Idontwantspam Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Ah. -slaps self on forehead- OK. P.S. Windows 95 was great - at the time - anyone currently using an MS OS that is not in the NT line is a bit crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssgatbliss Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 After reading all the replies I can surmise that very few of you have firsthand experience with Vista. By first hand I mean you have it installed on a PC of some sort and have spent some time using it. The 10 minutes you might have played with it in whatever store or at your buddies house doesn’t count. I think the only thing that I would agree with is the one poster who said you don’t need Ultimate. Aero does not chomp up GPU cycles; I see no difference in performance with it on or off. I have Vista on three PC’s all of them AMD’s to include this Dell laptop and it is not painfully slow, this is by far the slowest machine I have. I also have SP1 RC installed and I have no problems going into or coming out of sleep or hibernation. I hear the same garbage at work when people talk about Vista. It’s slow, it has problems, and it doesn’t work blah blah. I just ask them one question, “Do YOU have it installed on a capable machine at home?” The answer has been no. How can you possibly give any decent feedback on an OS you have no experience with. That’s like saying a Porsche is a piece of junk. I’ve never heard any Porsche owners say it’s junk, just the wannabes and have nots. To answer the original poster; stick with Vista. You already have experience with it. I’m running Vista Business on a AMD Turion64 1.8Ghz with an integrated video card and 2GB ram. It runs just fine. I even had Hellgate London running on it over the holidays. Granted I had to turn everything down because of the integrated video card and shared memory but it ran and was playable. I did wipe the drive when I got the laptop because I don’t like all the junk that Dell likes to pre-install but all in all it runs great. I also have Ultimate and Home Premium on two other machines. Ultimate was a waste of money unless you really need bit locker. So there’s my two cents from someone who actually uses the OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magicfly Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Vista??? Terrible mistake!! Go for Windows XP!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biohead Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 I'd have to say Vista.In my books, the power management was much better than that of xp's, and I got abotu 3hrs 30mins compared to XP's 2 hrs 30 mins. - This was a Centrino 2 laptop, so it had nothing like the power modern machines do (good old Pentium M )Since then I've moved onto a desktop and I've not even considered putting XP on it. For one I'm too used to vista. I think Vistas netwroking capabilities are miles better - even for a simple home network.If you feel confident using Vista, then use it. I know I would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extravert Posted January 6, 2008 Share Posted January 6, 2008 Vista??? Terrible mistake!! Go for Windows XP!!!Really?*Is looking to Vista desktop, is it unusable?Hmmm? Games works the same as in XP with SP1 RC1 and I've had not one issue with Vista. So terrible mistake I'd never make.Sorry, but you and me cannot decide Windows Vista should be bad. Still millions of people use it with full satisfactory like me and can you explain why is it so terrible mistake?Yes, it is loaded and heavy, but we talk today. Should we talk tomorrow in the days of SP1 and new high-end hardware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerb255 Posted January 9, 2008 Share Posted January 9, 2008 If you have no intention on running 64-bit on your laptop, stick with XP.If you want to run 64-bit, get as much RAM as you can and run Vista: it loves it and it will love you back for it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waruikoohii Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 Most of the people who have had bad experiences with Vista have had those experiences, surprise surprise, with OEM installs. Fresh installs of Vista are generally very fast. And on my laptop, I actually get better battery life under Vista than with XP (by about 20 minutes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelsenellenelvian Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 I will admit Vista may handle a laptop's battery better XP is by far better IMO. Vista WAS a good idea but the really f'ed it up somewhere it is a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy_Rivers Posted January 11, 2008 Share Posted January 11, 2008 might i sugest windows me opps couldnt resist. it comes down to two things whether your current software works on vista .hate to fork it out again to run on vista.secondly-xp will still be mainstream in 5 yrs so if your force to buy a new pc someday xp will last 5 yrs or more still where vista will be a blip on the microsoft road map to ruin replaced by windows 7 which will be renamed to windows 2012 lol u can wait it out and in 5 yrs hell there be 2 new windows out.or if your like me you buy a bag of weed and a laptop for 100 and hide in the woods.why cant we have 1 universal os ,why cant they combine resources oh well i answer nothing my option. donate to msfn if u luv your mom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now