nope,corporate policy is every second OS, waste of money otherwise http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/en/sm/WF06a/321957-321957-64295-321838-3329741-1839152.html 80ig 7200rpm drive, 17" screen although the link above only has 15.5", dual core T7200@2Ghz, crappy FireGX5200, 4GB ram( yes wasted on 32 bit OS but better for performance I have no need to argue with anyone,day to day for my tasks vista is $hit ned of story
Not only that, but you can't just take CPU speed, memory amount/speed, and the GPU the laptop has into consideration, but you also have to consider the spindle speed of the hard drive when thinking about performance. kinda like lmimmfn's work laptop that he mentioned..... if it's using a 5400rpm hard drive.... that could quite easily explain the slowness. Hell, my little Eee PC with it's 5400RPM hard drive tends take a while to boot, and hangs a bit when trying to browse the hard drive and such. I understand that a lot of manufacturers still use 5400rpm drives because they're cheaper than 7200rpm drives.... but seriously, the extra $5-10 they could put into the computer would be well worth it. edit: hmm.... kinda odd that it performs as slowly as you say it does. You sure that the hard drive is still in good condition? maybe something could be going wrong with it? the CPU and everything seems like it'd be well up to par.... although it could also depend on which version of Vista you're running.
nah man,my laptop cost $4000 from HP last year, it has a 7200rpm drive( i know what youre saying though ) i was running Win2k and performance was top notch with chearcase snapshot views, compiling 150K lines of code in under 10 minutes, since i moved over to vista it takes forever to do anthing, Everyone with their own opinion, im only giving mine and work differneces between Win2K which is ancient and Vista and its horrible, on my gaming rig i lose performance so i cant recommend it in the least
But my point was the majority of people who feel the need to express their hate for the OS do it without even trying it themselves. Tell me, how can you hate an OS you've never tried? Because some moronic review with a bad PC says so? That's pretty much the reason Vista got labeled an "ME v2" (and man do I hate when people call it that).
I work in IT so I've tried Vista and glad I didn't buy it. Waste of money. XP is faster, uses less resources, and never failed me. DX10 was the only reason why I was ever considering Vista, but DX10 turned to be a bad joke too. Bad performance and no significant improvement in graphics over DX9. People that are defending Vista are the poor saps that spent $200 on it and are now trying to justify their poor decision. Suck it up and move on.
Yeah Win2k beats every windows performance hands down. this thread reminds me of XP bashing years ago. im looking forward to the Windows 7 bashing later this year
not true, i got vista ultimate for free (download fees only)..i have enough drives to dual-boot but i dont see the point in reinstalling xp. my xp install disc is sitting in the rack collecting dust like the old crap it is DX10 has now been optimized and runs perfect DX10 will soon be the norm just like all the DX's before it. people will complain about windows7 and DX11 when they come out, this cant be helped. people that keep up with technology want the latest and greatest and untill 7 then its vista ultimate
yeah pretty much, Win2K was simple and effective. Youre right though, even reminds me of Wi*** bashing compared to DOS gaming performance as M$ said Wi*** would be faster in gaming than DOS lol, i guess we can just expect performance to decrease with every Windows OS release in the future
Please, DX10+ won't be standard until XP dies, and we've got 2 years to go before that happens. Again, if you have a Quad, OF COURSE VISTA WILL RUN FASTER! Its optimized for multi-cores. The people I talk about are those still on a P4, 5400RPM drives, ect. They are the ones who won't switch, and those make up 95% of the buying population. We had a test version of Vista on one of our secure PC's shortly after it came out. Somehow, the system table that had the security info for all our files got nuked, so every single file on the drive had to be cycled through again. Locked up PC for 18 hours, and we couldn't get info for one of our major customers. We had another instance of a file system error right after installing Vista, and the other machines we tried it on (all celerons) ran like slugs. Hence, they run XP/2000.
You certainly are "nowhereman"! I don't need to defend something that's obviously superior - except to say to those of you who are oblivious to the truth. It's your loss and it looks good on you! ...and it's "FEWER" resources - not "LESS". I'm getting really frustrated with people who don't know the difference between "few" and "less". I'm sick of our "English" language being 'torn apart'! Quiz: why is this not a sentence? "I feel real good about that". I understand a lot of you are not from NA and have some trouble with English; but there's no excuse for those of you who went to 'grade school' here to be using such poor grammar. We've given up a lot to preserve other peoples religion, language, customs, etc. Shouldn't we at least try to preserve our language?
Sometimes i have some Problems but mostly im very happy with Vista x64. A OS needs time, at the beginnig XP had much much more Problems.
