Ten reasons why I like Windows Vista

Same thing I'm running at the same percent....with 2 gigs. And your right supposedly it can only run 3-3.5 gigs in the 32 bit form.
-Matter of fact, I'm sitting here watching live tv in one box, on this site in the other, with all my sensors being monitored, 2 email accounts on auto check, a slide show of my pics going, and blah-blah, at 45%.- oh, while it downloads the local channels.

 

For the average user, Vista is a nitro dragster, in a horse race. As most users hung onto Win98 for years after WinXP was introduced.

But...

Let's see how well your 32 bit version fairs against my 64 bit version utilizing 64 bit software. Hmmm about the same. And on my laptop, which shares this memory

The 64 bit version will use 4 gig Unlike the 32 bit version.

Yes, I have 4 gig of RAM. But, I need it. The 64 bit platform FINALLY utilizes some software that has been on the market for over 5 years without a platform to operate on, although it was back engineered to work on the 32 bit platform. It also utilizes the 64 bit processors, that have been on the market for even longer.

At the moment, I'm running a movie, downloading another. Plus 5 other constantly updating widgets. I show 32% memory utilization and an average of 28% total processor usage between the cores. And 74 processes.

That's average for most PC's using Vista. Bill Gates wants your PC to use 100+ processes. He feels it's better experience LMAO.

Of course, the BS updating software I have running in the background, doesn't help me much either.

Oh, and I'm typing in this tiny box.

32% is average for windows. Some systems use as much as 60%. This can be tweaked to make use of the RAM more effectively, depending on the end user needs. Some tweaks can be applied without adjusting core usage, thereby still allowing Windows to handle the "32%" load to RAM specs. Barring any memory leaks all should run smoothly.

Tweaking helps some processes move better. But the end result has little to do with the amount of RAM. And has more to do with the end user requirements. After all, why have 3 or 4 gig, if the intent is NOT to use it all?

My wifes laptop uses 1 gig. My sisters 2 gig. Both are slower than mine, and they both reflect the 32% usage of system RAM average. Tweaks have been applied.

And both will choke equally when trying to load/install my 64 bit graphics tools with nothing else running except required system processes. Mine opens it up, and moves right along.

Overall, unless you need 3 or more gig. 2 and yes even 1 gig, will do fine. But some of Windows "lag" is caused by the operating system itself. And tweaking can speed up simple things, like opening a browser, and booting up.

Only hard core gamers, and graphics designers/editors will utilize 4G of RAM fully.

The KB940105 Hotfix and the later released patch addressed many of the Virtual Address Space Usage. Making RAM usage issues less common when dealing with graphic intensive programs.

 

how do u like having 64 bit?, im under the imprsson that i can switch my 'vista ultimate' over.

 

Unless you see/have a need for it. The 32 Bit is just fine. I wouldn't pop the money down for the upgrade otherwise.

You're going to have hardware issues when it comes to drivers. And there is a distinct lack of software.

I look for the gaming industry to take advantage of the platform quicker than the business software side of the industry. Although Windows is rolling out some, it's not for the average Joe.

Short Answer don't waste your money.

 

I actually dual-boot Vista Ultimate x86 and 64-bit. And as for the software not having a platform to operate on, that's not the case. There is a 64-bit version of Windows XP. The 32-bit programs run just fine on the 64-bit version. The reason I dual-boot? No sound drivers for 64-bit. My 32-bit version does just fine, I quit worrying about having the greatest software and hardware several years ago. I have decent hardware that runs what I need to, plus some. Just out of curiosity, what software do you have that NEEDS 64-bit? I realize some vendors release both versions, but not too many of the programs see a huge performance improvement, as you said.

I actually just installed the 32-bit version last night... off of my USB flash drive.

 

Everything you said is correct. However, the 64 Bit version will not run 16 Bit programs. And I dropped the latest and greatest hardware/software chase years ago too. It got too expensive chasing those milliseconds I got a great deal on this laptop, and couldn't pass it up. It went down another $100 the next day

If you dig down into your drive. You'll notice Windows differentiates the 32 & 64 Bit applications, and keeps them away from each other. I guess they don't like playing in the same sandbox.

Adobe makes a few software apps that are 64 Bit. Most are in Beta stage. But they have released a few, as far back as 2000 that were intended to run on a 64 Bit platform. Only problem, there were no OS that could make full use of the software. So they were engineered to support 32 Bit as well, and make use of the 64 Bit AMD processor.

The big thing with 64 Bit tech. Is it's ability to use of large amounts of memory effectively.

The biggest problem for vendors, is being ahead of Windows...who holds all the cards.

Adobe is pounding the pavement with 64 Bit development. And I do work with large graphics files as a hobby. Plus I play with their Beta programs. I've been doing that for years. Lightroom, was one of them.

I currently use Norton in 64 bit. Since it's a "database" cruncher. It moves more quickly than the 32 bit version, and that has been sweet. I used to dread running Norton. My DVD cloner is also 64 Bit. It does a quicker job of doing it's thing. And there are a few 64 Bit games out there. None I use at the moment.

But again, the average user will get no real benefit from the 64 Bit OS at this time. They can get about a 10% increase in rendering speeds, if their hardware fully supports 64 Bit throughout, which most don't. But the average user doesn't even know what "rendering" means.

 

The major plus with 64 bit is security. My only drag on my system (AMD64 X2 4000 w/2gigs) is my video card. I can still play Half-Life 2 maxed out and F.E.A.R. as well. All on Vista, and all the "bling" turned on. I have a generic Gforce 8500GT thats kinda on the slow side.

Do not turn off the UAC. That is for your protection.

 

Graphics is the killer. It's always been that way. Kinda sux too, when you see the kid next door using his PlayStation on his TV, with higher end graphics than your PC and ZERO lag.

I consider UAC protection for dummies.

I would have to agree though. Most users DO NOT need to turn it off. I've turned mine off though.

 

UPC is a MS CYA

With sharing the computer with the wife and two kids. I leave it on.

 

No doubt !! LMAO

That's why we all have seperate PC's at my household. I don't let anyone near mine. Although I have been known to allow my son to use it. He's under strict instructions NOT to play with #### !!! He can hose his own, and does on a regular basis.

Nothing like taking a few hours from your fun filled day to reformat, after a rather nasty virus that got past your scanning software.