vista really not that bad.

[Exkabewbikadid]

In terms of stability, Vista has been running well on my machine.

 

In terms of usability, I still hate it. For yet another example (of which I have many), Vista no longer will let you group folders by each letter of the alphabet like XP did. Instead, it'll only group folders in A-H, I-P, and so on. This is quite a setback when I have folders with hundreds to thousands of subfolders.

 

Aero and it's features are useless to me.

 

However, Vista does have better DPI scaling than XP did, which is helpful since I'm using a 46" 1080p set as a monitor. Unfortunately, it only works properly with the Aero theme, which I'm not fond of as mentioned above.

 

So yeah, personally, Windows 7 can't get here soon enough provided they don't muck that up as well.

[Saggy]

I haven't really used it enough to see any problems with it myself. Whatever complaints I've heard about it seem to be unfounded when I've had to fix computers with Vista installed. I mean, bare in mind, that the people I have to fix computers for usually wind up having them filled with so many viruses ( virri? ) and malware programs that it can't possible be attributed to the OS anyway, but the catch is...

 

It actually seems to handle it pretty well. Now, my theory on all of this, is that since the majority of computers are coming out now with dual-core processors and 1-2 GB of RAM, running Vista is not a problem, and having it run stable, even through all of that, doesn't seem to be a problem for modern computers either.

 

From what I've heard though, once you get down to 512 MB of under, it becomes pretty unstable. Though that could just be because I read bias Linux blogs and ZDNet and junk like that.

 

 

My only complaint is that the UI has changed, but that happens with every new version of Windows, so it's not a problem.

[Picolini]

From what I've heard though, once you get down to 512 MB of under, it becomes pretty unstable. Though that could just be because I read bias Linux blogs and ZDNet and junk like that.

 

I wouldn't want to run a Vista PC with </=512mb of RAM. Like people have said, it'll steadily sit at 800mb if it's available, so 512 will be eaten up damn fast. Good luck trying to run FF and WMP at the same time. Currently I have those two programs running, with a couple background ones (antivirus, Utorrent, some utilites), and it's at 1.2GB usage.

[jelly]

Here's the thing though, it's designed to run on new hardware. Fancy that, the world moves on.

 

Why people want to run Vista rather than Linux on boxes with 512MB of memory eludes me completely.

[Saggy]

 

Why people want to run Vista rather than Linux on boxes with 512MB of memory eludes me completely.

The mark where 2 GB became the standard over 512 MB seems to have passed people by, including myself. I have a lot of friends that got themselves in that position; they wanted to play some new game that they needed Vista for ( allegedly, there was probably a way to get around it ), but their computer only had XP and 512 MB of RAM. So they install Vista, and then their computer runs just terribly since it is designed for new hardware. However, what do you think their generally unenlightened view on Vista is at that point? That it sucks and is slow, all because they're expecting 512 MB to handle it. They don't even get to the point of playing games, so I even know people that think Vista can't play games because they're not figuring out that 512 MB isn't enough RAM. It's pretty funny really.

 

 

I don't know, for some reason it seems like there's still a good majority of people that think, "Oh, an OS should be able to run just fine with only 512 MB of RAM," and while that point is probably debatable, I think that's what Vista owes much of its bad name to. People haven't seemed to adopt new hardware as quickly as Vista has.

 

I think the reason that Windows doesn't help support older hardware as much has more to do with the the reasons why they don't support old versions of Windows. They want people to buy the new version of Windows, and they also have Windows on nearly all of consumer PCs, so wouldn't a user having to buy a new computer just to get Vista only work out better for them? I mean, when has Microsoft ever been about saving the consumer money?

 

I mean, I suppose it might be in Microsoft to give the consumer a break, but I think they realize they know their biggest market is people that either A) Don't care about the OS they're running anyway, and will only upgrade when they buy a new computer or B) Gamers that want new and bleeding edge hardware and compatability with new games. There's just really not that much demand to support older hardware by making the OS more scalable, but I know plenty of people that are still griping over it. Guess they ought to get use to it.

 

 

But, yeah, I don't plan on using Vista much. I haven't had a terrible amount of interest in new games. Maybe if GTA:IV doesn't come out for XP I'll have to upgrade.

 

Also, uhh, sorry that was so long, I just started rambling.

 

 

SagaciousKJB puts the pipe down and walks away

[jedimario]

People with only 512MB of RAM by now are just cheapskates who will never be happy.

