The Vista Death Watch

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

I'm not usually one to question the credibility of PC Mag, but where does Dvorak pull this information from when he says MS is extending support for XP due to lack of interest in Vista?

[Forceman]

Well smart or not (I make no claim), at leas I can spell you're correctly! So, Vista is using memory to keep the system responsive, according to you anyway, how is this a bad thing? I guess you're a masochist and like seeing all that empty physical RAM! Also, how is an operating system which is optimized to make apps run well a bad thing? Isn't the whole purpose of an operating system to, well, run the apps that a user wants? Oh, and prove your statements with third party comments.

 

I never said it was a low number, please stop making things up. It makes me cry inside. Oh, and so what if I link to someone else? Does that make it any less relevant simply because I didn't spout it out in garbled English? Nope, and you've still failed to address what the CodingHorror (An excellent, excellent site) detailed -- hop to it, sunny and prove these 'tricks' from a third party are false. See, making magical, broad claims that everyone is false without really any backing makes you look a tad bit silly and hey, any brainless person can do that (Oh no he didn't!), to those with a clue anyway, so feel assured, you've impressed the masses here and they will revel in the awesomeness that are your oh-so-definitive posts.

 

To tell you the truth, I don't really know what you're trying to say in the last paragraph, at the beginning you seem kind of calm and your English isn't too bad but than you seem to get all worked up like a little kid when someone steals his candy and seem to lose focus.

 

FOCUS. And remeber, bad words are, well, bad and at least man up and don't use some lame 'censored' thing.

 

What you really meant to say was, you can't read the truth and refuse to. Your hear for one reason and one reason only, to defend Windows at all cost. It's been proven many times that Microsoft lie about features and what the OS actually does compared to what they say.

 

BTW, most people would call what it does with apps and caching a hack, You really think using disk IO to speed apps up is good?, how can the app start fast if the disk IO is locked trying to cache? it's worthless in Vista because second time the app is in cache already, you can't speed the apps startup time and use disk IO to cache the app, this makes the app first time start slower.

 

Another thing, yes Vista uses your memory better and uses up memory by caching it, but what you failed to see is that the initial memory use is high. I know full well when Vista says 0 memory free it's not hogging memory because it's cached, it caches your free memory and in Vista 64 it cached 1.2Gb so that means 800Mb was used out of 2Gb. Is that clear enough for you, or do you need to use a blog/wiki again?

[CLiDE FTW!!1]

Another thing, yes Vista uses your memory better and uses up memory by caching it, but what you failed to see is that the initial memory use is high. I know full well when Vista says 0 memory free it's not hogging memory because it's cached, it caches your free memory and in Vista 64 it cached 1.2Gb so that means 800Mb was used out of 2Gb. Is that clear enough for you, or do you need to use a blog/wiki again?

In case you didn't know how Vista works after booting up, let me educate you:

 

Vista keeps track of your most frequently used apps and caches them BEFORE your initial launch of the program for the day.

 

So therefore, when you boot up Vista, it already has all your favorite programs pre-loaded into memory. So when you open up Photoshop tomorrow morning (assuming you draw, or something), it'll boot up considerably faster than it did in XP.

 

Get it?