Greetings Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Saved yourself about £100 and don't have to worry about Digital Rights Management or Driver issues. Has nobody noticed that you get faster and faster computers to be slowed down by overweight bulky operating systems, fair enough if the OS is actually alot better and beneficial but what's wrong with XP?Don't have to worry about that at all.Nobody is saying that there's something wrong with XP. However, if you've got a powerful PC, it's XP that will be slowing it down, not Vista. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Token Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 “…Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP’s 35 seconds.Vista’s performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance without SP1–much lower than XP’s SP3 improvement of 10 percent. The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation materials."That's from CNetI don't have a hatrid for Vista, I just honestly really can't see the benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrongsideof40 Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Great so £60 spent on extra 2gb of RAM, £70 on Operating System and the best thing about it is the font? You not thought about having XP and using the Vista Transformation pack so you can too have a pretty shiney OS? Saved yourself about £100 and don't have to worry about Digital Rights Management or Driver issues. Has nobody noticed that you get faster and faster computers to be slowed down by overweight bulky operating systems, fair enough if the OS is actually alot better and beneficial but what's wrong with XP?Well said its taken a long time but XP works well now. In my experience MS OS's are always at its best when MS are saying they are working on a new OS. with the exception of ME this was released as a crap OS and was crap when it was replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spode@thinkbikes Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Don't have to worry about that at all.Nobody is saying that there's something wrong with XP. However, if you've got a powerful PC, it's XP that will be slowing it down, not Vista.Not buying it. Take a top end machine now, and XP will STILL out perform Vista, It's been documented - hell, I've documented it.However, in human terms, if you've got a top end machine - you won't notice it. That doesn't mean it's not there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavyn. Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 if you don't notice it it doesn't matter does it. buying xp over buying vista is a bit like buying a skyline over buying and lamborghini, yes it's cheaper and faster but it's boring, it looks boring, there's no "fun" features. It's just the same old boring crap. if you want to do hardcore gaming, run a business, or are just boring then get XP. If not then vista is great. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Great so £60 spent on extra 2gb of RAM, £70 on Operating System and the best thing about it is the font? You not thought about having XP and using the Vista Transformation pack so you can too have a pretty shiney OS? Saved yourself about £100 and don't have to worry about Digital Rights Management or Driver issues. Has nobody noticed that you get faster and faster computers to be slowed down by overweight bulky operating systems, fair enough if the OS is actually alot better and beneficial but what's wrong with XP?Actually, decent ram is at its cheapest right now and for 2gb of ram you'd be looking at spending £30-35. For 4gb you'd be looking at around £65-70. “…Vista, both with and without SP1, performed notably slower than XP with SP3 in the test, taking over 80 seconds to complete the test, compared to the beta SP3-enhanced XP’s 35 seconds.Vista’s performance with the service pack increased less than 2 percent compared to performance without SP1–much lower than XP’s SP3 improvement of 10 percent. The tests, run on a Dell XPS M1710 test bed with a 2GHz Core 2 Duo CPU and 1GB of RAM, put Microsoft Office 2007 through a set of productivity tasks, including creating a compound document and supporting workbooks and presentation materials."That's from CNetI don't have a hatrid for Vista, I just honestly really can't see the benefit.So they got a low spec computer and wondered why vista performed slower? Vista needs more ram than that if your going to be doing tests/gaming on it. 2gb minimum... because it allocates ram in a different way to xp (not because it uses it up by running vista itself). In theory, with 2gb of ram, vista should be faster than xp because it will prefetch all the things you'd be likely to do in your office program so it can load them up faster, as opposed to xp's ancient method of click it then load it into the ram.At the end of the day, if you've got a decent computer and don't game on it and by game i mean buy the latest titles like crysis and expect to play them at full settings rather than all the people who claim to be gamers but try running their games at the lowest possible settings on a museum piece of a pc, then buy vista. Theres tonnes more features in it that vastly improve it over xp and the people who still advise you not to get it aren't helping you in the slightest, and are usually only saying it because they're set in their ways/too scared to welcome change. If you have a 3ghz single core processor or a dual core one, over 1gb of ram then go for vista. If its less than that, stick with xp and look at getting vista when you get a new computer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Rainbird Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 Loving it so far on new (but not particularly high-spec) laptopChucked Start++ into the mix and makes it even nicer to play with, though it's currently taking up 9,404K of my (slightly limited) system resources, so may try playing about with it to get that don a bit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
br3n Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I totally understand why people wouldnt want to upgrade just for the sake of it. But if you NEEDED to buy an OS it would stupid to buy XP as it WILL, not an opinion, IT WILL become useless within a few years...win98 anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadManMike Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 I tried putting a 12" vinyl into a dvd player... didnt work either What a shit arguement, it's nothing like the DVD / Vinyl comparison!A PC game on CD should work on a PC with a CD drive, especially if said PC is better than previous model. My point exactly.It might be good for you if you just use photoshop and MSN / Internet, but for me it isn't.Personal preference, but Vista doesn't do everything I'd like it to, hence I'm sticking with XP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M-i-t-c-h Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 could be the worst operating system ever made in my opinion.Its maybe come out ahead of time, like Micheal Jackson Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krisboats Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 (edited) What a shit arguement, it's nothing like the DVD / Vinyl comparison!A PC game on CD should work on a PC with a CD drive, especially if said PC is better than previous model. My point exactly.It might be good for you if you just use photoshop and MSN / Internet, but for me it isn't.Personal preference, but Vista doesn't do everything I'd like it to, hence I'm sticking with XP.Did you try using a patch on the game? The sad fact of the matter with pc gaming is its very rare that an old game will just work on a new computer. Due to the range of parts, drivers and operating systems available there is a lot of different factors that can cause a conflict. The way to overcome these is to release the game, then release patches that address the problems that some people have. Patching a game might be mundane, but its part and parcel of pc gaming. Vista is also coming up towards xp on performance in games now, with the difference being 4-5fps and in some cases it runs faster.DX10 is one of the big features of vista, but until games are coded for dx10 and not coded for dx9 with a few dx10 features added on, we won't see the benefits of the new coding standard. Edited December 3, 2007 by Krisboats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spode@thinkbikes Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 Vista is also coming up towards xp on performance in games now, with the difference being 4-5fps and in some cases it runs faster.Certainly on the games front, you're right. This has been a driver issue. You have to remember that the driver model in Vista is entirely new, so the drivers have almost had to be written from scratch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mat hudson Posted December 3, 2007 Report Share Posted December 3, 2007 i've had no problems with vista as of yet apart from it doenst want to run older games which is to be expected i guess. it hasnt even crashed yet and i've had it since april. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.