Old 29th April 2007, 22:56   #41
k_rock923
\m/
(Forum King)
 
k_rock923's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: /bin/bash
Posts: 7,850
Send a message via AIM to k_rock923
ME was pretty bad, Vie. . .

Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway.
k_rock923 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 23:02   #42
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 8,000
I know, I used it.

But seriously, if you treated it right it did work... ..it was kinda like a product of British Leyland from the 70's, crap and god awful, but did do the job just enough.

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 23:06   #43
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by Vie
Me was not THAT bad once you learnt its little foibles.
Yes, it was. It was significantly less stable than its predecessors while adding little to no significant new features. Several of the core system utilities had been rewritten for no apparent reason and would crash intermittently. The new features were broken, and the old ones were more broken. It was a terrible release.

In contrast, Vista appears to be a solid system (I've certainly seen nothing that contradicts this) which is going through problems that one might expect from such a significant upgrade.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29th April 2007, 23:53   #44
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 8,000
Time to dig out the [irony][/irony] tags again I see...

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 00:29   #45
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
I don't think that word means what you think it does.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 00:53   #46
Vie
Forum King
 
Vie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Thoron fields and Duranium shadows. Posts: Crap mostly
Posts: 8,000
I spent the entire time using Me complaining about how bloody awful it was, and now I'm the one defending it.

Member most in need of SpellCheck Lifetime Achievement Award

I'm a Twitch Streamer these days, it's weird.
Vie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 03:16   #47
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Let's just agree that ME sucked more than Vista (which doesn't suck at all in my opinion.)
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 04:29   #48
shakey_snake
Forum Domo
 
shakey_snake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Everyone, get over here for the picture!
Posts: 4,313
ME = large obvious improvements, failed implementation.

Vista = mid-size, unobvious, technical improvements, excellent implementation.


elevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladyelevatorladylevitateme
shakey_snake is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 08:17   #49
wir5
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: AZ
Posts: 1
I have Vista, got it on a new laptop. HATE IT!!
wir5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 08:39   #50
Atmo
The Freak
(Forum King)
 
Atmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,400
How much ram does your laptop have? Some of the systems being sold with Vista preinstalled aren't anywhere near up to the task.

512MB of ram + Vista + OEM craplets (norton's sec suite etc.) = Unusable pile of poo.

I recently bought a laptop too, and as i didn't want to splash out on one with 2gb & dedicated video, i went out of my way to find one with XP installed by default (which actually netted my a small saving as a bonus).

On a decent box, Vista's fine. I've got it installed on two systems here. One's a 3500+/2GB DDR400/7600GS, which is just slightly more sluggish running vista (with aero) than xp, but it's totally usable. The other's a X2 4600+/2GB DDR2 800/7600GT and it's fine. Aside from the different look & feel it would be hard to pick the difference from a performance standpoint.

That said, i'm still running XP on my main system, and probably will until october(ish) when SP1 is released.
Atmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 16:02   #51
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally posted by Atmo
a X2 4600+/2GB DDR2 800/7600GT
wish i had that one
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 17:36   #52
Widdykats
The Forum Slut
 
Widdykats's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: A place that invites a post pumping whore from NY
Posts: 15,789
^ He hasta' have that! He's


*image made by allthatjaz

Last edited by Widdykats; 18th March 2010 at 20:21.
Widdykats is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30th April 2007, 21:23   #53
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
omg
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th May 2007, 14:48   #54
DKqwerty
Junior Member
 
DKqwerty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Terra
Posts: 26
Send a message via AIM to DKqwerty
Quote:
Originally posted by P$ycHoâ„¢
omg
OMG indeed. The up-time for Vista 64-bit business is amazing. I haven't had to restart other than to allow new registry items to take hold; it doesn't even require a restart after you install (signed) divers and Window's updates.

If you have an HP and can't find drivers, you're not alone. Head to their forums for a lot of help tracking them down.

