Another Vista success story.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 28, 2002
Messages
50,982
Location
Everson WA - Pacific NW USA
Pretty soon I'll be on year two of solid results with Vista on my HP. Never crashed, glitched and still faster than the XP machine. I think some of you have too much worry on your hands. Do what you want, but I'm certainly not going to pay money to upgrade an OS. Never have had to in the past.
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
1,674
Location
Morrow, Georgia
 Originally Posted By: d00df00d
 Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
I have noticed that Vista tends to get the blame for these slow computers, when the real blame is on manufacturer's pushing out so much bloatware and putting only 512 MB of RAM on the machine.
That 512 MB of RAM would run Windows XP just fine. 1 GB would be gravy but there's no urgent need for it in most cases. Vista, on the other hand, needs 1 GB just to run acceptably. That's the point.
Yes, I understand that is the point, but lets look at this from Microsoft's minimum standards view-point. XP requires 64 megs, Vista requires 512 megs. A comparison of XP at it's minimum standards is FAR slower than Vista at it's minimum standards. Even if you went to 128 megs of RAM for XP it's still slower (at least when Service Pack 2 is involved in the install) than Vista at 512 megs of RAM. One thing is people are comparing a great OS (XP) using "archaic" requirements to another great OS (Vista) using those same "archaic" requirements and want to blame Vista for the problems. Not too many OS manufacturer's are going to upgrade their OS to work on very old technology. That's my point.
 
Joined
Oct 20, 2005
Messages
11,902
Location
PA
 Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
Yes, I understand that is the point, but lets look at this from Microsoft's minimum standards view-point. XP requires 64 megs, Vista requires 512 megs. A comparison of XP at it's minimum standards is FAR slower than Vista at it's minimum standards. Even if you went to 128 megs of RAM for XP it's still slower (at least when Service Pack 2 is involved in the install) than Vista at 512 megs of RAM.
How is that relevant? Who in the world would compare a 128 MB XP box to a 512 MB Vista box? The fact is that Vista is slower than XP on equal hardware. That means it's a slower OS.
 Originally Posted By: ConfederateTyrant
One thing is people are comparing a great OS (XP) using "archaic" requirements to another great OS (Vista) using those same "archaic" requirements and want to blame Vista for the problems. Not too many OS manufacturer's are going to upgrade their OS to work on very old technology. That's my point.
Proper, efficient coding should not be an "upgrade." If they had written Vista like they initially said they were going to (i.e. from the ground up in C#), it would have been naturally faster and more efficient. Instead, they built it on XP, which was already bloated. That's a great way to force people to buy faster hardware (on which Microsoft's business model depends), but it's still bad software.
 

simple_gifts

Thread starter
Joined
Jul 26, 2004
Messages
13,723
Location
Middlesex County CT
 Quote:
but I'm certainly not going to pay money to upgrade an OS. Never have had to in the past.
I understand you did a forklift upgrade to your hardware.... Did MS send the new machine for free? Odd I've run 5 versions of Ubuntu on the same machine; Windows people who can claim this, let's see a show of hands... anyone? Bueller?
 
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
1,674
Location
Morrow, Georgia
While I can't say I'm a big fan of Microsoft's corporation, and I've never paid for their software directly, I still prefer Windows over any other OS. However, I'd like to use the Mac OS, but I refuse to pay the price for their computers when I can find instructions on building a $400 hackintosh. d00df00d, I agree that Microsoft didn't make Vista the best they could have, but I'm just pointing out that when Vista is blasted for slowness, it's typically related to minimum hardware and/or manufacturer's bloatware. The same s*** happens with XP, so I believe my point is very relevant. Also, from personal experience, sometimes Vista runs better than XP, on the same hardware, believe it or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top