Vista's biggest rival

I have a friend with Vista...he said once you have downloaded hundreds of mb worth of patches it runs a lot faster, but I just don't see the point...you can DL so many themes and skins for XP that make it look better than Vista anyhow, why do you need the upgrade? My favorite is Brico Packs Crystal Clear. Plus I'm seriously considering running Ubuntu as a secondary OS, having seen how fast and secure it is, and some of the desktops you can get with it.
 
mercurial said:
:eek: double damn
Click to expand...

I'm sure everyones said it a few times, Vista uses a lot of RAM on purpose, saying it uses a gig idling is just not understanding everything. The actual OS uses more than XP, and I even went back, but it's not using 1 GB the same way XP is using 300MB.

Anyway, I'm using SP3 for my XP atm, I don't really see that 10%, although shutdown is faster. :D

The 1 entire test they ran was an Office benchmark, in most other tests there isn't the same performance increase. I'd be much more excited for SP1 on Vista than SP3 on XP.
 
It has become fashionable to diss Vista. The truth is that it is already (with current updates) a whole lot better than it was a few months ago. It looks and feels amazing, it offers a couple of new ways to use your computer if you have always been a Windows user (Apple OS users won't see much new). All in all it is an wonderful improvement on what was becoming stale. :)
 
It has become fashionable to diss Vista. The truth is that it is already (with current updates) a whole lot better than it was a few months ago.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is fashionable, but the unimproved version scared me enough to make me very cynical about improvements.

My sis has a laptop with 512mb and Vista preinstalled.:sick: Makes me want throw the laptop out of the window. wtf is wrong with the people who decided to release a Vista+512 combo?

DJStealth said:
Is it going to be another 200Mb download. That could take a few weeks on a telkom ADSL account
Click to expand...
Lets hope the clowns in charge of the SAIX ftp server remember to mirror it locally.
 
ok so im thinkin of getting a new laptop..

if i wanted to run vista and play the latest games etc on it, i would need min 2 gb of ram and a good gfx card e.g 8600M GT or somethin like that

Am i right?

And on a side note, what are the latest laptops that fit this description that are worth a look?

i was thinking and Apple Mac Pro - but theyre a bit on the pricey side.

I then thought Dell Vostro or Inspiron but theyre too ugly..

Im starting to think one of the HP DV models..Whadda u guys reckon?
 
Rocket-Boy said:
Vista is slow, I just changed my laptop back to XP after getting tired of the painful way you have to do anything in vista.
If you are happy with an OS using 600odd MB's of your system RAM at idle then I suppose its not so bad.
Click to expand...
Did the same. Bought a Laptop recently which came with Vista Business pre installed. Kept it for a week before formatting and installing XP.
Vista is a notebook killer. Admittingly I have not tried it with 2Gb of Ram yet.
 
BTTB said:
Vista is a notebook killer. Admittingly I have not tried it with 2Gb of Ram yet.
Click to expand...

I just looked through a Macro (or something) catalog and I agree with this. All the retailers are selling laptops with 1Gb RAM (or even 512MB :eek:) and Vista.

I wouldn't judge the whole OS from using it on a laptop with 512MB or 1GB of RAM though. But I suppose it shouldn't really need so much RAM...
 
I have a HP Pavillion notebook with 2GB ram. Being using Vista Business on it for a year now. I am very happy with it.

People forget that when XP came out, it was dog slow on the existing hardware. I remember people dissing it when it came out as well. Now it is considered the best.

And in a couple of years people will say that it was 'much better' once SP2 came out - but what really happened was that everyone had upgraded their hardware.
 
Ekhaatvensters said:
I'm sure everyones said it a few times, Vista uses a lot of RAM on purpose, saying it uses a gig idling is just not understanding everything. The actual OS uses more than XP, and I even went back, but it's not using 1 GB the same way XP is using 300MB.

Anyway, I'm using SP3 for my XP atm, I don't really see that 10%, although shutdown is faster. :D

The 1 entire test they ran was an Office benchmark, in most other tests there isn't the same performance increase. I'd be much more excited for SP1 on Vista than SP3 on XP.
Click to expand...

AFAIK, SP3 is only being released next year january or february. whatever you downloaded is the unofficial version. i'll rather wait for the original.
 
If you are a gamer of any sort and your OS uses up 600 - 800mb if ram just to run your OS, then you know it is horrible.
 
Let me start off by saying I am a Linux user 99% of the time.

On the Vista idle memory issue, as has been stated before it is not as bad as it seems on face value. The system looks at what resources available and maximises use of those resources. iirc a lot has to do with how physical and swap memory are used.

I think I also read somewhere that the linux kernels use a similar approach to memory management.
 
I like Vista, looks good & starts up a lot quicker than XP but other than starting up it does everything else a lot slower than XP does, even on fairly decent hardware (athlonX2,2gb,raid0). I currently have Both XP Pro & Vista Ultimate on dual boot, & use XP 99% of the time...
 
The only thing keeping me from switching to vista is the compatibility issues :( if they fix that, i will go over for sure
 
1nsane! said:
The only thing keeping me from switching to vista is the compatibility issues :( if they fix that, i will go over for sure
Click to expand...

there's a lot of other issues besides the compatibility. i won't be switching anytime soon. i'm rather waiting for Windows 7.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X