| |
| |||||||
| Windows Vista Discuss the different versions of Windows Vista, Fuji, or Vienna |
 |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools |
03-26-2007, 02:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Vista good memory managment, could it be true? Hmm... I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... However I am using the player in Vista, while I was using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for vista.... A significant one! Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it... so this is a good way to see how it can cope. I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure first before I declare Vista better than XP in anything! Vista might still have a chance...      |
|
03-26-2007, 02:45 PM
| ||
| |
|
03-26-2007, 08:15 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? Now are you starting to see the points that I was making to you? Vista is better when you're multi-tasking than XP by far. The memory management is excellent, as are the new features that take advantage of recent CPU's. BTW are you running a CPU that can do Hardware Virtualization for VM's? "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message news:uXf262#bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > Hmm... > > I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, > it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... > > However I am using the player in Vista, while I was > using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% > > This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for vista.... > > A significant one! > > Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it... > so this is a good way to see how it can cope. > > I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure > first before > I declare Vista better than XP in anything! > > > Vista might still have a chance...[/color] |
|
03-26-2007, 09:15 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? Just some input: I run Folding@Home. I use the SMP version which maxes out both cores. The program runs in low priority so it's supposed to take a back seat to anything else you try to do. In XP, this doesn't work very well. The system still runs VERY slow forcing me to use the screen saver version instead. However, with Vista I run that app 24/7 and I NEVER notice even a slight strain. "Shane Nokes" <Morpheus_Phreak@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message news:uY6c01BcHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > Now are you starting to see the points that I was making to you? > > Vista is better when you're multi-tasking than XP by far. > > The memory management is excellent, as are the new features that take > advantage of recent CPU's. > > BTW are you running a CPU that can do Hardware Virtualization for VM's? > > "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message > news:uXf262#bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green] >> Hmm... >> >> I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, >> it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... >> >> However I am using the player in Vista, while I was >> using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% >> >> This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for >> vista.... >> >> A significant one! >> >> Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it... >> so this is a good way to see how it can cope. >> >> I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure >> first before >> I declare Vista better than XP in anything! >> >> >> Vista might still have a chance...[/color] >[/color] |
|
03-27-2007, 12:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? :) Robert Firth [url]http://www.winvistainfo.org[/url] "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message news:uXf262%23bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > Hmm... > > I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, > it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... > > However I am using the player in Vista, while I was > using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% > > This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for vista.... > > A significant one! > > Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it... > so this is a good way to see how it can cope. > > I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure > first before > I declare Vista better than XP in anything! > > > Vista might still have a chance...[/color] |
|
03-27-2007, 02:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message news:uXf262%23bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > Hmm... > > I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, > it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... > > However I am using the player in Vista, while I was > using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% >[/color] VPC newbie question: By "player" do you mean VMWare's version instead of Virtual PC? |
|
03-27-2007, 03:15 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? When I say player I mean a free VMWARE player for virtual machines... see here for more info [url]www.vmware.com[/url] there is player (free), server (free) and workstation (not free) and some other ones that I have not had the chance to try... the player can play (run) ready made virtual machines but cannot create them. However there IS a work around... you go to this site that creates small vmx files so you can later install your OS on.. [url]http://www.easyvmx.com/[/url] "just bob" <kilbyfan-aol@net.com> wrote in message news:ePEDFjLcHHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > > "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message > news:uXf262%23bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green] >> Hmm... >> >> I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, >> it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... >> >> However I am using the player in Vista, while I was >> using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% >>[/color] > > VPC newbie question: By "player" do you mean VMWare's version instead of > Virtual PC? > >[/color] |
|
03-27-2007, 03:30 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? VMWare distributes a free product called VMWare Player. It's basically VMWare Server with all of the configuration capability removed. It seems questionable to me that it still has usefulness beyond demo distribution since there are several much more useful free options, including VMWare's own VMWare Server. "just bob" <kilbyfan-aol@net.com> wrote in message news:ePEDFjLcHHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > > "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message > news:uXf262%23bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green] >> Hmm... >> >> I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, >> it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... >> >> However I am using the player in Vista, while I was >> using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% >>[/color] > > VPC newbie question: By "player" do you mean VMWare's version instead of > Virtual PC? > >[/color] |
|
