XP or Vista

Jabes · 11-26-2007, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin

So, by that logic anyone who just wants to run MS word and surf the internet and maybe once in a while burn a CD, must upgrade their hardware because Vista says so.

this thread isn't telling people to get vista its seeing if people like vista

Quote:

Originally Posted by funkysnair

yeh just changed it since i read this thread-might aswell throw my bit in

haha nice

funkysnair · 11-26-2007, 04:07 PM

did i ever say i like'd it? vista that is

well i do and my computer loves it too cos it pures like a little pussy cat every time it boots up.

lmfao

Jabes · 11-26-2007, 04:11 PM

IMAO just because people can't run vista on their rig is why I think that they'res so many xp voters right? wasn't this poll meant for people that actually tried vista?

Motoxrdude · 11-26-2007, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jabes

IMAO just because people can't run vista on their rig is why I think that they'res so many xp voters right? wasn't this poll meant for people that actually tried vista?

I thought it was for what you preferred?

tlarkin · 11-26-2007, 04:37 PM

No its not at all. At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it. It is a secondary system. Something I use to play around with and load OSes on. I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP. These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista. The requirements can be found here.

When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all. Things run pretty much about the same. I use it on the basic level. Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software.

However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds. It is pointless. So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.

Jabes · 11-26-2007, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin

No its not at all. At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it. It is a secondary system. Something I use to play around with and load OSes on. I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP. These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista. The requirements can be found here.

When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all. Things run pretty much about the same. I use it on the basic level. Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software.

However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds. It is pointless. So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.

ok then we'll miss you

Kornowski · 11-26-2007, 09:11 PM

Quote:

However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds. It is pointless. So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.

C'mon dude, just leave this thread...

Stay! Who else am I going to ask for my help with OS'

ukulele_ninja · 11-26-2007, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tlarkin

No its not at all. At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it. It is a secondary system. Something I use to play around with and load OSes on. I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP. These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista. The requirements can be found here.

When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all. Things run pretty much about the same. I use it on the basic level. Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software.

However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds. It is pointless. So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.

geez you guys were scaring everyone off! Take your opinions for what they are, either you like something or you dont. If you dont like and dont use it then why bash people that do like it just because you dont? Everyone needs to chill out a bit. I learned my lesson after the naked chick left a couple weeks ago.

zaroba · 11-26-2007, 09:17 PM

vista is newer, has more features, is far more stable, and runs games great.
so vista for me

to those that prefer xp over vista due to gaming speed, well duh. of course xp will run games better, it uses less resources then vista. if you run a game like Half Life on Windows 2k or 98 i bet it'll run even faster then on XP. vista uses a minimum of 512mb and will easily use 700mb or more. xp only used 64mb. if you only have 1 or 2gb of ram when you install vista, then of course your going to notice a drop in performance. you just lost a good portion of your available ram.

its quite funny that some people think stuff should run the same with less resources.
its as if some people expect vista to eliminate the need for ram

whats even funnier is seeing people crying that a game wont run when they put it on there pc with a quad core cpu, duel 8800GTXs in SLI, vista, and only 1gb of ram

Kornowski · 11-26-2007, 09:18 PM

Quote:

I learned my lesson after the naked chick left a couple weeks ago.

She left? I didn't know... Shame!

View Poll Results: XP or Vista
Windows XP	47	58.75%
Windows Vista	33	41.25%
Voters: 80. You may not vote on this poll

11-26-2007, 04:07 PM	#182 (permalink)
funkysnair Diamond Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newcastle-England-uk Age: 26 Posts: 1,030	did i ever say i like'd it? vista that is well i do and my computer loves it too cos it pures like a little pussy cat every time it boots up. lmfao __________________ q6600@3.2ghz-asus p5k pro-4x1gig 1066mhz ballistix- raptor 74gig-maxitor 500gig-gainward hd4850- thermaltake tr2 550watt-sony/nec dvd rw- antec900 (liquid cooled mod)-swiftech pump/rad- 2x"19 widescreen acer monitors

11-26-2007, 09:17 PM	#189 (permalink)
zaroba Platinum Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Hereford PA Age: 27 Posts: 602	vista is newer, has more features, is far more stable, and runs games great. so vista for me to those that prefer xp over vista due to gaming speed, well duh. of course xp will run games better, it uses less resources then vista. if you run a game like Half Life on Windows 2k or 98 i bet it'll run even faster then on XP. vista uses a minimum of 512mb and will easily use 700mb or more. xp only used 64mb. if you only have 1 or 2gb of ram when you install vista, then of course your going to notice a drop in performance. you just lost a good portion of your available ram. its quite funny that some people think stuff should run the same with less resources. its as if some people expect vista to eliminate the need for ram whats even funnier is seeing people crying that a game wont run when they put it on there pc with a quad core cpu, duel 8800GTXs in SLI, vista, and only 1gb of ram __________________ The Universal - the internet's most unique and enjoyable game. Mobo: Asus P5N32-E \| CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 @2.4GHz \| PSU: Coolmax 650watt Case: Lian-Li PC-V2100plusII \| OS: XP Professional - 64bit \| Monitors: Dual 19" Hanns-G 2ms LCDs HDs: 3x320gb, 3x500gb, 2x750GB \| Disc Drives: 16x DL dvd +/- rw Ram: 6 gb ddr2 \| GPU: 640MB GeForce 8800GTS Last edited by zaroba; 11-26-2007 at 09:21 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Vista Software Compatibility	The Astroman	General Software	61	04-22-2008 04:30 PM
which windows vista package to get	robina_80	Operating Systems	39	03-17-2008 02:39 AM
Windows Vista Compatible Incompatible Hardware Guide	jimmayor007	Video Cards and Monitors	0	09-01-2007 07:25 PM

11-26-2007, 04:11 PM	#183 (permalink)
Jabes banned Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Vista the best place to live :D Age: 15 Posts: 1,773	IMAO just because people can't run vista on their rig is why I think that they'res so many xp voters right? wasn't this poll meant for people that actually tried vista?

11-26-2007, 04:37 PM	#185 (permalink)
tlarkin VIP Member Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Kansas City, MO Posts: 6,056	No its not at all. At home I have a e6300 w/ 2 gigs of RAM and a 9800 pro (256 meg version) in it. It is a secondary system. Something I use to play around with and load OSes on. I have it booting Linux, Vista business, and XP. These more than meet the minimum spec requirements for Vista. The requirements can be found here. When I do side by side comparisons of XP versus Vista I get no performance increase at all. Things run pretty much about the same. I use it on the basic level. Ripping music, burning CDs, surfing the web, opening office documents, and the XP machine performs the same or in some cases faster due to buggy software. However, I digress, I am done trying to debate anything with some 14 year olds. It is pointless. So I am done with this thread completely, and if this keeps up the forum as well.