|
sholasys
|
Win Xp is far better thab Vista. Vista is full of shiit. You don't have freedom on your system if u are using Vista. It determine what to install to it or not. - The networking is tedious, u need to authenticate it before u can borwse, the wireless lan is even more worst in configuring. if u are not vast in networking, u can't do that. that is Y i said Vista takes your freedom of right. - Vista comes with IP protocol version 6 as the default protocol. u need to disable it before u can b connected to a network of ip version 4. - You can only use the vista only on a system. so u can't copy even if u hav the licience. - Allthought it hav some beautiful facilities but it hangs and everything on it have to be licienced and b updating on the internet. - consume large memory, processor spd etc. - The worst of it is that it reject some hardware. while XP is simple easy to used and user-friendly. if u need more consult me Olushola Afere CCNA, IT Admin, PH. sholasys@yahoo.comthanks |
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
@sholasys
- people all over the world are reporting easier networking with Vista
- how hard is it to disable IPv6?
- You've known for ages that you're supposed to install Vista on just one system. What's so confusing about that?
- Vista doesn't hang as long as you've got a system that meets the minimum requirements, and these same requirements have been available on Microsoft's homepage for ages.
- Vista doesn't 'reject' any hardware that passes the minimum requirements. Most PC hardware manufacturers have updated Vista drivers freely available on the website
-The Online activation process takes less than 5 minutes, is that too much to ask?
Here's the minimum requirements for Vista
1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor
512 MB of system memory
20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics and 32 MB of graphics memory
DVD-ROM drive
Audio Output
Internet access (fees may apply)
IS there anything that's unrealistic? I've had a 1Ghz Pentium 3 processor since 2003, how much does it take to upgrade your RAM to 1GB? Does it cost much to purchase a 128MB graphics card?
The way u guys go on about 'excessive' hardware, one would think they''re asking for 4GHz processors. Instead we have guys trying to install Vista on their VIA C3 800Mhz processors and 256MB RAM and they start complaining of slow speed. why?
Vista has sold 22million copies worldwide so far, makingit the fastest selling windows ever!! Vista costs over $200, and anyone who shells out that kind of money can easily upgrade his system anyway.
the problem is, most of you guys here are plain thieves, buying the pirated versions in Ikeja or trying to crack the beta versions. I'm sorry to say that, but it's true! and if that's the case, then there's no need to complain!
This thread is skewed wrongly. it's supposed to be a comparison between vista and XP at their best. get a vista compatible pc, run vista the way it should be, test and compare it side by side with an XP machine and give us the results!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
@seun
i don't think the specs are excessively high! we should thank microsoft for attempting to standardize hardware for performance, how many Apple systems will u see OSX Tiger running on a processor less than 1GHz?
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigfido
|
hi peeps,
i just got my laptop and i intend to install vista on it.could anybody answer if my system spec will run it properly
2 duo core processor of 1.66ghz each, 1 gig ram, 128mb graphics card, 160 G hard disk.please could anybody advise.ps
|
|
|
|
|
|
Seun (m)
|
From experience, we know that Windows Vista on a system with the "minimum" requirements will be very slow!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enigma_2k4
|
I use Vista (and I have been for around a month) and 's great. I haev only got 1 BSOD so far (Blue scrren of death). Drivers are an issue at first so if you are going to migrate across make absolutely sure that you have all the drivers you require. Vista's pre-fetch with your RAM works very very well if you have a lower spec machine. I actually did a test for a friend of mine by taking out one of my ram sticks (for 2gig dual DDR 800 to 1 gig single DDR 800), here is the details, hope someone finds it usefull. Ok, very interesting, I took out 1 stick (from 2 x 1gig Kingmax DDR800 to 1)
Vista now idles with 82% of the RAM being used. There was no noticable difference booting up windows, however after logging on there was definately a very noticable difference!
WMP11 took much longer to open (it's normally about a second, then it was about 8-9 seconds - granted it does load up 25 gigs of music to show in the library). General exploring is a little slower, but opening larger programs defiantely has a considerable differenc.
Although after windows has done all it's pre-fetch work it is almost un-noticable. Adobe reader 8 took 4 seconds (about the same as normal i think).
My windows experience score was as follows at full spec:
Processor: 5.3
RAM: 5.6
Graphicss: 5.9
Gaming Graphics 5.9
HDD: 5.6
Interestingly enough with only 1 gig RAM my HDD score changed to 5.7 (up 0.1) which i have no idea why. My RAM score dropped to a 4.5. The rest remained unchanged.
