Vista performance

[claidheamhmor]

Give Vista 4GB of RAM and it's a lot quicker. Not as quick as XP, but quicker. There is one interesting improvement to Vista though: disk caching. The other night, I was cleaning up my hard drives; I was copying 60GB from one drive to another, while at the same time I was running 4 separate delete processes, each of several gigabytes, on the drivers. (I was using the fantastic file management app, Total Commander, to do this, BTW). As you can imagine, the drives were churning away, running at 100% utilisation. Then I noticed that Total Commander's process was using almost a gigabyte of RAM...and that despite all the disk activity, the desktop and running apps seemed perfectly responsive. I loaded GuildWars, and that was completely playable; it didn't seem like it was being impacted by all the activity.

Certainly seems like Microsoft radically improved disk-handling techniques (if you have enough RAM, at least).

Comments

[openmindedmale.livejournal.com]

Was Vista SP1 installed? I know that the way caching is done was one of the changes made.

Me, I'll wait until Windows 7 before upgrading I think. Windows XP with the set of utilities I add to it works very well for me.

[claidheamhmor]

Yep, SP1 installed.

As for upgrading- I can't really think of any compelling reasons to want to upgrade to Vista anyway.

[openmindedmale.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Though sometime I hope to get my hands on Windows Server 2008 and see if some of the rumors I've heard are true. (about, if trimmed properly, it's a MUCH better OS than Vista, and a decent successor to XP)