On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:17:59 -0400, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
>memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
>discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
That's good to know, especially since so many Vista PCs being sold
have 1G. Goes to show that real life experience often trumps info.
from articles (or from vendors wishing to sell more RAM?)
I had a gt 128 meg and upgraded to a gt 256 meg and it was a big difference.
Vista runs smoother and apps load faster. There are more benfits but
nuff said.
"S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com> wrote in message
news:d90Xh.33494$254.18220@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
>
> "BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>>
>
> (snip/paste)
>
> 256 Nvidia GT vid card...
>
> (end)
>
> It appears he has a card.
>
> -Stew
>
On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:17:59 -0400, Barry Watzman
<WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
>memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
>discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
>
That's good to know since my laptops only have 1gb (my newest desktop
has 2gb).
Barry, does Vista run faster with Aero Glass turned off compared to on
(on the same laptop)? And what does Aero Glass bring to the table
vs. turning it off?
Good question RnR, I was wondering the same thing, actually just turned off
Aero today to see if other then "transparent glass windows" anything else is
different and to see if I gain anything performance wise.. Anyone else look
into this matter?
"RnR" wrote in message news:400s23lqj00fp3c5jrfc3nnvtp376te26v@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:17:59 -0400, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
>>memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
>>discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
>>
>
> That's good to know since my laptops only have 1gb (my newest desktop
> has 2gb).
>
> Barry, does Vista run faster with Aero Glass turned off compared to on
> (on the same laptop)? And what does Aero Glass bring to the table
> vs. turning it off?
It stands to reason that turning off Aero will improve overall system
performance. Eye candy comes at a price, as do any graphics "enhancements".
The processor has to work harder and so does the graphics subsystem to keep up
with the more demanding math required to get the transparency just right
visually.
One of the underlying rationales for having a high-powered graphics card with
lots of memory for Vista is to improve graphics performance overall. The newer
GPUs from nVidia and ATI have extremely powerful math capabilities to offload
the graphics calculations from the CPU and to use the graphics memory to store
pieces of rendered images.
You can bet that nVidia and ATI both lobbied Microsoft long and hard to
implement the even more complex Aero graphics display subsystem to help them to
sell graphics cards and chips. Or did Microsoft lobby nVidia and ATO extra
hard to crank up the capabilities of their chips? Which came first, chicken or
egg? My bet is that nVidia and ATI were able to estimate what sorts of GPUs
they would have when Vista was released, and that Microsoft willingly created
the more complicated Aero interface as a sales tool to sell systems because it's
earlier whiz-bang belch-fire new file system effort failed... Ben Myers
>Good question RnR, I was wondering the same thing, actually just turned off
>Aero today to see if other then "transparent glass windows" anything else is
>different and to see if I gain anything performance wise.. Anyone else look
>into this matter?
>
>
>"RnR" wrote in message news:400s23lqj00fp3c5jrfc3nnvtp376te26v@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:17:59 -0400, Barry Watzman
>> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
>>>memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
>>>discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
>>>
>>
>> That's good to know since my laptops only have 1gb (my newest desktop
>> has 2gb).
>>
>> Barry, does Vista run faster with Aero Glass turned off compared to on
>> (on the same laptop)? And what does Aero Glass bring to the table
>> vs. turning it off?
Don't get me wrong, more is always better. But 1GB is more than
minimally useable.
Journey wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:17:59 -0400, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
>> memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
>> discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
>
> That's good to know, especially since so many Vista PCs being sold
> have 1G. Goes to show that real life experience often trumps info.
> from articles (or from vendors wishing to sell more RAM?)
I have not tried turning it off, in fact I don't know how to turn it off
when using it on a system that it sees as supporting it.
The benefit is strictly eye candy, but I do like it.
RnR wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:17:59 -0400, Barry Watzman
> <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm using 1GB with shared chipset video (so, really, 892k of system
>> memory) and Aero Glass on a Toshiba laptop and it seems just fine; no
>> discernable difference in speed from XP on the same machine.
>>
>
> That's good to know since my laptops only have 1gb (my newest desktop
> has 2gb).
>
> Barry, does Vista run faster with Aero Glass turned off compared to on
> (on the same laptop)? And what does Aero Glass bring to the table
> vs. turning it off?
Not my experience at all. Did you make any other changes? Different
drivers for example?
Faster processor on the video card?
"BigJim" <bigjim@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xbWdnTJs5OeCAbDbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>I had a gt 128 meg and upgraded to a gt 256 meg and it was a big
>difference.
> Vista runs smoother and apps load faster. There are more benfits but
> nuff said.
> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:d90Xh.33494$254.18220@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
>>
>> "BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>>>
>>
>> (snip/paste)
>>
>> 256 Nvidia GT vid card...
>>
>> (end)
>>
>> It appears he has a card.
>>
>> -Stew
>>
>
>
'If' he went from a gt 128meg with shared ram and went to a gt 256 that had
256meg onboard the video card, then I would expect a big difference if the
system itself only has 1gig or less of ram.
"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:462f4934$0$11286$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Not my experience at all. Did you make any other changes? Different
> drivers for example?
>
> Faster processor on the video card?
>
>
> "BigJim" <bigjim@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:xbWdnTJs5OeCAbDbnZ2dnUVZ_tyinZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>I had a gt 128 meg and upgraded to a gt 256 meg and it was a big
>>difference.
>> Vista runs smoother and apps load faster. There are more benfits but
>> nuff said.
>> "S.Lewis" <stew1960@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:d90Xh.33494$254.18220@bignews7.bellsouth.net. ..
>>>
>>> "BigJim" <woody10277@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:n8OdnTa2wZiMyLHbnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>>>2 gigs of ram helps but a fast video card will help even more.
>>>>
>>>
>>> (snip/paste)
>>>
>>> 256 Nvidia GT vid card...
>>>
>>> (end)
>>>
>>> It appears he has a card.
>>>
>>> -Stew
>>>
>>
>>
>
Thanks all, just went for the easy fix and ordered another gig of ram from
crucial.. Let you all know if there's a difference (so will my wife, that
commercial with the Mac/vista guys came on tonight and I commented how we
haven't had one error message with Vista where she replied "true but it is
slower then our old XP" , never thought she noticed such things )
"Journey" <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote in message
news:96kp23t9i84f7st336gqs8ndh095uqikig@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 10:06:55 -0400, "Paul" <pmt1209@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Well I've been running Vista for weeks now with no problems "except" it is
>>a
>>bit slower then XP Pro, noticeably slower(boot up/shut down is much
>>slower)..
>
> I'm sure you have thought of this but after an OS upgrade (and
> regularly) do a disk defrag.
Re: Vista & Ram?? 
)
Linear Mode
