Why Vista Sucks Ass (and likes it)
Moderator: Moderators
Why are we talking about pagefile? Pagefile is only used when memory is used up, which isn't an ideal. It doesn't matter how big you can set the pagefile, the bigger issue is that you shouldn't be using it at all. If you compare linux and windows in terms of memory management and requirements linux is far superior. I have yet to see a single bit of my swap partition used on my ubuntu install. Vista may be a new OS, but the system requirements for memory are too much of a leap. You go from 256-512 MB recommended, to 2GB min. That's a four to eight times increase.
Yeah, in windows xp I never understood why that is. Doesn't happen on any linux distributions ive tried...Peet wrote:Not true-Relative wrote:Why are we talking about pagefile? Pagefile is only used when memory is used up, which isn't an ideal. It doesn't matter how big you can set the pagefile, the bigger issue is that you shouldn't be using it at all.
XP pages out long-unused stuff to make room for 1) what it predicts will be used alot and prefetch it and 2) file buffers. See also swap prefetch.
anything more than 3 gigs of swap is overkill anyway and you will have problems with using more than 4 gigs of memory total in 32bit vista. this may also be the case with some people saying they can't put more than 4 gigs of swap and some can - the latter probably have 64-bit OS.
anything more than 3 gigs of swap is overkill anyway and you will have problems with using more than 4 gigs of memory total in 32bit vista. this may also be the case with some people saying they can't put more than 4 gigs of swap and some can - the latter probably have 64-bit OS.
On Linux you can swap out any component for an older or simpler version.
However people tend to review a windows OS with all the fancy features turned on and at max. A fully patched Vista with aero turned off in classic theme to look like windows 9x, running with all unnecesary services turned off and optimized correctly will run fast.
However people also have a habit of comapring these overloaded windows setups with udnerloaded heavily optimized linux installs. Its obvious then that the windows OS with features all set at max will fail to win over the heavily customized linux OS.
Naturally as a new OS, Vista optimization and general performance still has potential speed ups to pass on that have yet to be discovered. Having said that the new driver model after a few years should deliver superior performance over XP because of the changes made to its architecture. But the architecture is new and to expect the necessary driver model changes to deliver instant boosts despite older drivers being shunted into newer APIs and new drivers being written would be foolish.
In the mean time whatever happened to all that XP is crap stuff? Why've you all changed your minds and started defending XP?
However people tend to review a windows OS with all the fancy features turned on and at max. A fully patched Vista with aero turned off in classic theme to look like windows 9x, running with all unnecesary services turned off and optimized correctly will run fast.
However people also have a habit of comapring these overloaded windows setups with udnerloaded heavily optimized linux installs. Its obvious then that the windows OS with features all set at max will fail to win over the heavily customized linux OS.
Naturally as a new OS, Vista optimization and general performance still has potential speed ups to pass on that have yet to be discovered. Having said that the new driver model after a few years should deliver superior performance over XP because of the changes made to its architecture. But the architecture is new and to expect the necessary driver model changes to deliver instant boosts despite older drivers being shunted into newer APIs and new drivers being written would be foolish.
In the mean time whatever happened to all that XP is crap stuff? Why've you all changed your minds and started defending XP?