 

EDIT: Not in every case, you guys know what I'm saying.

Edited July 31, 2008 by jedimario

[Democrab]

Just so you guys know, Vista's RAM usage is like [email protected]'s CPU usage, it only uses what is spare, I ran Vista with 512Mb RAM, it was only a little slower than XP with SP1, and was using mainly pagefile for RAM instead of the RAM.

 

Although, 1Gb is minimum for Vista and XP.

 

Also, I ran Vista for 8 months, in Beta/RC1 form, on a Athlon XP 2600+ with a 6800GS and 1Gb DDR400 RAM.

[Saggy]

Just so you guys know, Vista's RAM usage is like [email protected]'s CPU usage, it only uses what is spare, I ran Vista with 512Mb RAM, it was only a little slower than XP with SP1, and was using mainly pagefile for RAM instead of the RAM.

 

Although, 1Gb is minimum for Vista and XP.

 

Also, I ran Vista for 8 months, in Beta/RC1 form, on a Athlon XP 2600+ with a 6800GS and 1Gb DDR400 RAM.

1 GB minimum for XP? I doubt that's the official reccomendation. If XP would have suggested that back when it came out, people wouldn't have bought it.

 

In terms of practicality, I think XP runs fine on 512 MB, but only to the extent that modern applications do; which isn't very well.

[jedimario]

Although, 1Gb is minimum for Vista and XP.

False

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_xp#System_requirements

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_vista...re_requirements

[Fozzy Fozborne]

He meant minimum for decent performance. I don't even think gig sticks were out when XP launched.

[Slamman]

I got that Bonjour under some XP install downloads, it was odd to me as I wasn't sure when I allowed it but it's not commonly found among my Apple-PC software, maybe three of the installs.

 

I heard AOL is hard to remove as well, but I really wonder about how much of that is hype.

 

Just wait for Windows 7 next year. I want Windows 2000 Pro as an install disc new, anyone got one to sell?

[Star-Lord]

 

Why people want to run Vista rather than Linux on boxes with 512MB of memory eludes me completely.

The mark where 2 GB became the standard over 512 MB seems to have passed people by, including myself. I have a lot of friends that got themselves in that position; they wanted to play some new game that they needed Vista for ( allegedly, there was probably a way to get around it ), but their computer only had XP and 512 MB of RAM. So they install Vista, and then their computer runs just terribly since it is designed for new hardware. However, what do you think their generally unenlightened view on Vista is at that point? That it sucks and is slow, all because they're expecting 512 MB to handle it. They don't even get to the point of playing games, so I even know people that think Vista can't play games because they're not figuring out that 512 MB isn't enough RAM. It's pretty funny really.

 

 

I don't know, for some reason it seems like there's still a good majority of people that think, "Oh, an OS should be able to run just fine with only 512 MB of RAM," and while that point is probably debatable, I think that's what Vista owes much of its bad name to. People haven't seemed to adopt new hardware as quickly as Vista has.

 

I think the reason that Windows doesn't help support older hardware as much has more to do with the the reasons why they don't support old versions of Windows. They want people to buy the new version of Windows, and they also have Windows on nearly all of consumer PCs, so wouldn't a user having to buy a new computer just to get Vista only work out better for them? I mean, when has Microsoft ever been about saving the consumer money?

 

I mean, I suppose it might be in Microsoft to give the consumer a break, but I think they realize they know their biggest market is people that either A) Don't care about the OS they're running anyway, and will only upgrade when they buy a new computer or B) Gamers that want new and bleeding edge hardware and compatability with new games. There's just really not that much demand to support older hardware by making the OS more scalable, but I know plenty of people that are still griping over it. Guess they ought to get use to it.

 

 

But, yeah, I don't plan on using Vista much. I haven't had a terrible amount of interest in new games. Maybe if GTA:IV doesn't come out for XP I'll have to upgrade.

 

Also, uhh, sorry that was so long, I just started rambling.

 

 

SagaciousKJB puts the pipe down and walks away

What you've said pretty much sums it up. MS only really cares about pushing their products down our throats whether we want or need them in this case Vista. Next year Windows7 following by a couple years later Windows8,9,10.

I'm currently using both Vista Ultimate and XPSP3 and use both on daily basis I like both operating systems but still preferred Xp the most.

What people think of Vista