Users fight to save Windows XP

db2450

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
608
That's odd, because my computer, which was built in April 2004 and slowly upgraded since then, performs very well in Vista.
<snip>
Wow, I need new RAM....... I got this computer last year (ordered from Dell). I should have just found some free time and built myself some better...... Everything but my RAM and processor is above 5.5...
 

awdrifter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
3,135
That's odd, because my computer, which was built in April 2004 and slowly upgraded since then, performs very well in Vista.

A 5.9 is the highest score I think. So your comp is a 74% of the best possible experience. I've used a few of my friends' laptops that came with Vista. These are dual core laptops with 1GB of ram, but they still feel slower than my 2.3ghz Sempron download comp in daily tasks. I installed XP for one of them, she said it's noticebly quicker. So yea, I'm not touching Vista until I get a quad core and 4GB of ram.
 

db2450

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2007
Messages
608
A 5.9 is the highest score I think. So your comp is a 74% of the best possible experience. I've used a few of my friends' laptops that came with Vista. These are dual core laptops with 1GB of ram, but they still feel slower than my 2.3ghz Sempron download comp in daily tasks. I installed XP for one of them, she said it's noticebly quicker. So yea, I'm not touching Vista until I get a quad core and 4GB of ram.
6.0 is the highest score, but I don't think anyone can really get it......
I get 5.5 under with a 8600GT, so I don't think the system is really any good at determining thing really..... I mean an 8800GTX has to give you a 5.9 if mine gives a 5.5. Then what would 2x8800GTX give or 9800GTX2?/2x9800GTX2? :p.
 

MadCow809

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
6,375
A 5.9 is the highest score I think. So your comp is a 74% of the best possible experience. I've used a few of my friends' laptops that came with Vista. These are dual core laptops with 1GB of ram, but they still feel slower than my 2.3ghz Sempron download comp in daily tasks. I installed XP for one of them, she said it's noticebly quicker. So yea, I'm not touching Vista until I get a quad core and 4GB of ram.
Quad core and 4gm ram??

No need.

Any dual core with 2gb ram will run Vista fine.

my lowest score(just the cpu) in vista performance index is 5.6, rest is all 5.9, and i have an ordinary build, nothing too fancy.
 

Crazyjeeper

NickGyver
DONOR
Joined
Nov 29, 2006
Messages
7,885
Location
Dallas, TX
Car(s)
F150, CJ7, Mustang GT, Tenere, Griso, GL1000
I have one computer with XP and one with vista. In my experience, there really isn't much of a difference. My vista laptop has no more or less problems than my XP desktop. Hell, I might pick up vista ultimate for 34 dollars from my uni and put it on my desktop.
 

bafranksbro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
600
Location
New Hampshire
Car(s)
98 VW Jetta
I have both, a laptop with Vista and a desktop with XP. Vista uses way more mem and there are a few things that get on my nerves in Vista. Really it isn't that much different from XP, you get a few fancy new features that are cool but they take up a crap load of mem. I recommend to never push it to 100% mem usage, it locks up and it's hard to get it restarted when it's like that. All I was doing was watch a flash video for school in Firefox and it ate up all the mem for some reason, took me over an hour to get it running normally. It wouldn't shutdown and holding the power button did nothing, I would have had to take the battery out to force it to shut down faster and I was worried I might screw something up permanently doing that.
 

Dr.Kamiya

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2006
Messages
568
Car(s)
2007 Impreza WRX, 2001 Explorer Sport Trac
IMO they should just pull the plug on XP.

How can people not realize that running as a non-administrator is better? Majority of applications that don't run well on Vista (and cause those subsequent UAC popups) are probably that way because they expect to be run with administrator privileges. By pulling the plug on XP, Microsoft will force people to write better behaved applications.
 

bafranksbro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
600
Location
New Hampshire
Car(s)
98 VW Jetta
Vista uses more memory because it's actually doing something with it.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/superfetch.mspx

SUPERFETCH!
Ok how do I turn it off? I'm getting sick of it using half my memory for a few programs to load faster, while it slows everything else down. Fix the mem usage and then it's better than XP in my opinion.

EDIT: Of course it doesn't matter how good Vista is since it's got less than two years left on it's life anyway before it's replaced and we start this whole circle over again.
 

vegasrebel29

Suckin' dic* bought this title
Joined
Mar 18, 2007
Messages
737
Location
Las Vegas
Car(s)
Chevrolet Silverado
IMO they should just pull the plug on XP.