Blah, blah-blah blah blah. Manly and, also, kind of a slut.
DKqwerty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th May 2007, 12:43   #55
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally posted by DKqwerty
I haven't had to restart other than to allow new registry items to take hold; it doesn't even require a restart after you install (signed) divers and Window's updates.
if you find drivers...
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 6th May 2007, 16:23   #56
watadoo
JEDI MASTER
 
watadoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Canyon, CA with a bunch of hippies
Posts: 1,336
I hated it for one day then adjusted my attitude towards change. After a week of my new laptop I'm totally okay with it. Only one;piece of software has issues and I worked around that small bump in the road.

"Which is worse, ignorance or indifference?"

"I don't know, and I don't care."
watadoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2007, 08:32   #57
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
I installed it the other day on a bare machine dual boot with Ubuntu. If I had the choice between installing XP or Vista, Vista would barely win.... barely...

It's an OS, it more or less works, but I am booted into Ubuntu more often than Vista.

Vista's look is cleaner than XP, and for a novice user, it's probably more friendly.

I give it a C. What it really didn't do is solve much in the way of problems with Windows. Instead it nags you about stuff more than XP.

Nagging isn't fixing.

If you are stupid and install something you shouldn't you are just as vulnerable as any other windows OS. Asking the user an extra time to approve security procedures that only a few people I know would understand isn't really making the OS safer. It does however make it sorta irritating. I think the hoops it makes you jump through to recognise windows fileshares on other computers on your lan is ... well it was enough to sorta piss me off... I have a couple pieces of software that are interfered with by the new security crap.... making an annoyance.

On the other hand, like I said, for most users it's pretty friendly and less complicated to use, better looking and a little more intuitive.

Sorta like OSX, without being as good
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2007, 08:51   #58
Atmo
The Freak
(Forum King)
 
Atmo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 9,400
Vista's installer is much nicer than XP/2000 in my opinion. At least you dont have to keep coming back to it every 5 minutes to enter some info that could have all been collected at the beginning or end of the install process.

As for UAC, yes it's a nag, but it's just an extra click. There really needs to be a shift away from the current default of always running as admin. Having what basically is a pseudo admin account and having to approve certain actions is probably the best compromise at the moment. Had they made it necessary to enter a password (which you still need to do if running as a standard user) it would probably be too much of an inconvinience for the masses...
Atmo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2007, 11:05   #59
ulillillia
Senior Member
 
ulillillia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Minot, ND, USA
Posts: 381
Re: Who has Vista?

Quote:
Originally posted by P$ycHoâ„¢
Hi

does naybody have Windows Vista and if so:
*which version?
*is it better than XP and why?
*should i buy it?
I have XP Pro, but not Vista. I'd rather wait about a year or two before thinking of getting it as this way, the bugs, flaws, and security holes can be ironed out and fixed. I'd probably get the premium version if I were, the one in the middle.

void BlueWater() {water.color=blue; while(GameRunning) {if (fox.pos == InBlueWater) {fox.air--; FoxDrown(fox.air);} else {fox.air=1800; fox.flags = WantsToGetWet; } WaitFrames(1); }} // My top favorite thing in 2D Sonic (as C)
ulillillia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2007, 11:08   #60
rockouthippie
Banned
 
rockouthippie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oregon
Posts: 11,002
Quote:
Originally posted by Atmo
As for UAC, yes it's a nag, but it's just an extra click.
An extra click that the user is always going to answer yes to and not understand what they are answering yes to. This might have some benefit if you were letting children use the computer, as you could keep them from running as the superuser.

This new security scheme didn't make the OS really more secure, just more insistent and often that it nags you.

I'd call it a 10% security improvement wrapped with 90% more nagging and 50% more nuisance. I think the actual security improvement over XP is pretty negligible. It's not going to stop people from loading bad apps as the superuser. It doesn't help anything once they are loaded.

Frankly, I never had a serious security issue with XP, so I think the net effect is that this is more of a nuisance than a real help.

In practicality, so far I have seen no security benefit to me, but I have some software that I am sure is not a security risk collide with the new scheme creating a nuisance. Mainly this is Vista demanding signed drivers, which you can trick your way around.... It also makes setting up filesharing on a LAN more difficult... but once you defeat it's nagging, there is no security benefit. It's like it makes it harder to so things it didn't want you to do, but you need to do those things to make the computer work.... so it just made things a nuisance, not more secure.

