Geek Q: Vista users

[ciaran-77]

Any advice for a new user apart from uninstall the thing and put on xp pro?

A new laptop is winging its way pre-installed with vista premium (whatever premium means). I'll be installing 64-bit linux at the first chance and using that for most things i.e. 99% of stuff. The laptop has 4GB memory and 1GB of video memory on a dedicated card, so is it worth giving vista a chance at the risk i might actually like it? I know the biggest gripe is its slowness on low spec machines so I'm guessing I'm alright? Now that vendors are pushing it, what is there to recommend about it over xp?



And another question probably for a different forum entirely, apologies if anyone gets a headache, but anyway:

This laptop had thrown up a question I never new about, to do with 4GB memory and how OS's (not just windows) use that space.

It occurs with 32 bit OS's - where memory gets reserved for hardware and other I/O and can't be remapped above 4GB on a 32 bit OS (2^32 == 4GB). So in effect you only end up with about 3GB when this mapped memory gets swallowed up (and it still might not work on 64bit depending on the chipset, don't know why). Anyone know more about this? The size of memory on the graphics card I have makes me think I'm never seeing that 4GB on normal vista 32-bit. However, I will have a dual core chip so should I try and get a 64 bit version of vista (but surely this will be a driver support nightmare)? I heard also you can do something in the bios (if you have a 64 bit motherboard) to move this memory remap hole above the 4GB region, but I guess I won't know until I look at the bios? I'm guessing the reason 4GB was put in this laptop at all was to handle the conveniently similar sized 1GB video memory.

I also heard a service pack SP1 fixes this for the 32 bit version but don't know how.

I doubt 4GB would be that much more noticable compared to 3GB right now but its an interesting point (to me :rolleyes:, is anyone still reading? Oh look there's the 9.15 from charing cross, its 3 mins late).

[fatfrank]

Vista over XP on a laptop - key benefits you'll find are:
- faster boot/shutdown/sleep
- better inbuilt security
- inbuilt search
- looks nicer
- hard drive encryption
- no need for additional antispyware s/w
- better inbuilt apps for managing media like pics, videos etc

If you're going take the time to wipe the machine anyway, then perhaps install Windows 7 on it. you can get the free release candidate from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx. It has all the above plus some other snappy features that make the laptop just nicer to use.

In terms of your point about 3GB/4GB etc. this isn't related to Vista, it's a 32-bit chip limitation. Basically any 32-bit OS can only use just over 3GB RAM. The aspect you mention about Vista SP1 is that it now reports the amount of physical memory installed as opposed to the amount of physical memory it can use. No difference at all in terms of performance. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 has all the info.

To use over any memory > 3GB that is installed, you need a 64-bit OS. You could put 64-bit Vista, 7, or Linux on it but there is only benefit if you are using an application that can take advantage of the memory. Big CAD, photoshop, movie editing users would get value from this but for the average punter there's zero benefit in buying any more than 3GB memory or of running a 64-bit OS. Actually, there's a disadvantage in using a 64-bit OS because there are less hardware drivers for 64-bit, so you may end up with some peripherals that you can't use.

[ciaran-77]

Couldn't have asked for a better answer than that, cheers man. I gathered that about the chip limitation as opposed to OS limitation. Wouldn't games benefit from a 64 bit OS and all the available memory (assuming the developers chose to write the code for it)?


Vista over XP on a laptop - key benefits you'll find are:
- faster boot/shutdown/sleep
- better inbuilt security
- inbuilt search
- looks nicer
- hard drive encryption
- no need for additional antispyware s/w
- better inbuilt apps for managing media like pics, videos etc

If you're going take the time to wipe the machine anyway, then perhaps install Windows 7 on it. you can get the free release candidate from http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx. It has all the above plus some other snappy features that make the laptop just nicer to use.


Sounds like I should at least give it a fair chance then. Now you've put a seed in my head about windows 7....must...not...fettle...with...brand....new...o h **** i've turned it into a brick.



In terms of your point about 3GB/4GB etc. this isn't related to Vista, it's a 32-bit chip limitation. Basically any 32-bit OS can only use just over 3GB RAM. The aspect you mention about Vista SP1 is that it now reports the amount of physical memory installed as opposed to the amount of physical memory it can use. No difference at all in terms of performance. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605 has all the info.


That's useful :confused:. Here's what you could have won....

[fatfrank]

Yep, gaming would theoretically benefit if the game was written specifically to take advantage of 64-bit, but these are few and far between.

You're better off investing any cash in a faster chip or graphics card rather than putting in > 4GB memory, if hardcore gaming is your thing.

So my own advice is stick with a 32-bit OS, if you've 4GB physically installed you'll use 80% of it and the access to a few hundred meg more with x64 doesn't outweigh the potential downsides for a regular user.

[keyserni]

Vista will run fine on that thing so just keep it on then complain that it isn't as good as XP like everyone else because you can't figure out how to turn the account control off.

[ciaran-77]

Vista will run fine on that thing so just keep it on then complain that it isn't as good as XP like everyone else because you can't figure out how to turn the account control off.

lol i'll complain for sure, i'm not a big windows fan to begin with, but i put up with it as there's too much software thats not cross compatible. I'd use the words 'is worse than xp' rather than 'not as good as xp' though :)

I've no doubt the laptop will run it ok either, just trying to make sure its squeezing out the best of the hardware and not wasting anything if I can do something about it by sticking on a 64bit OS. If theres not many apps that take advantage then there's no point wasting time worrying about it I suppose.

Cheers lads

[keyserni]

You know vista has a thing called xp compatibility mode. Lets you run a program just as if you were using xp.