd toss in a little inside knowledge. Trust me, I don't read up on OS kernels for fun! There have been other look-and-feel type changes to Vista besides the privleged-stuff I mentioned earlier, but my level of caring is at a pretty low level -- I don't use Windows the way any normal person does. Stuff that makes a normal user's life easier / safer generally makes mine a pain-in-the-ass.

If any of you are Epic or AlpineZone readers as well, I'm the same KevinF that shows up at those sites as well.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Nov 29th, '06, 18:45

Kevin -

If knowledge of Killington (or skiing for that matter) was a prerequisite, about half of us would be out on our ears.

Welcome.

Stormchaser · Post by **Stormchaser** » Nov 29th, '06, 23:29

Welcome K-Fed!

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Nov 30th, '06, 08:07

KevinF wrote:But then along came a Vista thread, and my job has involved writing Vista code on and off for a while now, so I figured I'd toss in a little inside knowledge.

Welcome ... work for M$ by chance or just did contract work for M$?

Post by **Bubba** » Dec 6th, '06, 15:14

http://www.channelinsider.com/article/H ... 112906CWS1

Here's a little more Vista stuff.

XtremeJibber2001 · Post by **XtremeJibber2001** » Dec 6th, '06, 15:44

Bubba wrote:http://www.channelinsider.com/article/H ... 112906CWS1

Here's a little more Vista stuff.

More proof of the hog!

Spoke to our resident PC deployer at work .. no plans in the works. Vista isn't need nor does it add any "real" benefit.

Cuervo1.8k · Post by **Cuervo1.8k** » Dec 6th, '06, 18:52

Vista is not the only memory hog out there today. Some of these Antivirus/Firewall/Spyware suites (especially McAfee and Symantec) are gobbling up memory resources like mad. I spec'd out 30 PCs late last year with 512MB as the base. Today, most of those PCs are at 350-400Mb right after startup and with all unnecessary services shutoff. Once Word or Excel are open, they are either over or close to the physical memory and are using the virtual memory which starts slowing things down. I am going to have to spec out a memory upgrade for sometime after the first of the year.

relidl · Post by **relidl** » Dec 6th, '06, 20:29

I'm running Vista right now and loving it. This article explains perfectly why Vista seems to be a memory hog.

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000688.html

Right now with on my system with 4GB of memory Vista is caching 2.5GB. There is a noticeable difference in the time it takes to launch Flight Simulator X under Vista in comparison to XP.