Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
What do you hate about Windows Vista/What can be improved/added on Windows Vista to make it better?
Well pretty much as tittle says list everything you hate about vista I'll list some to start with: The fact you require 1GB to even use it and 2GB to use it without it slowing down your computer, in my opinion if they want to call this a "next gen" type os they should think about ways they can have the theme but not have it take up so much ram and another thing I hate is how it is so dam unstable explorer.exe freezes way too easily and then needs to restart that's a windows os for ya. And I thought instead of just listing everything that sucks about it why not say what can be improved or added to make it better so the thing I think they should add is possibly an old XP theme that people with a low amount of ram can use vista without their computer being slowed down by the dam vista theme and forced to use the classic windows theme.
Re: What do you hate about Windows Vista/What can be improved/added on Windows Vista to make it bett
Although this is already an outdated discussion, my biggest wish is that they'd stop adding so many dumb features that just rape resources, much like you mentioned. I just want a straightforward OS that works solidly, all the time, every time. Granted, there were a few tiny little additions that I liked. If I could get those with XP, I'd never switch.
I don't like Vista. I can't name a specific thing about it, I just don't like Vista. My aunt got a Laptop that has Vista and I had to set it up for her. Also put it on her home network. There are constantly so many problems with it... it will bug one one second then not give you any support the next. It takes 5 hours to find something so simple as to change the size of the Icons on your screen. (It is hidden in plain sight). And god forbid it allow me to share files and folders over the network. I couldn't even set up a network printer.. The entire interface is laggy, right from the start. It has a crap load of useless junk that eats RAM and serves no other purpose. I tried installing Renegade on it and it had a seizure. It taught me a valuable lesson: Don't get Vista. I mean if it was just an XP upgrade with some cool features, then It would be awesome... but they changed everything around and I hate it! There wasn't one positive thing about the OS that wasn't already available in XP that I came across in my many hours tinkering with it.
R315r4z0r wrote on Fri, 30 May 2008 23:32 And god forbid it allow me to share files and folders over the network. Ah thanks for reminding me about this one I haven't been able to share one file with vista yet.
1. Buy a decent computer or don't complain about the performance issues. 2. Go to your folder options and disable simple file sharing.. 3. Disable UAC.
Vista in my opinion should not even require 1GB to run it but that's dam lazy microsoft for ya instead of trying to make an os better they just slap a new theme on there and don't bother adjusting it to run better, they could probably sell a lot more vista cds if they spent the time to actually try and make it use less ram. PS. No many how many times I'm told and by how many people I am told it I refuse put the blame on the computer itself, I blame Vista.
Sooner or later you're just going to have to rise above yourself and realize that a single gigabyte of ram is not very much anymore and that cool technology comes with a small price, and that just happens to be system resources. Cry me a river, but its not hard to build a decent Vista machine for dirt cheap...
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 07:45 Sooner or later you're just going to have to rise above yourself and realize that a single gigabyte of ram is not very much anymore and that cool technology comes with a small price, and that just happens to be system resources. Cry me a river, but its not hard to build a decent Vista machine for dirt cheap... amen. Are you seriously suggesting that Microsoft should of engineered Vista to use around the same RAM as XP? That's crazy, it's called "progress". 2GB of RAM is the average amount a gamer has these days, if not more. When XP came, it was the same, people complaining about it's memory usage, people complaining about the Fisherprice-esque shell skin. Maybe the real problem is the users who can't adjust to differences or whose PC isn't good enough. How can you make a nexgen operating system fully function to it's potential on a lastgen computer? Refusing to blame the computer is just arrogance. I reitterate, it's called "progress".
XP is faster more reliable and easier to confiure. Yet it uses much less overhead. Which means you have more resources for games and programs.
Quad cores w/ 2GB FTW? (And that only cost me £550, monitor included, so there) The only thing that bugs me is that some games won't work Vista to XP over the LAN and the network printer won't either. Other than that, I almost like it.
