Vista good memory managment, could it be true?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert Firth
  • Start date Start date
Now are you starting to see the points that I was making to you?

Vista is better when you're multi-tasking than XP by far.

The memory management is excellent, as are the new features that take
advantage of recent CPU's.

BTW are you running a CPU that can do Hardware Virtualization for VM's?
 
Just some input:

I run Folding@Home. I use the SMP version which maxes out both cores. The
program runs in low priority so it's supposed to take a back seat to
anything else you try to do. In XP, this doesn't work very well. The
system still runs VERY slow forcing me to use the screen saver version
instead.

However, with Vista I run that app 24/7 and I NEVER notice even a slight
strain.
 
Hmm...

I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines,
it seemed to react very well.. better than XP....

However I am using the player in Vista, while I was
using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100%

This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for vista....

A significant one!

Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it...
so this is a good way to see how it can cope.

I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure first
before
I declare Vista better than XP in anything!


Vista might still have a chance...
 
jim kirk said:
Hmm...

I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines,
it seemed to react very well.. better than XP....

However I am using the player in Vista, while I was
using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100%
Click to expand...

VPC newbie question: By "player" do you mean VMWare's version instead of
Virtual PC?
 
When I say player I mean a free VMWARE player for virtual machines...
see here for more info www.vmware.com

there is player (free), server (free) and workstation (not free)
and some other ones that I have not had the chance to try...

the player can play (run) ready made virtual machines but cannot create
them.
However there IS a work around...

you go to this site that creates small vmx files so you can later
install your OS on.. http://www.easyvmx.com/
 
VMWare distributes a free product called VMWare Player. It's basically
VMWare Server with all of the configuration capability removed. It seems
questionable to me that it still has usefulness beyond demo distribution
since there are several much more useful free options, including VMWare's
own VMWare Server.
 
laroux the reason for the player is that you may have already made
virtual machines before and just want to run them on other computers,
or the vmware site has many pre-made downloadable OSs
that you download and use with the player.

You can see my other post in this thread that I talk about a site
that you can use to create new virtual machines even in player.
 
In message <#[email protected]> "Justin"
Just some input:

I run Folding@Home. I use the SMP version which maxes out both cores. The
program runs in low priority so it's supposed to take a back seat to
anything else you try to do. In XP, this doesn't work very well. The
system still runs VERY slow forcing me to use the screen saver version
instead.
Click to expand...

In many cases, the problem in XP wasn't so much how the process handled,
but that the pipeline was filled. Depending on your processor
architecture, SMP may have made it a lot worse.

Even worse is the fact that from XP's point of view, HyperThreading is
implemented as two independent CPUs, whereas in reality, if you lock a
process to a single virtual CPU, you'll see it's performance vary
considerably as you load a process locked to the other virtual CPU.

Vista is much better in this respect.
 
In message said:
I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines,
it seemed to react very well.. better than XP....

However I am using the player in Vista, while I was
using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100%

This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for vista....

A significant one!

Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it...
so this is a good way to see how it can cope.

I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure first
before
I declare Vista better than XP in anything!


Vista might still have a chance...
Click to expand...

Not only that, but Vista handles changing RAM scenario much better too.
My experience with XP was that it ran okay with 256MB of RAM, but if you
booted with 1GB and fired up a virtual machine (or something else which
eats physical RAM and cannot be paged out) using 768MB of RAM, XP would
perform pretty poorly.

Vista handles this scenario very well, degrading much more gracefully.
 
HyperThreading is
implemented as two independent CPUs, whereas in reality, if >you lock a
process to a single virtual CPU, you'll see it's performance >vary
considerably as you load a process locked to the other virtual >CPU.
Click to expand...


Can you explain this in detail? I did not fully understand what you mean
here...
 
kirk jim said:
When I say player I mean a free VMWARE player for virtual machines...
see here for more info www.vmware.com

there is player (free), server (free) and workstation (not free)
and some other ones that I have not had the chance to try...

the player can play (run) ready made virtual machines but cannot create
them.
However there IS a work around...

you go to this site that creates small vmx files so you can later
install your OS on.. http://www.easyvmx.com/
Click to expand...


Sorry again for the newbie question: Why would we use easyvmx when the
VMWare's P2V is now free?
 
Back
Top