Vista and its memory usage has always been too high and a problem for many..this proves it big time from the worlds largest auto maker and will surely have others following..
Closing the Door to Microsoft Vista
General Motors (GM) may take a detour around Vista, the latest computer operating system from Microsoft (MSFT). The automaker has encountered so many speed bumps getting Vista to work on its machines that it may just wait for the next version of Windows, due in 2010 or 2011. "We're considering bypassing Vista and going straight to Windows 7," says GM's Chief Systems & Technology Officer Fred Killeen.
Vista taxes all but the most modern PCs with hefty processing and memory requirements. Many of GM's PCs can't even run the system. "By the time we'd replace them, Windows 7 might be ready anyway," Killeen says. Then there are compatibility problems with all the software that needs to run on Windows. GM's software vendors still haven't ensured all their programs will run on Vista trouble-free. So the company is sticking with Windows XP for now. Killeen figures GM could install Windows 7 in three or four years.
Title and statement are inaccurate. The article references compatibility issues with other software GM uses and makes no mention of memory issues for them.
Izzo wrote:Title and statement are inaccurate. The article references compatibility issues with other software GM uses and makes no mention of memory issues for them.
I've got Ultimate but I'm prob not going to go back to it for that reason along with a few others..just use it for repair jobs.
Brent wrote:Vista aint perfect, but it aint all doom and gloom either, I've been using it for almost a full year now.
for what it offers over XP right now its not worth it.. only one or two games that I know of take advantage of DX10 and thats if you have DX10 hardware..otherwise unless your doing 64bit Ultimate with more than 8gigs of ram its a waste right now.
FYI, you can set Vista to manage memory exactly like XP does. This can be beneficial if you only have a gig or two of RAM. Or you can just use an inexpensive usb stick along w/ Ready Boost.
No one has any right to force data on you
and command you to believe it or else.
If it is not true for you, it isn't true. LRH
triniwasp wrote:True, but is there any reason to migrate for the casual user?
Migrate? Not really any pressing reason. But there is no reason to avoid it. What, with the average PC life being about 3 years you'll sooner than later run into purchasing a PC with it, and that's not a bad thing.
If you have it available to you however, such as already purchasing it, by all means I'd recommend installing it. It's an upgrade from XP in most ways, and the performance is pretty good too, all things considered.
Indy wrote:Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Vista use system memory like cache memory? So it's going to show a high useage all the time as a result?
Correct. Basically, from what I understand, it will always be pre-caching frequently used programs etc. to help speed things up.
ah hell, what's it called super fetch I think.
I should have my new rig up and running in a week or two and with 64bit Vista and 4GB of RAM I hope to understand it a little more...hope
Indy wrote:Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Vista use system memory like cache memory? So it's going to show a high useage all the time as a result?
Exactly, its using the memory to improve performance and speed.
Indy wrote:Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Vista use system memory like cache memory? So it's going to show a high useage all the time as a result?
yes..but this is a unneeded option IMO based on how XP already performs on how it uses memory..at the very least they should have it off by default and you can turn it on as a option after you install Vista. XP performs just fine and fast on how much it uses while sitting on desktop doing nothing as opposed to Vista which has the ram wide open to do nothing. When released Vista had issues releasing the memory for apps and games and still has some issues from time to time that I've seen.
The design actually gets RAM to applications quicker...instead of having them need to run out and grab the ram themselves..it's already there for them..one step closer.
Letting applications manage system RAM is one of the issues prior versions of Windows had..because many programs were buggy..didn't properly release the RAM...one of the contributing factors to "memory leak".
Just because task manager shows you big bright scarey green bars doesn't mean the ram is "wide open"...RAM isn't something that has a throttle on it..the addresses are either reserved/in use...or not.
I'm not a fan of Vista....but the claims that "Vista sucks up all RAM and has it wide open"...gives the false impression that there is no RAM left for other applications. To simplify...Vista manages the RAM for applications...prior OS's leaned more towards letting the applications manage the RAM themselves. Just because Vista caches the RAM..doesn't mean the applications can't get to it..matter of fact..it's one step closer to them..they have more immediate..faster access to it.
MORNING WOOD Lumber Company
Guinness for Strength!!!
YeOldeStonecat wrote:The design actually gets RAM to applications quicker...instead of having them need to run out and grab the ram themselves..it's already there for them..one step closer.
