Vista OS

[nubian]

Is bloated!

Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM

Memory, disk space hungry

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

By Fuad Abazovic in Wien: Wednesday 08 March 2006, 12:08
A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2
of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much
as 800Mb of system memory.

Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.

Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make
people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista
runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much
better.

Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions.
We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and
a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks
good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.

Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact,
it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.

 

[Andre Da Costa [Extended64]]

All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The
Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its
an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private
testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

 

[nubian]

All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The
Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its
an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private
testers. That issue is probably fixed already.

Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It
does not appear to have been doctored at all.

 

[Grok]

nubian wrote:
| Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:
|| All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The
|| Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves,
|| its an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by
|| private testers. That issue is probably fixed already.
|
| Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It
| does not appear to have been doctored at all.
|
||
|| ||| Is bloated!
|||
||| Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM
|||
||| Memory, disk space hungry
|||
||| http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

I don't think nubian meant that The Inquirer actually doctored anything.
He's just mentioned that they've been known to be incorrect. As a matter of
fact the article is actually INCORRECT because the 800MB they are reporting
is PAGE FILE not RAM. The physical RAM usage looks to be about 404MB -
that's with 47 processes going.

And on top of that, what build etc. etc. did they install ?? I couldn't tell
from the theinquirer.net website. So then, their report is neither accurate
... nor likely really relevant to what probably will be known as the RTM
builds of Windows Vista. In other words, it's a little premature to go
screaming criticism about Vista performance, especially over some errant
theinquirer.net report.

 

[T]

What part of BETA don't they understand, BETA "under development, not
finished, not optimized, tons of internal tracking and verification code,
compiled for DEBUG, etc."



When it becomes late beta or RC then I guess you can look on memory
consumption



But anyway, CPT Feb on my virtual machine, eats 300 MB ram, but I am ok with
the memory, I am a developer myself, and I have many situations when I can
write the code to run as fast as possible and use a bit more of memory, or
write the code to run a bit slower, and use almost no memory, not an easy
decision.

 

[T]

Yes I know, look authentic, and so do super man, spider man, and the lord of
the rings

 

[Mike Williams]

It's a waste of time looking at memory consumption and general
performance of pre-beta builds of Windows. The authors of the article
probably know that, but it's just general tabloid scare-mongering.

 

[Andre Da Costa [Extended64]]

Pity on you.
--
--
Andre
Windows Connect | http://www.windowsconnected.com
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta

 

[Tom Lake]

Yes I know, look authentic, and so do super man, spider man, and the lord
of the rings

You mean they're NOT real? OMG! 8^)

Tom Lake

 

[Albert]

It runs ok in 512 MB. I'm running it now and answering dear user that
believes everything he reads.

Slbert

 

[Zack Whittaker \(R2 Mentor\)]

Hehe. I've got a machine in the other room which has only 256MB RAM - with a
few things disabled, it runs sometimes better than the one in my room which
has 1GB RAM!

--
Zack Whittaker
Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor)
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net
» ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum
» VistaBase: www.zacknet.co.uk/vistabase
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!


--- Original message follows ---

 

[pvdg42]

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does
not appear to have been doctored at all.

The fact that they used a build *not* released makes the whole article and
its intent suspect.
I have a test machine here running the latest CTP on 512 meg of installed
memory. From what you quote, that should be impossible?

 

[nubian]

All credibility went out the window with the source of the report. The
Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also contradict themselves, its
an internal build, not suppose to be in the public or even used by private
testers. That issue is probably fixed already.

Well, from what I understand, they are about to release a build in April
which will be beta. Everyone seems to be saying that there will be no
more content, feature, or design changes after that, only bug fixes. If
this is an actual problem in Vista, which given the article, it at least
could be, shouldn't it be reported here asap so as to be investigated
and fixed if it does exist?

You say "that issue is probably fixed already" and I hope so. But is
this not the place where we report things like that?

Also, you say that "all credibility went out the window with the source
of the report. The Inquirer has been many times too wrong, they also
contradict themselves..." This would be an opinion instead of a
statement of fact, unless you care to actually back up your words with
proof of your claim about The Inquirer. What you describe about The
Inquirer being wrong at times or contradicting themselves in some of
their reports could describe almost any reporting source because they
all make mistakes. The very nature of reporting is that it is imperfect.

 

[nubian]

Yes I know, look authentic, and so do super man, spider man, and the lord of
the rings

Are you saying you think it is doctored?

 

[nubian]

It's a waste of time looking at memory consumption and general
performance of pre-beta builds of Windows. The authors of the article
probably know that, but it's just general tabloid scare-mongering.

Why? Isn't this the time when these kinds of things should be pointed
out so that in case it is a bug or problem, it can be researched and
fixed if need be?

 

[nubian]

Pity on you.

Why? For what?

 

[nubian]

Andre Da Costa [Extended64] wrote:

Did you actually go to the link? Did you look at the screenshot? It does
not appear to have been doctored at all.

Is bloated!

Vista set to swallow 800MB of RAM

Memory, disk space hungry

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128

The fact that they used a build *not* released makes the whole article and
its intent suspect.
I have a test machine here running the latest CTP on 512 meg of installed
memory. From what you quote, that should be impossible?

Not at all, from the article it just seems like if you have the
memory/virtual memory, it will gobble it up. That does not necessarily
mean it can't run with less.

 

[Zack Whittaker \(R2 Mentor\)]

I pretty sure that once Beta 2 is out (April), it will be feature complete
(if not already), and will have everything there. All they need to do is
publisise it, so they'll make it a public beta so more people can provide
feedback on it, and also fix the bugs. That's all it's for - making it a
quality release )

--
Zack Whittaker
Microsoft Beta (Windows Server R2 Beta Mentor)
» ZackNET Enterprises: www.zacknet.co.uk
» MSBlog on ResDev: http://msblog.resdev.net
» ZackNET Forum: www.zacknet.co.uk/forum
» VistaBase: www.vistabase.co.uk
» This mailing is provided "as is" with no warranties, and confers no
rights. All opinions expressed are those of myself unless stated so, and not
of my employer, best friend, mother or cat. Let's be clear on that one!


--- Original message follows ---

 

[Mike Williams]

Why? Isn't this the time when these kinds of things should be pointed
out so that in case it is a bug or problem, it can be researched and
fixed if need be?

No, because if you've ever run ANY other Windows beta then you'll know
these issues are addressed late in the cycle. There are always huge
performance boosts at this time.

The article is barely at the level of infotainment.

 

[Mike Williams]

Why? Isn't this the time when these kinds of things should be pointed
out so that in case it is a bug or problem, it can be researched and
fixed if need be?

No, because if you've ever run ANY other Windows beta then you'll know
these issues are addressed late in the cycle. There are always huge
performance boosts at this time.

The article is barely at the level of infotainment.