Linux>Vista XP>Vista Wine>Vista Vista>Windows 3.1 Microsoft is constantly trying to force everyone to "upgrade" by making people think XP is obsolete and crud. Vista may look "nicer", but I prefer the old windows look over the XP one anyway. I hate so called "beautiful" guis that use gradients and curves. They hog ram and take about twice as much screen-space. I have 1gb of ram. According to Xylaquin an average gamer has 2gb of ram. But what about normal consumers that play games every now and then? What about the people who bought their computer two years ago top-of-the-line to find out that the idiots at Microsoft claim they run a steam engine on coal? Yes the market is advancing, but Microsoft is penny-pushing by purposely making it harder and harder to use older computers. One day it will only take months. FOr all of those who are going to complain about this post, please remember this is opinion!
I would use Linux if I could be sure it would run all my games with minimal fuss. The trouble is, that ain't going to happen.
Vista came with my laptop and I have never had an issue with it. I've had my laptop about 9 months now.
I guess most of you people haven't read the complaints from people that say that vista has destoryed (more or less) there hardware because of the HD protection.. Rendering there soundcard and video cards useless because it doesn't have the same HD codec that vista REQUIRES. Vista requires you to use a certain codec and if your sound card or video card doesn't have this.. You cant use HD even though your computer has every thing 'HD Ready' Can you Vista supports give me 3 things that you just can't live without that Vista gives you? As to times change, you should upgrade your PC. This is bollocks. When XP came out most computers where a P4 and had 512MB Ram (Which was quite good in them days) Yet I installed XP with 256MB on a P2 400Mhz that my youngest sister uses and it runs perfectly for what she needs it for. Web searching, MSN etc.. However you need 2GB run the same applications is absolutely disgusting. The only thing you have with Vista thats even half decent is DX10 and that at the moment is being ported for XP.. I can get all the eye candy on my XP machine and only use 512MB ram and thats including XP.
There really in my opinion isn't enough games out that even require DX10 yet so not much use to switch to it if you want DX10 you could get pretty much the same games on a console. EDIT: I found the perfect song that sums up how crappy Vista is pretty well Vista Blues
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 02:12 Vista in my opinion should not even require 1GB to run it but that's dam lazy microsoft for ya instead of trying to make an os better they just slap a new theme on there and don't bother adjusting it to run better, they could probably sell a lot more vista cds if they spent the time to actually try and make it use less ram. PS. No many how many times I'm told and by how many people I am told it I refuse put the blame on the computer itself, I blame Vista. So are you saying that I should be able to run vista on a system that ran windows 3.1? Technology changes and in order to have more advanced feature such as DX 10 and stronger security, it is going to require more resources. Quit your bitching. Caveman wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 09:43 I guess most of you people haven't read the complaints from people that say that vista has destoryed (more or less) there hardware because of the HD protection.. Rendering there soundcard and video cards useless because it doesn't have the same HD codec that vista REQUIRES. Vista requires you to use a certain codec and if your sound card or video card doesn't have this.. You cant use HD even though your computer has every thing 'HD Ready' Can you Vista supports give me 3 things that you just can't live without that Vista gives you? As to times change, you should upgrade your PC. This is bollocks. When XP came out most computers where a P4 and had 512MB Ram (Which was quite good in them days) Yet I installed XP with 256MB on a P2 400Mhz that my youngest sister uses and it runs perfectly for what she needs it for. Web searching, MSN etc.. However you need 2GB run the same applications is absolutely disgusting. The only thing you have with Vista thats even half decent is DX10 and that at the moment is being ported for XP.. I can get all the eye candy on my XP machine and only use 512MB ram and thats including XP. The HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) is not Microsofts doing. They were required to put it into vista because of the MPAA, it is easily defeated with a program such as AnyDVD HD. I'm so fucking tired of you people bitching about vista. I work at Best Buy and it happens everyday. Customer: "I don't want that Windows Veesta it sucks!" Me: "Do you have any particular reason why you hate Vista?" Customer: "Uh, no, I've just heard it sucks." Me: "Well actually Windows Vista is the most stable and secure release of windows ever, and now that service pack one is out it performs even better. Also, all the new machines that are out pack twice the power of an older XP machine for exactly the same price if not cheaper." Customer: "No way!, Ok show me what you have." Your friends regard you as a tech savy person. If you keep filling their heads with beligerant lies then you do nothing but make their computer shopping experience more of a headache than it already is. P.S.:I have vista running perfectly on a P4 2.8GHz 1GB of RAM machine.
