Can Your PC Really Handle Vista?

Over at Tom's Hardware, they have done a neat article on running Vista on a budget PC. Can it? and do you want to? Here's a short blurb from the article:

"Our first article about configuring AMD and Intel PCs within a budget of £200 / €350 made it clear that systems in this price range are suitable for everyday computing tasks. We equipped our Celeron and Sempron test systems with a fast and affordable 160-GB hard drive and one gigabyte of RAM, and the systems did a great job in Windows XP. But how do they perform with Windows Vista? And do you really know how your PC would perform with Vista?

Microsoft has created two certification logos to help customers choose the right components for their Windows Vista PC. There is "Vista Ready" and "Vista Premium Ready." If all of your components carry one of the logos, you should be able to at least run Vista properly; if you purchase high-end products you should be ready for the Premium and Ultimate editions as well. However, many products, especially older ones, do not carry any logo to indicate Vista readiness. The reason for purchasing hardware usually isn't a particular operating system, but an application or specific requirement such as more storage capacity, more RAM or a faster platform. We normally assume that the latest OS will work on hardware that we're going to buy from retail."

View: The Entire Article @ Tom's Hardware Guide

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Symantec confident users will see beyond cost of Norton 360

Next Story

Gizmo 3.0.0.261 Beta

40 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Well, I've got a laptop which has:
2.4Ghz Celeron
1.2Gb RAM
64Mb on board graphics card
40Gb 4200 RPM hard drive

YES - it does run Vista Ultimate. Is it fast? Well it seems faster than XP Pro, but I only use it for newsgroups, web and a little bit of word processing. It gives a score of '1' ( ).

Still on XP Pro on the other partition (for old times sake).

Don't believe me? Oh well - I know - But I've got the PC and I can prove it if you want to pay a visit!

With a new gfx card (Fx7600GS) and an extra gig of ram (PC2700), Vista gives me a score of 4.1 on my Three-and-a-half year old machine (3Ghz, 533Fsb). It runs incredibly smoothly, and thrashes the hard drive much less than XP. I have to say though, that using a 4 GIG usb stick as "readyboost" has not improved anything. Just wish the gfx drivers were more improved, and that creative would get their collective finger out so that my Audigy2PlatinumEX would actually work, fully functional.

Why don't you guys try Control Panel\Performance Information and Tools > Advanced Tools and generate a Health report. For me with 1 GiB RAM it said

Warning
Symptom: The system is experiencing excessive paging
Cause: Available memory on the system is low.
Details: The total physical memory on the system is not capable of handling the load.
Resolution: Upgrade the physical memory or reduce system load
Related: Memory Diagnosis

Saying you have 1 GB Ram doesn't mean anything unless you also give the specs of what type of ram you are running. I have 1 GB of ram and it is my lowest score. I am running SDRAM 133 MHz and Vista is not happy.

I want to see an article about how much of Vista's CPU usage is purely for DRM protection of third-party media and applications, and how much of the increased overhead is actually for services and features for the end-user...?
I mean, we're talking about encrypting data across the PCI bus, across video cables, serial cables, encrypting and decrypting data internally within the OS, checking signatures -- how much CPU time is Vista spending making sure nothing gets pirated and being paranoid?

Vista doesn't really have that much DRM crap as you make it seem. Get your head out of of your anti-Microsoft ass before you make a comment.

No problems but with XP I really did not have problems either. Vista is ok nothing remarkable, I got it
loaded on a new laptop, I would not buy it given the choice, at least until drivers mature.


Dennis

Running fine on my computer. Did it as an "upgrade" on my backup laptop hard drive just to see what
would screw up. Was surprised how well it caught everything. Updated any drivers & apps to "vista"
apps and no glitches.

