Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
Funnily enough, I've spent the last year testing various releases of vista, on various configurations of machines (more than 30 of them) ranging from 2Ghz P4s with 256 Meg ram up to 3.6Ghz P4s with 2 Gig, and up through the core cpu range. Had problems with some software (which has usually been sorted through a patch for the software itself or Vista), but can't honestly say I've noticed problems with speed on most of the machines (apart from the 256Meg 2Ghz ones, but that's sorted with a memory upgrade).
BTW, I am a long-term Vista, Linux (ubuntu) and Mac OS user, and, tbh, still can't really recommend Linux for the desktop user. Linux has progressed a lot, but still has a way to go.
Actually, I should rephrase that last bit. I still can't recommend it for the desktop user who isn't willing/able to learn new things.
Now, perhaps we could get off the "Vista/Linux is crap" box and start talking about exactly why he should use an OS, rather than why he shouldn't?
|
It's just a simple fact, vista is not fast, it may seem it with a pseudo effect from aero, but it deffinately isnt.
When you start multitasking vista starts getting slow, aero lags.
I've seen this on multiple setups myself, and it's become quite boring having IT firms ringing up because their vista business is running slower than XP on a 286 20mhz 1mb ram pc setup.
Dell are now giving users the option to get XP with thier setups, because they have deemed vista a failure.
Vista just isnt selling well in any stores i've been to, its known to be bloated and slow.
I use XP, Vista (unfortunetly), Linux (gentoo, suse, and ubuntu) And Mac OSX also on a daily basis, out of all of them, vista is the slowest, especially boot and shut down times.
I mean come on, the audio stack bug (which STILL hasnt been fixed!!) which decreases network performance when audio is playing, how did someone not see that when error reporting?
Microsoft said vista would "Wow" people, it simply doesnt, nearly ALL the things that were supposed to be there are gone, and from what i am aware are not even going to make it in "7".
Like it or not, apart from the new memory management, the rest is a shambles (audio stack is, thats why creative are finding ways to get around it and use hw acceleraiton for audio), the network stack is laughable, the kernal is so-so.
UAC is just annoying, why they bothered even implementing it is beyond me, it works nothing like within linux.
I've had plenty of friends, even with new quad core setups try vista and go crawling back to XP within a month.
Sorry, im ranting :P IT Tech, so whatcha expect hehe.
As for linux being ready for the desktop? depends on what the user on the other end wants.
But mainstream, probably not, but compiz fusion sure is showing how much of a failure vista actually is.
---------- Post added at 15:29 ---------- Previous post was at 15:27 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewJ
I have an X2 4600 3GB ram and a x1950, and I dual boot XP with Vista Ultimate.
I game on same settings on BF2142 on Vista with no FPS drop and with Aero enabled I'm using on desktop with MP11 and WLM running 23% ram 3% cpu.
---------- Post added at 15:26 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------
And bloody idiots who don't know when to drop something.  |
If it's only using 23% of your memory, something is wrong there, memory management isnt working properly, the more you have, the more it uses.
I never said it used to much CPU btw, the gui is just bloated, so everything feels slower at responding, try ticking a box for example, something simple like that and you notice the lag from aero.