Windows Vista is GOLD

[Joe Gronlund]

Yaa, RAM is really affordable these days..

[TruthElixirX]

If you want to use a computer for anything, you need 1 GB of RAM anyway. Did you expect an operating system made years after the previous one to have the exact same system requirements?

My laptop, that I use to maintain my web site (text editing, FTP, small photo edits, IMing, e-mail, browsing, etc) runs just fine on 192 MB.

[filburt1]

No system running Windows XP or an equivalent modern OS (Mac OS X, SuSE Linux 10.1, etc.) is usable with less than 256 MB. RAM is cheap.

The only reason I haven't upgraded my desktop beyond 1 GB is I need to save a lot of money, and as it has 4x256 MB in it right now, 2x256 MB will be lost if I upgrade.

Vista runs acceptably on my Dell XPS M1210 laptop. Aero Glass is smooth, but only when the freaking GPU power saver turns off. Unfortunately, it'll only turn off after a few seconds of GPU activity, so Glass is always laggy. For some reason, nVidia's drivers don't recognize my Geforce 7400.

[Zonex]

XP is bloated enough. Vista brings bloat to a whole new level. No thanks, I'll pass.

[Freesteyelz]

Microsoft store, here I come!

[Wayne Luke]

My laptop, that I use to maintain my web site (text editing, FTP, small photo edits, IMing, e-mail, browsing, etc) runs just fine on 192 MB.

I'm sorry.. The only computer I have with less than 2 GBs of RAM is the laptop and it has 1 GB. Anything else wouldn't be very tolerable in my opinion.

[Zachery]

XP is bloated enough. Vista brings bloat to a whole new level. No thanks, I'll pass.

XP runs considerably better and much more stable than 2k and any 9x serries.

Vista runs quite nicely and if you're a preformance freak, turn off the pretty effects and it runs even better.

[Vile]

XP is bloated enough. Vista brings bloat to a whole new level. No thanks, I'll pass.

RMC My Computer-->Properties-->Advanced-->Performance-->Settings-->
[Adjust for Best Performance]

Done. XP Runs very fast on this setting.

[Zachery]

XP runs very fast with most of those things turned on, at least on a more modern PC.

[TruthElixirX]

RMC My Computer-->Properties-->Advanced-->Performance-->Settings-->
[Adjust for Best Performance]

Done. XP Runs very fast on this setting.

This is how I run it on my laptop, and it runs extremely well for all I listed that I need it to do.

I'm sorry.. The only computer I have with less than 2 GBs of RAM is the laptop and it has 1 GB. Anything else wouldn't be very tolerable in my opinion.

Nothing to be sorry about, and this machine has no lag and performs its expected tasks very well.

No system running Windows XP or an equivalent modern OS (Mac OS X, SuSE Linux 10.1, etc.) is usable with less than 256 MB. RAM is cheap.

The only reason I haven't upgraded my desktop beyond 1 GB is I need to save a lot of money, and as it has 4x256 MB in it right now, 2x256 MB will be lost if I upgrade.

Vista runs acceptably on my Dell XPS M1210 laptop. Aero Glass is smooth, but only when the freaking GPU power saver turns off. Unfortunately, it'll only turn off after a few seconds of GPU activity, so Glass is always laggy. For some reason, nVidia's drivers don't recognize my Geforce 7400.

Then you under stand why I haven't upgraded, money. I'm in high school, I have other things to spend money on besides RAM for a internet browsing, word proccessing, laptop.

[Zonex]

XP runs considerably better and much more stable than 2k and any 9x serries.

I beg to differ. 2K runs better and faster than XP in my experience. The only reason I finally had to abandon 2K after 6 years of running it was that certain pieces of software that I can't live without weren't properly tested on 2K. They had some minor issues that disappeared under XP.

The majority of XP users never went thru 2K. They upgraded from ME or 98. Never realizing that "XP" came out in 1999(2K). For this reason they aren't in any position to say much about 2K.

XP is basically 2K prettied up...bloated...for the masses.
2K = Windows NT ver 5.0
XP = Windows NT ver 5.1

[Freesteyelz]

A few years back when I did licensing support for MS I asked my cousin about his opinion on XP vs 2K; while much of the information went over my head he concluded with the preference for XP. Now he couldn't tell me what I didn't already know about licensing matters but he was an authority of the handling of the software. See, he was part of the coding team for XP, 2K and now, on the Vista team. I tend to stay away from OS debates but I do find them interesting as people go at it with passion.

Anyway, with that said, I like the eye candy stuff in Windows.

[Yves R.]

The long wait, finally, is over. On Wednesday, November 11, 2006, at 11:00 am PST, Microsoft announced that it had released Windows Vista to manufacturing...

This is past.

Just a small point, but Wednesday [today] is November the 8th. the 11th is Friday.

You're right

[Joe Gronlund]

Hey Joe:

Just a small point, but Wednesday [today] is November the 8th. the 11th is Friday.

Regards,

Fixed, i guess i should proof-read other peoples articles

[Zachery]

I beg to differ. 2K runs better and faster than XP in my experience. The only reason I finally had to abandon 2K after 6 years of running it was that certain pieces of software that I can't live without weren't properly tested on 2K. They had some minor issues that disappeared under XP.

The majority of XP users never went thru 2K. They upgraded from ME or 98. Never realizing that "XP" came out in 1999(2K). For this reason they aren't in any position to say much about 2K.

XP is basically 2K prettied up...bloated...for the masses.
2K = Windows NT ver 5.0
XP = Windows NT ver 5.1

I'm not one of them, well paritly.

I did ALOT of work during my schooling for Windows System Administration and I know how 2k functions, under load, etc etc. Realisticly, the XP code is better, Is faster, and runs much more efficently in the long run. Don't like the eye candy? Kill it.