Dell E1505
Pentium Core Duo T2300
1 gig DDR2 ram
60 Gig SATA 7200 rpm
X1400 ATI card
Vista Ultimate 32 bit

No problems other than I think Dell needs to rework the "Quickset" utility. If I unload it on startup,
everything boots quicker than when I leave it in the startup file. Also, for whatever reason, it wants
to launch non minimized in the taskbar and you have to X out to close it. Other than that, no
problems

At the moment I am running Vista Business on a Compaq Presario x1000. Pentium M 1.3GHz, 512 Ram, 40GB HD and ATI Mobility 9200 graphics. My biggest problem was getting the graphics driver to work, but once I got it loaded everything has been cool. Aero obviously doesn't work, but I'm enjoying the experience more so than when I had XP on the machine. I will be upgrading my desktop to take advantage of Vista Ultimate in a month or so. Was leary of Vista, but after getting it to work on this machine, I'm excited about using it on a much better desktop.

Seriously I can't believe you guys are running Vista on such a setup and it isn't driving you insane, you must be very very patient.

Can anyone explain me how a GeForce 7300GS 256Mb gets a 3.0 WEI Rating on Gaming Performance, but a 2.6 in DESKTOP Performance? Windows Experience Index is retarded.

BTW, I'm running Ultimate x32 with these specs:

Pentium 4 2.6Ghz
ASUS P4V800D-X Motherboard
1GB RAM
GeForce 7300GS 256Mb
80GB HDD + 250GB HDD

Finding good drivers for Vista is a bitch... I'm still struggling with that unreliable workaround for the Realtek AC97 Onboard sound (ADI188 in my case), it works so bad that if I hit pause on ANYTHING I'm playing on iTunes or WMP, the soundcard stops working until I close the app & log-off-log-on to my user account. It's retarded.

hell i don't even know why ur getting just a 3.0 rating for ur 7300GS graphics card when i get like a 3.6 rating for my ati x700 256mb graphics card..

An for ur ac'97, did u download and install the latest drivers from the realtek website?


oh and here's my system specs:

Sempron 64 2.0ghz 3300+
1gb OCZ value Ram --> i got another 512mb's of ram coming next week
2 40gb hdd's --> i got another 250gb hdd's coming so i'm not worried about hard drive space
ATI x700 256mb
MSI neo-fisr2
Audgy 4 soundcard
PVR-150 mce kit

It's like we've been saying, drivers are the problem, nVidia is behind big, while ATi is moving along just fine, no DX10 from aTi yet, but hell, they have newer drivers and they work great for many people.

Right now you'll just have to wait and hope nVidia can work out their problems soon, maybe March?

Sn4k36 said,
hell i don't even know why ur getting just a 3.0 rating for ur 7300GS graphics card when i get like a 3.6 rating for my ati x700 256mb graphics card..

An for ur ac'97, did u download and install the latest drivers from the realtek website?

It's probably because NVIDIA's drivers to this date suck MUCH more than ATi's, at least that's the only explanation, man, lol.

About the AC97, I think I did. What bugs me is that there are no updated drivers from ASUS itself...

Sn4k36 said,
hell i don't even know why ur getting just a 3.0 rating for ur 7300GS graphics card when i get like a 3.6 rating for my ati x700 256mb graphics card..

An for ur ac'97, did u download and install the latest drivers from the realtek website?


oh and here's my system specs:

Sempron 64 2.0ghz 3300+
1gb OCZ value Ram --> i got another 512mb's of ram coming next week
2 40gb hdd's --> i got another 250gb hdd's coming so i'm not worried about hard drive space
ATI x700 256mb
MSI neo-fisr2
Audgy 4 soundcard
PVR-150 mce kit

Hell, I get a 4.2 on my Mobility Radeon x700 128MB. What is up with YOUR score?

depends which version of Vista you're going to use.

for Vista Premium, Business, Basic it is recommended to have a 1GB ram
for Vista Ultimate, a 2GB ram is necessary.

vipwoody said,
depends which version of Vista you're going to use.

for Vista Premium, Business, Basic it is recommended to have a 1GB ram
for Vista Ultimate, a 2GB ram is necessary.

