My review of vista

K

king-pin

New Member
I haven't upgraded to a new computer in about 4 years. I decided to build a new computer for vista. The specs are below my sig except I now have corsair 800 mhz ram 2gb.

All my drivers and hardware are compatible with Vista including the my hp printer ( i dled the driver and it works like a charm)

I Really like the interface and the side gadgets. everything seems to run really smooth. the pop-ups aren't that annoying once you figure out how to disable it, but even with it on it's not too bad. But honestly though, there's really not a huge difference between xp and vista except for the user interface.....

I like how they have the windows media for dvd players, digital tv, etc.
 
WOW.... this is completely not what i was expecting as I opened this thread. its nice to see someone that appreciates vista for what is is, a quality OS. ;)
 
I am so pleased to see this, I was about to say 'oh no its all wrong!' but I agree, well done for saying that! Vista is the best OS Microsoft have made and I do hope they keep up their good work.
 
It's another version of "Windows" with some fancy "eye candy" to make the MS selling point. Most complain due to simply seeing it require 512mb while XP requires about 64-128mb just for the basics. This is typical for any new version since 98 only required some what 8mb of memory then?!

Since more is used by default many now want to see 4gb of memory over the typical 2gb already in use on many desktops. Even with the 64bit editions the 3gb barrier still plays a role at times. Plus the new boards seeing 8 or 16gb memory capacities still lack the adequate chipsets for proper detection of the full amount of memory installed.

The actual plus factors for the new version are a few things like improved crash control over what was seen in XP especially when games lock up due to a driver fault and the improvement MS made with both the Disk Management tool now able to resize secondary partitions while Windows is running and seeing memtest and better drive partitioning tools on the installation disk.

The minus factors vary depending on who you talk to about the new version. You'll find that the higher percentage looks at Vista as the MS sequel to ME! ME II flop?!
 
DirtyD86 said:
WOW.... this is completely not what i was expecting as I opened this thread. its nice to see someone that appreciates vista for what is is, a quality OS. ;)
Click to expand...

yeah i expected a rant :P
but anyhoo, it's good since vista works for you.

cheers mate
 
Well buddy i don’t think this is a perfect configuration for vista...I think u should see this kinda configuration for best result......
Intel core 2 duo]
nvedia chipset
2 GB ram
250 Gb hard drive
 
addy999 said:
Well buddy i don’t think this is a perfect configuration for vista...I think u should see this kinda configuration for best result......
Intel core 2 duo]
nvedia chipset
2 GB ram
250 Gb hard drive
Click to expand...

Two things are correct there namely the NVidia nForce chipset and 2gb of memory. But as far as memory that can also be said for XP as well.

The cpu and drive(s)? The layout here has done quite well so far.

AMD AM2 6000+ X2 3ghz cpu
nForce 570 chipset
2gb of performance memory
250gb ide to be 500gb sata once new WD GP series 1tb storage drive is in. Others simply have their 160gb sata models going. Size of drive(s) depends on capacity needed more then any version of Windows.
 
well its kinda nice to see a "positive" review from a user. although in response to posts 1 and 2. i dont think he really says anything about it being a QUALITY OS or "the best os". im not dogging Vista, though i could, but from to this post, i dont think i would even consider upgradeing. i will on the otherhand, add it to my mental tally on the "not so bad" side.

like patricKv said, im glad to see it was worth it for you to upgrade and that you seem to be enjoying the Vista experiance.

GL
 
Gates can easily step down as CEO at any time since he's already self made and still the owner in that sense. One look at the article there. He started the company while being far from the only software engineer through the years employed by MS. The question now will be what the next version brings along with it like NTFS 6.0 to upgrade from the current 2000-Vista 5.0?
 
glad to see you like it and have joined the ranks of people who aren't afraid to upgrade etc.

also, this is just more proof that most of the people who use vista with 2gb or more of ram don't have any trouble with it.


DirtyD86 said:
WOW.... this is completely not what i was expecting as I opened this thread.
Click to expand...
heh, i have to agree to that.
 
The problem with 4gb of ram has to do with the 3gb barrier seen with 32bit versions of Windows altogether not just Vista. http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

Even Microsoft has addressed the problem of errors seen when installing Vista with 4gb installed for the 64bit as well as 32bit editions of Vista. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929777

Vista has been running just as well on 2gb here as is XP while first seeing 3rd party drive problems and the obvious changes between versions. Like any version it still sees it's ups and downs depending on how you look at it. The crash control and improvements with the DisK Management tool as well as better tools on the installation disk are the ups while the UAC, gadgets, and other clutter are some of the down sides there.
 
erm...huh? don't know what made you think of that stuff :P
nobody said anything about vista seeing less ram or having errors when installing it on PCs with more then 3gb of ram.

i just notice that all the people who complain about vista being slow etc have less then 2gb of ram.
whereas all the people who have no speed issues/crashing with vista all have 2gb or more of ram.

it has nothing to do with the 32bit limitation, or errors coming up when installing vista on a pc with more then 3gb of ram.
 
Last edited:
Motoxrdude said:
Yes, it is exponential. The equation is 2^bit, so 32bit would be 2^32 and 64bit would be 2^64.
Click to expand...

You'll be happy to know thet the 32bit version of Windows Server 2003 sees upwards of 32gb of memory there. And there are problems seen with the 64bit editions of Vista when installing the new version on a system with 4gb installed. 64bit still isn't invulnerable at this time to seeing errors.

Despite the complaints here about some changes now seen in Vista I haven't seen indication of running any slower then XP. More memory needed?

Gee nothing new there since XP needed 128mb upgrading from 98 only needing 16mb! Each new version is often found a little larger with additional items. But you certainly don't need 16gb to run Vista while new boards see that capacity but lack the chipsets to support over 4gb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top