Category: Geeks r Us
I'm going to be buying a laptop, it's specs are as follows. dule core 1.4 intel processor, 120 gigs of hd space, and three gigs of ram. I can either put xp on it, vista on it, or order it with xp preinstalled and the vista installation media for when I want to upgrade. Thoughts on how vista will run on this machine would be appreciated.
I'm not sure how it'll run, but from the specs, it may run pretty good. Plenty of hard drive space, dule cores, and 3 gigs of ram, u should be alright to run vista if ya want to.
Hey,
Vista will run fine. I have 3 gigs of RAM on my desktop. I like it.
vista=nasty
vista and 3gb ram works ok
xp + 3gb ram works amazingly well
you want just ok, or amazingly well
xp has sp3 now
vista is still sp1 and is still riddled with intermiddent slowness/lag/sluggishness/boggyness/jerkyness
A.U.C when doing every little thing(so I exaggerate), might as well be every little thing
I've used vista.
I've used xp.
I like xp rather much.
I've used win2k
and win 98 se was cool in its time
win 2k is relatively good os but don't support dual core
win xp is relative good and does.
vista will be relatively good 4 years from now when vienna comes out. Of course you are expected to have 2+gb ram for vista just to try and have programs work relatively smoothly.
2gb ram for xp kick ass.
I will find a bench mark of vista vs xp and post it here.
To the vista users who believes that I don't know what I'm talking about, perhaps you will listen to professional experts in the field.
Just on the side note, I've been working with computers since 1998, building and troubleshooting them since 2003, and earning money for my knowledge, so I believe I have some grounds to say that xp is much more efficient that vista will ever be, until they do away with a lot of the graphics.
Here are my supporting links:
http://pfeifferreport.com/trends/trend_vistauif.html
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=369 (xp is on the first generation duo core vs vista on the core 2 duo, core 2duo is like 20% more efficient) So xp going neck to neck with vista while vista is on a much better processor says something about that os.
These may seem to contradict, but if you give considerable cojitation towards the perspectives, they are rather complementary.
I don't think you need to be an expert to understand the following. When i bought my laptop it had vista and it took a bit of time to boot. When i put xp on it the time reduced dramatically. So just this is a good reason to understand that vista is much slower and they need improovement.
I'd say its ultimately your choice, what to use on that box.
Check this url out, you aren't a gamer, but it gives some more perspective to posts 4 and 5.
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2303830,00.asp
I agree with Spike. Now, I'm not too big of a fan of vista myself, but I think he's right, its your decision, what u want to run XP or vista.
love vista
Why not get the system with xp and the vista cd for when you're ready and creat a dual boot system. THis is what I've done with my system so have the choice to go between the two Operating systems.
I use remote desktop a lot and hated it under xp but it works beautifully with vista!
ok, here's what i think.
i have a laptop dual core 1.7 intel with a gig of ram, and i'm quite certain a 120 gig hard drive. it's runs vista very quickly. as for a 1.4, i'd go with vista home basic instead of premium personally, but that is your choice. i haven't noticed any jerkyness in vista and i run it on two machines here. i plan to remove the dual boot of xp i have on my laptop soon making it a full vista machine again.
I had vista on a dell with 1.86 intell dual core, 80 gig harddrive and a gig of ram. booted slower than a motherfucker. i put xp back on, boots fast as hell. I hate vista. Xp is a million times better. vista still has it's bugs and will continue to do so. I heard that windows 7 will be out in 2010. so there you go. Vista is shitsta in my book.
well, i must have gotten a really good system then, even with the dual boot in place vista loads pretty fast
hey guys. I would like to give you a little food for thought. I was reading pc world and guess what they said was the fastest machine to run vista? no, it is not alian ware or anything. it is a mac. can you believe that? that just shows how much vista takes to run half way decently. so if your buying a computer, i recommend you look online for an xp machine but if you really want you can go to vista but me personally i'm just waiting on the next os from mac. then i will hopefully go to mac. i have been waiting a long time to go to mac.
Why not go to mack now? leopard's aesome, and they keep updating it.
I agree, i've been using a mac here since February, and I'd highly reccamend it, the mac is awesome. And way better than Vista is now. I love my Mac.