FUD, i use vista ultimate on 1gb, works fine, no problem at all

I'm running Vista Ultimate on 1GB of RAM, it runs fairly well, but as far as gaming goes, don't expect great FPS from the setup (maybe it's also my CPU, a P42.6Ghz, that chokes the system down). But nontheless, I can run Halo at a steady 30fps, Granado Espada at a playable framerate and Oblvion at a playable framerate. It's not that bad I think.

Gaming is one of those areas that are specific on a few things, and not just how much RAM you have, for most people 1GB will be enough, games that are cpu heavy will hurt, the P4@2.6Ghz isn't a gaming champion by a long shot. Other than cpu you have FSB speeds that also effect a game, data going between the cpu-ram-gfx card etc, faster FSB better game performence.

Then comes the type of video card you have, video cards in vista still don't have the same level of mature drivers as they do on the XP side, so that effects performence right from the start, you can have 3GB and still get ****ty game performence with poor drivers.

Basically 1GB should be enough for the majority of the world, the only place 2GB or even more would be needed is if you run lots of programs at the same time+play games. Or if the 1-3 apps you run use up as much ram as you can throw at them, apps like photoshop (depending on the work you do of course), 3D modeling apps like 3DS Max, AutoCAD apps, Video editing apps like premier, audio editing etc.

You just have to step back and think of the type of work you do, and if you need 2GB or more, as far as Vista goes, 1GB is fine for general day to day work, and a game every now and then.

GP007 said,
Basically 1GB should be enough for the majority of the world, the only place 2GB or even more would be needed is if you run lots of programs at the same time+play games. Or if the 1-3 apps you run use up as much ram as you can throw at them, apps like photoshop (depending on the work you do of course), 3D modeling apps like 3DS Max, AutoCAD apps, Video editing apps like premier, audio editing etc..

Actually, most modern applications will release memory when you minimize them, so if you can live with a small performance loss when chaning applications (due to swapping in/out), 1GB should be fine.

And just to make it clear: RAM has close to ZERO impact on FPS, unless your system is way below minimum specs for the game, and most textures are stored in system memory. Also, in that case, the speed of the memory is more important than 1GB or 2GB, as it will cause the GFX card to 'wait'.

And just to make it clear: RAM has close to ZERO impact on FPS, unless your system is way below minimum specs for the game, and most textures are stored in system memory. Also, in that case, the speed of the memory is more important than 1GB or 2GB, as it will cause the GFX card to 'wait'.

I was talking overall game performence, not pure FPS, but you have a point, some games don't need loads of system ram, but others do, BattleFeild 1942 is one of them, It's ram hungry, from what i've been told even 1GB isn't good enough for when you're playing online. With the newer gfx cards having close to 1GB of RAM on them though, there should be less of a need to use system ram more and more.

I don't place a lot of value in the Windows Vista Experience Index.

It's a general guideline for beginners not a serious benchmark for enthusiasts.

Some graphics cards will be rated a 3.0 based on their feature set and yet under perform a card that was ranked 2.5

The Windows Vista Experience Index has more to do with marketing than anything else.

These are my specs and I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit.

Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz 640 800Mhz FSB LGA775
Gigabyte GA-8IPE775-G Motherboard
Crucial 1Gb RAM (2 x 512Mb)
GeForce 6200A 512Mb AGP
Pioneer DVR-110D DVD±R/RW/RAM DL 16x
Pioneer DVR-108 DVD±R/RW DL 16x
Western Digital 160Gb 2Mb Cache, Maxtor 250GB 7200rpm ATA/133 16MB Cache
Antec Sonata II
Zalman CNPS9500-LED Aero Flower

