Topic: Is Vista the Trabant of Operating Systems?

[chorleydave]

My lad has just bought himself a new PC with Dual Core processor, 2GB RAM etc. and I can't recall seeing any computer take sooooo long to carry out a simple task like installing Paint Shop Pro since I tried to install Windows 95 on my old 386 machine with 4MB of RAM in 1996, during my uni days.  My youngest brother already has a PC with Vista installed and I thought his was slow, but my lad's makes using my AMD 1.8 with 1GB RAM seem like driving a Ferrari after messing about on his Vista machine for the last hour.

I never thought Microshaft could leave me speechless, but I can't think of anything else to say about that bucket of w*nk.

[Clive]

He would be better off removing it and upgrading to XP Pro.  Vista has been such a disaster that Gates is preparing a "substantial" round of layoffs, perhaps as soon as January 15.

[Simon]

I have to admit, it is bloody slow on my laptop, and I'd never install it on a machine by choice.

[Sandra]

Works fine on my old 3.6ghz intel 660 cpu with 2 gig of ram.
I have way too many programs on it and lots of clutter as I havent reinstalled it since I started using it in november 2007.
I really should wipe it and reinstall one of these days when I get time.

I cant see why people complain about Vista, maybe they have something wrong in their setup or some strange programs running on it 

[GillE]

I cant see why people complain about Vista, maybe they have... some strange programs running on it

The only strange things about the programs I run is that they're nominally Vista compatible.

[Camstop]

Works fine and fast for me too and i've had less problems than i had with XP pro 

When i install programs on my daughters PC (XP pro) it seems to take an age in comparison  ':|

Is it not also down to hard drive speed when installing new software? 

[gmax]

Vista is just too bloated with no real benefit

[sam]

see light... its Chrismtas-ish I wont preach....

[Simon]

As always, the difficult being, you can't easily switch from a long standing Windows set up, to Linux. 

[Sandra]

You can do but people like what they get used to.
How many people complained about XP being bloated and old 98 and 95 programs wouldnt run on it 

Once they got used to XP they wouldnt go back to 98 so I imagine once they have used Vista for a few months then theyd be saying the same about XP 

[GillE]

I've been using Vista for a year now and still yearn for XP.

[Sandra]

I am still using both but prefer Vista for most things Gill.

I have to keep XP on at least one pc to remind myself how it works so I can remember how to fix problems when people ask me, they dont seem to ask frequently for vista problems

[Reno]

I moved up to vista 64 from xp pro because xp pro didn't take advantage of all my ram and didn't feel like it was taking full advantage of my quadcore. Originally, I had my machine running my quad amd stock at 2.5ghz. It felt slower than my xp machine running a single core at 1.8ghz. After a few months I took my friend scott's advice and overclocked it up to 2.9ghz. Then it felt as fast as my old xp machine while running vista....... Personally, I think vista was just a ploy to get the public to buy another round of software. Its capitalism gone awry. There is no real competition so microsoft thinks they can shaft us and get away with it.

[Simon]

This may be a silly question, but why can't XP handle more than 3Gb of RAM?  If it's just a numbers thing, why can't M$ make it recognise more RAM with an update?

[Rik]

The 64-bit version should be OK, no 32-bit Windows can recognise more than 4GB of memory. With the amount reserved for graphics and the system, in practice that means about 3GB for the user.