Letting applications manage system RAM is one of the issues prior versions of Windows had..because many programs were buggy..didn't properly release the RAM...one of the contributing factors to "memory leak".
Thats just the problem.. Vista didn't manage the ram properly and still doesn't when games need it... I had so many issues trying to run bf2142 that I put XP back on and haven't been back since. All the systems I've seen running it right now have some sort of app issue with memory even after SP1 although SP1 does help some and is a requirement to install asap!
I liked it for what it was and would prob go back if not for playing games that still only run in DX9..otherwise for Crysis, I'm not concerned with that game since it looks great on DX9 ultra high with my system.
Sava700 wrote:Thats just the problem.. Vista didn't manage the ram properly and still doesn't when games need it... I had so many issues trying to run bf2142 that I put XP back on and haven't been back since. All the systems I've seen running it right now have some sort of app issue with memory even after SP1 although SP1 does help some and is a requirement to install asap!
I'd be more inclined to think it was your PC. I have had Vista running for over a year and I haven't had the issues with gaming that you have had either with SP1 or without it. Of course my PC was built for the most part top of the line and done so with Vista in mind.
Roody wrote:I'd be more inclined to think it was your PC. I have had Vista running for over a year and I haven't had the issues with gaming that you have had either with SP1 or without it. Of course my PC was built for the most part top of the line and done so with Vista in mind.
naw this was with a very high end AMD setup at the time... so not a PC issue. I've also seen this on other systems with even Quad core setups. But this will all be changed/fixed with Windows 7 which tells me that many others are concerned of this issue to cause a change back to how it used to be.
Roody wrote:I'd be more inclined to think it was your PC. I have had Vista running for over a year and I haven't had the issues with gaming that you have had either with SP1 or without it. Of course my PC was built for the most part top of the line and done so with Vista in mind.
Agreed. I've been running Home Premium well over a year and I've had no issues and I've run BF2, 2142, COD4, Crysis, World in Conflict, Company of Heroes, Bioshock, Portal, TF2, Half-Life2 and even threw on Medal of Honor Allied Assault and all have performed with the exception of Crysis and we all know that's not a memory issue.
Sava700 wrote:naw this was with a very high end AMD setup at the time... so not a PC issue. I've also seen this on other systems with even Quad core setups. But this will all be changed/fixed with Windows 7 which tells me that many others are concerned of this issue to cause a change back to how it used to be.
Obviously it isn't specific to the OS in question either then because if it was I would have had the same problems you had.
Also, I think it's a bit presumptious to know for sure what Windows 7 will do. Things change and even if that is the intent of Microsoft now it may not be the case once it comes out.
Roody wrote:Obviously it isn't specific to the OS in question either then because if it was I would have had the same problems you had.
There are people that dislike how Vista uses Ram and it has caused issues otherwise they wouldn't have adjusted it with SP1. You may not have had issues since not all systems are the same nor are all the installs or drivers exactly the same. I've been working on home systems for a while now and seen it on many others too....Vista still needs lots of work mostly with that Memory usage.
Sava700 wrote:There are people that dislike how Vista uses Ram and it has caused issues otherwise they wouldn't have adjusted it with SP1. You may not have had issues since not all systems are the same nor are all the installs or drivers exactly the same. I've been working on home systems for a while now and seen it on many others too....Vista still needs lots of work mostly with that Memory usage.
I don't argue that Vista has it's share of issues I am just saying it can be the specific computer also.
Roody wrote:I don't argue that Vista has it's share of issues I am just saying it can be the specific computer also.
Well this falls back to the service pack issues people are having... I'm sure most problems are from drivers or OEM problems...however with Vista it was made like this out of the box and shouldn't be using memory the way it does with just sitting on desktop, I'll argue again that it also is a power hog which is unacceptable when most are trying to conserve energy.
For gamers and home users, no problems in using it, as it is not mission critical, however, in an enterprise environment, Vista has too many conflicts and problems still... I agree with GM and will not risk bringing a company down...
It is far to vital for companies to be sure of their OS. Imagine not being able to get your paycheck due to a glitch of whatever means, not merely limited to memory or even having to upgrade hardware...
