Why do I feel like the only one left on XP?
- Thread starter Blackhawk47
- Start date
Read up on Superfetch. Unused ram is effectively wasted ram; Vista caches your frequently used apps in order to load them faster for you. However, should you need the memory (like you're running a game), it releases it for you. The end result is a faster and more responsive O/S.
worst post ever
ultimate is the 'terrible' one if any, really over bloated
business x64 is the best for it professionals (or power users that want remote desktop)
home premium x64 is the best for a home theatre pc
home basic x64 is best for most users, but is more limited to future cpu/ram limitations (i think)
xp x64 is the same as server 2003 64 (still on sp2)
the sp2 for that was released not so long ago (a few years after the 32bit sp2), so that's normal
I'm still on XP with my laptop. At the time I wasn't certain about Vista and as I had a choice of OSes, I went for XP as I knew what to expect.
Vista is on the desktop but I don't use the desktop much so don't have much experience with Vista.
I'll no doubt switch to Vista when I get a new laptop but that won't be for a while.
Vista is on the desktop but I don't use the desktop much so don't have much experience with Vista.
I'll no doubt switch to Vista when I get a new laptop but that won't be for a while.
That not the Vista I know...
That's the Vista I know, having run it on 4 different machines of different specs
That's the Vista I know, having run it on 4 different machines of different specs
Have you compared it with Server 2008? Thats much better speed wise. More like XP in my opinion. I've used most Vista versions on many machines, none are as responsive as other OS'es on the same machine. Its not a hardware spec problem. My work machines are dual Xeons with 4GB of ram. Even after tweaking Vista, it still goes off and thinks about certain things. Don't get me started on folder types and permissions.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
But it's designed for a totally different purpose. 2003 is faster then XP32, but that's like comparing apples to oranges.
Go on, enjoy your gaming experience on 2008 Core.
Burnsy
Associate
- Joined
- 9 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,408
lol and why is that? What features is it in Ultimate that you really need that badly to consider the rest terrible?
TBH I don't do any gaming on work machines so its a none issue for me. At home I use a laptop with a 7900gs. So I go with XP to squeeze a few more fps and also because some of my games work better on XP than Vista. But this isn't really about gaming because most people to not use their PC's to play games on.
In general use Server 2008 is faster. Even when you add all the GUI and multimedia bits from Vista. You also don't get all the issues with pausing etc that you do with Vista.
I've got vista on my laptop and xp on my desktop. I like vista but i dont feel the need over xp on the desktop untill some DX10 only game comes out i want.
Personaly i'll probably wait for 7 to see if i'll ditch xp unless some uber service pack comes out.
Personaly i'll probably wait for 7 to see if i'll ditch xp unless some uber service pack comes out.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I'll make a prediction now: the reception for Windows 7 will not be good. My reasoning is that MS seem to have hinted that the whole UI will be changed. Users do not like change and therefore will not want to move.
So don't hope too much
Burnsy