There isn't a reason to run XP instead of Vista.... and vice versa.....

One example is an ext2ifs driver I use to mount linux filesystems. Vista makes you run it in a test mode, bypassing driver signing....making it a bitch to install.... but it still installed... so there was no security benefit... it was just a bitch... A reasonable approach would be to notify you that you were loading an unsigned driver and ask you if you wanted to proceed, not to make you hack Vista to make it work.

This is just the next OS, not really a better one in any way that really matters, except for the DRM stuff which I'm not currently using.

I'm not really unhappy with Vista. It's just nothing to write home about.

And ummm... I could be booted into Vista right now, but I'm not, I'm using Ubuntu. Unless I am playing Windows only video games, that's about how it's gonna go too.

Last edited by rockouthippie; 13th May 2007 at 11:41.
rockouthippie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th May 2007, 19:33   #61
zootm
Forum King
 
zootm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: the nether reaches of bonnie scotland
Posts: 13,375
Quote:
Originally posted by rockouthippie
I'm not really unhappy with Vista. It's just nothing to write home about.
The problem with Vista is that most of the most significant improvements aren't going to be actively seen by the average user. The OS is improved, but the surface looks the same.

zootm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2007, 10:10   #62
mINDsELFiNDULGE
Junior Member
 
mINDsELFiNDULGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6
I see on the horizon....

Leave Vista alone until 1 month after the first Service Pack. Let everyone else iron out the flaws and holes.

XP, properly maintained and installed with extra software, does most everything Vista does... without the driver and the XP centered hiccuping programs.
mINDsELFiNDULGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2007, 10:42   #63
Canon
Senior Member
 
Canon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: California
Posts: 275
I'm using windows XP 64 bit edition. It was a bit of a hassle to install because it didn't recognize my Ethernet, graphics card, or sound chip. So I had to download the drivers, but since I couldn't go on the internet I had to load up knoppix and put the drivers on a thumb drive. Besides that XP 64 bit works great.
Canon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th May 2007, 13:56   #64
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
i heared the 64bit Vista is even worse with drivers and a benchmark showed that games run even slowlyer on it than on 32 bit (maybe because of the drivers) but i hope software runs better on 64bit in future.

if i buy vista, i first need to buy a new pc and that's still a long time in future (MONEY)!
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd May 2007, 17:40   #65
mINDsELFiNDULGE
Junior Member
 
mINDsELFiNDULGE's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 6
That pretty much sums up my experience with a friend's 64 bit version.
mINDsELFiNDULGE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 05:29   #66
DKqwerty
Junior Member
 
DKqwerty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Terra
Posts: 26
Send a message via AIM to DKqwerty
A year later and still loving Vista.
DKqwerty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 05:38   #67
Psythik
Got his CT back
and didn't pay $10
(Forum King)
 
Psythik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,581
The PC I'm gonna be using here real soon is gonna have Vista Ultimate 64-bit. It's gonna be exciting and scary at the same time, because I've never used Vista nor a 64-bit OS for more than 15 minutes at a time before. Thankfully I have a copy of XP lying around so I can always dual-boot if things get too out of hand.

This is a sig of some nature.
Psythik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 05:56   #68
DKqwerty
Junior Member
 
DKqwerty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Terra
Posts: 26
Send a message via AIM to DKqwerty
Quote:
Originally posted by Psythik
The PC I'm gonna be using here real soon is gonna have Vista Ultimate 64-bit. It's gonna be exciting and scary at the same time, because I've never used Vista nor a 64-bit OS for more than 15 minutes at a time before. Thankfully I have a copy of XP lying around so I can always dual-boot if things get too out of hand.
Good man. I did the same when I first installed Vista by keeping XP on there just in case anything was too broken to fix. After about 6 months, I decided it was stable enough to free up some hard drive space by flattening my drives and installing Vista fresh by itself and haven't looked back.

