cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Vista V XP

Community Veteran
Posts: 1,236
Registered: 02-08-2007

Vista V XP

OK, had my first experience with Vista today and I can say that it will definitely be my last!
I was setting up my sisters new laptop which is a fairly budget machine from Dell. The specs are:

AMD Sempron 3500+ running at 1.8
512Mb RAM
60 Gb HDD
Preinstalled with Vista Home Basic.

I will give you the specs of my laptop which I had with me and was comparing:

Toshiba L10 (2 years old)
Mobile Celeron running at 1.5
256Mb RAM
40Gb HDD
XP Professional (installed by me)

First of all the higher spec Vista laptop takes at least twice as long to boot as my XP one!
Even doing simple things like opening my computer takes longer than with the XP machine. It appears to me that Microsoft have gotten so carried away with the appearance that they have sacarficied speed and basic usability.

Then there is the really patronizing UAC feature that stops everything and prompts you every time you want to run a .exe.
I mean, honestly, if I did not want to do this or run that I would not have switched the f***ing thing on. I know this can be disabled but the fact that it exists is almost offensive because it suggests to me that Microsoft think we are a world of completely computer illetrite morons!

Not forgotting that the laptop completely stopped responding several times and had to be restarted while installing ntl broadband. (My sisters house is not wired for BT otherwise she would not be using ntl.)

I know Vista is designed for really modern machines but if I can successfully install and run XP Pro on a Pentium 2 (and I have in the past) then Vista should run well on a laptop with the spec of my sisters. Needless to say her laptop will be getting a fresh install of XP Pro as soon as I get the time as I have been running that along with AVG Free Edition and Free Zone Alarm on all of my own computers (apart from my Linux Box) for years without any issues.

Am I wrong about Vista? I would be interested to hear any good reports about it. Sean.
23 REPLIES
holdtight
Grafter
Posts: 1,634
Registered: 15-06-2007

Vista V XP

Ive not tried vista yet nor do i really want to, just going from the experiences of others like yourself and all the reviews ive read i will be sticking with xp pro for the forseeable future

Microsofts min spec requirments are much the same as many game makers very very optimistic yes ive had xp running on a pII but its as slow as a dog with two legs but i would of expected vista to run on your sisters spec laptop

Maybe its the extra 512 of ram that would make the difference as vista is very memory intensive in which case systems shouldnt be sold unless they have a min of 1GB ram with vista installed
N/A

Vista V XP

That much memory is the absolute minimum required for the cheapest and most basic version of Vista- I absolutely would not recommend that anyone without at least 1GB of RAM runs Vista at all.

UAC is (sadly) desperately important for maintaining computer security, although most users will simply click "Allow" anyway.

Until 64-bit computering and hyper-visor become the norm, exploits are going to be a way of life (although early indications are that Vista is going to be tougher to compromise than XP).
N/A

Vista V XP

Haveing damaged my mb I decided to upgrade to Vista Home premium, new mb 1G memory and SATA HD, Athlon 64 3200+ - not a fantastic system. After finding the momory supplied was faulty I could go about a clean install.
Dream!!!!
SATA drive found, installation completed. Only had to tell it once where I was i.e. UK and ALL things accociated with UK set. It found my network and router so I could connect to the internet immediately. I have 1G of memory of which 64M is shared with video at moment - will get new video card when £ will allow.
Only problem so far, my PDF creater is not compatable and nor is my database application both requireing new/upgrades which means more ££££s
As for the world being full of morons seanbranagh well there are a lot about even if the world is not full of them. People still think they have won £millions on a lottery they never entered and as for all the emails I get about how I can improve certain parts of my body, I ma sure there are lots of people who try it. Oh, must not forget to order my new supply of those enhanceing tablets!!!
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,236
Registered: 02-08-2007

Vista V XP

I know that Vista will not install with any less than 512Mb RAM.
This is what I do not understand, most computer users are like my sister. They use their computers for simple things like email, web browsing, word processing, printing digital photos etc. None of the tasks that the vast majority of computers are used for require anything close to 1Gb of RAM so why should the operating system?!
fakesnake
Grafter
Posts: 30
Registered: 01-08-2007

vista

hi, 1g of memory is realy the min for any speed. as for vista home basic, your sister may be better off with xp, as home basic is so cut down, it hardly worth the bother.

i have vista installed on a seperate drive, so i can keep xp. mine is an old p4 2.8 seems to run and start as fast as xp for me.

only problem was had to update sound and graphics drivers.
Every thing else worked, but a lot of people are saying printer and scanners are a job to get drivers for.

