XP users love Vista - Page 3

veedubfreak · 07-26-2008, 06:24 PM

I wouldnt suggest it. Less than 512 of ram is even kind of hard on xp.

vernong1992 · 07-26-2008, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mossy1881

OK, here are my computers specs compaq preario 7360 with a 500 megahertz amd k6-2 processor with 312 MB of RAM. Could I at least load Vista on to this computer and move around the OS just to see it? I expect it to be some what slow.

What do you guys think?

cheers

We did it on my sister's old PC, with 384mb RAM, it was kind of laggy if you loaded it too much, but I still wouldn't recommend it unless you have more than 512mb...

Apokalipse · 07-26-2008, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mossy1881

OK, here are my computers specs compaq preario 7360 with a 500 megahertz amd k6-2 processor with 312 MB of RAM. Could I at least load Vista on to this computer and move around the OS just to see it? I expect it to be some what slow.

What do you guys think?

cheers

I'd use Windows 2000 on that system.

carnageX · 07-26-2008, 09:02 PM

Or if you feel like experimenting, make it a Linux-box.

mossy1881 · 07-26-2008, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apokalipse

I'd use Windows 2000 on that system.

that is what is on there currently. Remember what I am saying guys, my objective is to just load vista to look at it, browse around the OS. That is all, still feel the same way?

cheers

NosBoost300 · 07-26-2008, 09:10 PM

i think xp is fine for that system..

xp was fine on my pentium 3 w 320mb of ram (or something like that i don't remember the amount)

Mak213 · 07-26-2008, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mossy1881

OK, here are my computers specs compaq preario 7360 with a 500 megahertz amd k6-2 processor with 312 MB of RAM. Could I at least load Vista on to this computer and move around the OS just to see it? I expect it to be some what slow.

What do you guys think?

cheers

Mossy,

As i said if you could load it you could run it. But you did not bother to check the system requirements for Vista.

Get Windows Vista: System requirements

Quote:

Home Basic
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor

512 MB of system memory

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory

DVD-ROM drive

Audio Output

Internet access (fees may apply)

You could not even load Home Basic. 512MB RAM minimum. As i stated check for compatibility first.

Cheers,
Mak

Jayce · 07-26-2008, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mak213

Mossy,

You can run Vista on just about any machine if it meets the required specifications. Many people think that Vista will run as fast as XP. It wont. If you go in with a predetermined mindset you will be disappointed. Without a doubt.

I went in thinking of Vista as something new. Not something improved. I did not think that it was going to be a super fast version of XP with a new GUI. I knew that it wasnt.

But i would say using a Dual Core CPU and at elast 2GB of RAM you should be able to run Vista flawlessly.

Sorry if it seems like i have a tude today. Rough day. I will stop posting for a while and take a break as it seems my foul mood is affecting everyone around me. Cant have that.....

~Mak

Mak, I've seen you posting this type of stuff before, and I understand what you are saying.

But, let's talk a bit here.

I'm a computer technician. Not meaning to step on any toes, but I'm trying to establish that I'm not a complete moron with setting up computers. I do regular scans and don't install excessive garbage such as google toolbars and unnecessary bloatware.

Yet, my laptop, a Toshiba Satellite with 2gb RAM, 160gb HDD, and a dual core AMD Turion processor SUCKED with Vista. It absolutely sucked compared to XP.

I get what you're saying, man, but with XP, it seems more direct in terms of how it runs on certain systems. Vista seems to be kind of random. I've seen it run amazingly fast on some systems I didn't expect. On others, it was bloated and bogged down for some reason. And all of these instances were fresh installs.

If you want proof, I'll overnight my laptop to you. I have no idea what else to say, but these are my findings on Vista. Solid OS, I'll agree with you there, but at the end of the day, I just need the **** thing to work. I don't have time to mess around. So that's why my choices in OS differ.

Mak213 · 07-26-2008, 11:28 PM

Jayce,

That is still odd to me. I have a Dell Insprion 1501 with a AMD TL56 and 1GB of RAM. It runs Vista Home Basic with no issues at all.

As i have said people think that it should run Faster than XP. People need to realize this is not XP nor is it a upgrade of XP. It is a whole new OS. Updated kernel, updated network stack. Updated just about everything.

As i have said mumerous times before Vista does work. It is the people who compare it to something that it is not. Comparing Vista to XP is like comparing XP to Linux. It just isnt right. They are not the same at all.

I do not get how people say it doesnt work. I found very few apps that dont work. I do not see slowdown. I do not get this stuff that people say even on my laptop that runs Vista Basic with 1GB of RAM.

EricB and myself haev gone thru this plenty of times. I know it is humannature to compare these things. But it is the users that are wrong for doing so. Vista is not just XP with a new GUI. That is the biggest misconception that i see out there. Once people get past this and start to really see what Vista is. Maybe then they will give it a fighting chance.

I am sorry that people get these issues and say this stuff. But from my 3 years of working with Vista on this PC and another 1 on my laptop i can honestly say that i do not see what these people are talking about. I have yet to experience this myself.

Cheers,
Mak

Jayce · 07-26-2008, 11:45 PM

Oh, I'm not comparing it directly to XP in terms of functionality. I know all about Vista, and how it's completely different and blah blah... I got that. However, when XP boots mad quick, and Vista takes 3 and a half minutes to even throw up the splash screen, then yeah, I start to compare them to some degree at that point. It's not about XP vs Vista, though. It's about, which one is more suitable for me?

Vista has its good points, I won't dog it when I feel as though it deserves credit. But at the same token, I've had it crash randomly considerably more often than XP - and this isn't my laptop specific.

It has its good points and its bad, just like any other OS. But, like I said before, at the end of the day I have to go with what does the best job... and that's why Vista is no longer on my laptop.

Member Login