XP vs Vista

[HareRazor]

I am running vista on my computer with an AMD 3600 X2 and 1 gb of ram(working on saving my pennies the second gig). It runs great. I think it's pretty much the same deal with XP, you buy a computer from HP or whoever and they load a bunch of unneeded software that all seems to load up on startup and it makes the computer slow. My gf bought a laptop with vista loaded on it and I wiped it almost immediately and installed XP because they preloaded so much garbage on it. It would make so much more sense to just make a CD pack and let the owner load what software they want.

 

[BlackBII]

I hate Vista more than gay people(no offnese intended) I just bought a laptop with Vista and it sucks. I can't load XP because the setup won't recognize the hard drive, so lame.

I am a part time tech. support for a big company and Vista has caused more headaches on my part than my ex-girlfriend.

An OS that requires 2gigs just to run is redicurus, My laptop with Vista (Ultimate, Just upgraded, for free, made no difference other than some programs actually work now) has 2g ramm and a 2.5 ghz processor and it still runs like win 98 on 64 megs of ram-Gay!

 

[Evan]

I hate Vista more than gay people(no offnese intended) I just bought a laptop with Vista and it sucks. I can't load XP because the setup won't recognize the hard drive, so lame.

I am a part time tech. support for a big company and Vista has caused more headaches on my part than my ex-girlfriend.

An OS that requires 2gigs just to run is redicurus, My laptop with Vista (Ultimate, Just upgraded, for free, made no difference other than some programs actually work now) has 2g ramm and a 2.5 ghz processor and it still runs like win 98 on 64 megs of ram-Gay!

Vista does not require 2GB of RAM just to run. Your laptop may have some kind of problem with it. Vista runs quite nicely on my 1.5GHz laptop with 1.5GB of RAM. That's with Aero and all that crap enabled too.

The upgrade from Win 9x to XP also caused massive headaches for many companies.

 

[BlackBII]

Ok, sorry, it does not require 2 gigs but I cannot imagine what it would run like with out those two gigs, like we are talking 3.0 slow

There's nothing wrong with it, other than it has Vista!

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

like evan said.when XP came out everybody said it sucked and hated it........iam running vista with 1 gig with no problems.i like it myself..........just my 2.

 

[CJREX]

OK, I am going to unleash the Vista bomb how-to.

No, on second thought I won't. Not a good thing to put out for common use.

Best Buy, Circuit City, etc. wouldn't care for all their machines being frozen. Heck, usually you can walk through the display machines and a high percentage are displaying errors anyway.

Let's just say that any Vista can be easily bluescreened in around 6 seconds.

Ubuntu and OS X FTW

 

[COPPERHEAD85]

so just because you can you go into a store and f-up pc's...........

 

[CJREX]

so just because you can you go into a store and f-up pc's...........

No, that's why I didn't post how. Because a lot of people will.

It is just very funny that even though MS tries to say that the BSOD is a thing of the past, it can be invoked easily on their supposedly best OS (many arguments as to whether it is best as evidenced by this thread. I personally prefer XP over Vista, and Linux/OS x over XP).

 

[BlackBII]

Ubuntu and OS X FTW

+1
I am now on Ubuntu

 

[alaskan155]

vista, windows XP bandaide/filler till windows 7(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7)


the past
Windows Me , windows 98 filler/bandaide till xp

person when i go dual-core, im switching to 2003 server

 

[Simple_serf]

nah...98 was the filler until 2000

I have to agree with ubuntu being better, however, in this day of win printers and winmodems and Wineverythingeleses, I don't always have the time to deal with hardware conflicts. I run ubuntu/XP pro on my laptop and XP home on the desktop. I started out with XP the first week it was introduced, and I have no desire to so that again. Additionally, nither of my machines can run Vista so who cares!

I started back with a Commodore PET, then to 2 64's, and an SX-64 portable. Then on to an Apple IIgs and a Mac Power PC 6500 with OS 8.0. I don't really care for PC's, but you do what you gotta do. It doesn't hurt that because of the deprecaition I can build one out of parts for next to nothing. Try doing that with a Mac.

 

[Robin Hood]

And Vista needs 2GB of memory to run good....I've run XP just fine on 512KB, but 1MB to 2MB is alot nicer.

Ok. If you can get XP running on 512KB of ram you show me proof.

Assuming you mean 512MB - Thats MEGA bytes not Kilo.

Vista is a good operating system.

Its too security conscious because face it computer users these days are hopeless morons.

of course XP is going to beat vista, it uses a lot less resources but vista is more future proof.

32bit XP can handle only 3.5GB of ram
64bit XP can handle up to 64?GB (i think)
and so can vista.

Sure, vista sucks a lot of resources, but it is more advanced. It can do more things.

The article shouldn't be any surprise. Think of this in a ranger-ish way

you have a 3.0L engine and a ranger
or a 3.0L engine in a peterbilt truck.

which is going to be faster?

 

[Robin Hood]

And to the ubuntu guys, if everyone knew how nice it was, more people would use it, but due to its short comings (having to use the console to set some things up) the non computer savvy people are going to stay away.

 

[Ranger#1]

vista home premium ftw im rinnin on 3gb mem pentium core 2 duo 160 gb hd

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

we recently got the girlfriends vista machine hooked to the network and are starting to realise what a resource hog it really is. her 1 gig, 2.8 GHZ dual core is only slightly faster than our XP laptop with 256MB and 2.4 GHZ single core. luckily she has 3 more ram slots to fill, so it'll be recieving upgrades soon. still amazes me how much resources vista sucks down though.