Vista worth it with 1GB DDR?

Burnsy2023 · 9 Jul 2007 at 21:45

Clarkey said:
vista rocks on 256mb tbh Only took about 5 minutes to boot up (to the logon screen) when i tried that one lol.

256 is bare min on XP, sod having Vista on that!

Burnsy

stifler · 9 Jul 2007 at 21:49

i consider this to be a knowlegeble forum, but i'm amazed at how ignorant ppl are towards vista. by that i mean "this dont work/that dont work, its to slow or you need a super computer to run it"

maybe i've been lucky cus everything i've tried has worked first time, but just cus its new dont mean its crap.

gizmoy2k · 9 Jul 2007 at 23:29

^^^
What he said!

allllec · 9 Jul 2007 at 23:31

Duke said:
If you say so.

Yeah. I do

snowdog · 10 Jul 2007 at 00:01

burnsy2023 said:
256 is bare min on XP, sod having Vista on that!

Burnsy

Been running xp pro fine for 2 months now on a lappy with 192mb

, and thats after the ram upgrade, used to have just 128mb for a week or 2, imagine that

.
Nah if you keep xp clean and use proper low res apps (like foobar instead of wmp, etc...) its perfectly useable.

gareth170 · 10 Jul 2007 at 00:05

stifler said:
maybe i've been lucky cus everything i've tried has worked first time, but just cus its new dont mean its crap.

i haven't had any problems with vista too since i bought it on january 27... also millions of other people...

in time the people who are saying it's crap, it's slow, they'll get use to it and they'll see it really isn't crap.. it was the with 98 to xp people was saying xp was crap and slow..

if vista is slow thats the drivers fault, not vista.. but for me i don't get any decrease in speed. it's much faster then xp, even when all my apps and games are installed..

dirtydog · 10 Jul 2007 at 07:51

stickroad said:
Their is no fact about windows Vista being rubbish or being good.

Its down to preferecnce. Thats all it is down to now.

You might not like it becuase of various reasons, someone else might like it becuase of various reasons. Its like anything in the world.

Thank you - one of the most sensible posts in the thread.

If you prefer Vista, more power to you - enjoy it, be happy. If someone else wants to use XP, let them, don't flame them or criticise them. Both are fine operating systems and there are legitimate reasons for choosing either.

dirtydog · 10 Jul 2007 at 07:53

gareth170 said:
i haven't had any problems with vista too since i bought it on january 27... also millions of other people...

in time the people who are saying it's crap, it's slow, they'll get use to it and they'll see it really isn't crap.. it was the with 98 to xp people was saying xp was crap and slow..

if vista is slow thats the drivers fault, not vista.. but for me i don't get any decrease in speed. it's much faster then xp, even when all my apps and games are installed..

Good for you but recognise that not everyone has had the same experience and on some spec of systems, Vista will be slower - not down to drivers but down to CPU or RAM. If XP works for someone and they are happy, there is no need to upgrade because UNLIKE with Windows 98 which was unstable and insecure, XP is perfectly adequate for many people. It cannot be said that Vista is more stable or secure because XP is fine in that area already.

iCraig · 10 Jul 2007 at 10:29

dirtydog said:
Both are fine operating systems and there are legitimate reasons for choosing either.

Yeah but that's a different song to what you were singing earlier.

Magister said:
Vista is not worth it, period.

dirtydog said:

Agreed.

Click to expand...

All myself and others were arguing with you about is Vista is an improvement over XP generally, and the majority whinging about it now will be using it soon, as we've heard it all said before when XP came out.

TheVoice · 10 Jul 2007 at 11:27

snowdog said:
Regardless what you say, Ive tryed non HT for a week, and couldnt stand it, every tiem an app froze i couldnt shut it down cos 100% of the cpu was easten away by it, even mouse was impossible to move, it's much faster, about 30 %, when doing 2 things at once.

You're blatantly exaggerating. I went from an A64 4200+ to an X2 4600+ a number of months back, and in complete honesty, I noticed no particular improvements in system speed or responsiveness once going Dual Core. Doing things like searches became quicker while working with other apps, but that's about it. The PC didn't instantly become massively quicker. If your PC locked up like that when an application froze, it indicates something is wrong somewhere. It's got nothing to do with the CPU.

I don't doubt that Vista uses dual core CPUs more effectively than XP did, but as far as XP is concerned (which is what you've been talking about), it's nothing noticeable. Can't comment on Vista on a single core CPU, but plenty of people have said it's still fine.

dirtydog · 10 Jul 2007 at 11:35

I have a P4 with hyperthreading. I have used it in XP with HT turned on, and off. Either way there is no noticeable difference to me. The operating system has pre-emptive multitasking even with a single core, non-HT processor.