Columns Chicks dig RAM

http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2007/08/19/chicks_dig_ram/1

Windows Vista has been labelled a resource hog by many and some think this is completely justified because Vista doesn't change the way we interact with our computers. Brett Thomas thinks that it's unjustified and looks back to when PCs weren't as powerful as they are today.

 

My gf keeps saying it just XP with a prettier interface and doesn't know the point of it. I keep trying to explain that there's more to it than that under the hood and she insists "it doesn't effect her" Probably because I'm not too great at explaining it as I've no idea of the inner working of an OS. But then again, there is the point that MS could be feeding us an inferior OS for all I know, we could have another ME. I doubt that's the case though.

I won't be buying Vista for now, I'm waiting to see how WinFS turns out, I heard they're adding it in SP1, I'm pretty tired of the folder system, it was fine back in the day when you had hardly any files, but now with the tinterweb, the amount of stuff the average user downloads is huge, and it's just not really a good way to organise files anymore. You either have one folder filled with everything, which makes it very difficult to find anything, or you have tons of folders to keep stuff organised, but you have the problem now that many files could go in different folders. That's one thing I like the sound of in OSX.

 

We 'tag' things online, why can't we do the same in our OS? Why does a file have to 'belong' inside a single directory? Why is there a desktop? I think software design has a long way to go.

 

I agree with what you're saying and you can certainly do that with Photos in Windows Vista... there's still a long way to go though.

 

I've heard nothing about WinFS in SP1, and it's more likely that Giuliani will forget about 9/11 than WinFS being shipped with SP1. The project is basically dead (although parts of it survive in MSSQL).
Maybe Windows 7 will have something similar to WinFS.

Why can't you just use the built in search..?

 

nicely written article, although a mention and brief explanation of superFetch (the thing responsible for 'hogging' RAM mostly on vista) wouldn't have gone amiss.

 

Because (for want of a better word) it's crap. Why do we have to search anyway? Shouldn't everything be easy to find? Plus to find it you need to know it's name. Windows relies on the fact you know the names of your files and where they are. For instance your financial documents would probably be named finances_06-07^2.xlsl and be in a folder 'Financial' in 'My Documents'. Why? Can't we have tagged files, with dynamic tagging.

Maybe the OS could change as per user task? Not profiles per se, but Work/Play modes.

(Maybe Microsoft should hire me dammit!)

 

That's not the problem, I know where everything of mine is, it's just putting it there and clicking though all the folders (or typing in the overly long file path) is the problem. You've got to admit, after using something along the lines of Picassa2, the folder system seems like a horrible choice.

 

Ehrm, win ME?...

 

We do have tagged files, and the search (in Vista) searches that as well.
Have you used the search in Vista? It's miles better than Spotlight.

 

Yes I have (way back in RC1 days), looking at it now it looks like they've added some features. I'll have to find a demo PC with it on to see for sure. I can't remember it being contextual, as the results it served me back were always pants.

 

See, now, that's a really well written article. It doesn't, however, answer one fundamental question: if I were to go out and buy Vista tomorrow, what would I actually get out of it? Well, I'd get an OS that took slightly longer to boot, ran my applications slightly more slowly, used a lot more system resources, and didn't support a lot of my rather specialist video editing hardware.

Yes, Microsoft have a very serious problem, which is that there really isn't a lot of point in embellishing Windows further. It's a very mature, very capable piece of software - I'm no unqualified basher, believe me. I recognise the achievement of bringing (most of) the world's computers together under a common standard, and I recognise the difficulties necessarily presented to corporate ethicists by the fact that standardisation means that exactly one outfit gets to have all the money in this field.

But from my perspective, you're still being incredibly vague on exactly what I'd get out of it. Security, you say, somewhat vaguely. Well, since I have a quarter of a clue, I have never had serious security problems under any version of windows - I've seen exactly two virii, ever, both under win2k, and neither of which made it past AVG.

No. Really. What do I get out of it? There's people on this very forum comparing notes on exactly how little performance shortfall they've manage to achieve. That's some marketing effort from MS. Not only are people not screaming about the performance shortfall - they're actually proud of how much they've managed to minimise it. That takes some real brass neck.

Phil

 

What's a start bar? I don't think I have one of those! I have a start button and a task bar though.

 

But look at the computer of John Smith, and you'll see them running a PC with Norton AV, and filled to the brim with viruses and spyware, people like us who can actually look after a PC are in a minority, most people thing their PC is just getting old, so they'll need a new one, when they buy the new one they then transfer the infected files over to that one, the cycle continues. MS don't make OSes for the tech heads, they make it idiot proof, an idiot proof OS is a very difficult thing indeed.

One point the article is making, is that back in the day when XP was released, people were saying exactly the same things, "this eats up too much resources", "this is only a fancy UI upgrade", "this runs everything like ****". All Vista needs, like XP, is time for the developers and PC hardware to catch up, once everything has settled down, and everything is working fine, and it becomes the standard, you'll stop hearing people complain about how much RAM it uses and how little of an improvement it is over XP.

MS weren't gonna keep slapping plasters onto windows 95 forever you know, otherwise they'd be like those chavs who stick a V6 into a Saxo, sure, it might be really powerful, but the chassis isn't designed for it, you'd have been better off saving your money and buying a proper car.

 

I wonder how many people who criticise Vista have actually spent some time with it... I have, and I must say that it certainly has a few improvements over XP in how the GUI works --and I'm not just talking about it looking pretty. It is actually a bit more intuitive to use.

 

All the way from beta till a few months ago I have been using Vista. There are a few things that it definitely improved and more intuitive to use. But those are very minor changes in my opinion and doesn't add up to its flaws. Control Panel ( Links Hell? ) And the new Start Menu are two of them.

Under the hood it is all good. Direct X 10, WPF, upcomig XAudio 2, better memory management etc. But UI wise i think it has definitely gone a step backward.

 

Exactly... Most people spend too few time to make a conclusion. I myself tried Vista and liked it. Don't get me wrong, it's still not my cookie, but compared to XP it is a huge improvement.

 

you basically like vista because it justifies your way over powered PC, that prior to vista you were feeling slightly sheepish about the power consumption of? you keep saying that vista is better but why is it?

 

Quite right, but neither did you buy it for Vista, you bought it for gaming or video editing or so you could say that you have 4GB of RAM and a Quad core processor. Vista only needs 1GB, and will run on a single core processor with Intel Graphics

I have used Vista since RC1 and in general I am pleased, but then I don't mind having the occasional problem, and can usually sort them out. Vista is however a huge problem for the not so computer literate: my granddad bought a new computer with Vista and has had loads of problems, his printer wouldn't work, ViaVoice wouldn't work etc etc, and he had to bring it on holiday so I could sort it out for him. So IMO it is not ready for general release, or needs to have a prominent health warning on the box for people like him.

 

It's obvious Vista isn't just a pretty new face, but you assert that it's a GOOD thing to be taking up more resources, because it's pointless to have 4gb and use a tiny fraction. Now this is all fine and dandy, of course hardware's capabilities will expand exponentially, but the vast majority of users won't upgrade for QUITE some time. I don't want to install Vista on my current mediocre setup (3.0p4, 6600gt, 1.75gb) and then instantly have a more sluggish......everything.

For example: My friend's girlfriend purchased a new laptop about a month or two before vista came out. I forget the exact specs but it was a pretty swanky piece of equipment, and ran BF2 easily. She then took it somewhere to have Vista installed, and she HATES using it now. (she IS computer savvy btw) She doesn't hate it because of the GUI or functionality, but because it takes forever to even open internet explorer.