It has on both occasions when I've witnessed an upgrade. I've read similar reports online, too. Although it may not always be the case.Originally Posted by ShitFace
It has on both occasions when I've witnessed an upgrade. I've read similar reports online, too. Although it may not always be the case.
I'm not even going to pretend I read the thread fully but:
Was that from XP to Vista cus Vista handles memory differently (it caches [programs?] memory or something similar so programs load quicker.)
64bit is beneficial but I've had loads of driver problems on "supported" 64bit hardware on xp and vista, however this may have been to bad installs.
Effort wise? You will have to re-install the OS, then transfer any data you want to the new install. I cannot comment about the game profiles, sorry.
Vista 32 to Vista 64. Although, now you mention it, the memory difference between XP and Vista is even more unbelievable. Even with superfetch turned off.
Hah. My standard 32bit Vista is using 882mb / 2gb ram with just pidgin and firefox open.
(I'm not saying this is a bad thing [I am actually pretty pleased with vista sp1], but as drunk as I am, I cannot remember how [well?] vista handles memory!!)
It's "unbelievable" that an OS actually uses the resources available to it, rather than allowing them to sit there useless?
What's unbelievable is that "computer guys" still evaluate an OS's efficacy this way in 2008. Unused RAM is utterly useless. It is not a mark of efficacy.
Cry more. I'm not complaining about it. I both use and prefer Vista. It's just a huge difference that does surprise a lot of people.
I didn't saying anything about this.
Yes, because a lot of people apparently don't understand what RAM is for.
Last edited by ephekt; 12-30-2008 at 11:05 AM.
On the subject of things we didn't say I didn't say there was anything wrong with the way Vista manages resources. So please stop assuming I did so we can get this thread back on track.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks