Comments on: Windows Vista eats up 800MB of RAM

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 02 May 2009 02:21:36 +0000

it’s called superfetch

By: العنزي

العنزي — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:18:27 +0000

shgsjdhgfcsabchdfgJsa

By: Sharon

Sharon — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:21:16 +0000

It’s beyond me why people argue over this stuff.
Use what you like and what you can afford and get over it.

By: treysentio

treysentio — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 19:17:03 +0000

i prefer xp over vista also a new xp is coming out that is supposed to run faster than the xp now vista is gay in my opinion waste of Microsoft life

By: Not ur business

Not ur business — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:28:48 +0000

y’know… you can’t just dis apple or Microsoft out of the blue from a personal bias against one or the other. Both have strong points and weak points. I prefer the windows XP operating system myself (bad experience with Mac compatibility, and i run vista on my PC to run Halo 2…. god, Vista sure does suck).

But it would be nice to hear more conversation on disabling these annoying vista background functions. I don’t want to have a pretty looking background and windows if i have to give up a gig of ram for it.

By: hi

hi — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:32:43 +0000

THATS NOT EVEN VISTA!

By: ahmed

ahmed — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 08:54:39 +0000

I WANT TO SEND WIN VISTA

By: Zal

Zal — Tue, 17 Jul 2007 04:47:34 +0000

Anyone ever seen Ubuntu running beryl? Absolutely amazing. looking at vista after using XGL and beryl makes vista look like donkey shit. Also, while the effects of vista take up 500+ mb of ram and a lot of cpu, my beryl on linux takes up 200mb of ram and about 2% cpu total. And if you want to see how amazing beryl is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD7QraljRfM

By: Rocky

Rocky — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 07:59:58 +0000

This screenshot is not of Vista. Vista’s Task Manager’s perfomance tab aint nothing like this!

By: Larry W

Larry W — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:30:53 +0000

It’s just a “market” money-making scheme. The newer systems will always require faster computers, more RAM, bigger hard-drives, faster broadband connections and “ensuring obsoletion (making sure you’re old hardware is “not compatible with this operating system)”. Otherwise we’d all still be using Win98 with a ton of ram, and guaranteed it would run faster than any new system. maybe

By: ORthx

ORthx — Tue, 06 Mar 2007 09:34:37 +0000

Heh i was wondering cuz i got new PC with dual core 2.4GHz 2GB DDR2 and windows vista. Like uyou run a game with good graphics (Gothic3). It works well but when you try to save says out of memory :D so all you ca ndo is to add like 3-4GB of ram to be covered with Vista. Thats a huge step of Windows history..Damn :D

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 21:41:00 +0000

OMG MAC USERS ARE SO SMUG. They don’t seem to notice they are using linux which was origionally designed on PC’s for PC’s and later ported to Mac’s. i once used debian on a power mac, hardware was macintosh but the comnputer screamed LINUX not MAC or PC. for god sakes we all know linux is superior but those who run out an buy mac’s either want multimedia applications for editing purposes or they are too stupid to install linux on their home PC.

By: Mike

Mike — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 04:55:53 +0000

Mac users seem rather insecure which explains why they are always jumping down Windows users throats.

Obviously Windows XP and Vista scale themselves according to how much ram you have. It’s the ram, stupid.

By: hEx

hEx — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:53:31 +0000

If you look under the physical memory section of the performance tab, you’ll see that 628mb is currently available out of 1 gig of ram.
so “AGAIN” windows pwns all.
ahh and yea , haters can go to hell, or juts use that mac crap thingy or wutever.
hEx.

By: mohame saed

mohame saed — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 12:31:54 +0000

plisssssssssssssssssss

By: metal_slug

metal_slug — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:04:24 +0000

haha, and you mac freaks forgot one important thing. GAMES RUN ON PC’s!!!
my dad owns a mac… bleh all work and no play? the hell with that. i know my way around mac’s, i steal his powerbook for school and its alrite but its overpriced, while it technically underperforms.
and dont give me that ‘i dont need to play games’ thats just bull crap, you know u WANT to play games… u just CANT. lol suckers.

By: Bullfrog

Bullfrog — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:44:44 +0000

Alright, i have the vista beta 2 and have had it for some time. I am curently looking at the performace tabe and i only have 512 mb of ram and it is showing no more them 400mb, it shows 394 and nothing more.
I have tryed Mac OS 10 because i needed to for video editing using final cut pro. Even though i know how to work the OS 10 I still perfer Windows. I trash on os 10 only because I know it makes all me mac friends angery. Personaly I agree with Juice who said that they are both goos and both have flaws.

btw, there is now a motherboard that can handle 2 duel prosesers and each can handle 16GB of ram *THATS 32GB Of RAM*
alright, I just thought that is like way cool.

one thing Mac will never beable to do……have the way shinny kool windows logo ! lol
Power to the geeks, no matter there OS there color or programs. we live in a world were every computer is equal.
Never mind, I still thing Windows is better.
:)

By: fox101

fox101 — Sun, 17 Sep 2006 15:04:38 +0000

thank u

By: John

John — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 14:26:24 +0000

that 800MB of ram is BS, you can see it in that screenshot. It uses the swapspace. Look
Phisycal Memory: Free: 643248K=~628MB so it uses less then 400MB of RAM!

By: Lol

Lol — Sat, 22 Apr 2006 05:39:37 +0000

Children, If u must ask, then you cant afford it….
Simple, yall count ram like you count dollars, lmao.
Once again, you cant afford it.
We live ina world of systems running 8 Gigs of ram, in excess of 4g Processors, and a possible 2.2 g of Graphics ram.
Thats over 14 gigs of system power, and yall are whining about 800 to GIG OF RAM. LMAO
Like i said, get over it, your living in a economical fantasy, it doesnt work, you cant afford it…. :)