How can people not realize that running as a non-administrator is better? Majority of applications that don't run well on Vista (and cause those subsequent UAC popups) are probably that way because they expect to be run with administrator privileges. By pulling the plug on XP, Microsoft will force people to write better behaved applications.
That's a joke right?
The only reason most programs are so sloppily written
is because they're made to run on Windows in the first place.
Also, Microsoft as a torchbearer for high programming standards?
 

cvrefugee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
4,114
Location
Corona, CA
Car(s)
2005 Scion xB
Ok how do I turn it off? I'm getting sick of it using half my memory for a few programs to load faster, while it slows everything else down. Fix the mem usage and then it's better than XP in my opinion.

EDIT: Of course it doesn't matter how good Vista is since it's got less than two years left on it's life anyway before it's replaced and we start this whole circle over again.
Get more RAM? I would have at least 2GB to run Vista comfortably. It will release memory for other programs when needed.
 

powah

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
1,285
Location
New Z Land
I would actually like to know how to turn superfetch off, just to see what happens.
 

otispunkmeyer

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2006
Messages
4,829
Location
Loughborough UK
Car(s)
'03 Skoda Superb (farewell :(), '06 Honda Civic ES
leopard ftw

i love it, 2.4ghz dual core 4gig of ram (tho from my experience it seems leopard is more frugal with the memory than tiger) and this thing absolutely flies.

i have used vista, it seems pretty nice but it does seem a tad sluggish at times. my mates got a core 2 duo 2.0ghz, integrated nvidia geforce graphics (7400 i think) and 2 gig of ram. so its not a uber quick machine but it really should be more than enough for vista...but it does get slow. the media center for example is anything but slick. its a jerky as!

still i think once the comps been running for a few hours or days maybe things seem to smooth out. frequently used programs load up quick and run well and i do love the aero interface, again just needs to be optimized in places.
 

bafranksbro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2007
Messages
600
Location
New Hampshire
Car(s)
98 VW Jetta
Get more RAM? I would have at least 2GB to run Vista comfortably. It will release memory for other programs when needed.
I have 2 gig in both my machines and so the comparison between the two as far as mem usage goes is very comparable.

EDIT: I also find it ridiculous that the solution to high mem use is to get more ram, if I had more it would still be using the same amount.
 
Last edited:

awdrifter

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2004
Messages
3,135
As I was saying before, get 4GB of ram (and Vista 64bit) then it'll run well. Vista is very demanding, of course most computer will run it, but not very well. And about the program incompatibility, I have experienced first hand how bad that was when I tried to install some program on my friend's Vista laptop. NJ Star (an Asian language input program) and a dvd conversion program (forgot the name) just refuse to install on Vista. So hopefully newer version of the programs I use will come out, then I can switch to Vista on my next build.
 

MadCow809

Forum Addict
Joined
Feb 23, 2006
Messages
6,375
Yeah, but will it run it any better then XP, or even as well for the that matter?
Actually, my machine runs faster on Vista than XP. Games too, and its more stable, since I leave my pc on 24/7, after a few weeks without restarting, Vista is far more stable than XP.

As I was saying before, get 4GB of ram (and Vista 64bit) then it'll run well. Vista is very demanding, of course most computer will run it, but not very well. And about the program incompatibility, I have experienced first hand how bad that was when I tried to install some program on my friend's Vista laptop. NJ Star (an Asian language input program) and a dvd conversion program (forgot the name) just refuse to install on Vista. So hopefully newer version of the programs I use will come out, then I can switch to Vista on my next build.
What are you on about?? There is no need for 4gb ram just to run Vista, it's not demanding, not if you have a PC with 2Gb ram and a Dual core. No need to sink in money on 4gb ram and deal with Vista 64bit, then you will have more trouble finding programs/drivers that work on a 64bit OS.

And if the DVD conversion program doesn't work, then get a better one that works with Vista. 99% of my programs all work on Vista without any glitch.
 
Last edited:

PelicanHazard

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
2,420
Location
Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Car(s)
'13 Dart 1.4T mtx, '13 FIAT, '03 Ranger XLT Supcab
2GB RAM and a 2 GHz dual-core on a laptop and Vista runs fine for days on end. It only slows down for me when I try to open three programs at once while it's still connecting to a network.
 

Vector

Active Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2008
Messages
420
Location
Edmonton, AB
Other than Directx10, there's NO real reason to upgrade to Vista. So why should we? Microsoft is just trying to push a new product out the door.

I'm going to hang onto XP as long as I possibly can, and by then I hope somebody will have a nice modified, slim-downed version of Vista for me to install (many such versions like this exist for XP).
 
Top