I don't feel like testing with games, but my conclusion goes as follows:
After windows has done all it's pre-fetch work things pretty much run the same, although I never had enough programs open at once to try and really push it. You will live and enjoy Vista with 1 gig RAM, but personally I think a RAM upgrade should be on the cards.
I know this "report" sucks in terms of the writing, bite me, I'm a paper pusher not a journ! The info shouldn't hurt tho.
EDIT:
Basic stats are:
Core Duo 2, 2.4 ghz, 1066mhz FSB
2 x 1G Kingmax DDR800 RAM (running dual channel)
Gainward 8800GTX GFX
320G Seagate SATA2 drive
I run Vista 64 bit Home Premium at 2560x1600. Aero and all graphic settings maxed out. Hope someone finds this usefull, it wasted 20 mins of my gaming time! |
|
|
|
|
|
Enigma_2k4
|
hi peeps,
i just got my laptop and i intend to install vista on it.could anybody answer if my system spec will run it properly
2 duo core processor of 1.66ghz each, 1 gig ram, 128mb graphics card, 160 G hard disk.please could anybody advise.ps
From my experience this will run fine. What kind of applications are you planning to run? Win Xp is far better thab Vista. Vista is full of shiit. You don't have freedom on your system if u are using Vista. It determine what to install to it or not. - The networking is tedious, u need to authenticate it before u can borwse, the wireless lan is even more worst in configuring. if u are not vast in networking, u can't do that. that is Y i said Vista takes your freedom of right. - Vista comes with IP protocol version 6 as the default protocol. u need to disable it before u can b connected to a network of ip version 4. - You can only use the vista only on a system. so u can't copy even if u hav the licience. - Allthought it hav some beautiful facilities but it hangs and everything on it have to be licienced and b updating on the internet. - consume large memory, processor spd etc. - The worst of it is that it reject some hardware. while XP is simple easy to used and user-friendly. if u need more consult me Olushola Afere CCNA, IT Admin, PH. sholasys@yahoo.comthanks I disagree completely. If you don't know Vista utilises an advance Pre-fetch instruction for your RAM, so it monitors what programs you use most and then utilises free RAM to load that programs files into the RAM ready to be used. This makes opening commonly used applications fater and more efficient. This also evenly spreads out the use on your system resources. What is that about "using vista on a system?" WTF else are you going to do with it? LOL. Of course you can't copy it, all applications are deigned with that in mind, common sense should tell you that. Perhaps I don't understand your point, if so please let me know. I have no experience with Vista rejecting hardware, that can only be a driver issue (which is expected). It is not microsofts responsibility to ensure that other software companies have vista capable apps and drivers. You can't blame Vista for a software company not being up to standard. |
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
Vista gat a good interface bt i still prefer XP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
If you have the funds for a 'mega supersonic superman' system, you can gamble with Vista. It still will run twice slower than an XP system with the same spec. I got a Laptop with Vista and that happened to be the worst mistake I have ever made regarding computer purchase. I could fill a page with all the torture I had to go through. . . spent almost three days trying to get it work but it wasn't really any better. I didn't even bother with running two OS on one system and got rid of the Vista and installed XP. That was the end of my agony. If you are heavily into graphics, you really have to wait until Vista is as ubiquitous as 'pure water'. I say give it a minimum of 1 year before jumping ship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fdeveloper (m)
|
@grafikdon , In contrast, I have met a significant number of people who either bought a new machine with Vista pre-installed or upgraded a machine which met the recommended hardware specification who have had nothing but praise for the new OS. I would have thought that if you bought your new machine pre-installed with a legitimate copy of Vista in the event that you had any problems with it, you should have taken it back to the retailer to resolve. On the other hand if you bought the machine with say XP and you planned to upgrade it to Vista, then you should have run the free Vista upgrade advisor analysis tool from Microsoft www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx which would have warned you in advance of potential upgrade problems. |
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
@grafikdon
That's what u get when u buy a celeron to run vista on. at least i presume it was a celeron.
anyway, get rid of the misconception you need a super system to run Vista. i'll say it one more time; Microsoft says Vista can run on any processor above 1ghz. to be safe settle for even an entry level pentium 4 system with a 3d GPU. many of y'all are trying to run Vista on sub 1ghz pentium 3s and come here to complain.
i'm pretty sure a p4 2ghz board and processor shouldnt run u more than 20k MAX. get a 128mb card for like 8k and you're ready to go!
|
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
@grafikdon
That's what u get when u buy a celeron to run vista on. at least i presume it was a celeron.
anyway, get rid of the misconception you need a super system to run Vista. i'll say it one more time; Microsoft says Vista can run on any processor above 1ghz. to be safe settle for even an entry level pentium 4 system with a 3d GPU. many of y'all are trying to run Vista on sub 1ghz pentium 3s and come here to complain.
i'm pretty sure a p4 2ghz board and processor shouldnt run u more than 20k MAX. get a 128mb card for like 8k and you're ready to go!