Don't worry about x64 OS. You'll hardly notice a difference unless you're a hardcore developer. The x86 (32-bit) virtualization is very stable and has never given me a problem. Programs like Winamp and Firefox all work fine. Just make sure your system has the right drivers, because HP really f****d me over in that department.
DKqwerty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 12:08   #69
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
i have my new system now since november and have a free 50gb partition reserved 4 vista. think im gonna get the 64 bit bussines version at some point as its cheaper than ultimate and you dont need everything of ultimate. but i will always keep my XP pro on it and Open Suse.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 13:53   #70
jheriko
Forum King
 
jheriko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: a twist in the fabric of space
Posts: 2,150
Send a message via ICQ to jheriko
Been running Vista for over a year now. Its rubbish.

Resource hungry and inefficient. Its based on a new technology with fundamental design issues. IIRC most of the OS has been written with C# (read "written by fucking noobs") which is reliant on .NET... I have nothing against .NET, I just have everything against using it for such low level and performance critical applications...

I was expecting some performance increases from Vista in some areas though... After all, we can still write a memcpy/ZeroMemory faster than the ones provided by Windows without even breaking a sweat... back compatibility included! In laymans terms that means that almost everything is slower than it needs to be (the situation was no better with WinXP though...). Everytime Windows needs to move something or zero out some memory, its not going to use the full speed of your system... unless you have some pre MMX CPU. Personally I was hoping this would be fixed for Vista given the expected performance losses in so many other areas ... it certainly helps with rendering a lot (i.e. the whole user interface, even with its hardware acceleration)

On the plus side M$ managed to be a little more complaint with PE implementation than in XP, so the smallest self downloading and distributing exectuable (i.e. virus) is about 30b bigger... there are some more security fixes too I am sure... this is just the only one I have encountered so far (and worked around just as quickly...)... it should cripple a great many viruses anyway...

My advice is to steer clear of Vista until MS patches it to the point that it becomes efficient and fast or they release an operating system not based on such crap philosophies as RAD.

-- Jheriko

'Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers'
jheriko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 16:11   #71
xzxzzx
Forum King
 
xzxzzx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,254
Quote:
Originally posted by jheriko
Been running Vista for over a year now. Its rubbish.
You make some interesting claims.

Quote:
Originally posted by jheriko
Resource hungry and inefficient.
It is fairly resource hungry. Not that I would complain about that much ... 2GB of memory is plenty, and is only about $40 on the market these days. And of course, Vista does tons more than XP, so I would expect its resource usage to be higher.

I find that the I/O scheduling (and related technologies) has improved Vista's responsiveness significantly under load, though.

Are you actually complaining about things being slow, or are you watching the "memory free" in the task manager dwindle to almost zero and think that's a bad thing?

Quote:
Originally posted by jheriko
Its based on a new technology with fundamental design issues. IIRC most of the OS has been written with C# (read "written by fucking noobs") which is reliant on .NET... I have nothing against .NET, I just have everything against using it for such low level and performance critical applications...
That's not true. Some core parts of Vista were written in C# (like the WPF), but Microsoft decided to scrap the "mostly C#" idea back in 2005 or so. And of course, the Vista kernel and HAL are something like 95% C++, and the rest assembly, just like XP.

Quote:
Originally posted by jheriko
I was expecting some performance increases from Vista in some areas though...
Vista is actually faster than XP on (what are now, but won't be soon) high-end machines due to its better handling of memory and CPU time.

Quote:
Originally posted by jheriko
After all, we can still write a memcpy/ZeroMemory faster than the ones provided by Windows without even breaking a sweat...
Do you have any evidence for this?

Freedom of speech is the basic freedom of humanity. When you've lost that, you've lost everything.
1\/\/4y 34|<$p4y 1gp4y 33714y, 0d4y 0uy4y? | Roses are #FF0000; Violets are #0000FF; chown -R ${YOU} ~/base
The DMCA. It really is that bad. : Count for your life.
xzxzzx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 17:30   #72
P$ycHo™
Flakmonkey!
 
