Comments on: Microsoft aims Windows 7 for 2009 holiday season
The software maker provides the clearest public confirmation yet of when its ship target is for the successor to Windows Vista.
Most Popular
Google's mobile hopes go beyond Nexus One
The world may have thrilled to the potential for a Google Phone, but what Google actually unveiled is its plan for a new smartphone world order.
• Photos: Unboxing Nexus One
Using your smartphone safely
faq Worms, Trojans, and SMS attacks are risks for mobile phones, but the biggest practical threat to users is losing the device.
About Beyond Binary
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft.
Beyond Binary is a look at how technology is changing our lives and the people behind all that life-changing stuff, with an extra emphasis on that which emanates from Redmond, Wash.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Beyond Binary topics
Binary Bits
Follow Ina on Twitter (Twitter name: InaFried)
Windows 7 = Windows 98
The timing is (nearly) right; vista was released Jan of 07. Windows 7 release is holiday 09; nearly 3 years.
Yes, 98 was the patch that should have been free. However, we all eventually used it anyway. This will probably be the case with Windows 7 as well.
on my main machine with 4 gig of ram, disabling swap files completely has a noticeable difference in speed & snappiness when I'm working
osx and linux and most other OS's do it right, they dont swap memory to disk and hard page fault unless they are truely out of memory
vista is really bad, prefetch loading up all your memory, and then swapping apps your using to the swap file
disabling super prefetch also gains quite a bit of performance, it's not something you measure in how long it takes to load a program, it's something measured in how an app feels, moving windows, clicking buttons, etc etc
Apps are swapped out in the background using low priority IO so that should you need to use all of your memory with 1 app, the memory can quickly be released and so it avoids the disk 'thrashing' that XP constantly suffers from when using a variety of apps.
As for prefetch, prefetch uses FREE memory to load up parts of programs so they launch quicker and that memory is quickly given up when required.
I don't see the problem with any of that to be honest, in fact, it makes sense to use the memory you have paid for to it's full potential. I think the performance 'gains' you speak of when disabling them are fantasy.
- by hunkyboi69 November 9, 2008 11:59 PM PST
- I love the way all the Vista Haterzzzzz on here have to bash Vista at every opportunity. Probably because they tried to run it on some piece of junk 5 year old PC and it doesn't run very well. Or they complain about 10 year old applications not working.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 2 of 2 pages (43 Comments)I have news for you....Vista is infinitely stable and very reliable on good hardware. It does not require reboots, it never crashes, my reliablility meter is on 9.8 and all my apps work on it.
If there was REALLY so many problems with it, as you muppets claim, then why on earth have I never ever seen any of them? Could it be because my system is modern and decent spec? Could it be because I have more than the minumum requirement of RAM? (Try running XP on it's minimum lol, and see what happens.) Could it be that I have a decent graphics card?
Vista is excellent, Windows 7 will be better....deal with it. And before fanboy accusations appear, just don't bother because unlike most of you commenters, i've actually used all the OS's that I comment on.