|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |