dj:nich 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2007 yes that would be better than Vista i would not recommend vista at all I've heard that the Windows Vista OS is very laggy, and right now annoying. I plan on getting a Windows XP Pro 64-Bit OS. For what i use the computer for, im already used to this windows setup, and do not want to deal with the trouble of figuring out where everything is, though its probably similar. I still want to get vista though because it looks good, and i wanna try it out, even though people are trying to tear it apart lol. Well, hopefully microsoft puts more time into vista and makes it .. better ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tyƒoon™ 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2007 but a few programs are incompatibleYes, i agree with that quote however more Vista compatable programs are comming out now. Most probably if you go down towards your local PC store, most if not all new Windows programs are Windows Vista compatable or certified for Vista. Major software companies such as Symantec and Adobe are now only continuing programs that are Vista compabale such as Norton Anti-Virus 2007/2006 (2006 with patch downloadable) and Adobe's new CS3 suites such as Dreamweaver CS3 and Photoshop CS3. I'm telling you guys, eventually you are going to go to Vista and start liking it because 'hopefully' Windows Vista SP1 would be out in a few months which would make Windows Vista less buggy or lagging (eventhough i havn't crossed any issues with Vista for now) and by then all software and hardware should be Vista Compatable if the owners of the software or hardware update it. Then i don't believe anyone would have complaints of Vista am i right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soto 0 Report post Posted June 4, 2007 I am going to run a AMD Athlong 64 X2 Dual Core Processor, with 4GB of RAM, GeForce 7300 GT 512mb video card, and a 300+GB hard disk. I am sure this will run vista, so i won't even ask.I want to know really, if i should get vista, or a 64-bit version of windows. I use a computer for mainly gaming, level design for the games, coding (learning), modeling, and any other design i find fun lol.Another thing i want to know, 64-bit version of windows can have higher memory, which is why im getting that OS, and im wondering if vista allowed 4+ GB of ram usage ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 Use the 64-bit version so you will get greater performance as the 64-bit has a better memory access than the 32-bit applications. If you don't have any "exotic" devices, you should get the 64-bit version. Else, stick with 32-bit.xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soto 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 I plan on getting 64-bit version, but if vista has the same capabilities as it i would rather get vista. 64-bit version can use more memory up to 128gb or higher i beleive im not sure. 32-bit version can use only 3gb. I wanna know if vista can use a higher ammount of memory. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
minig25 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 in my opionon its a rip from XP with new themes etc.. but i dont like the way you turn it off, but ive only had a peak and i dont like the colours or anything Yuck! but i suppose ill have to have a look sometime Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightfox1405241487 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 Okay, Vista is fine for the average user, but for a Network Admin, this is just another frustrating release from Microsoft. The last good OS (in my opinion) was Windows 2000.Haha... I'm telling people otherwise... and I am a network admin! It is a big pain in the butt... I work for a K-12 school system and one of the techs was playing around with a copy of it. Since we use Novell to power our logins, it has been found that Novell Client will NOT replace the Windows login screen unlike on XP and previous Windows versions. We can't have this. Not only that, we then have to re-learn where everything is. Some of my other techie friends have told me it has taken them forever to find really easy to find things in XP.It's also a rip off of MacOS X despite what other MS Fanboys claim. It's way too similar to even call "original".Vista bad, XP good. (Linux is also good, despite what MS may claim.)[N]F Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 Hell, I rather go for Windows Server 2003 than Windows 2000 any day for speed and security. It is simply the best Windows ever (for now).I rather go Linux or MacOS X anyday!xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightfox1405241487 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 Hell, I rather go for Windows Server 2003 than Windows 2000 any day for speed and security. It is simply the best Windows ever (for now).I rather go Linux or MacOS X anyday!xboxrulz Yeah, I'm actually thinking about putting Server 2003 on my laptop... I did it before but I removed it and went back to XP a long time ago. It is a very secure OS. But 2000 is good in simple terms...And yeah, I agree... Linux or Mac anyday![N]F Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted June 5, 2007 Yeah, I'm actually thinking about putting Server 2003 on my laptop... I did it before but I removed it and went back to XP a long time ago. It is a very secure OS. But 2000 is good in simple terms...And yeah, I agree... Linux or Mac anyday![N]F Sure it's simple, but not when you want to use the Run As function, which can get annoying if you are running as standard user and want to do system wide changes xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Soto 0 Report post Posted June 6, 2007 lol, if taking time to find things is to big a task then that is no reason to call vista a bad choice. Another thing is that speed issues people have .. get better comps lol. Eventually vista will be replacing xp in my opinion and then vista will be replaced, and so on. Im getting windows 64-bit for a desktop and windows vista for a laptop. I think their both probly great, and people are to used to xp and unwilling to make the switch because of all the problems, or what seems to be problems to most people... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
xboxrulz1405241485 0 Report post Posted June 6, 2007 WinXP for x64 is hell, don't bother. If you want x64 Windows, get Vista.xboxrulz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nightfox1405241487 0 Report post Posted June 6, 2007 lol, if taking time to find things is to big a task then that is no reason to call vista a bad choice. Another thing is that speed issues people have .. get better comps lol. Eventually vista will be replacing xp in my opinion and then vista will be replaced, and so on. Im getting windows 64-bit for a desktop and windows vista for a laptop. I think their both probly great, and people are to used to xp and unwilling to make the switch because of all the problems, or what seems to be problems to most people...It's a waste of money for the casual home user who does nothing but email, surf the web, download pictures, and other small things to get a high-end computer... they might as well just use Windows 98!! Vista has 10 gigs of embedded graphics and tons of visual stuff... you know why most of the useful stuff was cut out of Vista? So it could have the LOOKS. No functionality, not user friendly, complicated the lives of computer techs and the people who cause ID10T errors by a ton. I predicted another Windows ME 6 MONTHS before the release of Vista. If Vista is such a success, why is it that Dell got complaints and gave the option of XP or Vista on some computers? When XP came out, people complained about the activation feature, but no computer company started putting Windows 2000 back on.Vista is still in it's early stages. I wouldn't trust it. I'd wait until SP1 before I make it a full time OS for me. There are still unknown security holes in it. Even though it might claim to be the most secure (notice a pattern how each preceding Windows version has claimed it's the most secure and stable yet?), I'm sure it'll be just like Windows XP before SP1... swiss cheese.Also, Vista has so many problems that no one should have to deal with. I had it, and had incompatibility issues with 90% of my software, some drivers, and the resource hogging was rediculous! I mean, my laptop with 512 MB of RAM couldn't play DVDs using Windows Media Player because all the RAM was being used by the OS for what? The stupid GUI. [N]F Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sten 0 Report post Posted June 6, 2007 I am hoping to get Windows Vista soon.I've heard it used to be buggy but is getting fixed.When Vista first came out I didn't think much of it but now I can't wait to get it.It seems so cool.I was going to download the RC when they had it for free but I don't have a DVD burner so that wasn't able to happen.I use XP and fedora at the moment but soon I hope to be running Vista as my main OS. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wutske 0 Report post Posted June 6, 2007 I've heard that the Windows Vista OS is very laggy, and right now annoying. I plan on getting a Windows XP Pro 64-Bit OS. For what i use the computer for, im already used to this windows setup, and do not want to deal with the trouble of figuring out where everything is, though its probably similar. I still want to get vista though because it looks good, and i wanna try it out, even though people are trying to tear it apart lol. Well, hopefully microsoft puts more time into vista and makes it .. better ?It indeed is rather laggy ... I think Vista realy relies on the indexer service and guess what I've disabled .The most annoying thing is that explorer changes the default view of folders all the time, pain in the but you know.My suggestion is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it (or, if you have a good working setup, don't upgrade, at least not until service pack 1) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
