Another reason to hate Vista... It's a major memory hog

[Spino]

Unbelievable. Yes, I know, I'm stating the obvious but it's the implication for gamers that really bugs me. Now that 1gig systems have become the norm MS throws an OS on us that, at least as far as gamers are concerned, needs 4 gigs to run state of the art games smoothly. :anger:

http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php...1&limitstart=0

Here's a few choice paragraphs to chew on before the benchmarking section begins...

That's right dear friends! A fresh install of Windows Vista Ultimate will hog over 1GB of system memory - just to run. This screenshot was taken at first boot and from there, the memory usage only climbed until it stabilized at a mere 1.11GB - almost 28% of our system's memory. Granted there is still 2.89GB free, but out of the box Vista is a RAM pig.

We booted up with 2GB of memory installed, fearing that we would see results very similar to what we captured above. With less memory available, Vista stripped itself down to a mere 680MB of memory at first boot and leveled off somewhere around 784MB. It's using less overall memory, but with less RAM installed it is now using over 38% of our memory just to operate. We are now down to 1.2GB to run all of our applications.

Compare these numbers to my current install of Windows XP on my main machine. I have a ton of applications open and am running 63 processes at the moment. I have two instances of Folding @ Home running, two instances of Firefox, a single instance of Internet Explorer running, with Outlook open, Skype, MSN, a backup program, Trillian, Palm Desktop, NOD32 and Ultramon to control three displays. On this heavily bogged system, I'm using 563MB of RAM and I have a lot going on. Under Vista, this would hog much more memory.

[Blodrast]

Honestly, did you expect anything else from M$? Has this been different for any of their previous OS versions ? Nope. Each and every one of them advanced the memory requirements by jumps and stretches.
Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in them - I would have expected them to require at least 16GB of RAM - I mean, what the hell NEW OS is that that doesn't make 90% of all existing hardware insufficient to run it ? I think they're losing their touch. [/sarcasm]

[drone]

PC manufacturers have to be salivating over this. Let's replace a reasonably stable and compact (in terms of today's computing ability) OS with a brand new OS, bound to be riddled with security holes and bugs, that takes up much larger resources and offers very little new functionality? Yeah, that sounds like a plan. I'll definitely be using XP for my next machine.

Wonder how long it will be before M$ stop selling XP, or even better stop supporting XP, to force people to upgrade? If initial sales of Vista bomb, I'm sure they will try something to recoup their loses.

[Spino]

Honestly, did you expect anything else from M$? Has this been different for any of their previous OS versions ? Nope. Each and every one of them advanced the memory requirements by jumps and stretches.
Frankly, I'm a bit disappointed in them - I would have expected them to require at least 16GB of RAM - I mean, what the hell NEW OS is that that doesn't make 90% of all existing hardware insufficient to run it ? I think they're losing their touch. [/sarcasm]

Well WinXP forced people to upgrade their memory in a similar fashion but the benefits gained by using WinXP over Win98SE or WinMe were enormous. Tragically, other than gaining access to DX10 I cannot think of a major reason why the average PC gamer, let alone the average PC user, should upgrade to Vista. Vista is obviously not the world changing, revolutionary step forward that MS would have us think it is, and it certainly isn't worlds apart from WinXP. Given Vista's revolutionary evolutionary step forward I would love to know why in blazes does it require more than twice the memory as XP to run smoothly and three to four times the memory to run games smoothly? Very, very irritating.

[BDC]

Clearly those few hundred extra MBs of ram used are all the anti-piracy stuff... *cough*

I was under the impression all this 3d business would actually improve things as it shifts the stress to the graphics card. Ah well.

[Lemur]

In case you weren't loathing Vista enough by now: Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Vista Licenses Limit OS Transfers, Ban VM Use

By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb Technology News

Microsoft has released licenses for the Windows Vista operating system that dramatically differ from those for Windows XP in that they limit the number of times that retail editions can be transferred to another device and ban the two least-expensive versions from running in a virtual machine.

The new licenses, which were highlighted by the Vista team on its official blog Tuesday, add new restrictions to how and where Windows can be used.

"The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device," reads the license for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business. In other words, once a retail copy of Vista is installed on a PC, it can be moved to another system only once.

