Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th Nov 2008 22:55 UTC
Editorial Yesterday, a story made its rounds across the internet. It was picked up by many large news websites, and I'm sure it will be quoted by people until eternity. It was published by a large website, looked all fancy, it had multiple pages - it looked like it was really something. However, anyone with even the remotest bit of knowledge knows that the article was a collection of complete and utter bogus.
Thread beginning with comment 337163
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Holy War
by Valhalla on Thu 13th Nov 2008 01:09 UTC in reply to "Holy War"
Member since:

Well, while I can agree that Thom has generally taken the 'pro Vista' stance I think 'Holy War' is over the top. Alot of the things he says regarding the shortcomings of the article in question I certainly agree with, however things like -"It is irrelevant how much memory is in use at any given time." is ridicoulus.

While I certainly have no problem with Superfetch which caches often used applications and data from disk into ram there's a huge difference between caching and the amount of ram usage that is necessary for the system to operate at all.

Vista has a very high memory requirement just to have the system running, which is why Microsoft still needs XP for stuff like netbooks etc. Superfetch is not part of this problem since it simply mirrors content existing on disk and as such can be flushed the second you need that memory, the system memory usage is another thing altogether and the only way to 'flush' that when memory gets low is to page it (i.e write it to disk) which is very slow.

I've said this before and will probably say it again, most people out there seldom if ever use their machine's full capacity and for them Vista is probably just a better looking Windows which launches programs faster and has some added functionality. However, for those who regularly use their systems resources to the max (generally professionals), Vista's memory usage (and to a lesser extent worse performance) only means a system with which they can do less. For me when I work I never encounter a 'too much memory or too much cpu power' situation, any surplus will be used one way or another to speed up my workflow. Granted I work with 3D which is very cpu/memory consuming, which is why I say that likely for the majority Vista is just fine (although many of my buddies who are into PC gaming disagree since they get less performance).

From the sound of it Windows 7 will be much slimmer (or atleast modular enough to be made much slimmer) which sounds great to me, and given that Microsoft really wants to retire XP that might just be what we'll get.

A leaner operating system means more resources for the applications I wish to use, and it is the applications and not the operating system that makes me want to turn on the computer.

Reply Parent Score: 5