it's a 4cylinder kia. seriously i bought a compaq laptop with amd dual core tk-53 processor and it comes with 1gig of RAM. bought it for cheap, 449. dollars but it's installed with Vista Home Premium. I know it's not much that's why I'm plannign to replace it with XP.
1 gig is, unfortunately, the bare minimum for Vista. Just one of the reasons why the OS sucks in its current configuration. Even the offloading of graphics processing to the video cards doesn't negate the fact that Vista is a hog at the moment. There is a reason Microsoft extended support for XP. That reason is the current state of Vista. My prediction is that you will see another operating system with a new name before Vista becomes usable for my application. Add in the limitations placed on pci-e and I'm sure there are many hardware and software developers who are not exactly thrilled with Microsoft at the moment. Either way - it will be well into 2008 before these issues are resolved (if not 2009). Good luck, Brock
It's slow if you don't have the hardware to run it. I love Vista. It takes about a day to get used to, but it makes common tasks a lot easier.
The XP install CD does not have the drivers to recognize the SATA drive. You'll need to download the drivers to some sort of medium (gulp...we use a floppy) and when the install process prompts if you have additional drivers you'd like to load, that's where you tell it to look for the SATA driver drivers on your medium (I'm not sure if the USB keys are recognized during setup...which is why we just defaulted to using the floppy drive. You might want to put the drivers on a CD and just swap out the CDs when prompted for additional device drivers). Good luck. My $.02 on Vista... Remote administration on Vista is akin to the Utah Jazz. It sucks hard!
I like vista. But then I have a new machine and 2 gb of ram, so I didn't see any performance problems. The only problem I have is that civ 4 beyond the sword doesn't run well on it, where as civ4 has been running very well... I still haven't figured out where is the problem.
Call me crazy, but I'd rather my computer devote its memory and drive space to applications instead of the OS. Seems ridiculous that you need 1 GB RAM and over 20 Gigs just for your OS. What's the benefit? Honestly? Evan
Vista actually uses the memory like an OS is supposed to. It doesn't waste it like XP. Yet it still yields memory to applications when needed.
that's the point, right now there isn't one. Well, possibly for gamers but I don't do much gaming on my computers. the bottom line is that with fast machines people here are stating that they have super performance. That's great, but doesn't change the fact that with XP you would more than likely see slightly better performance, have drivers for everything you might want to use and have less overhead. I'll take that over fancy looks for now. We'll see what happens as things move along.
This is true. And it does get around some of the limitations of XP in regards to ram limitations within applications. It still runs like a dog compaired to XP no matter how fast you say it runs on your machine. It also uses a lot more resources than XP. I don't care how well it does at allicating ram and scaling ram if it means the overall performance is less - which it is.
Agreed. I just upgraded the RAM in my work computer to 2 GB from 1 GB (literally, like 10 minutes ago), and the speed difference in Vista is like night and day.
Still using windows 2000 on my 5 years old PC with 512MB memory. And it is still running great and does the job perfectly. Windows 2000 is hands down the best OS I ever used. I firmly believe that the so called "OS upgrade" is just a dirty trick from IT industry to try to make more money, push ppl to upgrade and buy new PCs that they don't really need. Let's face it, most of ppl still only use PC to watch movie, download files, do internet, email, word, excel and listen to music. PCs from 3-4 years ago can still do the job. Why bother to upgrade?
If you have anything less than 2gb of RAM don't bother with Vista. I'm sticking with XP until at least next summer. By then I'll be looking for at least 4gb of RAM. I used a Vista at my old job and it ran fair enough, but then again I wasn't running any other programs outside an Office 2003 app. or Firefox. If I had Vista on my home CPU I woulda been sh** outta luck.
Ummmmm, it is a 95 cpu. You might wanna make sure you're running xp on at least 256mb of RAM. Though I recommend 512mb.
Win 200 Professional is a solid desktop OS, but Win 200 Server is severely lacking. Windows 2003 server is leaps and bounds better than Win2k as a server platform.
The others are correct in that Vista is OK if you have sufficient hardware resources to run it. I've been running Ultimate since Vista launched and it's been very stable with the only problems coming in the area of lost scanner (Microtek no makie Vista scanner driver for the i320) and ATI TV Wonder video capture problems (more of an ATI fubar than a Microsoft one). But if you want to roll back to XP, you can boot off the CD and perform a complete reinstall by reformatting your hard drive during the XP install. It would help if you had the XP SP2 CD because it has more up to date drivers (like SATA). Before doing so, I'd look for updated Vista drivers for your system's hardware. This improved my Nvidia Nforce chipset's performance dramatically with Vista.