I do agree that changes in hardware will be mandatory for pretty much everything at some point, so bitching about requiring a bit more RAM for vista is ridiculous. However, Vista is still pretty friggin bad. First of all, Vista is radically different than XP. This can cause problems for someone who uses computers for business purposes. Many of its "features" are pretty much forced, and really, for the few, INCREDIBLY insignificant things that come with it, it's just not worth the extra bit of money. Let's not forget, Vista has a nice history already of causing alot of compatability problems. I wouldn't mind Vista nearly as much if you didn't have to do as many work arounds as you would if you just got Linux. But sadly, you do. Things that have no real reason to be there, end up causing PROBLEMS, rather than just being "Ah well, not something I really wanted, but handy I guess in the odd moments it was made for" kind of thing. To be honest, I'd rather just wait until Vista gets ALOT more stable, has alot more things that rape your RAM unneccisarily be turned into optional features, and has alot of compatability fixes. Otherwise, I'll wait until the somewhat important things like DX10 are ported to XP, and stick with XP.
i hate how it crashes..... it crashes everyday more then someone spams these fourms
Cabal8616 wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 14:46 First of all, Vista is radically different than XP. This can cause problems for someone who uses computers for business purposes. Many of its "features" are pretty much forced, and really, for the few, INCREDIBLY insignificant things that come with it, it's just not worth the extra bit of money. Vista is not that "radically" different than XP. There are still businesses out their using Windows 2000 because XP doesn't work for them. Vista does not make your computer cost anymore when you purchase it with a new system. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116202 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832116056 A difference of $14 oh man my wallet is crying. Your points are insignificant and weak.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 01:58 1. Buy a decent computer or don't complain about the performance issues. 2. Go to your folder options and disable simple file sharing.. 3. Disable UAC. 1. It was a brand new laptop right out of the store. 2. Isn't that simple. The Laptop with Vista swears that I password protected access to it over the network when I didn't. I can see the computer over the network, but I can't access it. That is viewing it from the XP machine. When I try to move stuff from the Vista machine to the XP one, it simple doesn't work. 3. I already did, it was the first thing I did after I got 5 messages of "Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?" I was seriously contemplating getting Vista before I actually worked with it. Now there is no way I'm getting it for at least 2 more years. Everything about the system just seems completely unnecessary. I can do everything I need to with XP and it runs better. So why should I have to upgrade a PC to us an OS that lets me do less stuff than XP? The thing is with Vista is that I can say that it sucks and you can say it doesn't for TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT REASONS. There isn't one way to use a PC. One person might use it for one thing and never run into a problem, but someone else might use it for another way and have a truck load of problems. The biggest issue with Vista that I have ran into is compatibility problems. The second biggest issue is its interface and finding things, but that takes getting used to so that doesn't really matter. For all of you who say you have had Vista without problems, do you use it in a way that it demands being on a home network connected to an XP machine? Because that is what I've had to go through when setting it up. Vista itself isn't a bad OS. If I only had one computer that ran Vista, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but because I need it to be relyant on an XP machine, it constantly runs into problems. And these problems are simple problems that I already know how to fix and would be able to if it was XP. Vista itself is fine, it is just that we do not need it yet in this point in time.
