[demirkol]

topic

[Guse]

It's NEW.

Again, folder browsing has been made easier through a pretty intuitive interface. Also, it's supposedly more secure... though that's up for debate.

[pyro4444]

the one thing that i would love to have out but for some reson they are to stupid to realise its use less. is all the programs runing in the back ground. i mean really do you need tons of programs and stuff runing in the background just so they load faster, no. it was a stupid idea once they 1st made windows and its a stupid idea now. all it does really is slows stuff down and makes me mad once i have to control alt delete every, but at least the window stays open in stead of like in windows 2000 and down where you had to repoen it evertime you end a task.

[pip22]

Yes, too many processes running, but at least MS gave us the means to choose which ones to shut down and an explanation of what they are needed for. Surely that's better than having them all disabled by default and then having to guess which ones need to be running?

[pyro4444]

pip22, on Sep 10 2005, 01:39 AM, said:

Yes, too many processes running, but at least MS gave us the means to choose which ones to shut down and an explanation of what they are needed for. Surely that's better than having them all disabled by default and then having to guess which ones need to be running?

yes but sometimes even the ones you want will just start back up again. even if you disable it on startup. they should have something that says what is 100% neeed

[warriorscot]

Yeah but in a modern computer the background programs are nothing, older computers cant handle it but anything decent from the last 3 years can run a ton of background progs without a complaint.
Along that theme some apps need to be there at startup and they are handy to have at hand in the tray ready for use at a click, there are some i shut off but if its not useful there is always a setting to turn it off.

[Michael]

The only one that startup again are the one that have a seting in them that says load with windows, turn this off and it stays off. I am sure that they will let you trun a lot of stuff off if you what too, I can get XP to work with a firewall and Antivirus installed and only have 107MB in ram at startup, I am sure that in Vesta you will be able to do the same.

[skate_punk_21]

Maybe in the true vista release but not in beta, i have 512 ram, wasnt using a firewall or a/v at the time of install, and there was SOOOOOO much lag!! and this is without periferal software installed too, straight from a reformat. It didnt last long on my computer.

[Guse]

skate_punk_21, on Sep 21 2005, 03:24 PM, said:

Maybe in the true vista release but not in beta, i have 512 ram, wasnt using a firewall or a/v at the time of install, and there was SOOOOOO much lag!! and this is without periferal software installed too, straight from a reformat. It didnt last long on my computer.

Ditto

[Thebinaryman]

yeah, my dads hp he got had so much [bleep] running all the time, and it was a celeron 2.6GHz only 256mb ram. my pentium II 350MHz 320MB RAM i had at the time started up faster, and when it was started up, i had a antivirus, windows messenger, and a couple other tiny programs i placed at startup. and i had just less than 75MB ram used after startup. i really am good at streamlining a computer. that i will say for myself.

if i do get vista, which i doubt after reading about "trusted computing" (read topic: http://www.geekstogo...PA_-t61170.html ) , vista better allow you to streamline it because who can afford 1 gb of video ram, and 4 GB system ram.