Haha to the person who said state your affliation with microsoft. I am Microsoft Certified. Ok now we have that one I have had 0 problems with my vista machines. Lets face it people hate microsoft. When XP came out people moaned big time about where everything had got moved to. Then people clicked that it was actually for the best and people eventually stopped sucking there thumbs and just got over it and realised it was actually pretty good. I think this will happen with Vista really. Everyone is just moaning. But i have had ZERO problems with it. And i run it through the ringer at times. Agreed. Just stop running it on low end machines. And those saying " I run on 4gb blah blah blah" Even so. There is only so much a machine can do. For instance. If your running shitloads of games/other CPU/RAM instensive functions. Then your gonna slow it down no matter what OS
vista really sucks... almost like trash..the desktop just looks good and that's it.. but there are alot of xp vista versions so why bother!? nothing beats xp....... windows experience!
As of now I'm using vista.. It really sucks... Slow in processing... Vista is excellent on high memory and high capacity pc....
I have to agree with that. If it's a cute GUI you want then Vista has a good GUI. If you want to just do your work and get on with life then Don't choose Vista. To run Vista your going to have to spend your hard earned money on a new computer just to run it.
Not quite - It's been made available to technet subscribers to allow groups like corporations to test their in-house crapplets on it. It will NOT be available to the general public until mid-march. Of course the talk of XP SP3 kind of makes me laugh - 90%+ of it is already installed on my machine and there's going to be no SP3 for the version of XP I'm running - at least not for a year or more. See apparantly, XP x64 SP2 roughly == XP SP3 - another reason to like the x64 version I guess - right alongside the lack of WGA, ability to access more than 2.5-3 gigs of RAM, did I mention a lack of WGA, 'activation' and a whole host of other rubbish? I love how XP x64 is just server 2k3 stripped down with a slap of paint on it to LOOK like XP, when it in fact isn't.
I don't use Vista personally as i am waiting to get a new laptop rather than upgrading my desktop but from what i have seen and used at a friends house, it doesn't seem sluggish or unresponsive at all. And, as someone pointed out, post Service Pack 1, a lot of companies will opt for Vista after it's stability and initial problems are resolved.
I installed Vista Ultimate today and I love it. Applications load a lot faster. And I only have 1 GB of RAM.
Actually the most ram accessible with a 32 bit version is 4gb. So your not really gaining anything unless your going way over the top. I wouldnt say many people would be going more then 4gb.
Hahaha look at this thread of 2002 in some forum: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=6958 It is really funny watching how history repeats itself lol. Also, QUOTES FROM 2002-2004: And the funniest one, found in a blog's comment in 2001:
WRONG actually - the maximum memory space you can address may be 4 gigs, but windows and most 32 bit OS will not actually let you use that for application space. Why? Because memory mapped IO devices - like video cards, advanced sound cards, modern UATA/SATA controllers, etc, etc all need to be mapped into that address space as well decreasing the address space available to your RAM. Windows XP/earlier do this by splitting the memory into two chunks - 2 gigs for applications and 2 gigs for the 'windows executive software' which is a cute way of saying the kernel and memory mapped IO. Which is why you laugh at the people who put twin 1 gig 8800GTX cards in their machines with 4 gigs of RAM, since under XP they will be lucky to be able to address 1.5gigs of that for apps... with 2 gigs of RAM GUARANTEED to be unavailable... The more memory your video card has, the less address space is available for RAM, which working inside the 32 bit address space limit, well, you can see the problem right? My own system with a 640 meg Ge8800GTS and a 256 meg 8400GS side by side can only address 2.6 gigs WITH the -3gig switch in 32 bit XP or 3.2 gigs in 32 bit vista... and there's 4 gigs in there. It also doesn't help that 90%+ of applications are not 'largeaddressaware' meaning that they aren't compiled to even access more than 2 gigs - EVER. You can fix that part at least by using editbin. (hell, I have a .bat script set up to run "c:\bin\editbin /LARGEADDRESSAWARE %1") To even make more than two gigs of space available to applications you have to add the -3gig switch to the boot parameters, and even then it usually only gains you 512 megs to a gig (depeding on how much video card you have installed) that most programs can't see ANYWAYS. (though at least windows will report more than two gigs) http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx Which is why if you REALLY want more than two gigs of RAM on a x86 platform, you need a 64 bit OS and corresponding CPU.
You're Not Alone: Microsoft Execs Struggled with Vista: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,142957-c,vistalonghorn/article.html#
I totally agree on that. I am working as dsl technical support for verizon online and many customers saying they want to go back to XP...