On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 08:54:23 +0200, "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> came up with this: > Charles R. Buchanan <> wrote on Wednesday, September 26, 2007 6:39 PM: > > You really need 2GB of RAM to make Vista happy and run at the (somewhat) same > speed as XP? It's basically the same with XP. I have a Plll that only have like 128mb of ram, and XP crawls (as it should). Even on this machine, once I upgraded to 2gb of ram, things really took off! :-) Like I said though, for me, Vista seems a lot faster at somethings than XP. At least with my experiences here. Takes forever (it seems) for the networking to settle down though. I think that's because of the extra security built in. Under XP, when I boot up and you see the desktop, my AV program is already connected and downloading the updated defs. Under Vista, it usually says that there's a problem because it takes longer than the program is set to connect. Which I haven't found any settings that changes that. > What kind of cpu (and other hw) do run your Vista on? Stationary or portable? I have a AMD Athlon X2 3800+ (939 socket), 2bg ram, cd-burnner, dvd-rom and dvd-burner. a 200 and 250gb WD Sata drives. Ati x1300 256mg Video card. I use to have two 320gb WD Sata drives installed as well, but I think the second controller on the MB is dying. :-( If I have time today I'm buying this ASUS motherboard and will be getting a 6000+ cpu to stick on it and I will start off at 2gb, but will upgrade that to 4gb down the road. There should be a slight difference in speed though! ;-) Plus I will finally be able to run the drives at 300 instead of 150 because I will have a MB that supports the faster SATA standard. > The only other > Vista I've run was on a spanking brand new HP 6715s notebook I bought for one > of the staff at the dept. It came with Vista Basic preinstalled and run off of > an AMD Turion 3200+ or something like that and had 1G RAM. From first > switching it on until I could logon and check it out, it took more than two > hours... Well in, it felt really sluggish. I checked the overall index on it > and it was 3, with about half of the checked things at 4. Assuming 5 is top > notch I was rather dissapointed with Vista. It wasn't like the Basic-version > runs a lot bling-bling, bells and whistles. Actually, from what I heard, for some reason(s), people with HP's (desktops included) that come with Vista already installed are having some issues with the setup on it. So I wouldn't put the total blame on Vista. You're right, the Basic version shouldn't take that long and doesn't have all the stuff as Ultimate and Business and so forth. > I nuked this Vista install and installed XP SP2 and sure enough it felt a lot > more speedy, slick and smooth. Granted portables are almost always more > sluggish than their stationary variants, but this much?? I think the biggest thing is that vendors have to play catchup and so forth. As with the transistion from W2K to XP, it didn't happen overnight. I have no intention (at this very second) of ever installing W2K. At least not on this or future machines, but who knows? :-) I still have W2K AS so maybe I will install that on this machine to see how it acts on this one. Since I have always had it on much slower machines. > We're not going Vista anytime soon... In best case scenario, not until 2011, > or whenever XP isn't supported anymore. For a lot of businesses, that is the norm because of cost concerns. I have seen businesses that still have computers that are running Windows 98 no less! :-O Anyway, I better get my tail out of here to work. Have a great weekend! "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one's self in the ranks of the insane." ***************************** New Site from The Kenzig Group! Windows Vista Links, list options and info are available at: http://www.VistaPop.com ***************************** To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation mode or view archives use the below link. http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm