Windows XP SP3. Much better than Vista SP1

[ANova]

Same old bull**** argument. Software doesn't and shouldn't need faster hardware, everyone hates Norton for being slow, bloated software yet is quick to dismiss Vista's slow ass as simply an "upgrade." OSX and Ubuntu achieve most of what Vista can do only faster and on older and slower hardware. It's called efficiency and good coding.

[freeza]

So in other words you want something like Windows 3.11 with a bunch of eyecandy and nothing to take advantage of the advancing hardware that companies like nvidia and intel are putting out.... i guess we should have stayed at a stand-still with 512 MB of ram, 60GB hard drives, 64MB graphics cards, and the 866 mhz processors that XP ran on when it was first released...... lol

Shame on microsoft for advancing with the times, and requiring updated/better hardware to run their newest OS on.

Damn them for not having identical system requirements that XP had.

You should probably blame the OEMs for trying to load vista on "capable" pcs just for the sake of getting the newest OS out. or you can blame people for automatically assuming that all of their hardware would work with a new OS.

I should probably be ****ed off that my first cell phone won't work with a bluetooth headset...

[dmd3x]

So in other words you want something like Windows 3.11 with a bunch of eyecandy and nothing to take advantage of the advancing hardware that companies like nvidia and intel are putting out.... i guess we should have stayed at a stand-still with 512 MB of ram, 60GB hard drives, 64MB graphics cards, and the 866 mhz processors that XP ran on when it was first released...... lol

Shame on microsoft for advancing with the times, and requiring updated/better hardware to run their newest OS on.

Damn them for not having identical system requirements that XP had.

You should probably blame the OEMs for trying to load vista on "capable" pcs just for the sake of getting the newest OS out. or you can blame people for automatically assuming that all of their hardware would work with a new OS.

I should probably be ****ed off that my first cell phone won't work with a bluetooth headset...

Don't get me stared with the Vista capable stickers... :x

[abcdefg]

Shame on microsoft for advancing with the times, and requiring updated/better hardware to run their newest OS on.

Shame indeed. Do you see some superb feature in Vista that justifies high system requirements? Neither do I.

Except allowing OEMs to make more money.

Edited July 19, 2008 by bmaher

[PermaSt0ne]

It also is that my current hardware does everything I want it to do, so if an OS upgrade is going to slow everything down, it's not worth it. The thing that I find mind boggling is how much slower it is. I remember upgrading computers from Windows 95 to 98 without taking too much of a performance hit, if at all. I also remember the same thing upgrading others from 98 to 2000, or from 98 or 2000 to XP, also not significantly degrading the performance.

Picky, picky me, I suppose :-D

there is no slow down for me. my vista x64 runs just as fast as XP, but with more features; and i DO love the eyecandy oh so much :D

OSX has nothing that i like, but i wouldn't say it sucks. Linux isn't user friendly at all, but i wouldn't say it sucks. just because Vista doesn't run on your old hardware perfectly or because you don't like its UI doesn't mean the OS sucks; it just means it's not for you

vista is more taxing than XP, just like xp was more taxing than 2000 and 2000 was more than 98 etc. etc. the cycle goes on. if you want to enjoy the latest, then upgrade. if you don't think the upgrade is worth it, then stick with your old OS and be happy.

[Eric Veteran]

The trend seems to be, if you are a fanboy with the latest and greatest hardware you are happy as a clam. If you have a slightly aged system, you are SOL.

Huh? I'm running it on a Pentium D 830 from 5 years ago and until recently a Geforce 6600 and it works fine.

[ViperAFK]

Of course, it's impossible that anyone with actual I.T. skills or knowledge knows anything about how much Vista is a lemon. After all, they are only computer geeks who spend their lives on computers right?

Oh, I forgot. Computer geeks minus the irritating "fanboy" attributes. :p

I have used Vista while it was in Beta, while it was Gold and SP1. I was excited for it to come out even, but I found out that it still sucks. I'm glad that it works on your Dual Core system with 4GB RAM, but it should work fine on my Pentium 4 1.6GHz 2GB RAM with 400MB HD and ATI Radeon 9000 video. No, that's not screaming specs but it should be enough for a basic operating system to at least work fine. Yes, I've downloaded the latest drivers and it still dogs. I have been working in I.T. for six years, and have been a hobbiest since 1992, starting with DOS and then Windows 3.11, and Slackware Linux. I have been pretty satisfied with Windows, although Linux is my preference. Windows 95, Windows 2000 and Windows XP are among my favorites (2000 Server and 2003 Server for servers, didn't like NT 4.0 too much). Windows Me and Windows Vista I absolutely detest. But what do I know? I only spend my life on computers.

Well stay with XP if you are on an old pc. I didn't update my crappy windows 98 pc to XP and go OMG ITS SO SLOW IT SHOULD RUN FASTER ON MY OLD PC. Any budget pc can run vista fine now, cheap dual core 2 gigs of ram can be had to like 400 bucks.

Vista did actually run fine on my 5 year old socket 478 3.0 Ghz p4, 2 gigs of ram and 7600GS. So it doesn't run awful on all old hardware anyway.