The new policy is narrower than Windows XP's. In the same section, the license for Windows XP Home states: "You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer." There is no limit to the number of times users can make this move. Windows XP Professional's license is identical.

Elsewhere in the license, Microsoft forbids users from installing Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium in a virtual machine. "You may not use the software installed on the licensed device within a virtual (or otherwise emulated) hardware system," the legal language reads. Vista Ultimate and Vista Business, however, can be installed within a VM.

Vista Home Basic, at $199 for a full version and $99 for an upgrade, and Vista Home Premium ($239/$159), are the two most-affordable retail editions of the operating system scheduled to appear on store shelves in January 2007.

Although the Vista team's blog did not point out these changes, it did highlight others. "Two notable changes between Windows Vista license terms and those for Windows XP are: 1) failure of a validation check results in the loss of access to specific features; and 2) an increase in our warranty period from 90 days to 1 year, which brings Windows in line with most other Microsoft products," wrote Vista program manager Nick White.

Specifically, the Vista license calls out the ramifications of a failed validation check of Vista.

"The software will from time to time validate the software, update or require download of the validation feature of the software," it reads. "If after a validation check, the software is found not to be properly licensed, the functionality of the software may be affected."

Vista's new anti-piracy technologies, collectively dubbed "Software Protection Platform," have met with skepticism by analysts and criticism by users. Under the new program, a copy of Vista that's judged to be in violation of its license, or is counterfeit, is disabled after a set period, leaving the user access only to the default Web browser, and then only for an hour at a time.

[Xiahou]

Wow, Microsoft really sounds like they're going out of their way to hand us a big "screw you" this time around.

Wonder how long til they start scanning your network for unapproved software instead of just the single computer?

[caravel]

This is all down to inefficient coding, plain and simple. In basic terms, fast code execution is no longer a requirement. Poorly constructed modular code is being used, and the users pc is being used to mask the performance deficit, in the past, due to low spec pcs, and the way that software was coded, this wasn't possible.

As I've said before, the average pc's specs have increased drastically, but M$ software just gets more bloated and hogs the whole system to itself. The OS is supposed to run the user's programs. We're reaching a stage now where the latest generation of NT are using more than half the system resources before you've even started.

Useless eye candy, "features", redundant services and generally overweight coding (more instructions are being used, where only one is needed) are the biggest problem, but also you have to blame other software developers such as Symantec that also market bloatware that runs several processes at start up and keeps a tray icon, and other system services running all the time. If the average user goes and installs several of these such programs, their pc is slowed to a crawl and takes ages to reach a useable state of operation after booting. M$'s answer to this was to simply hide the problem, by producing a magical expanding and contracting system tray! (one of the first things I turn off). This leaves the average pc user totally unaware that all of this crap is running, and has them wondering why everything is so sluggish. I've clicked the small double arrows button on several occasions on work colleague's laptops and seen the system tray expand up to 3 inches, full of tsr rubbish, display applets, quick times, real players, toolbars, control panels and all of the usual useless stuff.

So not only does M$ create it's own bloatware, it also aids and abets other companies at doing exactly the same. Your pc is not yours, it's M$'s and other's property, on which they can plant all of these useless programs. Basically instead of doing it right they take the easy option at the user's expense.

[Beirut]

I can't say much about Vista, but I just bought MS Flight Simulator X and it requires online activation. I can live with that. What bothers me is that each time you re-install the sim, you have to re-activate it and you are only allowed to do that so many times. Once you've exceeded the limit (I don't know what it is) you have to go through a whole process and jump through hoops to get another re-activation.

Gamers are notorious hardware changers and tweakers, it's obvious we're going to uninstall and re-install a game several times for different reasons. I find this activation limit very annoying. Not a good idea.

[Husar]

Hmm, so far I cannot really support all the problems mentioned with Vista.
I tried both, the Beta2 and RC1 of Vista so far and have 1GB RAM only but most of the games I tried didn't seem to run slower than in XP. All in all I was pretty satisfied with those versions of Vista I tried and about registration, I never really had an issue with that, I know there are limits to this and that, but I changed RAM and a lot of other components in XP over time and cannot remember it ever wanted to reregister and new installation was never an issue either.

[MSB]

I have changed my mind. I think I might just stick to XP Pro and try to avoid Vista for ever. It will probably not make any positive difference to my computing experience so I will simply not buy it until I have to.

[Husar]

I have changed my mind. I think I might just stick to XP Pro and try to avoid Vista for ever. It will probably not make any positive difference to my computing experience so I will simply not buy it until I have to.

Games that require DirectX 10 are exclusive for Vista since DirectX 10 is exclusive for Vista and is not going to be available for XP.

But I still think the memory thing is not worth mentioning, because after thinking about it for longer I was reminded of Alt-Tabbing.
If you al-Tab into windows and back into a game, you will have to wait both times because of your memory. This proves that while in a game, a lot of the data windows uses, is not in your memory anymore(except if you have a lot more memory than the game needs) so the memory usage of Windows in idle state is no indicator for gaming performance. Just because you all decided to hate Microsoft does not mean it's always justified.
(I'm not saying everything they do is nice and fine, but it's not all bad either)

[Blodrast]

Games that require DirectX 10 are exclusive for Vista since DirectX 10 is exclusive for Vista and is not going to be available for XP.

But I still think the memory thing is not worth mentioning, because after thinking about it for longer I was reminded of Alt-Tabbing.
If you al-Tab into windows and back into a game, you will have to wait both times because of your memory. This proves that while in a game, a lot of the data windows uses, is not in your memory anymore(except if you have a lot more memory than the game needs) so the memory usage of Windows in idle state is no indicator for gaming performance. Just because you all decided to hate Microsoft does not mean it's always justified.
(I'm not saying everything they do is nice and fine, but it's not all bad either)

Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say, other than defending M$, and making a poor case, too.

First of all, the alt-tabbing as you refer to it, is called context switching. The reason you have to "wait" is because, like you said, some of the data is not in memory, but has been swapped out to the disk. However, I can assure you that all the memory that windows occupies in an "idle" state (i.e., the OS itself), is still very much in memory - all the time.

The delay is caused by the fact that the OS needs to swap out the current application (i.e., in your example, the game), and swap in whatever application you may be switching to.
But the OS is always there, and that memory is occupied all the time. Ok ? Afaik, kernels are not being swapped.

Now, about your statement that "the memory usage of Windows in idle state is no indicator for gaming performance.", what does that have to do with anything ??
The point of the thread is not the gaming performance, but, as you can see from the topic title, the fact that vista is a memory hog. Which the memory usage in idle state is a perfect indicator of.

Just because you all decided to hate Microsoft does not mean it's always justified.

Actually, some of us presented some arguments for our "hate", as you put it.
You didn't show anything that holds any water, so far. The topic of the discussion was that it's a memory hog, and that's one (more) reason some people don't like it. Unless you're arguing that it's not a memory hog, then we're all in agreement

edit: didn't mean to come out as aggressive as I may have.

[BDC]

I can't say much about Vista, but I just bought MS Flight Simulator X and it requires online activation. I can live with that. What bothers me is that each time you re-install the sim, you have to re-activate it and you are only allowed to do that so many times. Once you've exceeded the limit (I don't know what it is) you have to go through a whole process and jump through hoops to get another re-activation.

Gamers are notorious hardware changers and tweakers, it's obvious we're going to uninstall and re-install a game several times for different reasons. I find this activation limit very annoying. Not a good idea.

You're not going to buy it again if they completely screw you over though are you?

Can't ever see this being a real issue - the real losers would be the game-publishers if they ever really went ott on this. You'd lost a game, shout at them a lot, spread the word. They'd lose their income when no one buys the next version.

[Husar]

First of all, the alt-tabbing as you refer to it, is called context switching. The reason you have to "wait" is because, like you said, some of the data is not in memory, but has been swapped out to the disk. However, I can assure you that all the memory that windows occupies in an "idle" state (i.e., the OS itself), is still very much in memory - all the time.

The delay is caused by the fact that the OS needs to swap out the current application (i.e., in your example, the game), and swap in whatever application you may be switching to.
But the OS is always there, and that memory is occupied all the time. Ok ? Afaik, kernels are not being swapped.

I am not a Windows expert, but I am pretty sure the delay also occurs when simply switching to an empty desktop.

Now, about your statement that "the memory usage of Windows in idle state is no indicator for gaming performance.", what does that have to do with anything ??
The point of the thread is not the gaming performance, but, as you can see from the topic title, the fact that vista is a memory hog. Which the memory usage in idle state is a perfect indicator of.

at least as far as gamers are concerned, needs 4 gigs to run state of the art games smoothly.

I was referring to that part of the opening post.

Actually, some of us presented some arguments for our "hate", as you put it.
You didn't show anything that holds any water, so far. The topic of the discussion was that it's a memory hog, and that's one (more) reason some people don't like it. Unless you're arguing that it's not a memory hog, then we're all in agreement

What makes me curious id the part where the author of the posted article mentions how Vista uses different amounts of RAM depending on how much maximum RAM is available. This seems to indicate that it can cut back on memory usage and still work properly which lead me to the conclusion mean once a game needs more RAM, Vista might give some free. I am sorry if i sounded like an expert, I was just trying to interpret my observations because for me, Vista RC1 ran the demos and games I tried pretty nicely and I have only 1 GB of DDR400 RAM.

edit: didn't mean to come out as aggressive as I may have.

[Xiahou]

Can't ever see this being a real issue - the real losers would be the game-publishers if they ever really went ott on this. You'd lost a game, shout at them a lot, spread the word. They'd lose their income when no one buys the next version.

Slightly OT, but my concern with games that require online activation is what would happen if the game maker is no longer in business?

I'd hate to think that I could drag out a game a few years after it had been released, and install it only to find that the activation server is non-existent... leaving me with a coaster instead of game.

[Papewaio]

There are Vista machines using 1GB RAM and the glass feature running fine here. And that is with using Glass (the more graphics intensive version of how the windows frame looks)... apparently it will have more flashy features the more RAM you have but these can be turned off.

As for the VM red herring... Virtual Machines are for (large/enterprise) business environments so why would/should MS deploy a license for a build that is meant for a minimal networking environment such as a home user... when for an enterprise solution a more robust/networking version should be utilised. It would seem strange that a home user would want VM on Vista home and then complain that the cheap version doesn't get it. Why? Because a real VM solution would require a PC networked to an enterprise server which would be licensed for multiple connections... a rather expensive solution set for the home user and more then enough of an expense to make the difference in cost between Vista Home and the Professional versions minute.

[Reenk Roink]

Remember kids, when you use Linux, you help communism.

[caravel]

Linux is a bad nasty hacker OS.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001...2056.2147.html

[Blodrast]

There are Vista machines using 1GB RAM and the glass feature running fine here. And that is with using Glass (the more graphics intensive version of how the windows frame looks)... apparently it will have more flashy features the more RAM you have but these can be turned off.

As for the VM red herring... Virtual Machines are for (large/enterprise) business environments so why would/should MS deploy a license for a build that is meant for a minimal networking environment such as a home user... when for an enterprise solution a more robust/networking version should be utilised. It would seem strange that a home user would want VM on Vista home and then complain that the cheap version doesn't get it. Why? Because a real VM solution would require a PC networked to an enterprise server which would be licensed for multiple connections... a rather expensive solution set for the home user and more then enough of an expense to make the difference in cost between Vista Home and the Professional versions minute.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on the last part, Pape.
I've been using vmware for a long time, so that I can have both linux and windows at the same time. This had nothing to do with my being in a corporate environment, it was just my "whim", if you want to call it that.
I've done that at a job I used to have, I've been doing it at my current work, and, frankly, the only reason I'm not using a VM at home is that I don't want to make it easier for myself to work from home. Therefore, at home I have a dual boot (in the hope that the excuse to reboot will be enough to prevent me from wanting to do any work from home).

I know several people who use VMs, and while I agree that most of them are relatively technical people, VMs have become waaaaay more user-friendly than they used to be, and it's not that challenging to set one up on your home pc, so if anything I'd expect their popularity to increase, even for home PC's.

[Papewaio]

And generally those who are tech savy bought XP Pro not Home... one is made for networking (where VM shines when allowing admin into getting into various server boxes or locking down the environment to a SOE for a standard user)... while XP Home isn't networking friendly. The same ideas are going forth with Vista... except there is even a larger range of OS options so you can buy at the level that is best for your environment home/small office/enterprise.

Windows Vista Business
Windows Vista Enterprise
Windows Vista Home Premium
Windows Vista Home Basic
Windows Vista Ultimate

[AntiochusIII]

Linux is a bad nasty hacker OS.

http://www.adequacy.org/stories/2001...2056.2147.html

It was a fun article, really a sharp and awesome satire and all that, however...

The comments make me sad. How many frickin' [expletive] stupid people are there in the world!? The internet community is a greater argument against Democracy than the average voter talk has ever been. And it was 2001, before masses of dumb kids are even in the internet, too.

[caravel]

It was a fun article, really a sharp and awesome satire and all that, however...

The comments make me sad. How many frickin' [expletive] stupid people are there in the world!? The internet community is a greater argument against Democracy than the average voter talk has ever been. And it was 2001, before masses of dumb kids are even in the internet, too.

I know exactly what you mean. Some of those people really need to get out more often.

[Lemur]

BSD, Lunix, Debian and Mandrake are all versions of an illegal hacker operation system, invented by a Soviet computer hacker named Linyos Torovoltos, before the Russians lost the Cold War. It is based on a program called "xenix", which was written by Microsoft for the US government. These programs are used by hackers to break into other people's computer systems to steal credit card numbers. They may also be used to break into people's stereos to steal their music, using the "mp3" program. Torovoltos is a notorious hacker, responsible for writing many hacker programs, such as "telnet", which is used by hackers to connect to machines on the internet without using a telephone.

Can't ... stop ... laughing ... must ... breathe ...

[screwtype]

The new licenses, which were highlighted by the Vista team on its official blog Tuesday, add new restrictions to how and where Windows can be used.

"The first user of the software may reassign the license to another device one time. If you reassign the license, that other device becomes the "licensed device," reads the license for Windows Vista Home Basic, Home Premium, Ultimate, and Business. In other words, once a retail copy of Vista is installed on a PC, it can be moved to another system only once.

The new policy is narrower than Windows XP's. In the same section, the license for Windows XP Home states: "You may move the Software to a different Workstation Computer. After the transfer, you must completely remove the Software from the former Workstation Computer." There is no limit to the number of times users can make this move. Windows XP Professional's license is identical.

This is what happens when you have a product which has no effective competition.

[screwtype]

Games that require DirectX 10 are exclusive for Vista since DirectX 10 is exclusive for Vista and is not going to be available for XP.

Yep, and that's how they force you to keep forking out for products you neither want or need - by making essential resources dependent on them.

If only some visionary rich entrepreneur would throw a few million bucks at the old Amiga platform - I could have a machine again that runs in a few kilobytes of RAM, boots in five seconds flat, and still does practically everything a Wintel box does without the friggin' viruses and Big Brother snoopware...

[Xiahou]

I fail to see the importance of networking in vm software, Pape. Are you thinking of VNC instead?

Regardless, the writers of Lemur's article have since retracted their statements in regards to the blanket ban of VM software under Vista, leaving us wonder as to what the real story is.

[Blodrast]

Methinks that perhaps this has something to do with M$ pushing people to use their own VM toys...
linky
I'm sure there's still a few things in the great scheme of things that we haven't figured out yet... yeah, when it comes to M$, I am paranoid.

[Papewaio]

I fail to see the importance of networking in vm software, Pape. Are you thinking of VNC instead?

VM is normally only used by techies or large businesses... so it doesn't make sense to enable it for Home users, who in turn will generate a lot of problem issues that require resolving... mind you I think the real reason wasn't based on technical reasons... it was to decrease competition/ increase dependancy on a Vista only machine... I do wonder if a VM Vista could bypass a lot of the hardware/multimedia vetting processes though.

It could be seen as an anti-competitive move if framed in the right perspective... amazing how security can be used to over-ride counter arguements, the media companies are certainly doing as much as possible to have PCs as friendly to them as possible.

[Lemur]

Vamazing how security can be used to over-ride counter arguements

Why do you hate freedom?