Sava700 wrote:yes..but this is a unneeded option IMO based on how XP already performs on how it uses memory..at the very least they should have it off by default and you can turn it on as a option after you install Vista. XP performs just fine and fast on how much it uses while sitting on desktop doing nothing as opposed to Vista which has the ram wide open to do nothing. When released Vista had issues releasing the memory for apps and games and still has some issues from time to time that I've seen.
might be for what you think..but its just sitting on desktop with the ram wide open when your not even doing anything with the computer.... to me thats a waste.
Sava700 wrote:There are people that dislike how Vista uses Ram and it has caused issues otherwise they wouldn't have adjusted it with SP1. You may not have had issues since not all systems are the same nor are all the installs or drivers exactly the same. I've been working on home systems for a while now and seen it on many others too....Vista still needs lots of work mostly with that Memory usage.
There we're problems with it prior to SP1 I believe, fixing it makes sense.
YARDofSTUF wrote:That does not eliminate the fact that it could have been a PC issue. I've seen vista systems run games very well.
There wasn't or was a PC issue with mine or the others I've seen having issues with how it used memory. And I too have seen it run some games fine..but these are not memory intensive games either. You can't convince me otherwise at this point...when they drop the usage down while sitting on desktop then I may consider going back.
Sava700 wrote:and shouldn't be using memory the way it does with just sitting on desktop, I'll argue again that it also is a power hog which is unacceptable when most are trying to conserve energy.
Just because you cant wrap your head around how it works doesn't mean its better to waste the RAM. You havent down a test measuring power usage so you dont know if it is a power hog, you just saw an extra dot on your UPS, that could be 5-10 watts more. And if you were so concerned about energy conservation you wouldnt have disabled all the options in your BIOS that conserve energy just so you can see a bigger number in CPU-Z.
Sava700 wrote:There wasn't or was a PC issue with mine or the others I've seen having issues with how it used memory.
Well make up your mind!
And I too have seen it run some games fine..but these are not memory intensive games either. You can't convince me otherwise at this point...when they drop the usage down while sitting on desktop then I may consider going back.
I've seen it run memory intense games fine, I don't care that I can't convince you, your arguement is illogical and I just try to counter the FUD.
Sava700 wrote:might be for what you think..but its just sitting on desktop with the ram wide open when your not even doing anything with the computer.... to me thats a waste.
I was under the impression that Vista caches often used programs in machines with large amounts of RAM.
Hell_Yes
Luck is where preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book. - Friedrich Nietzsche
I've seen it run memory intense games fine, I don't care that I can't convince you, your arguement is illogical and I just try to counter the FUD.
It uses memory when it shouldn't ...it didn't or doesn't release for apps or games like it should or the way it was made. When i see the ram wide open on desktop with no activity and it still not load apps as fast or faster than XP then that is wrong in my book.
Sava700 wrote:It uses memory when it shouldn't ...it didn't or doesn't release for apps or games like it should or the way it was made. When i see the ram wide open on desktop with no activity and it still not load apps as fast or faster than XP then that is wrong in my book.
Honestly that sounds PC related. I simply don't have that issue and haven't came across is in other environments. Just my own .02
Roody wrote:Honestly that sounds PC related. I simply don't have that issue and haven't came across is in other environments. Just my own .02
All PC's are different ...but I've seen it on many and every single one i've seen running vista has higher memory usage than Xp and the apps all either start just as fast or slower than Xp would start them..not worth it IMO.
Without a doubt Vista isn't where XP is at this point. Of course it's not exactly a fair comparison yet either. XP has been out long enough to resolve far more bugs then what Vista has. That's a big reason why Ken's remark that in a home setting it's fine, but in a business one Vista is a questionable choice.
Sava700 wrote:It uses memory when it shouldn't ...it didn't or doesn't release for apps or games like it should or the way it was made. When i see the ram wide open on desktop with no activity and it still not load apps as fast or faster than XP then that is wrong in my book.
This "WIDE OPEN" term of yours is just wrong for RAM.
You've also blamed a Folding@Home application that just runs in a command window for messing with your entire system, even though it doesnt do anything of the sort, and refuse to listen to reason when others tell you the problem is elsewhere.
It uses memory to make the user's experience better. If it didn't for you, then YOU had an issue, id doesn't mean that the memory shouldn't be used.
Maybe you should have a PC tech look over your system.
