Windows Vista

Post Reply New Topic

Vista is supposed to be easy to use. If that's the case, WHY does it take longer to find the same thing in Vista than compared with XP?

People saying to "upgrade directly to Win Seven" is a bad idea. The next version of Windows needs more to run compared with Vista. You need to have close to the limits of 32bit generation of around 2GB-3GB (average) Those with this amount of RAM could run it with ease. Those with less and being "advised" to "upgrade" will degrade their performance negating the upgrade to something superior.

Although, I have to know about Vista.

The UAC asking about stupid stuff is annoying. Why implement something if most people will turn it off?

Vista's issues(most of which have been resolved) have been blown way out of proportion by those who've installed it on less than capable hardware and then complained about it. Yes, its a tad slower than XP, but its overall a better OS, even if only slightly.

That said, if your thinking of switching to Vista, dont. Windows 7 is going to be released tomorrow, and running the release candidate on my primary machine(which before ran vista), I can definitely say its a huge improvement over vista, and an even bigger improvement over XP. Its way faster, the taskbar is way better from a usability standpoint, and it has no compatibility issues. The new features in it are perfect for multitaskers, and if you ever want XP, the higher end versions allow you to run a program in a virtualized instance of XP in a similar way that classic worked on powerpc computers running Mac OS X.

I don't like Vista, it's a huge memory hog and I can't afford a better computer.

If others like it I have no problems with that.

My laptop came with vista on it, it's pretty nice. The only problem I've had was that some games wouldn't work with vista but I discovered that if you choose to run it as XP that it works. Overall I've been happy with it.

I have Vista 32 Home Prem & my son have Vista 64 Ultimate. Overall Vista runs without too much problems. I am running AMD Athlon X2 and he is running Intel Core 2 Duo. Both of us have 4GB ram. We also have an XP Media addition on my wife's machine..

I really do not like Vista checking security on almost every mouse click.. that has to be my #1 complaint. Also, I cannot figure out how to set-up our HP printer to work with my son's Vista 64 machine over our network. All the other PCs connect just fine (Even my pocket PC)

I will not buy Windows 7 until I build a new machine for my wife (She currently is using a Dell). I have also had some very bad experiences with past versions with major changes.. so I am not one to jump on the MS bandwagon. (Windows 3.1, ME, 2000, 95)

I waited for windows 7 to come out. I don't want anything to do with vista and I won't fix any computer with vista on it. I have a laptop with an i7 processor and 6GB of ram so windows 7 runs great for me. The only things I don't like about windows 7 are the control panel and the user permissions.

I think the switch to Vista forced computer manufacturers to sell faster parts for cheaper, haha!

My Compaq was cool with Vista, but I wanted a faster OS. I upgraded it to Windows 7 a few days after it came out and I have been somewhat satisfied. It still takes up too much memory IMO (not counting Firefox's memory leaks) but the processor performance has improved considerably.

I think the thing I like the most about Windows 7 is the taskbar. It's easily the most intuitive taskbar I have ever seen in an OS period.

I work out to run Vista as recommended for Vista 32bit, you'd need 8GB RAM, Vista 64bit 16GB RAM. Windows Seven 32bit 16GB RAM, Seven 64bit 24GB RAM.

Based on Windows XP having 1GB RAM recommended. (My personal recommendation for minimum is 256MB)

I don't see the point in someone wanting to "upgrade" with something that just about runs on that computer. Therefore the whole "Vista is faster" is completely wrong, whereas XP would be better suited as it had room to "breathe"

Having the bare minimum is not enough. It has to be exceeded.

I personally have used Windows Vista and used the 64bit version and exceeded the minimum.
I've also used the Windows Seven Beta and RC version. I'm just not too keen on something that takes up a chunk of my computer to run itself only.

Let me say this

IT'S CRAP!! !

While XP was a alright OS Vista was just horrible.Slow as pits on anything below 4GB of Ram. (Even then you will properly have to service the PC at least twice a year.) Not to mention all the errors and seizure issues you get just by copying files to another directory or disk. Not to mention the boot loader is so fragile you can crack it just by using your computer in a daily use setting. Made worse by the fact that not everyone is a Tech Head who knows what to do and a Ultimate Boot CD's on them. Oh and the driver errors and sloppiness.

Honestely while XP was alright and 7 hasn't brought too many complaints yet I would still recommend Open-Source alternatives to anybody out there.

"Ubuntu for All"

Vista is good now that it has been around a few years and received a few service packs.

I purchased a Windows machine last year for testing. Having heard enough about Vista, I got a used machine with XP.