DarkDemin wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 19:30 {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 02:12 Vista in my opinion should not even require 1GB to run it but that's dam lazy microsoft for ya instead of trying to make an os better they just slap a new theme on there and don't bother adjusting it to run better, they could probably sell a lot more vista cds if they spent the time to actually try and make it use less ram. PS. No many how many times I'm told and by how many people I am told it I refuse put the blame on the computer itself, I blame Vista. So are you saying that I should be able to run vista on a system that ran windows 3.1? Technology changes and in order to have more advanced feature such as DX 10 and stronger security, it is going to require more resources. Quit your bitching. Caveman wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 09:43 I guess most of you people haven't read the complaints from people that say that vista has destoryed (more or less) there hardware because of the HD protection.. Rendering there soundcard and video cards useless because it doesn't have the same HD codec that vista REQUIRES. Vista requires you to use a certain codec and if your sound card or video card doesn't have this.. You cant use HD even though your computer has every thing 'HD Ready' Can you Vista supports give me 3 things that you just can't live without that Vista gives you? As to times change, you should upgrade your PC. This is bollocks. When XP came out most computers where a P4 and had 512MB Ram (Which was quite good in them days) Yet I installed XP with 256MB on a P2 400Mhz that my youngest sister uses and it runs perfectly for what she needs it for. Web searching, MSN etc.. However you need 2GB run the same applications is absolutely disgusting. The only thing you have with Vista thats even half decent is DX10 and that at the moment is being ported for XP.. I can get all the eye candy on my XP machine and only use 512MB ram and thats including XP. The HDCP (High Definition Content Protection) is not Microsofts doing. They were required to put it into vista because of the MPAA, it is easily defeated with a program such as AnyDVD HD. I'm so fucking tired of you people bitching about vista. I work at Best Buy and it happens everyday. Customer: "I don't want that Windows Veesta it sucks!" Me: "Do you have any particular reason why you hate Vista?" Customer: "Uh, no, I've just heard it sucks." Me: "Well actually Windows Vista is the most stable and secure release of windows ever, and now that service pack one is out it performs even better. Also, all the new machines that are out pack twice the power of an older XP machine for exactly the same price if not cheaper." Customer: "No way!, Ok show me what you have." Your friends regard you as a tech savy person. If you keep filling their heads with beligerant lies then you do nothing but make their computer shopping experience more of a headache than it already is. P.S.:I have vista running perfectly on a P4 2.8GHz 1GB of RAM machine. Mircosoft weren't forced to intergrate this..They did so out of free will. If it was forced the same protection would have been released with SP3 for XP. My computer is 'HD Ready' and it plays HD things as it should however for the same setup but with Vista installed because my Sound card doesn't support the codec that vista FORCES your soundcard to use it will simply refuse to play the file. Why should I have to go out and buy AnyDVD HD just to play these films..I already have the hardware to do so yet I have to spend even more money on more software for no good reason. As I said in my first post..Name me 3 things that are so important with Vista that you can't live without. You run Vista on a 2.4Ghz w/1GB ram and it runs smoothly and I run XP on a P2 400 w/256MB DDR133 yet we're getting the same things. I'd prefer not to spend money on upgrading that computer to do something its already doing perfectly fine.
To be honest if it comes with a new PC that's fair enough but there is no reason for people to pay money to upgrade from one to another. Not to mention the price you have to pay in Europe for it. XP is simple from the offset in my opinion whereas Vista isn't. You can turn all the 'funky' crap off to make it simpler but surely most people that want it simpler won't know how to do that (neither will they be able to build their own rig). The new OS is due in 2010 so in about 2012 there will hopefully be an operating system that has all the promised features of Vista (that MS didn't have time to put in iirc). I also personally feel that MS should make operating system a bit more backwards compatible for hardware requirements too but maybe that is just me again. I'm pretty sure new-ish versions of unix derived operating systems can look pretty, work acceptably well and work on older systems. This post is a lot bigger than I intended and frankly I am too tired to read it all to make sure it makes sense. Sorry if it doesn't.