It'll be the standard once DX11 comes out. Which is probably at the end of this year. I mean you won't start seeing DX11 games for a while, but all games past DX11 finalization will be DX11. I go to a school with a game development program and the kids from there are giddy over it. CE> though
Nowhereman: "uses less resources"? So.... have you payed ANY attention as to how Vista functions compared to XP, or are you yet another one of those that press Ctrl+Alt+Del, look at the memory usage, say "Damn that's using a lot", and then say Vista sucks because of that? Vista automatically starts to cache the memory you have in your computer, so it's more quickly accessible. Believe that's due in part to Vista's SuperFetch. And you say XP never failed you..... but as everyone knows, that's YOUR opinion. I get quite a bit fewer system hangs and BSOD's using Vista than i ever did using XP. Hell, just about every other time Half-Life 2 Deathmatch would crash when using XP, a BSOD would make certain to take it the rest of the way. Vista.... the only BSOD i really see, and that's RARE.... is in regards to video drivers, if something goes askew during the install/uninstall. You look anywhere, and it's shown that Vista is just as fast as, if not faster than XP. Your computer just kinda has to be on par. And that doesn't exactly mean a $1,000 rig either. I've owned a legal copy of Vista Ultimate (retail.... not OEM) since shortly after Vista's release.... and the only issue i ever had was prior to SP1's release, where i couldn't really change any of my BIOS settings that affected memory or CPU speed away from their Automatic setting. Doing so would cause my computer to run slightly unstable, and was the general cause for my nVidia driver issues at the time. As soon as i set everything to Auto, i was able to run Vista perfectly fine right up til SP1's release. Now, i'm able to overclock, making it SO much better. So.... trying to "justify" my purchase? uuh.... think you're going to have to try again with that wise crack. gamerk2: You don't need a quad core to get Vista to run nicely. My prior setup was an AMD x2 6000+, and it ran Vista just fine. The main thing you have to worry about is having a 7,200RPM hard drive, and having at LEAST 2GB of RAM.... 4GB recommended, especially with Vista x64. And the idea of having 4GB of RAM isn't a tragedy, since you can pick memory up for dirt cheap now. Also, XP is moving into Extended Support status soon, unless it already has..... which means there won't really be many updates performed on it anymore. Either way, i seriously doubt that it'll take 2 years for DX10 to become the standard. I'm almost willing to bet that when Windows 7 is released, we'll start seeing games released that are DX10 only. And.... you had a TEST version of Vista on one of your "secure" PC's? I'm hoping you don't mean the beta or anything. Even so.... again.... Service Pack 1 made a HUGE difference in stability. So yeah..... not only do i think people that haven't even used the OS don't have any given right to b*tch about it.... but neither do people who only tried it for a short time almost a year and a half ago.
If you don't want to go to vista, that's fine. But don't judge the people who did buy Vista, and are actually happy with the improvements of a windows OS. And saying that it uses less resources, also is not that valid of an argument, seeing when XP was made versus when Vista was made. And it's been said over and over again, yes Vista uses more resources. Vista also uses those resources better than XP. No one is saying you have to upgrade to Vista, all people here are saying is people are bashing Vista, and continue to bash vista because of old articles of performance with vista and drivers! It's not just the OS that needs to be good, the drivers need to be good as well. Which Nvidia and ATI drivers were terrible when vista first came out. So where are you getting the 95% up from? Now, we aren't the only gaming community out there, but we easily make up more than 95% of pc buyers. Also think of this, not everyone who has high end machines or even midrange machines don't post on a forum. Any os that has more cores will run faster compared to a single core based machine. And 5400 rpm drives? Maybe in notebooks, but for the past 8 or 9 years, 7200 rpm has easily been the standard. AND WILL YOU LISTEN TO THE POSTS I'VE BEEN MAKING ABOUT RUNNING VISTA ON A LOW END MACHINE?! You also had vista when it wasn't optimized at all, and you also had a beta version of Vista. It's not going to be optimized and finalized yet. Vista is easily 2x better then what it was before. No one is forcing people to upgrade either, you act like we're telling you to upgrade or you can't use your computer.
this is full of vista bashers and vista fanboys, this topic wont reach anywhere i tried vista, i try everything, i love changing my OS (alrdy tried win7 3 installs,also tried win vista 5 times, one when it released during 4months), but on my machine (which WAS not low-end machine when vista released) i lose like 5-10fps in most games, and the only game i win its 1fps -.-", is that a fact? Not to talk about overclockability of my gpu there, i cant uke2: each 1 has his own opinion about his own pc, the others, r just ignorants
vbetts: i wouldn't exactly say 7200rpm has been the standard for the past 8 or 9 years. I'm pretty sure quite a large number of manufacturers still use 5400rpm drives. Actually, if anything, Vista's release might be one of the major players in causing more companies such as HP or Gateway or something to start using 7200rpm drives in their PC's.
I have the remains of an old HP desktop that had a 5400rpm harddrive in it. 7200rpm harddrives weren't even "mainstream" when it was bought back in 2001.
so many OS threads. Have we learned anything this time? i doubt it. no need to defend what you prefer and why
People will always defend what they prefer. Should be used to that by now. Linux users will defend linux. OSX users will defend OSX....and Win users will defend Windows. It's no different than the ATI vs nV bull that goes on in those 2 sections. It's all about the epeen.
