[windows2000] Re: Announcing beta release of Windows Vista SP1!

  • From: "Charles R. Buchanan" <daphatbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 04:16:36 -0700

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

> 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:
To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
mode or view archives use the below link.


Other related posts: