PC Pals Forum
Technical Help & Discussion => General Tech Discussion, News & Q&A => Topic started by: chorleydave on December 26, 2008, 23:24
-
My lad has just bought himself a new PC with Dual Core processor, 2GB RAM etc. and I can't recall seeing any computer take sooooo long to carry out a simple task like installing Paint Shop Pro since I tried to install Windows 95 on my old 386 machine with 4MB of RAM in 1996, during my uni days. My youngest brother already has a PC with Vista installed and I thought his was slow, but my lad's makes using my AMD 1.8 with 1GB RAM seem like driving a Ferrari after messing about on his Vista machine for the last hour.
I never thought Microshaft could leave me speechless, but I can't think of anything else to say about that bucket of w*nk.
-
He would be better off removing it and upgrading to XP Pro. Vista has been such a disaster that Gates is preparing a "substantial" round of layoffs, perhaps as soon as January 15.
-
I have to admit, it is bloody slow on my laptop, and I'd never install it on a machine by choice.
-
Works fine on my old 3.6ghz intel 660 cpu with 2 gig of ram.
I have way too many programs on it and lots of clutter as I havent reinstalled it since I started using it in november 2007.
I really should wipe it and reinstall one of these days when I get time.
I cant see why people complain about Vista, maybe they have something wrong in their setup or some strange programs running on it :dunno:
-
I cant see why people complain about Vista, maybe they have... some strange programs running on it
The only strange things about the programs I run is that they're nominally Vista compatible.
;)
-
Works fine and fast for me too and i've had less problems than i had with XP pro :dunno:
When i install programs on my daughters PC (XP pro) it seems to take an age in comparison ':|
Is it not also down to hard drive speed when installing new software? ???
-
Vista is just too bloated with no real benefit (https://www.pc-pals.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy149%2Fbolow%2Fbadvista_no_littering.jpg&hash=403865c1f27b60f4b7a9d0831dc925d52865042d)
-
see light... its Chrismtas-ish I wont preach....
-
As always, the difficult being, you can't easily switch from a long standing Windows set up, to Linux. :)
-
You can do but people like what they get used to.
How many people complained about XP being bloated and old 98 and 95 programs wouldnt run on it ::)
Once they got used to XP they wouldnt go back to 98 so I imagine once they have used Vista for a few months then theyd be saying the same about XP :)x
-
I've been using Vista for a year now and still yearn for XP.
-
I am still using both but prefer Vista for most things Gill.
I have to keep XP on at least one pc to remind myself how it works so I can remember how to fix problems when people ask me, they dont seem to ask frequently for vista problems :)
-
I moved up to vista 64 from xp pro because xp pro didn't take advantage of all my ram and didn't feel like it was taking full advantage of my quadcore. Originally, I had my machine running my quad amd stock at 2.5ghz. It felt slower than my xp machine running a single core at 1.8ghz. After a few months I took my friend scott's advice and overclocked it up to 2.9ghz. Then it felt as fast as my old xp machine while running vista....... Personally, I think vista was just a ploy to get the public to buy another round of software. Its capitalism gone awry. There is no real competition so microsoft thinks they can shaft us and get away with it.
-
This may be a silly question, but why can't XP handle more than 3Gb of RAM? If it's just a numbers thing, why can't M$ make it recognise more RAM with an update?
-
The 64-bit version should be OK, no 32-bit Windows can recognise more than 4GB of memory. With the amount reserved for graphics and the system, in practice that means about 3GB for the user.
-
Found this on google.
No. What Windows XP 32-bit will see depends on what hardware you have
in the computer, for most computers it ranges anywheres between 2.75 to
3.5GB. Here is the reason why 32-bit XP cannot fully use 4GB of RAM:
The problem that you are seeing is based on an older architecture
design for memory addressing. All the systems architecture up to this
point were based on a maximum of 4GB of total memory. Nobody really
thought, when this standard was designed, that this amount of memory
would actually be in use. The problem that has happened is that you
have PCI devices that require memory address ranges so that they can
properly execute their commands. These address ranges were mapped in
the upper sections of this maximum amount. Since nobody thought you
would be using up to 4GB these address ranges started around the last
500MB of the memory ranges. This range is called the T.O.M. or Top of
Memory range. This is the point in the bios where it places on hold the
amount of memory that is required by the various PCI devices that are
found on the motherboard. Thus when you have PCI cards or AGP cards
installed on your motherboard these devices hold on to memory for their
own use and take away from the maximum amount of memory that is
available for other tasks. This amount of memory can vary from a little
as 200MB all the way to 1GB of memory (or even more in select cases).
It just depends on the PCI devices you have and the amount of PCI
(including AGP) that you have installed all at once.
There is really no way to get around this basic design limitation. The
only way to get around these type of issues is to use certain new
designs that have brand new architectures (i.e 64-bit designs) that
allow memory to be mapped in area's above 4GB. The brand new Intel Xeon
designs and the AMD Opteron designs are built around 64-bit technology.
This is only ½ of the equation that you would need to find success.
You would also need to use an OS that is actually PAE or PAE aware so
that it is able to address memory above the 4GB level. To find out
about PAE you can search Microsofts website for PAE (Physical Address
Extensions) and it will explain this concept and what OS's actually are
capable of providing this benefit. Windows 2000 and Windows 2003 would
fit both of these criteria. Windows XP on the hand would not allow this
type of ability.