View Single Post
Old 09-28-2007, 03:03 PM   #41
In hiding
Alegis's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Belgium
Posts: 3,882
LFN Staff Member 
Originally Posted by stoffe
In my case because there is not enough reason to go through the cost and effort to switch to Vista, while there is still plenty of reason to stick with XP (speed, compatibility, less cpu/memory intensive). Vista may have improved security, but this isn't something there is much use for on a home PC if you use common sense and are careful what you install and run. In particular since you're required to disable some of the security measures and use an admin account to get some older games and applications to work properly under Vista anyway.

Vista may have some extra pretty lights in (some) games, but that's not enough to justify the rather steep cost of Vista, and the time and effort required to make the switch.
I disagree with your misinformed opinion. I'd bother to go in very close details, but considering you haven't read much yourself either on the subject considering your prejudices I think I'll only bore you to death. Nonetheless I can try.

Everyone ready gentlemen?
  1. Yes. It's an upgrade, and it costs money. May be an incentive for some to switch to Linux, but if you consider that's better for gaming I wish you good luck and a cup of coffee for when you wake up. Those who are students will have access to cheap upgrades, those who don't well, the home premium upgrade is $150. That is indeed quite some money. In fact, if you compare it with a chocolate bar - that's a hell of a lot of chocolate! If you compare it to other software packages (mainly applications) and the difference in a mere application and what Vista has to offer, you'll view things in a different perspective. But let's move on.
  2. "Wah, it uses so much Ram? Its worthless!" Yep, the requirements are higher, yet can be toned down to disable some extra features if you wish for it. However, RAM management is not worse. Anyways, RAM usage is one hell of a misunderstanding. It's explanation is on different places on the web, but no one bothers to actually do their research before go on ranting sprees. Hell, it's the national sport. That's why I will do it for you. Here you go. Don't like the writing style? Try another. It basically comes down to this:
    You have to stop thinking of system memory as a resource and start thinking of it as a a cache. Just like the level 1 and level 2 cache on your CPU, system memory is yet another type of high-speed cache that sits between your computer and the disk drive.

    And the most important rule of cache design is that empty cache memory is wasted cache memory. Empty cache isn't doing you any good. It's expensive, high-speed memory sucking down power for zero benefit. The primary mission in the life of every cache is to populate itself as quickly as possible with the data that's most likely to be needed-- and to consistently deliver a high "hit rate" of needed data retrieved from the cache. Otherwise you're going straight to the hard drive, mister, and if you have to ask how much going to the hard drive will cost you in performance, you can't afford it.
    It's being used for a reason. It's not wasted. Next point.
  3. Speed/Stability. I have two theories as to why people claim XP is more stable:
    1. People are used to XP's quirks after so many years
    2. They just like to rant
    . Pick the theory that fits you the best, as it is not less stable. Past 10 months I've had less problems than one month of XP. Only bluescreen I've ever had was with a corrupted external device. And it isn't just me, how about XP users inform themselves by asking Vista users rather than come up with reasons to consider themselves superior as XP users.
    As for speed, there was one issue with copying files over networks and drives. They released a speed patch earlier, but the issue has been circumvented with SP1.

Don't get me wrong here, there is nothing wrong with you using XP. I'm not telling you should switch. I'm merely saying that this unfounded slander isn't really an intelligent way to approach things.

Vista is much more stable than XP and feature rich. The RAM clogging is nonsense.
I invite you to prove me wrong, but you'll have to do more than wishful thinking just because you want to convince yourself it isn't a better product.

-"The glass is neither half-full nor half-empty: it's twice as big as it needs to be."
Alegis is offline   you may: quote & reply,