I have a cannon mp500, vista installed its own drivers and works a treat. software is not so good, loads of xp progs wont work under vista. but early days yet Smiley
N/A

Vista V XP

MS are giving away free virtual pc 2007 reason if your software wont run on vista you can run a virtual pc with xp to run old apps. The next version of windows wont be backward compatable so no old apps will work and you will have to use virtual pc again.

Vista is built on xp kernal and MS say sp1 will be built on windows 2003 server. Some clever person has built
Tiny2003-R2-SP2-RC-eXPerience which is basically Vista with the 2003 core it has the vista start bar etc. It take sonly 500 meg of disk space to install against 10 gig of vista loads in under 45 seconds and goes like windows should do.

All I can see in Vista is tools you can get for xp for free anyway. Ok you have ip 6 but there is nothing that hits you as useful only fancy graphics. Maybe MS should look at the experience build and try and duplicate it.

I have always said the only reason MS are so big today is they sold O/S that were faulty. In the old days there was OS/2 desqview and gem all were better than windows but they didnt break so if you were a computer supplier you never made money out of it. If you sold windows you knew it would break down and require repair and then the next version would want more memory. disk etc so you would make money again.

The same is true of vista it requires more disk space and memory so people have to get new pc's to run it and more global warming
N/A

Vista V XP

Cant say I wholly agree about MS being so big is that they sold an OS that didn’t work. If that was the sole case they would not have survived. Ever seen a car on the road that didn’t work? Part of it is, if the OS didn’t work, then they also had cleaver marketing to still get people to buy it. So, if we accept the first premise that the OS didn’t work, MS got so big because they had very cleaver marketing and we were mugs enough to believe it.
there is an interestsing read here http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/features/105497/how-windows-won-the-pc-wars/page1.html
Points to a lot of luck, being bold enough to take on the giants and risking a lot of $s
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 12,169
Thanks: 18
Fixes: 1
Registered: 04-04-2007

Vista V XP

I've been using Vista nearly 2 months and my comments are that it has yet to really annoy me. I've turned off things like the UAC and some of the other stuff and so far no crashes or blue screens.

Would I recommend it? Not yet, it ranks above XP for my own usage, but then so does Windows 3.1. I think that in time people will come to like Vista firstly because of the media centre features and as the hardware manufacturers build more hardware that's designed with Vista in mind.

The bottle necks with hardware for Vista are the amount of RAM and the video card, harddrives are plenty big enough and even the cheapest Celeron processors are fine for Vista. When the base RAM configuration in new PCs is 1 or 2GB, which it will be as that what happens with RAM, then Vista will take off and almost everyone will be getting it.

Take a Vista PC, add a TV card and connect it to your XBox 360 and you've got a media centre that can pause and record live TV and play back your music and video files and do a whole load of other stuff.
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,229
Thanks: 1
Registered: 30-07-2007

Vista V XP

there's something terribly cynical about new machines being sold with vista preinstalled but less than a gig of ram ...
madswitcher
Grafter
Posts: 235
Registered: 01-08-2007

Vista V XP

Wouldn't touch Vista until at least SP1

Mike
Craigiusmaximus
Grafter
Posts: 212
Registered: 30-07-2007

Vista V XP

XP for me
The_10th
Grafter
Posts: 1,090
Registered: 08-04-2007

Vista V XP

What about DRM and HDMI playback which has caused a big backlash by a lot of journalists?

MS have a great way of making your shiny new super-fast computer as slow as your old upgraded one! :lol:
Community Veteran
Posts: 1,236
Registered: 02-08-2007

Vista V XP

Trying vista on my main machine at home. Thought I would be fair to it and try it on a faster machine than my sisters laptop. I built my machine a couple of years ago but I think it still runs quite quick. Specs are:

Athlon XP 2000+ clocked to 2.3
1Gb RAM
Nvidia NF7 Motherboard

Vista just stopped responding on me and all I was doing was renaming a folder I had just created! Honestly MICROSOFT WINDOWS VISTA IS A F****NG JOKE!!!!
Teatime
Grafter
Posts: 61
Registered: 05-04-2007

Vista V XP

There was a pointer on The Register to an interesting comment from Dell on the uses of Vista Home Basic:

"Great for booting the operating system without running applications or games."

Er... come again?!

Link here