This is not a Q.
It's an opinion.
Today I have experienced an
HP
dv6327ea
1.83GHz
1GB
Intel Graphics Media Accelerator 950
128 MB Shared Memory
Running Vista Ultimate.
I was under the impression that it would be a bit "sluggish".
We are talking about an old generation proccesor, only 1 gig, and a built in graphics card.
BUT - to my suprise, it ran smoothly (aero included).
I need to say that I wasn't running a lot of programs, and that the computer was new.
Never-the-less, it seems (or maybe just to me) that the Vista expirence is not as harsh on a PC as it may have sounded.
As one that cant tollerate performace lost due to un-needed applications, it has to be sayd that one has to drew the line !
When are the Microsift users going to get a proper OS ?
Isn't the fact that Vista is considered "slow" (in all meaning) a shame to that company and to us as costumers ?
Why should I look at mu freind's Mac Os and fill with envy ?
Why "even" an Ubuntu makes my Microsoft's OS seems like an ancient OS ?
I am hating Microsoft a bit more every day.
I must say, when I saw that Lenovo released a downgrade to Xp option (Dell did the same), I felt happy.
When the 3'rd biggest Laptop company says "your new OS sucks", it makes a different !
To be honest, this monopoly gut us all, if you'll excuse me, by the balls.
-
Here's the problem with vista
XP has been out for what? 5yrs....longer time between releases than any other ms os. The hardware had plenty of time to improve while the os stayed the same, so XP feels pretty lightweight on modern computers. now vista comes out and slows it all back down again. XP was slow on computers when it first came out.
Vistas slowness is most noticable when you click to open an app. it has more lag time there than xp does. I use firefox to compare the two. On vista I have to wait about 5 sec for it to open. in xp it is instant. -
XP had the same initial reaction as Vista is having now. It's just so long ago that most people have forgotten.
Some people also seem to just be complaining about Vista out of ignorance. I've seen things like "OMG it sucks, even idle it takes up so much RAM and CPU" (it's supposed to). Or the one I love the most, "it's the same as XP except with pretty graphics!!" (it's a totally different codebase) -
I even hear from MS employees how disappointed they are with Vista rtm. Perhaps SP1 will help fix some of the stuff that should never have been so impeding.
How microsoft can release such a gem in the form of office 2007 and blow it with vista, I'll never know. -
For me Firefox opens instantly on Vista64. In fact, my whole vista experience is roughly equivalent to XP Pro. I have Vista on my 2 Ghz T61 and XP Pro on my 2 GHz HP nc6400. The XP machine is actually less stable and sometimes takes forever to boot up (~5 minutes) while the Vista machine is rock solid. No BSODs ever! -
on first load of firefox, it's slow.....after that its much faster (some of it in memory already). Fast on first start with xp.
I have a t60p, t7200cpu, 2gb mem, 5400rpm hdd
tried both os's on it -
Vista is DRM infested, bloated, intrusive - just for starters.
Vista is the biggest mistake by MS to date. -
I did try running Vista on my old thinkpad R50 with only 768 Mb of Ram. It ran really slow !!!
I agree Vista does have some advantages over XP, but the overall. It's not an "adult" yet. XP is still doing a better job than Vista -
LOL J/K. Yeah. Vista loves ram. RAM RAM RAM! HAPPY RAM! MERRY RAM! LOTS AND LOTS OF RAM!
-
-
-
-
I installed Vista basic btw -
T2350 core duo + 1 gig = Fast Vista
Discussion in 'Lenovo' started by o1d1e1d1, Aug 30, 2007.