Windows Vista Update

X Close Editor

Submitted by: Glenn Velasco

Title

Comment
u people r only critisizing vista because u dont have the hardware for it by justin reyes I qoute: I luv vista its better than xp plus i hav 64bit while xp had 64bit its support was terrible with drivers while vista 64bit support is alot higher than xp's plus vista's interface is so not complicated like press start then ...... My PC Specs: -Dual Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 OC'ed @ 4.8GHz,Modified 2100MHz FSB, Modified 32MB L2 Cache, Quad Core -Dual Modified Radeon HD 4870 X2 6GB (Orriginally 2GB) GDDR5 OC'ed PCI Express 2.0 CrossfireX -Intel D5400XS Dual Socket Motherboard -4GB Corsair XMS2 PC2-10000 Overclocked (at speeds of PC3-17666) DDR2 RAM -Creative Modified X-Fi Titanium Fatal1ty 128MB PCIe Sound Card -Modified Asus P1 512MB GDDR3 PCI PhysX PPU -D-Link XtremeN PCIe x1 Wireless N Card -900GB WD VelociRaptor 10,000RPM SATA II -2TB WD Carviar Black 7,200RPM SATA II -WINDOWS VISTA ULTIMATE 64BIT -- Nice you have the equipment but the specs you have would need a computer geek to create. Good for PC hobbyists. BAD FOR THOSE WHO MEAN BUSINESS. IMPRACTICAL EVEN. An OS should work smoothly, and cost effectively with main stream hardware. I understand Vista has OS requirements, but even at minimum, the software slows down the PC. I have a PC that is considered average by most of the people around me: Intel Core 2 2.66Ghz 3MB 1066 Intel MB with G31 chipset 2Gb 800 DDR2 Ram 160 7200rpm IDE Seagate Barracuda IDE HDD 40Gb External HDD Maxtor Linksys Wireless G PCI Adapater MSI Nx7300 256Mb DDR Video Card -- Pretty cheap and will be used for home use (a few gaming, internet, email, photo editing, blogging, that kind of use) and most consider the specs a little higher than average. I would say it just average. The Test: Tried Vista Ultimate. Loads up in 2-5 minutes. WOW!!!! With just the OS, my memory was chunked down to just mere 700MB. I loaded Office 2007 and McAfee Internet Security and my PC is loaded every time I ran some software. My Core 2 can compensate for the speed but even that, Vista still ran slower than my Windows XP. When I tried Adobe's CS3, I had a lag of a few secs (30 to a minute) specially when dealing with some photos that are around 8-10MB in size. Thank God for my processor who is speedy in processing things. I never had these issues with XP. BOTTOMLINE: Vista is not yet mainstream. IT IS A RESOURCE HOG. It will eat up your resources. Going overboard with the specs, just like what the gentleman posted, is DEFINITELY NOT PRACTICAL and is just better associated with computer hobbyist. But for daily use, spending big bucks is definitely not practical even if one has the means to do it. I WILL STILL GO FOR XP. As for Vista, very nice, looks new, but THIS IS THE REAL WORLD. Functionality is still tops. It should go with practicality even. It just requires so much to run it. And I don't think it is actually worth the investment when there is a better and more cost effective alternative like XP.

Cancel Delete Delete & Ban

Updating Comments page...