I discovered the hard way (during a storm we had here a while ago), that my current Uninterruptible Power Supply is not compatible with Vista. Despite everything looking ok (Vista reported the battery was connected, and could identify its charge level), and despite the fact that I could manually switch the computer over to the battery via the control console in Vista, the automatic functions did not work (and the options were greyed out), so that when the crunch came and the lights went out, so did my computer.
It’s a Taiwanese product, and I cannot find any updated software for Vista online, so I’m looking to move this UPS over to an XP machine and purchase a new UPS for my Vista rig. Can anyone recommend one which actually works with Vista?
After finding out the hard way also, how many programs, etc. don’t seem to work or work well with Vista, I did format c: and reinstalled XP (although vista apparently didn’t let me do a straight-up “Format C:”).
I think I will just wait for SP2. Also, I dislike it very much if it actually requires 4-8 gb ram to actually run smoothly.
Jack Burton get yer facts straight. 32 bit vista can only use about 3 gb of ram (only 4 gb of total ram addresses), so it doesn’t “need” more. It can use more in 64bit though. Vista uses your ram so is show as being used while XP left it idle. I would rather have my rams working thanks. And SP1 (coming soon) will help it with speed and about 200 other things. The same way SP1 and then SP2 helped XP.
Fortigurn: when you get it sorted let me know. I also have a Taiwan USP that don’t work with the vista (possibly the same one?) so I want to know how you fixed it.
Thanks guys. Vista actually uses RAM very well (I have Vista Ultimate, and it runs like a dream). People have this strange idea that if their system shows they’re only typically using 25-50% of their RAM, that’s a good thing. It’s not, it’s a bad thing. That means 50-75% of that RAM you paid for is going completely to waste.
Vista is great at using your RAM for various tasks when it needs to, and freeing it up for other tasks as soon as it’s done with it. This is much better than '98 (notorious for memory leak), and better than XP (which did not scale with your RAM). I currently have 6GB of RAM, and Vista typically uses 50-75% of it. That’s a good thing.
Chicken, I’ll let you know when I’ve found something which works. Of course it could be that my battery is borked and it’s being misreported. I’ll have to do some proper tests on this UPS before I find another one.
[quote=“Fortigurn”]Thanks guys. Vista actually uses RAM very well (I have Vista Ultimate, and it runs like a dream). People have this strange idea that if their system shows they’re only typically using 25-50% of their RAM, that’s a good thing. It’s not, it’s a bad thing. That means 50-75% of that RAM you paid for is going completely to waste.
[/quote]
Yes and no.
If you’re never hitting the 75% or so, then it’s a waste of money. If you’re using a RAM-hungry ap from time-to-time, the extra RAM is very handy. For me, that’s with Photoshop and Lightroom. Right now, with only Firefox being used, and Lightroom open but idle, I’m using under 10% of RAM. When I start to edit stuff in Lightroom, and then open Photoshop for some finetuning, and have Firezilla running to FTP stuff at the same time, I can easily start maxing out the RAM and hitting the scratch disk.
Which is why I have 4GB RAM (soon to be upgraded to 6 or 8GB) and a dedicated scratch disk on an XP machine. When I need the RAM, I really need it. The timesavings justify it.
Yes, that’s my point. If you’re never using the other 75%, then it’s going to waste. Obviously if your computer uses it regularly then it’s not going to waste. But unless you have a 64 bit operating system, then anything over 3.5GB is going to waste anyway.
[quote=“Chicken”]Jack Burton get yer facts straight. 32 bit vista can only use about 3 gb of ram (only 4 gb of total ram addresses), so it doesn’t “need” more. It can use more in 64bit though. Vista uses your ram so is show as being used while XP left it idle. I would rather have my rams working thanks. And SP1 (coming soon) will help it with speed and about 200 other things. The same way SP1 and then SP2 helped XP.
Fortigurn: when you get it sorted let me know. I also have a Taiwan USP that don’t work with the vista (possibly the same one?) so I want to know how you fixed it.[/quote]
OK, I don’t presume to know the technical stuff, just from experience. my laptop with its 2GB ram runs very, very slow in Vista cf to XP (dualcore 5600). my desktop with 4 gb ram has no problem. that indicates to me, ram is the obstacle.
[quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“Chicken”]Jack Burton get yer facts straight. 32 bit vista can only use about 3 gb of ram (only 4 gb of total ram addresses), so it doesn’t “need” more. It can use more in 64bit though. Vista uses your ram so is show as being used while XP left it idle. I would rather have my rams working thanks. And SP1 (coming soon) will help it with speed and about 200 other things. The same way SP1 and then SP2 helped XP.
Fortigurn: when you get it sorted let me know. I also have a Taiwan USP that don’t work with the vista (possibly the same one?) so I want to know how you fixed it.[/quote]
OK, I don’t presume to know the technical stuff, just from experience. my laptop with its 2GB ram runs very, very slow in Vista cf to XP (dualcore 5600). my desktop with 4 gb ram has no problem. that indicates to me, ram is the obstacle.[/quote]
A few questions:
Are the two machines running identical instances of Vista, same version (Home, Business, Ultimate, whatever), same settings and everything?
Are the two machines running exactly the same programs?
Do the two machines have exactly the same processor?
Does your laptop use some of the onboard RAM as video RAM?
Does your desktop have a video/graphics?
Is the RAM in both machines clocked at the same speed?
Depending on which version of Vista you’re using, and how you have it set up, 2GB of RAM may not be enough in the laptop, especially if your laptop is using some of that RAM as video memory. But this doesn’t prove that Vista is necessarily bad at managing memory, only that you might not have enough.
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote=“Jack Burton”][quote=“Chicken”]Jack Burton get yer facts straight. 32 bit vista can only use about 3 gb of ram (only 4 gb of total ram addresses), so it doesn’t “need” more. It can use more in 64bit though. Vista uses your ram so is show as being used while XP left it idle. I would rather have my rams working thanks. And SP1 (coming soon) will help it with speed and about 200 other things. The same way SP1 and then SP2 helped XP.
Fortigurn: when you get it sorted let me know. I also have a Taiwan USP that don’t work with the vista (possibly the same one?) so I want to know how you fixed it.[/quote]
OK, I don’t presume to know the technical stuff, just from experience. my laptop with its 2GB ram runs very, very slow in Vista cf to XP (dualcore 5600). my desktop with 4 gb ram has no problem. that indicates to me, ram is the obstacle.[/quote]
A few questions:
Are the two machines running identical instances of Vista, same version (Home, Business, Ultimate, whatever), same settings and everything?
Business, should be the same settings.
Are the two machines running exactly the same programs?
Yup
Do the two machines have exactly the same processor?
The laptop is a Dualcore t5600, the desktop is an older AMD (I think).
Does your laptop use some of the onboard RAM as video RAM?
no
Does your desktop have a video/graphics?
yes, graphics card, the programs I use aren’t graphics-intensive.
Is the RAM in both machines clocked at the same speed?
no.
Depending on which version of Vista you’re using, and how you have it set up, 2GB of RAM may not be enough in the laptop, especially if your laptop is using some of that RAM as video memory. But this doesn’t prove that Vista is necessarily bad at managing memory, only that you might not have enough.[/quote]
Yes, I’m reiterating that I don’t have enough ram (2GB) (didn’t mention memory management) in my laptop. A friend bought a 2007 Sony Vaio and had similar issues with unresponsiveness/slowdowns in programs like Firefox, etc. when using Vista Business.
I guess I now have to clarify this is not my expert opinion, just a IME opinion.