Well, everything you typed up there did not apply to my case. . . none of them whatsoever. I have never spent money on anything with celeron processor since 2003 and I definitely NEVER will after I found out the hard way that celeron based on what I do is a waste of time. I still stand by my statement (irrespective of what Microsoft has to say) that to run intensive 3d and graphic applications on Vista without cursing and swearing every minute, you need a very powerful system because from my own experience my new laptop with vista is a snail compared to the performance when I installed XP. Yes I did everything I was supposed to do including installing the latest ATI driver but it still had a very disturbing OpenGL issues while running a couple of my 3D apps. Now that I have kicked out the Vista and installed XP Pro, I don't have anymore OpenGL issues and my system actually runs a lot faster than before, heck almost twice as fast if I should go by the rendering speed. It is definitely not my system and I know this for sure: AMD Turion 64 x2 (1.6 Ghtz per core) ATI Radeon Xpress 1150 1GB DDR2 RAM etc etc Now this is not a very 'High end' machine but it is neither 'low end', heck it completely outperforms my 3.2 GHTZ pentium4 system with 2GB of RAM and a more powerful Nvidia graphic card. I am a bit lost by what you said about 20K bev=cause there is no way I will dream of spending such a huge amount of money on system unless it is a 12 Ghtz Quad Core system with 20 Gigs of physical memory and a 5 GB graphic card. . . The bottom line is I won't be buying anything with Vista for at least 14 months until they have sorted out 60 percent of the issues. |
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
@grafikdon , In contrast, I have met a significant number of people who either bought a new machine with Vista pre-installed or upgraded a machine which met the recommended hardware specification who have had nothing but praise for the new OS. I would have thought that if you bought your new machine pre-installed with a legitimate copy of Vista in the event that you had any problems with it, you should have taken it back to the retailer to resolve. On the other hand if you bought the machine with say XP and you planned to upgrade it to Vista, then you should have run the free Vista upgrade advisor analysis tool from Microsoft www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx which would have warned you in advance of potential upgrade problems. Well, I don't know what they run on Vista or what exactly they do with Vista but it didn't do it for me and I am not the only one. Nearly 90% of the guys in the same field have the same words for me; "Stay away from Vista until further notice". They all complained about serious compatibility issues and OpenGL catastrophe. I bought the notebook not because I wanted to but because it was the only system a lot better than my workstations so I had no choice, besides I have a license of Windows XP Pro. The other systems pre-installed with XP have Pentium Dual Core, I didn't want to go back to that and besides they are not any better than my workstations. I didn't want to mess with a custom made notebook either. . . what's the worst that could happen? I can always go back to XP which is EXACTLY what I did after I spent three days trying to get Vista to work properly with some of my applications. Just for the records, the note book came pre-installed with Vista. |
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
@grafikdon 20K = N20,000 = Twenty Thousand Naira That doesn't qualify as a 'huge' sum, does it?  and i do not think ATI Radeon Xpress 1150 meets up with the vista requirements, that seems to be an onboard GPU, i doubt it has dedicated GPU memory, not to talk of the 128MB dedicated memory recommended by Microsoft. Like i said, many manufacturers will squeeze Vista into anything just for extra price increase and sales. |
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
Ok, I thought u were talking about $$. Anyway, it's not the ATI that caused the nightmare, A friend (after my stern warning) bought a 'pimped' Core2Duo workstation with Nvidia Quatro FX 1500 loaded with Vista and he still had problems running XSI and Lightwave and messiah Studio. He is running XP pro now and it is all good. Don't get me wrong here, I never said Vista doesn't work, it simply chokes up when running some apps and these apps that Vista can't move happen to be my most important tools.
|
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
XP still gat my vote anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
@grafikdon
he has problems running those tools not because of the failure of Vista as an OS. rather, the blame lies with the companies in question. The reason why Microsoft released the beta version of Vista for trial was because they wanted third party companies to release updated drivers and tweaks to allo these run well on vista, many didnt. Your apps run wellon XP because they have been optimised for Xp. some apps don't even run yet on vista.
Go to the product page of the relevant software,most now have updated drivers and patches for Vista. aso new versions of these software will run better on Vista.