Fuck, doesn't anybody remember that MS was going to drop support for XP once Vista picked up? When Vista came out, practically every major computer manufacturer started offering nothing but; even some big chain retailers stopped stocking XP- then, gradually (starting with Dell), XP started coming back. Now I see more copies of XP on shelves than Vista again, and MS just recently released SP3. Special note: just because technology is advancing doesn't mean a fucking thing towards whether or not the system requirements should be higher. Vista has very few features that require the degree of bloating it suffers from- as a matter of fact, one could make the case that there is nothing to justify it, seeing as how OSX has had most of those same features for years without having requirements anywhere near Vista's. Unless the improvements justify the cost, the product is fundamentally flawed. Better doesn't always have to mean bigger. Rather than making it easier for the user to have a greater degree of control over the system, Vista focuses on running the system for the user. That's great if you don't want to be bothered with it, but absolutely fucking horrible if you have any desire to learn how your system works, much less run it your way rather than under default settings. Vista makes it harder to change those settings (among other complaints), or do anything whatsoever that could conceivably do your computer harm... if you're a complete and total careless fucking moron. Seriously, Vista is the OS equivalent of those annoyingly pervasive warning labels that state the perfectly obvious (warning- product will be hot after heating). Wonderful for those who are complete and total fucking idiots and would otherwise manage to royally screw their system (then again, you know what they say about making things foolproof), but it is not good for the rest of us who know enough not to carelessly step on critical items. Then all that fancy protection amounts to an obstacle to ease of use, which is not a good thing. This is my major complaint with MS by the way- they assume (in many cases correctly) that their consumers will be too stupid to use the product on their own, so they overburden it with help/dummy-lock features that are always enabled by default and often indescribably annoying to get rid of- and Vista is turning into Prime Example Numero Uno of that phenomenon. And does anybody honestly believe that DX10 requires Vista for any other reason than because MS wanted to force the upgrade? The sad thing is that it'll work, too, because next-gen games will require it some day soon. Either that, or we'll see a massive resurgence in OpenGL- and I'm not crossing my fingers for that. What I would be interested in seeing is a port of DX10 over to XP- and before you say nobody could do it, think back to all of the other supposedly-impossible things enterprising geeks have done with software over the years. I wonder if it hasn't already been done. Whatever Vista's strong points may be, it is bloated for what it does, it does assume that the user is a fucking moron, it does have compatibility issues far more extensive than XP ever did, and it is going to go the same way as WinME. I think MS is starting to realize that, or they wouldn't still be offering support for XP, and I'd lay odds that they're already working on something as a replacement. I could be wrong about that, but time will tell. Meantime, y'all go on thinking Vista is hot shit if you really want to- everybody who knows better will be rolling their eyes and groaning.
It fits my needs just fine, the lack of X10 support for XP does annoy me though. Time to learn how to port X10 back to XP lol...
NukeIt15 wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 21:42 Fuck, doesn't anybody remember that MS was going to drop support for XP once Vista picked up? When Vista came out, practically every major computer manufacturer started offering nothing but; even some big chain retailers stopped stocking XP- then, gradually (starting with Dell), XP started coming back. Now I see more copies of XP on shelves than Vista again, and MS just recently released SP3. Special note: just because technology is advancing doesn't mean a fucking thing towards whether or not the system requirements should be higher. Vista has very few features that require the degree of bloating it suffers from- as a matter of fact, one could make the case that there is nothing to justify it, seeing as how OSX has had most of those same features for years without having requirements anywhere near Vista's. Unless the improvements justify the cost, the product is fundamentally flawed. Better doesn't always have to mean bigger. Rather than making it easier for the user to have a greater degree of control over the system, Vista focuses on running the system for the user. That's great if you don't want to be bothered with it, but absolutely fucking horrible if you have any desire to learn how your system works, much less run it your way rather than under default settings. Vista makes it harder to change those settings (among other complaints), or do anything whatsoever that could conceivably do your computer harm... if you're a complete and total careless fucking moron. Seriously, Vista is the OS equivalent of those annoyingly pervasive warning labels that state the perfectly obvious (warning- product will be hot after heating). Wonderful for those who are complete and total fucking idiots and would otherwise manage to royally screw their system (then again, you know what they say about making things foolproof), but it is not good for the rest of us who know enough not to carelessly step on critical items. Then all that fancy protection amounts to an obstacle to ease of use, which is not a good thing. This is my major complaint with MS by the way- they assume (in many cases correctly) that their consumers will be too stupid to use the product on their own, so they overburden it with help/dummy-lock features that are always enabled by default and often indescribably annoying to get rid of- and Vista is turning into Prime Example Numero Uno of that phenomenon. And does anybody honestly believe that DX10 requires Vista for any other reason than because MS wanted to force the upgrade? The sad thing is that it'll work, too, because next-gen games will require it some day soon. Either that, or we'll see a massive resurgence in OpenGL- and I'm not crossing my fingers for that. What I would be interested in seeing is a port of DX10 over to XP- and before you say nobody could do it, think back to all of the other supposedly-impossible things enterprising geeks have done with software over the years. I wonder if it hasn't already been done. Whatever Vista's strong points may be, it is bloated for what it does, it does assume that the user is a fucking moron, it does have compatibility issues far more extensive than XP ever did, and it is going to go the same way as WinME. I think MS is starting to realize that, or they wouldn't still be offering support for XP, and I'd lay odds that they're already working on something as a replacement. I could be wrong about that, but time will tell. Meantime, y'all go on thinking Vista is hot shit if you really want to- everybody who knows better will be rolling their eyes and groaning. Well fucking said. DX10 has been ported to XP however the g33ks that did it found some major errors with it that caused real stablility issues. But im quite confident that this will be fixed soon enough. The port I am talking about has never been released to the public however I read it in a well known UK PC mag. You've basically said everything that I did say or wanted to say so I have nothing else to add here.
DarkDemin wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 14:30 Me: "Well actually Windows Vista is the most stable and secure release of windows ever, and now that service pack one is out it performs even better This fact is 100% untrue, for me, all SP1 did was mess up some programs I had installed and performance was not improved(if anything it is slightly worse) at all.
R315r4z0r wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 20:02 Everything about the system just seems completely unnecessary. I can do everything I need to with XP and it runs better. So why should I have to upgrade a PC to us an OS that lets me do less stuff than XP? You shouldn't. I'm not a Vista supporter, but i'm not a Vista shunner either, because I havn't used Vista for more than 5 minutes (i was in a store for a few minutes playing about with it whilst waiting for my brother to buy something). I don't use Vista because I don't need to, I have no DX10 games. Caveman wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 14:43 The only thing you have with Vista thats even half decent is DX10 and that at the moment is being ported for XP.. Where did you find this out? If Microsoft are indeed porting it to XP, then there goes one of the big selling points for Vista for many people. Caveman wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 20:39 You run Vista on a 2.4Ghz w/1GB ram and it runs smoothly and I run XP on a P2 400 w/256MB DDR133 yet we're getting the same things. I'd prefer not to spend money on upgrading that computer to do something its already doing perfectly fine. That's because XP is 7 years old. A very little percentage of computers now in use are P2's, so why should Vista be designed to run well on them when it should be designed in the knowledge that most systems are atleast P4 standard. However, I agree that if Vista does make un-needed features compulsary then that's crazy. I will need to try Vista for some time and establish my own opinions before judging it. All that I have posted here comes from me not having used the OS, so I concider myself unbiased. Edit reason: Spelling corrected
Yes I know that Xylaquin but what im trying to point out is that I am running XP he is running Vista and he needs a computer thats 5 fold mine to run the same things that I have with XP. So why go out and pay what £150? for vista and then what £250 for a semi decent computer to use vista when you dont get anything thats beneficial?
MS aren't porting X10 to Vista, various coders are, as they don't like being dictated to by MS. The day we can run games on Linux easily is the day Linux gains a massive user base.
CarrierII wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 18:28 The day we can run games on Linux easily is the day Linux gains a massive user base. So in other words, never or not in the next 5 years.
Vista Ultimate/XP Pro SP3
What's really interesting is the fact that Vista Ultimate runs far better on *this* computer (with all the graphical effects and "bloat" turned on) than XP or 2k3 EVER did. I don't have any problems with visual tearing of GDI applications, I get more FPS in games, and my computer is far more stable. I have yet to see a single BSOD on this install that I did not personally cause.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 17:30 DarkDemin wrote on Sat, 31 May 2008 14:30 Me: "Well actually Windows Vista is the most stable and secure release of windows ever, and now that service pack one is out it performs even better This fact is 100% untrue, for me, all SP1 did was mess up some programs I had installed and performance was not improved(if anything it is slightly worse) at all. Well maybe you should learn how to fucking use a computer.
^ Most of the time when people have problems with Windows crashing it's because of some shitty third-party software they've installed.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Fri, 30 May 2008 19:07 The fact you require 1GB to even use it and 2GB to use it without it slowing down your computer Thats funny because I had Vista installed on a machine here that only has 512MB of RAM, and it ran perfectly fine, including playing C&C3 and Call of Duty 4 with ease.
