OMG why do people still claim you need a freakin Quad core and 4GB of RAM to use Vista smoothly.

I aint got either and its runs smoother than any xp computer I have ever used.

AphexDreamerOMG why do people still claim you need a freakin Quad core and 4GB of RAM to use Vista smoothly.

I aint got either and its runs smoother than any xp computer I have ever used.

Depends what version you're talking about, but there isn't a single version that needs 4GB of ram.

RavenasDepends what version you're talking about, but there isn't a single version that needs 4GB of ram.

I use and Have always been useing Ultimate Edition and I don't think it matter that much either.

AphexDreamerI use and Have always been useing Ultimate Edition and I don't think it matter that much either.

Use Ultimate edition 64-bit with a video background running a game (with steam running in the background), and music apps, with a internet browser up. My computer couldn't handle Ultimate 64-bit with all that going on a non-OCed Dual core, was just my experience.

Ultimate also requires a nice little graphics card that packs a punch.

BUT we're talking the Ultimate version here, I wouldn't expect to be running Ultimate without a nice rig in the rear.

AphexDreamerDude I even ran vista on an old Sony Vaio that had a Pentium 4 @2.8ghz with 512MB of RAM and It ran fine, no joke!

I dont doubt it.

AddSubOne of my installs of tweaked version of Win2k takes 38MB of RAM after boot, with tons on necessary services and apps. (including: firewall, AV-app, http/ftp server, etc) As we all know, Win2k = XP in terms of compatibility, and with few exceptions (a Dx10 game here and a random app there) it can run any app/game Vista can (and many more that Vista can't), without the 10% to 70%(in some cases) performance hit Vista brings.

Nuff said.

Yeah okay. 10-70%. How long ago did you test that? Feb1 of 07?

trog100what about the 95% of PC users u are being lumbered with visa that dont have a quad and 4 gig of ram.. ???

for them its an unnecessary piece of microsoft bloatware that serves no useful function at all except making more money for microsoft..

trog

Like I said, I ran Vista x64 Ultimate with an AMD64 3200+, 1GB DDR 400 and a 6800GS (AGP) and it ran smooth as butter.

Ive said it before and Ill say it again. People want this and that in an OS and when MS puts it in, people bitch and when they dont, they bitch some more. So its a lose lose. If you dont like the OS or MS, then go Apple or Linux. No one is breaking your arm to use Vista or any other MS OS.

Beny-Nvidiahi there ...
will be there in the SP1 DX10.1 installed with SP1 ?

DX10.1 will be in SP1 yes.

AddSubI actually tested Vista thoroughly, as I explained in many, MANY, posts before. Actually, it's 78% slower in some cases, not 70%. I was being generous. See link below for details.

forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?p=632616&highlight=78%25#post632616

Heh. Your using a single core when Vista shines with multi-core. Try updating the system then do a review on it. Yes, I will admit that games did not run "as" smoothly as they did with XP, but the games and whatnot still ran and worked perfectly fine regardless. I updated to a dual core soon after and I noticed a BIG difference.

RavenasIn my opinion, XP was the best OS ever released by MS next to 95 and 98. Vista has a lot of flaws right now, and this service patch is just going to help the reliablity of Vista improve that much more. Vista will still need some work though, this SP isn't the cure for everything, but it's a nice step forward.

And XP doesnt? XP still has a shit load of flaws that MS is still patching. No piece of software is perfect. Not one. Yes XP was a great OS in its time, but its growing old and needs to retire.

Most games the difference between XP and Vista is 1% to 5% with modern drivers. Even on my P4 system, the difference is about 5 fps in CS:S.

Vista is fat and slow and yes it does "EAT" ram on a base install even with superfetch and such disabled.

For a decently powerful system, its not the end of the world, people give it too much crap for being slow, its not really "THAT" bad... But yes very indeed it is slower than XP... Yes instead of being able to get away with 1gb of ram and a P4 HT chip, ya your screwed there. At some points here realize some hardware is FAR beyond dated.

niko084Vista is fat and slow and yes it does "EAT" ram on a base install even with superfetch and such disabled.

For a decently powerful system, its not the end of the world, people give it too much crap for being slow, its not really "THAT" bad... But yes very indeed it is slower than XP... Yes instead of being able to get away with 1gb of ram and a P4 HT chip, ya your screwed there. At some points here realize some hardware is FAR beyond dated.

What the hell do you expect the OS to do? The whole reason for adding RAM is so that the OS can use more or it.

If you stop and look at it, yes Vista is slower than XP, but XP is slower than 2000, 2000 is slower than 98, etc etc.

CrAsHnBuRnXpAnd XP doesnt? XP still has a shit load of flaws that MS is still patching. No piece of software is perfect. Not one. Yes XP was a great OS in its time, but its growing old and needs to retire.

Never once said XP didn't have flaws. XP had plenty of flaws at the launch, just like Vista. However, Vista will be just as reliable one day. But right now, XP is still the King as far as MS OSes are concerned.

Yeah okay. 10-70%. How long ago did you test that? Feb1 of 07?

Depending on which system I tested. Aside from several computers belonging to various family members and friends, I tested Vista on two of my own machines. As for the results posted in my previous post, to answer your question: originally, August 07, then again early December 07. Last benchmarks (GLExcess, Fur, 3DMark01, 3DMark03 and several CPU/general system tests including WinRAR and VirtualDub were repeated and done in early January 08, with fresher drivers) Differences were negligible, in some benchmarks scores improved slightly, in others they dropped even further.

Heh. Your using a single core when Vista shines with multi-core. Try updating the system then do a review on it. Yes, I will admit that games did not run "as" smoothly as they did with XP, but the games and whatnot still ran and worked perfectly fine regardless. I updated to a dual core soon after and I noticed a BIG difference.

If you read the post I linked to, fully, you would have noticed: "One of the machines had a multicore Athlon 64 X2 5200+ CPU".

Results on that multi-core machine (XP vs. Vista on that particular machine) were pretty much what I saw on other machines I tested.

lol... i have nothing to compare performance with... appart from my dads PC..... 1GB ram & runs vista fine.... but compared to my system........ i'll just say using anyone's computer but mine drives me mad coz there all so slow!!!!! (obviously i have the fastest comp out of all my mates)

only regret is the updates problem i've had since i switched to X64 (possibly befor i switched... cant remember...i dont know of anyone else with this problem.... check my "help" link)
(currently my update problem is worse... with 44 important updates!!!)
(anyone know of a torrent with all updates pre-applied X64 Ultimate only.... i'll look later!)

whens the expected release date for SP1???... (never mind... just read TPU's main page..... march... ah well... plenty of time for now..)