03-27-2007, 03:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? laroux the reason for the player is that you may have already made virtual machines before and just want to run them on other computers, or the vmware site has many pre-made downloadable OSs that you download and use with the player. You can see my other post in this thread that I talk about a site that you can use to create new virtual machines even in player. "LaRoux" <hlx@newsgroup.nospam> wrote in message news:epljH5LcHHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > VMWare distributes a free product called VMWare Player. It's basically > VMWare Server with all of the configuration capability removed. It seems > questionable to me that it still has usefulness beyond demo distribution > since there are several much more useful free options, including VMWare's > own VMWare Server. > > "just bob" <kilbyfan-aol@net.com> wrote in message > news:ePEDFjLcHHA.4460@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green] >> >> "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message >> news:uXf262%23bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred] >>> Hmm... >>> >>> I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, >>> it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... >>> >>> However I am using the player in Vista, while I was >>> using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% >>>[/color] >> >> VPC newbie question: By "player" do you mean VMWare's version instead of >> Virtual PC? >> >>[/color] > >[/color] |
|
03-27-2007, 04:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? In message <#K3e7VCcHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Justin" <None@None.com> wrote: [color=blue] >Just some input: > >I run Folding@Home. I use the SMP version which maxes out both cores. The >program runs in low priority so it's supposed to take a back seat to >anything else you try to do. In XP, this doesn't work very well. The >system still runs VERY slow forcing me to use the screen saver version >instead.[/color] In many cases, the problem in XP wasn't so much how the process handled, but that the pipeline was filled. Depending on your processor architecture, SMP may have made it a lot worse. Even worse is the fact that from XP's point of view, HyperThreading is implemented as two independent CPUs, whereas in reality, if you lock a process to a single virtual CPU, you'll see it's performance vary considerably as you load a process locked to the other virtual CPU. Vista is much better in this respect. -- Insert something clever here. |
|
03-27-2007, 04:45 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? In message <uXf262#bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote:[color=blue] > >I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, >it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... > >However I am using the player in Vista, while I was >using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% > >This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for vista.... > >A significant one! > >Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it... >so this is a good way to see how it can cope. > >I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure first >before >I declare Vista better than XP in anything! > > >Vista might still have a chance...[/color] Not only that, but Vista handles changing RAM scenario much better too. My experience with XP was that it ran okay with 256MB of RAM, but if you booted with 1GB and fired up a virtual machine (or something else which eats physical RAM and cannot be paged out) using 768MB of RAM, XP would perform pretty poorly. Vista handles this scenario very well, degrading much more gracefully. -- Insert something clever here. |
|
03-27-2007, 07:17 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? Vista memory is much better for me than XP ever was. Think I'll keep it. LOL "Shane Nokes" <Morpheus_Phreak@nospam.msn.com> wrote in message news:uY6c01BcHHA.3408@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > Now are you starting to see the points that I was making to you? > > Vista is better when you're multi-tasking than XP by far. > > The memory management is excellent, as are the new features that take > advantage of recent CPU's. > > BTW are you running a CPU that can do Hardware Virtualization for VM's? > > "jim kirk" <11@11.11> wrote in message > news:uXf262#bHHA.596@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green] >> Hmm... >> >> I used vista as the host for loading some virtual machines, >> it seemed to react very well.. better than XP.... >> >> However I am using the player in Vista, while I was >> using the server in XP... so I am not sure yet 100% >> >> This seems strange.. but if it is true.. this scores a point for >> vista.... >> >> A significant one! >> >> Using a virtual machine on an OS really strains it... >> so this is a good way to see how it can cope. >> >> I will post my findings when I test more... I want to be totally sure >> first before >> I declare Vista better than XP in anything! >> >> >> Vista might still have a chance...[/color] >[/color] |
|
03-28-2007, 06:45 AM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? >HyperThreading is[color=blue] >implemented as two independent CPUs, whereas in reality, if >you lock a >process to a single virtual CPU, you'll see it's performance >vary >considerably as you load a process locked to the other virtual >CPU.[/color] Can you explain this in detail? I did not fully understand what you mean here... "DevilsPGD" <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote in message news:70aj03d2mips3d7hl0phblprd4mrq4mbij@4ax.com...[color=blue] > In message <#K3e7VCcHHA.2552@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl> "Justin" > <None@None.com> wrote: >[color=green] >>Just some input: >> >>I run Folding@Home. I use the SMP version which maxes out both cores. >>The >>program runs in low priority so it's supposed to take a back seat to >>anything else you try to do. In XP, this doesn't work very well. The >>system still runs VERY slow forcing me to use the screen saver version >>instead.[/color] > > In many cases, the problem in XP wasn't so much how the process handled, > but that the pipeline was filled. Depending on your processor > architecture, SMP may have made it a lot worse. > > Even worse is the fact that from XP's point of view, HyperThreading is > implemented as two independent CPUs, whereas in reality, if you lock a > process to a single virtual CPU, you'll see it's performance vary > considerably as you load a process locked to the other virtual CPU. > > Vista is much better in this respect. > -- > Insert something clever here.[/color] |
|
03-28-2007, 03:00 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: Vista good memory managment, could it be true? "kirk jim" <11@11.11> wrote in message news:OKM06uLcHHA.3648@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue] > When I say player I mean a free VMWARE player for virtual machines... > see here for more info [url]www.vmware.com[/url] > > there is player (free), server (free) and workstation (not free) > and some other ones that I have not had the chance to try... > > the player can play (run) ready made virtual machines but cannot create > them. > However there IS a work around... > > you go to this site that creates small vmx files so you can later > install your OS on.. [url]http://www.easyvmx.com/[/url][/color] Sorry again for the newbie question: Why would we use easyvmx when the VMWare's P2V is now free? |
|
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| IE7 Memory Managment | ed9213 | Internet Explorer | 18 | 03-11-2008 01:00 PM |
| Is this deal too good to be true? | BitFlipper | Windows XP Tablet PC Newsgroup | 1 | 03-11-2007 04:45 PM |
| Too good to be true? | cheap@notaol.com | Windows XP | 10 | 02-23-2007 11:16 AM |
| Is it too good to be true? | Lost & Found | Windows XP | 3 | 02-10-2007 08:46 PM |
| To good to be true or bad deal??? | rjz | Tablet PC - Sandbox (Chit Chat) | 3 | 03-29-2004 11:21 AM |
| New To Technology Questions? | Do You Need Help with Your Computer or Device? | Do You Need Help with this site? |