Those RAM hogging effects are optional (The Aero interface) and setup disables them if it thinks you won't manage with your PC! Also, SP1 made things go funny here too, only third party software was a copy of Delphi 7, AVG 7.5 and Ren really - I think the fact my OS debugger got set to the Delphi 7 one may have caused the issue. Anyway, installing the OS, then SP1 then everything works just fine.
Blazer wrote on Sun, 01 June 2008 01:08 {SB}Lone0001 wrote on Fri, 30 May 2008 19:07 The fact you require 1GB to even use it and 2GB to use it without it slowing down your computer Thats funny because I had Vista installed on a machine here that only has 512MB of RAM, and it ran perfectly fine, including playing C&C3 and Call of Duty 4 with ease. I can confirm that. I used Vista with 768mb of memory for awhile and it also ran perfectly fine. Sure I was bottlenecked by a 478 socket so games didn't run hardly, but the Vista experience itself was just fine. I have found that Vista is hardly different from XP, and as a matter of fact I have found that I like the features in Vista quite a bit more. Vista is also much better than XP when it comes to system diagnostics, self repair, and troubleshooting thanks to the awesome diag. team at MSFT! (Thanks guys!). Vista should be more stable than XP actually.
But what processors do you two have? The program/game that SP1 messed up was C&C3.
Ghz? and there's probably one reason why it runs well Core 2 Duo is a pretty good processor.
The E6750 carries with it 2.66GHz cores each running on a 1.3GHz front bus. However, I have ran Vista in the past on a Intel Pentium 4 (478, 2.8GHz @ 533FSB) just fine.
There you go there is the reason why it runs fine for you, I have a 2Ghz Centrino Duo and 1GB memory and performance isn't too good.
Quote: However, I have ran Vista in the past on a Intel Pentium 4 (478, 2.8GHz @ 533FSB) just fine. Mind you that was also with 768MB of memory.
Dave Anderson wrote on Sun, 01 June 2008 13:40 However, I have ran Vista in the past on a Intel Pentium 4 (478, 2.8GHz @ 533FSB) just fine. Of course it would run fine on a 2.8Ghz processor why wouldn't it? 2.8Ghz is pretty high.
Comparing the frequency of processors with different architectures is like comparing apples and oranges. Your 2 GHz Centrino Duo with 1 GB of memory is a more capable system than a 2.8 GHz P4 with 768 GB of memory. Likely, since your computer is a laptop, you have a weaker graphics card so try turning the eye candy off in Vista and it should run nicely.
{SB}Lone0001 wrote on Sun, 01 June 2008 11:42 Of course it would run fine on a 2.8Ghz processor why wouldn't it? 2.8Ghz is pretty high. Well what I suggest is that you read about the architecture of a processor. The external frequency is hardly what matters. Your Centrino is most likely runs on 800MHz front bus(s) which is much faster than a Pentium 4. Plus, you'll gain some nifty knowledge in the process and benefit in the end.
OK, you've got me there, I'm using a Quad core 2.4 GHz and 2 GB of RAM.
On my Sempron64 3400+ with 1.5GB RAM, Vista ran great for a while, but had a habit of slowing down very quickly once I installed the most mundane things (Steam, AVG, etc.). Now it takes a lot longer than XP to load. :/ That, and it's started randomly locking up, which XP on the same machine doesn't do. Dunno what's causing that though. (it isn't a virus)
Windows 3.11 > Vista (at its time of release) into oblivion. Ubuntu > everything for non-gamers. And if you want to work with really old machines: I installed Debian on a P II 350, 192 MB Ram and Voodoo III and added XFCE as GUI on top of it and it works very nice .
i'm still an XP boy but what I really want to know is if I should wait for Windows 7 or get Vista. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7 I read that Windows 7 may be out in Jan. of 2010 so thats only a year and a half away. Me, being almost 40, remember having to play the latest games on dos then it seemed like from '95 to '97 running games like CIV2 just sucked on Windows until Windows '98 came out. Is Vista going to go down in history as just a waste or will Windows 7 be the new thing to cry about until something better comes along? My guess is Microsoft will try to fix the unpopular side of Vista features with Windows 7, while trying to sneak in as much copyright spying as they can into the new OS.
Let's hope the requirements for Windows 7 are equal or less than Vista, if more then I fear what that os will require.