Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
at work I was running a few of the workstations with Vista. After a month I promptly removed that crap and re installed xp. As a result of my work experience with Vista I will be going MAC for my personal laptop in the coming months.
Vista is running great on my machine. If your machine runs "good" on XP its not gonna run Vista. You have to look at 4 gig of RAM for it, 2 gig wont cut it.
Vista is running great on my machine. If your machine runs "good" on XP its not gonna run Vista. You have to look at 4 gig of RAM for it, 2 gig wont cut it.
I have 4 gig of ram but switched back to XP (my computer came with Vista). Although I liked the appearance of Vista and speed was good, there were two things that really bugged me. One was the UAC...always asking permission (MAC vs PC commercial comes to mind). Yes, you can turn it off, but then you get the annoying feature that says your computer is not fully protected every time you boot up. The other annoyance was windows explorer. It would regularly run into problems and shut itself down. Even the control panel would shut down as it is tied into explorer. You get the feeling that Vista is paranoid about you making the wrong decision and getting your computer infected or taken over by a hacker.
Vista runs absolutly perfect on my machine, I have had more problems with XP than I have had with Vista. you cant drop a V-8 into a Model T and expect it not to fall apart when you slam in the gas. Upgrade the badboy to run it.
the OS was designed for next gen systems, just like XP was origonaly designed for next gen systems, and had alot of complaints when it was first released as well.
BTW, DX10 running with Crysis on full graphics is absolutly beautifull.
Vista is running great on my machine. If your machine runs "good" on XP its not gonna run Vista. You have to look at 4 gig of RAM for it, 2 gig wont cut it.
Pure BS.
I've seen Vista run smoothly on 512MB of RAM and I've been running it since March 2007 on my subpar laptop with a dual-core 1.7GHz processor and 1GB of RAM. It's just as fast, if not faster than XP.
I spend most of my time trying to keep viruses, trojans, and spyware off my computer, why on earth would I want to install a virus as an operating system?
Here is an example, warning, its hilarious! (Geek humor)
I've purchased two laptops in the last 3 months and both have Vista on them (one with Basic and one with Premium). I have no real complaints about Vista (wish I could say the same for MS Office 2007...but that's a whole different story). I am thinking about nixing Vista on the machine that has Vista Basic and putting Kubuntu Linux on it because it nixes some of the features I actually enjoy on Vista (like the file thumbnail previews).
I am not a gamer outside of what came pre-packaged with the machine...so I can't really comment about that.
Last edited by MissShona; 02-02-2008 at 11:17 AM..
Reason: forgot to specify Linux flavor
When it comes to computers, I have to take a pragmatic approach to them.
Truth is, 95% of people on this planet do not need 2 gig worth a ram, 500 gig hard drives, and quad core processors, and 1 gig video cards. Those that do are usually gamers and people intensely involved in multi-media applications.
The vast majority of computer use is for photos, email, word processing, internet surfing, and a growing trend towards the melding of television, streaming video/audio. Most of these things could be better handled with more efficient code writing.
I have noticed since back when I first installed a KDE desktop with Mandrake back when, then that program file sizes used in Linux were a fraction of the size as comparable Windows programs. To this day this still seems to hold true. I will use a chess program I recently installed in Ubuntu that was apx 6 meg in size and it is a 3-D chess program that is pretty decent. I purchased Kasparov chess for windows a while back an it requires nearly 90 meg. While it does have more features and add ons, it just isn't 15 times "better".
From what I understand, Windows Vista has attempted to add a great number of security features and authentication to keep the user safe from all the online boogymen, and in doing so created a bloated monster that requires more computing power than the average supercomputer of 1990 just to run the operating system, let alone any apps.
I think people have realized that "prettier" doesn't equate to better and hence why so many folks have opted to upgrade to XP from Vista. I'm sure that given some time to work the plethora of bugs out of Vista that it too will become a stable, feature rich OS that will eventually be the next standard, but until the Vista service pack 12 shows up, I'll stick with a more efficient OS, doing more with less.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