Xp all the way!
i'd say go with xp, as it has software written for it, and is still a good operating system in my view. i think vista was rolled out to try and take advantages of the new computing technologies, and for no other reason than that. kinda, hey! there are now duel core processors and massive increases in ram on pc's these days, so let's bring out some shit of an OS to scoff at least half the ram and processing power of these new machines! hmmm, how crap is that? well done microsoft. now, run xp on one of those duel core systems with the three gig of ddr ram or whatever it is you can get for about three hundred quid these days and see where you get. a lot further than with vista in my view. vista is just window dressing which causes more problems in my experience, nothing more.
OK, I'm writing this post on a Toshiba A100 notebook running Vista. I don't think it's any slower than if you were running XP on here. I've found Vista to be way, way more secure and virus free than XP. You don't believe me? well check this out. We bought an XP HP desktop package from a company that's now gone bust, back in 2005. The machine also came with a Lexmark 111 printer/scanner combo, but it was just a joke from the word go. Virus after virus after virus, trojan after trojan after trojan, resulting in reboot after reboot after reboot. Now though, the bloody thing's just died all together, won't even boot up, this browser error message pops up if you try, so the bloody thing's just sat there in our back room waiting for one of the folks to take it down the dump, so all in all, pretty lousy experience with XP. With Vista on the other hand and also newer, better builds of JAWS being released every so often, I'm now able to use things like Mcafee quick clean, Manual/automatic scan and other fairly visual graphical programs like that without sighted assistance to ensure that this virus-free status is maintained. I've only had to reboot twice in the last 18 months since mum and I both purchased our Toshiba A100 notebooks which is nothing, nothing compared to almost weekly reboots with our XP machine, so I'm afraid guys, it's Vista, vista, vista all the way for me.
Jen.
Well just my thoughts, but I think xp is much faster. I will also have to admit that my pc at home is using only 512 MB of ram. It takes its good owm time loading and even here at work there are using xp and its very fast. man I need to upgrade my memory. Just need to find someone who is able to do it for me.
Matthew
I've had my windows vista laptop for about 4 or 5 months now and I quite like it. I had trouble with jaws at first, but that's because I was messing around with the jaws settings. I've used windows xp before, but jaws 9 doesn't work well with it, especially if it's on the RNC network! Mind you, I don't use their computers any more, so ... there.
i personally love vista, finally was able to zap XP off this puppy for good less than two days ago. and guess what. this thing is running faster with xp than it was with it.
@gen. Don't dump that machine - if you really don't want it i'll make you an offer on it; i'm in the uk.
It doesn't matter now, but I would have ordered both disks and set up a dule boot; if I found that vista wasn't running well enough then no biggy, i'd just go back to xp, but what did you do in the end?
@austin, you don't need floppies to do unattended, just put the sif file that you've made in /i386 before you burn the cd.
The last 1/2 lines of my above post belong in another topic, sorry.
Hmmm. I have to admit, I didn't know you could set up dual boots and we'd have no idea how to do it. In the end, I just stuck with this notebook and the desktop's just sat there in a state of repair in the back room. I'd let it go for half the price we got it though, that's around £550.
Jen.
I guaranty you 110% that you will not get £550 for it.
If you don't beleve me, try and find out the spec of it or the model number and i'll link you to an ebay page with desktops of the same spec / age on them so you can get an idea of how much to expect.
I'm not particularly fond of Vista, especially when if you try to install optional updates, and you have devices that didn't come on your machine, and you find an update for the driver through Windows Update, it might make your machine unbootable and you' might have to boot it in Safe Mode and restore it back through System Restore. However, if it comes with Vista, it's better just to leave it alone so you don't have to go searchin for all the drivers and reformatting and stuff just to have XP back. I've heard that even on some machines that run Vista or came with it, if you want to put XP back on them, you might have to go play with the BIOS, which isn't fun. I'll use it if I have to or if I upgrade to it, but I still kinda prefer XP.
i used to say that, but now i wiped xp off my laptop, and i'm glad i did
I believe you. £200 then. We orriginally bought it for £899.
Jen.