Hello Jernej, JS> Some time ago (very soon after Vista RTM was released to MSDN subscribers), JS> a few people I know compared Vista with XP on a 1GHz Via C3 system. With all JS> effects disabled, Vista still needed 30% CPU when *idle*, compared to XP, JS> which needed 2-5%..
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Vista uses little resources. I just say MS has quality marketing that makes people believe otherwise. >> About the 5%... Vista isn't really launched for the main public right now. >> Like always MS will start heavy advertising and they start to sell. It >> worked that way with all Windows versions. JS> It might sell with new systems (because XP won't be available anymore to JS> OEMs), but I doubt many existing customers will switch from XP to Vista. I don't know the ratio OEM to normal licences. Almost all OEMs + some normal licences + warez = a lot I think. You JS>>> Intel? Intel was hiding that it's CPUs supported long mode for a long long JS>>> time. >> The 64-bit CPUs where way to expensive for home use. Until now.... >> ATM Intels 64-bit CPUs are about the same price as their 32-bit ones. >> So I see no reason to buy 32-bit. My guess is that the 32-bit CPUs get fased >> out soon. JS> You're confusing IA64 and x64 CPUs. IA64 was Intel and HP's joint CPU JS> design, incompatible with existing x86 CPUs, primarily meant for server JS> market (where it never really took off). x84 (or, to be precise, AMD64) is JS> AMD's 64bit upgrade to the existing x86 (IA32) CPU architecture. Intel at JS> first didn't want to support it at all, since it didn't see any reason for JS> desktop computing to move to 64 bits, while it wanted it's own IA64 JS> technology for the server market. However, it turned out that AMD's vision JS> was right, and Intel very quietly licensed their technology and added it to JS> the Pentium4 CPUs - but kept it disabled for a long time (and when they JS> finally enabled the long mode on P4's, it was still hard to know in advance JS> if you'll get a 64bit capable CPU, unless you looked really hard on Intel's JS> website for CPU model numbers). Itanium was not a desktop chip (besides being incompatible) The 64-bit functionality on other CPUs was either not there , switched of or kept silent. AMD did beat Intel to it but XP got all kind of delays in the 64-bit release. I remember the gossip that Intel made/asked MS to delay XP 64-bit to catch up. So I think we agree here. 64-bit CPUs didn't exist or where a well kept secret for the consumer market. (and not much choice in motherboard either besides brands like SuperMicro) >> For now I stick with Win XP Pro with classical view because I hate that >> gamecomputer interface. JS> You can easily disable useless eye-candy in Vista, too - it's just that JS> there's still so much happening in background, that your CPU is never really JS> idle. Disabling the eye-candy is the 1st thing I do for sure. But first I need to convince myself the benefits of Vista. Eye-candy, resource hog and DRM crap aren't exactly benefits. (possibly) wider know 64-bit versions are good but not without 64-bit programs. Stability.... XP is very stable here. Security... well MS you know. Already a (backward compatible) exploit.... Personally every step I make hard and software wise will be toward 64-bit. But I have no hurry because although I see the 64-bit platform have potential it still has to mature (software wise) A happy New Year to all. -- Best regards, Tony How can sweet and sour sauce be sweet and sour at the same time? ________________________________________________ Current version is 3.95.03 | 'Using TBUDL' information: http://www.silverstones.com/thebat/TBUDLInfo.html