My system gets a 2.0 rating from Windows because it claims my graphics are not up to scratch. Albeit I have 512Mb GPU RAM to play with and it handles Aero fine. Granted it's a 6200, but a 2.0? After updating my nVidia drivers my gaming graphics rating went down from a 2.7 to a 2.5

You could have a GF6200 with 20GB of on-board RAM, it won't matter much -- remember it's a Geforce 6200 GPU -- it's not exactly considered even mid-range these days. It might handle Aero fine, but you are never going to see a large increase in your graphics rating with that card.

ir0nw0lf said,
You could have a GF6200 with 20GB of on-board RAM, it won't matter much -- remember it's a Geforce 6200 GPU -- it's not exactly considered even mid-range these days. It might handle Aero fine, but you are never going to see a large increase in your graphics rating with that card.

Oh well, I just thought that going for a 512Mb card would allow me to go a little longer without having to upgrade. Anyway, so long as it works and can handle my games, it's all good!

It's due to the crappy nVidia drivers. Like you said yourself, after updating them it went down, I take it the first ones were the Vista ones MS installs for you at first?

Maybe if some point in the future nVidia finishes their Vista drivers and gets them out of beta, you'll get a higher score and better performence.

Zoom7000 said,
These are my specs and I'm running Vista Ultimate 64bit.

Intel Pentium 4 3.2Ghz 640 800Mhz FSB LGA775
Gigabyte GA-8IPE775-G Motherboard
Crucial 1Gb RAM (2 x 512Mb)
GeForce 6200A 512Mb AGP
Pioneer DVR-110D DVD±R/RW/RAM DL 16x
Pioneer DVR-108 DVD±R/RW DL 16x
Western Digital 160Gb 2Mb Cache, Maxtor 250GB 7200rpm ATA/133 16MB Cache
Antec Sonata II
Zalman CNPS9500-LED Aero Flower

My system gets a 2.0 rating from Windows because it claims my graphics are not up to scratch. Albeit I have 512Mb GPU RAM to play with and it handles Aero fine. Granted it's a 6200, but a 2.0? After updating my nVidia drivers my gaming graphics rating went down from a 2.7 to a 2.5 :|

That cannot be right with the rating, my rating is 4.2 and its way less than your spec...? Odd to say the least.

Im running vista on my 2 year old tablet just fine, and running it on a 3 year old 1.8 celeron at home. honestly vista runs fine on both even better than xp

hapbt said,
You sir, are a liar.

umm how so you want proof? If you know what you are doing with vista, and have the right drivers you are fine

I have vista ultimate on a machine I built back in 2003.

P4 3.0ghz 800mhz FSB
2 gb ddr-sdram pc 3200
120gb IDE 7200 rpm drive.
128mb Radeon Pro 9800

I find that it doesn't perform as well as it does on my Macbook pro core2duo 2.33ghz - 100gb sata2 7200rpm drive - running in Parallels with 512 ram.

it's more responsive in parallels than on the desktop above. lol wierd.

I guess a Dual Core system is best choice to run vista.

Tech001101 said,
I have vista ultimate on a machine I built back in 2003.

P4 3.0ghz 800mhz FSB
2 gb ddr-sdram pc 3200
120gb IDE 7200 rpm drive.
128mb Radeon Pro 9800

I find that it doesn't perform as well as it does on my Macbook pro core2duo 2.33ghz - 100gb sata2 7200rpm drive - running in Parallels with 512 ram.

it's more responsive in parallels than on the desktop above. lol wierd.

I guess a Dual Core system is best choice to run vista.

Same spec here, I know I need an upgrade but, I always wait until Q2 and Q3 of the following year when the prices drop. My machine has less RAM with the same card as yours and it runs like a dream.

I have the same system except 512MB of RAM. It's totally unusable, as soon as it starts it begins swapping to disk and never stops. Due to the swapping, it takes ages to load anything, and most often it will just run out of memory and kill the program just started. Overall, very disappointing, especially for a blazing fast XP computer.