Im sorry that comment makes no sense... That ava represents Firefox, not linux, I said I was using XP ---, so...
I'm going to say that for many things I find vista to be faster more responcive and more stable than XP. And that extra RAM is still being used it's caching other data. That's why it's faster, if data is preloaded into RAM then you don't have to page to harddisk nearly as much. IMO vista's memory management system is long overdue on the windows side. Linux has been dealing with memory in a similar manner for years now, just on a different scale. Really damn that's strange to me because most operating systems function in that manner. Vista preloads commonly used apps into memory, as do many *nix based OSes. so basically everything except for windows XP(and lower) behaves that way. M$ has an inefficient OS as far as memory usage goes always have and probably always will. In the past windows was configured to use memory sparingly and to preserve it for the current app. M$ saw that RAM was getting cheaper and decided to take advantage of it with vista. 2GB probably costs Dell around $20-25 to get from their suppliers. M$ figured that Dell and HP and the like would sell $ 300 machines with 2GB RAM and $500 machines with 4GB. Apparently Dell, HP, etc. are greedy jerks. I love that. I usually have 10-20 things open at once and it speeds things up a lot if they are already in memory. 3 years from now everyone will insist that vista is superior to windows 7 and noone will deal with XP when XP came out everyone was ranting about 2000 and 98se being better. Who the hell uses 2000 and 98se now?
Thanks for that ;\ HP, Dell/Alienware and a few others actually still sell XP with their PCs, I was talking to a former IT from HP, he said they actually had to start selling XP again because their sales dropped. <-lol I suppose the preloading into RAM has its benefits, but I dont like it :?
it has tremendous benefits. typical sustained transfer rate of highend RAM 14GB/s, cost <$1000 typical latency of highend ram 6ns typical sustained transfer rate of highend multi thousand dollar harddrive array .3GB/S cost >$20,000 typical latency of highend ram 10,000ns typical transfer rate of lowend RAM 2.0GB/s cost <$50 typical latency of highend ram 10ns typical transfer rate of lowend harddrive .03GB/s <$80 typical latency of highend ram 15,000ns RAM can be hundreds of times faster than typical harddrives and if data is preloaded off the drive then you're doing yourself a great service. RAM uses pretty much the same amount of power whether or not data is stored in it. If no data is stored in it, the RAM is basically going to waste. Having the RAM active uses about the same amount of power as when idle. harddrives use relatively little energy when idle and a fair amount more when active. for laptops and servers this is important as power consumption and cooling are important factors. again it depends on the environment, Most people on XP don't really use 2GB RAM, I sure as hell don't. M$ is just putting resources to work. FYI in a stripped down version of vista I cannot tell between 2GB and 4GB RAM, so it's not that bad.
*sigh* Sarcasm, lol. Anyway, that last statement is kind of what I said earlier. Vista just needs time. But only until that time comes, I will stick with XP. Then sometime in the future I might dig out my Vista disk and install it. But of course by then, I'll have purchased my new computer that I'm oh-so anxious for.
I know exactly what it represents...lol....it just made more sense to me that because you like firefox, you would be happier with linux....but then again, I stand corrected because SOOO many people prefer Firefox over IE7...which is still baffling to me.....But, just like the GFX card war, the browser war is equally ridiculous....to each his own, I suppose.. I prefer IE7, never had a problem with it....ever..
On my mom's computer (which, by the way, runs Vista), she first set it up and as a standard IE was the only thing on there. I helped her through the process (she's computer illiterate) and we downloaded Firefox for it. She had no clue what it was, but that's besides the point. When we opened up Firefox after installing it, it popped up right away. Now before, when you'd open up IE, it'd take like 5 seconds to pop up. That's just one advantage. Another was that with Firefox, it's really easy to modify to your likings, tabbed browsing is easy, and a lot of scripts nowadays don't run on almost anything but Firefox.
For some reason....it takes over 20 seconds for IE to open on my computer, while Firefox opens instantly... By this time I get impatient and click IE several more times and end up with like 5 open by the time it launches...