Many games run better on xp than vista, but those are old games, any new software being developed now will run far better on Vista.
your post therefore is skewed. we're supposed to compare which of the two OS is better, and vista wins hands down. there are always bound to be some applications that don't run well at first on any new OS, but newer versions will.
if you and your pal bought those software legally, then you should be able to upgrade at little or no cost to the newer versions. however, in my view it's a potentially costly mistake to overwrite and install xp on a system that came pre-installed with vista. when most popular software become vista optimised, you may rue this!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
grafikdon (m)
|
@grafikdon
he has problems running those tools not because of the failure of Vista as an OS. rather, the blame lies with the companies in question. The reason why Microsoft released the beta version of Vista for trial was because they wanted third party companies to release updated drivers and tweaks to allo these run well on vista, many didnt. Your apps run wellon XP because they have been optimised for Xp. some apps don't even run yet on vista.
Go to the product page of the relevant software,most now have updated drivers and patches for Vista. aso new versions of these software will run better on Vista.
Many games run better on xp than vista, but those are old games, any new software being developed now will run far better on Vista.
your post therefore is skewed. we're supposed to compare which of the two OS is better, and vista wins hands down. there are always bound to be some applications that don't run well at first on any new OS, but newer versions will.
if you and your pal bought those software legally, then you should be able to upgrade at little or no cost to the newer versions. however, in my view it's a potentially costly mistake to overwrite and install xp on a system that came pre-installed with vista. when most popular software become vista optimised, you may rue this!
This is really going back and forth unnecessarily. I said I have to wait until all the issues with Vista are resolved so that I can run my apps with ease and I really don't see anything wrong with that,heck I have a Vista License gathering dust but like I said, I just have to wait until at least I get encouraging news from my colleagues. I went through the link you posted and I think it's ok but I've been through that kind of spec a long time ago and definitely won't step back there. At the moment, I am gunning for the new Quad Core systems and by the time they become pretty ubiquitous, Vista'd be perfect for me. |
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
If you have the funds for a 'mega supersonic superman' system, you can gamble with Vista. It still will run twice slower than an XP system with the same spec. I got a Laptop with Vista and that happened to be the worst mistake I have ever made regarding computer purchase. I say give it a minimum of 1 year before jumping ship.
Not really. this is a Vista vs XP thread, and your first post was definitely misleading, you clearly state that even when you meet and exceed microsoft's recommended specs for Vista, it will run twice as slow as XP. This is most definitely false. If you had problems running some apps on Vista, that's a whole different ball game entirely. Also, that link and the system configuration therein is just for the people who think that you need megabucks to get a vista compatible pc. I need higher specs myself, if i ever do decide to get a desktop. |
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
Vista gat loads of fun stuff too.Slightly different from XP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MAYORIN1 (m)
|
Window is the best because it doesnt require high performance hardware
|
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
Yeah anyday anytime i would go for Windows.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
Oh really?Wld check dt up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
texazzpete (m)
|
Window is the best because it doesnt require high performance hardware
yeah. that's be windows 95! it'll run on an intel 486 processor with 16mb ram. |
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
Kai i didnt really feel Windows 95
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rogo
|
hello,
i was using windows xp when vista came in i installed since then i have not been enjoying system so i want to reinstall the windows xp back. do you think it will have an effect to my system or damage the system. please your contribution is very important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
Re: Windows Vista Versus Windows XP: Which Is Better?
« #32 on: March 27, 2007, 02:54 PM »
Win Xp is far better thab Vista. Vista is full of shiit. You don't have freedom on your system if u are using Vista. It determine what to install to it or not.
- The networking is tedious, u need to authenticate it before u can borwse, the wireless lan is even more worst in configuring. if u are not vast in networking, u can't do that. that is Y i said Vista takes your freedom of right.
- Vista comes with IP protocol version 6 as the default protocol. u need to disable it before u can b connected to a network of ip version 4.
- You can only use the vista only on a system. so u can't copy even if u hav the licience.
- Allthought it hav some beautiful facilities but it hangs and everything on it have to be licienced and b updating on the internet.
- consume large memory, processor spd etc.
- The worst of it is that it reject some hardware. while XP is simple easy to used and user-friendly.
if u need more consult me Olushola Afere CCNA, IT Admin, PH. sholasys@yahoo.com
thanks the guy who wrote this is a big liar men some Nigerians fit lie , it is obvious that either uv not seen a vista before or the one u saw was the first beta version running on a run down system or better still a virus ridden xp os using a vista emulator, 1st u said vista "You don't have freedom on your system if u are using Vista. It determine what to install to it or not" that is a big lie and a very bad one 4 that. i have used 2 vista system and am currently into sales and pimping of vista systems.never have i come across a system tat determine for you what to install and what not, yes some application have issues with vista but their are in the minority and most of the problems go away when u run them in comptibility mode with xp,vista list of applications that it can be compatible with goes as far down as windows 95,but that does not mean a win 95 app would run seamlessly on vista, look vista is a Brand new os , its not an upgrade of xp no,its a whole new OS built from scratch, yes it does shares some similarities with xp,but that is where it stops its an os on its own and it would be stupid to think that apps made with xp in mind should work seamlessly on vista yet 90% of applications do, you wey dey talk how many traditional win200,win98,only programs do u hav on your xp, about networking , that is what now convicnced me that u have nevr seen a vista before in your life.cus it is blasphemy to compare vista with xp when it comes to networking, God, vista makes networking Sweet, u just need to see a real one do its networking thing u would trip.wlan is as seamless as using bluetooth with phones, u need to see it, i don't know where to start, but know this -vista boot faster than xp, like 7 sec faster i have compared mine to an xp with a faster processor a hard drive speed than mine. -it shuts down faster than xp, -more secured,way way beter secured than xp, -more stable, with a good config then u would find out that vista is generally more stable than xp.mine has never crashed before 5 month and counting, -more convient to use than xp-please use vista for one day and u would never near xp again in your life, things like improved search,better interface helps to make your computing xperience a lovely one, lets not talk of visual effects, i don't know why people just keep hating this os, just because u don't go googling for new update for vista programmes doesnt mean u should blame vista for the fruit of your laziness, if u say u want to wait till every developer has vista versions of their programs i would say make that makes sense, but going on to say that vista is shit or that xp is better than vista is taking the arguement too far.a |
|
|
|
|
|
dakmanzero (m)
|
Good things about vista: Fast startup. Yes, like bbrovar said, vista startup is LIGHTNING. Better networking. With proper, per-file ETA estimates, sensible handling of remote folder display refreshes, mapped drives, and so many other things, including no longer HANGING due to explorer delays, I can say good job to MS on the new netcode. Lets hope it doesnt turn otu to be as insecure as NT's. Fast install. Image install, superspeed. Streamlined 32-and-64 bit. So finally we will see 64bit Aero glass. Looks so nice! Also did a good job in forcing laptop manifacturers to include proper GPUs in their systems. Also makes people see the value in systems equipped with high power GPUs. kudos! Admiraboe driver support. Not perfect of course but a lot better than most new OS releases. Stupid and daft things about vista: 1) UAC. The most irritating POS security measure ever dreamed. Cripples the whole system in the name of security. Good in theory but in practice, Rubbish. 2) Shoehorned filesystem security. MS went so all-out about the security rewrites that they broke compatibility with so many programs to get it done, which is actually admirable. However they inexplicably stuck with the old structure, which means now that they are applying security to the 'program files' folder etc, ALL KINDS OF SHIT happens when u try to use any non-toy application. Its just stupid. Installations will sometimes fail. And the only way out is to just reverse all the permissions, thus making so much of the security moot. Not good. 3) DRM shit. I tolerate the incomaptibilities caused by stuff like compulsory DEP etc, but I do not support all the crippling microsoft did to gaming and multimedia APIs in the name of DRM. People don't believe the hype, vista is crippled when it comes to games and multimedia. DirectX10 being vista only is a gimmick. On XP it would be much faster due to a lack of DRM.If you want to know just how much Vista is KILLING your systems multimedia abilities, take a look at this article: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.htmlA cost analysis of vista content protection read that to see just hwo far MS is willing to go to take away your freedom vis a vis digital entertainment |
|
|
|
|
|
9ja4eva (m)
|
Oh yes u right
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigrovar (m)
|
Am a strong advocate of vista but i can't agree with u less on the DRM issue, that thing really sucks, its like taking the freedom of choice from the user in the name of big business, an the sad thing is that we don't even know half of it, cus read it sumwhere that vista forcing ISPs to agree to a system that would make it impossible for poeple to download copy righted product through their gateway, if u don't comply u don't get the driver for your product signed, to be frank i look forward to the day when Linux would develop a platform that would be so masses oriented as to resize the MS share of the os market, so that MS would know that people would always have a choice,
|
|
|
|
|
|
![Nairaland [Nigerian Forum] Home](http://www.nairaland.com/Themes/default/images/english/home.gif)
Poll
Author