P$ycHo™'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: DM-Campgrounds
Posts: 1,870
Quote:
Originally posted by xzxzzx
Vista is actually faster than XP on (what are now, but won't be soon) high-end machines due to its better handling of memory and CPU time.
heared that too. and since i have a high end PC...
but first a new keyboard, D key looks really bad.
P$ycHo™ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 23:20   #73
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
I thought I remembered this.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...sta/index.html
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th April 2008, 23:34   #74
Psythik
Got his CT back
and didn't pay $10
(Forum King)
 
Psythik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,581
That article was written right when Vista came out, so of course it was awful then. I want to see a followup article, especially since Vista has had over a year to mature.

This is a sig of some nature.
Psythik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2008, 01:02   #75
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
Actually, the point of the post was to point out that Vista is good for somethings, and worse for others (there were a few sections of the benchmarking that Vista literally blew XP out of the water on).

Maybe it has gotten better over time, maybe it has not. The point is: like everything, there are some things it does well, and some things that it buys the farm on.

I would however argue that if things had significantly changed over the year, then why has this test not been redone? Why was this still the first result returned from google? Naturally, this statement is not implying that these test have not been repeated; it merely implies that I could not find them if they have ... and thus the previous statement is only pure speculation.
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2008, 01:49   #76
Psythik
Got his CT back
and didn't pay $10
(Forum King)
 
Psythik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 3,581
Because Tom's Hardware is notorious for neither following up on their articles, nor updating their comparison charts.

What I'd like to see is how Vista Ultimate 64-bit performs compared XP Home 32-bit (what I'm using right now). As long as it at least comes close, I'll be happy.

This is a sig of some nature.
Psythik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2008, 02:47   #77
psyfive
Forum King
 
psyfive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Colorado
Posts: 2,527
I waited and got it preinstalled on a new laptop. I really like it. I wouldn't go out and buy a copy for my old desktop but if I get around to building a new desktop I will probably buy a copy for it. Microcenter has oem versions for cheap.
psyfive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2008, 03:06   #78
fc*uk
Moderator
 
fc*uk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Atlantic Beach
Posts: 8,127
Quote:
Originally posted by Psythik
Because Tom's Hardware is notorious for neither following up on their articles, nor updating their comparison charts.

What I'd like to see is how Vista Ultimate 64-bit performs compared XP Home 32-bit (what I'm using right now). As long as it at least comes close, I'll be happy.
Point well taken. I did not know that

Now, wouldn't that be a little unfair, comparing a 32 bit and 64 bit OS? I can tell you this. I run ubuntu (same version and nearly identical computers) and the 64-bit version is about 20-30% faster than the 32-bit version. If you do not notice a speed increase, something is wrong.
fc*uk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2008, 19:20   #79
Phyltre
Forum King
 
Phyltre's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Freefall
Posts: 2,751
Send a message via AIM to Phyltre Send a message via Yahoo to Phyltre
Quote:
Originally posted by fc*uk
I would however argue that if things had significantly changed over the year, then why has this test not been redone? Why was this still the first result returned from google? Naturally, this statement is not implying that these test have not been repeated; it merely implies that I could not find them if they have ...
This is VERY dangerous logic on the internet. I used to think the same way, but over a few years of intensive internet use I find that most articles concerning things like an OS or games are going to be pre-release hype articles. I find there to be a 10-1 ratio; ten pre-release speculation articles face up against one (or no) articles written AFTER the release has happened, explaining the truth. There are exceptions, of course, but it's just the way I've found things. You're much more likely to find a day-one article than a year-later article, even if it's been done.

Oh, and I still enjoy Vista. Having recently moved up to 4 GB of gaming RAM, I'm seeing big improvements. In a month or so I'm moving up to 8GB of RAM, a TB HDD, and (obviously) a 64 bit copy of Vista. We'll see how that goes.
Phyltre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th April 2008, 21:45   #80
beanboy89
(Major Dude)
isn't very custom
 
beanboy89's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
Posts: 2,004
I run Vista x64 on both my laptop and desktop, and I have no speed or performance complaints. Both systems have 2 GB RAM.
beanboy89 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > General Discussions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump