Last message on previous page:
@Action_man: you have good points. You like Vista and MS softwares, that's your right. You've had the luck of not losing several days of hard work while using non-patched versions of MS stuff, good for you. Vista's latest build runs flawlessly on your system, that's great.

I have been using and supporting people using MS softwares for years - starting 1993, actually. I usually needed to spend hours every month (if not days when I was doing it professionally) debugging, and trying to recover lost data caused by an MS bug or virus, even with educated users. I reduced said workload greatly when I installed an alternate firewall (Kerio PF), an alternate antivirus (KAV or AVP), an alternate web browser (FF), an alternate office suite (OOo) and an alternate media player (WinAmp + Media Player Classic): people I needed to help out every months were suddenly set for a couple of years. Those who went the Mac way merely required my help finding and installing NeoOffice.

I've tried Vista on a mainstream, upper mid-range system; let me remind you: X2 3800+ RAM 1Gb HD 100Gb GF6600 256 Mb, clean install, latest drivers. Vista uses at least 600 Mb of RAM by itself and is Damn Slow (tm) - swapping all the time. Disabling this or that effect requires a trip down 4 layers of submenus, copying a file from a USB disk to a HD folder requires 5 clicks (that's 3 too may).

Now, it very well may be that those faults are caused by Vista still being beta. Still, it indicates a faulty graphics subsystem (DX10), a faulty font rendering subsystem, a faulty VM (kernel), bloated interface code (.Net?), and not useability tested GUI. That's still quite a lot. Compared to a Linux LiveCD version 0.1 (more or less alpha 1) touting a Gnome 3D desktop with pretty much the same functionalities and eye-candy (and actually making it useful), Vista looks bad.

I won't participate in this thread anymore.

They have their place like everything else does.

Well if they're too stupid they should be on macs.

There's many others out there too.

It works a treat. You mean DX9.

Linux has its place and its on servers and workstations. Its not going to make it on the desktop unless they make some changes, which won't happen.

Just for you mitch.

Yeah I was slow getting around to it.

Not bad for a clean install though.

Not the same build (yours is older), with Aero Glass disabled (no transparency and no shadow effect) - So yes, Vista, once reduced to run-of-the-mill XP interface, will take a measly 400 Mb of RAM (XP takes 135-170 depending on activated services). So yes, Vista is a RAM hog.

The insult at the bottom is childish.

I've looked at RAM use on a SuSE 10.1b9, 64-bit version, with a local AMP server running, using default Gnome desktop. I've disabled swap, there are 512 Mb of RAM on the system. Activating Firefox, Xgl and Compiz (all plugins)...

There is still 1/3 available RAM on the system.

That actually makes no difference.

Tis quite short of your 700mb you were rambling on about.

Lighten up.

I was 'rambling' on 600 Mb:

However, I was trying it out on a level-3 performance PC. It may load additional services on higher level machines - this is debatable.

Frankly, I hope you're right Vista will take up 'only' 400 Mb of RAM, because by the time you've loaded an antivirus, the desktop search applet, your IM and an app, your system is there swapping like mad.

About Ati drivers: I've installed Catalyst 6.3 on my bro's computer, with a fresh Win2K install. I've installed .Net 1.1 SP1 + fix, and I installed the Catalyst Control Center (talk about alliteration). It won't start, no error message, nothing. Refresh rate locked on 60Hz, keep your eyes down.

At least Nvidia's control panel works, and isn't required to unlock the refresh rate.

Hmmm I wish Vista would get released soon but I would rather have a good product and wait then a rushed POS.... The video card thing is good I guess this new fastest video card every 6 months ride is getting old I stopped buying the best a while ago becouse the best is only the best for such a short time its a waste of money lol same with CPU's I guess too (I tend to shop the middle and OC)

so do I - I'm happy with my 6600, I get to play the latest games with very reasonable settings at quite high resolutions, with low noise (I bought it because it was cheap and passively cooled).