scott wrote:
>> Then again, as soon as you boot Vista, it seems to spend an inordinate 
>> amount of time thrashing the HD to pieces.
> 
> I wouldn't know, my box is under the desk and I can't hear the drive 
> (and besides I almost never reboot it).  My suspicion is that XP64 was 
> not optimised to make proper use of amounts of RAM like 8GB (after all, 
> when XP was released 256 MB was common).

I've never seen a machine with 8GB of RAM. Not even our servers have 
that much.

I've also never seen the 64-bit edition of XP.

I have, however, seen Windows XP 32-bit running with 3GB of RAM, and 
also Windows Vista running with 3GB of RAM. (Different CPU in each case 
though.) XP is definitely faster - although Vista doesn't seem as slow 
as some people were claiming. Vista is also prettier, and has a number 
of small improvements that are nice. I mean, I wouldn't pay money for 
it, but it's nice to have.

I've never seen Windows 7 except on a VM.

I don't know what the heck "not optimised to make proper use of amounts 
of RAM like that" is supposed to mean, but if one system runs vastly 
faster than the other, I'd argue that the faster system is _not_ the one 
which is "not optimised". :-P

As for boot time... I have Vista on my laptop. It's on my lap. And the 
problem isn't the house the HD makes (it's almost inaudible, even at 
this distance), it's the fact that the system is utterly unresponsive 
until it finishes doing whatever it's doing.

Post a reply to this message