Vista Question

By Neji49 ยท 10 replies
May 20, 2008
  1. Why is Vista so bad? I'm building a new computer and I'm wondering whether to use Vista or not. Thansk in advance.
  2. fullmetalvegan

    fullmetalvegan TS Enthusiast Posts: 123

    It's not - merely anti-Microsoft/Vista propaganda. I've been running Vista for eight months now on two different systems and three different motherboards and had ZERO problems with anything.

    If the system you're building is up to date with current technology, new motherboard and dual-core processor, then get Vista, you'll likely have zero problems.

    It's recommended to have Vista regardless seeing as it likely has the most product support for the future. =]
  3. k.jacko

    k.jacko TS Rookie Posts: 493

    Agreed, although i refuse to put vista onto any of our business machines at the moment, for home use its the way forward.
    I use Home Premium on 3 pc's at home with one dual booting with xp pro, just in case i need xp for any legacy software.
  4. Mictlantecuhtli

    Mictlantecuhtli TS Evangelist Posts: 4,345   +11

    Whether it's good or bad (or something in between - some things aren't black and white) depends on how fixated you're in the way things work in older Windows versions.

    Many (if not most) complaints about Vista seem to be about UAC and the new security model where the default user isn't a "real" administrator anymore. Too many Windows applications have assumed that the user has administrative rights and can do anything. That changed in Vista, and so those applications either cause a lot of UAC prompts or won't work properly. Of course from user's point of view it's Vista's fault.

    Other thing that people still keep whining about is the hardware requirements. Computers that run XP well (which, in itself, is very subjective) might not run Vista so well. Maybe people have short memories, or maybe they're too young to have witnessed, but the same applies to previous versions of Windows as well:

    - MS-DOS runs well on a 286 with 2 MB of RAM, but Windows 3.1 might not,
    - Windows 3.1 runs well on a 386 with 4 MB of RAM, but Windows 95 might not,
    - Windows 95 runs well on a Pentium with 32 MB of RAM, but Windows XP might not,
    - Windows XP runs well on a Pentium III with 512 MB of RAM, but Windows Vista might not.

    Yes, I skipped some versions and didn't specify any speeds etc., but I hope you get the idea.
  5. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,742   +421

  6. windmill007

    windmill007 TS Rookie Posts: 308

    If you have a choice go with XP. If you have to have everything new even at the cost of speed or you don't mind learning a whole new OS go Vista.
  7. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,742   +421

    There really isn't that much different. The start menu is slightly tweaked, other than that installing stuff is exactly the same, and the programs run exactly the same between Vista and XP. So if you are concerned with being able to get work done, its the same crap.
  8. fullmetalvegan

    fullmetalvegan TS Enthusiast Posts: 123

    That's ridicolous logic; Vista isn't even slow anymore. It takes like five seconds longer to boot up, and that's it, I'm so going to choose XP because of a five second longer boot up time. =S SP1 has made Vista absolutely fine now, it's as fast as my XP was, save for bootup time, which hardly takes a long time anyway.

    And in regards to learning a whole new OS, uhm, there isn't anything new to learn, it's the same layout - just some extra features. If building a new PC It's recommended to put Vista on it, otherwise you don't have to worry about upgrading to Vista if your current computer is fine with XP.
  9. Neji49

    Neji49 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 57

    Alright, I'm actually buildign a new computer so I guess I'll stick with Vista. One thign though, you said you need a new motherboard? My motherboard is about one year old, is that too old? It has a PCI-E slot and room for at least 8gb of RAM
  10. Neji49

    Neji49 TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 57

    Okay I have another question. Is a 2.13 dual core processor good enough to run Vista? On the thread listed it says you need a quad core processor. Also is an 8800 GTS (340mb) good enough to run Vista? Also, I'm not exaclty sure which version of Vista is better for gaming? Can somebody clarify that?

    EDIT: Can you remove the security functions on Vista so you can install programs like Daemon tools on it? Also will games as old as Halo work on Vista? What about with DX10?
  11. fullmetalvegan

    fullmetalvegan TS Enthusiast Posts: 123

    You don't need a Quadcore to run Vista, Dualcore is fine. I'm using a Dualcore atm. Yes a 8800GTS 340 would run Vista fine also. =]

    I have Daemon tools on my PC, Vista didn't attempt to block it or anything.

    I don't think any version is better for gaming really, I'm not sure. I used to have Home Premium and now I have Ultimate and they seem the same, so Home Premium should do you fine without having to spend the extra money for ultimate.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...