Your experiences of Vista performance

**Digerati** · 29-09-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

When I say trouble free, I used to rebulid my XP op on average every 3months

If you had to do that, don't blame XP - that was either a HW problem or a user problem! I have 6 computers here, and 100s that I have been responsible for that have never had to be rebuilt since XP was first installed on them 6 years ago!

Quote:

Vista has been realy designed to be run as a 64bit OS

That's not true either. The 64-bit version certainly was, but Vista is still NT based, and NT was inherently a 32-bit "multi-user" OS.

Quote:

The two things that wind me up is software houses will put on their advertising that their product is Vista compatable but not 32bit, or 64bit

There's little reason to. All 64-bit systems will run 32-bit software just fine, with no discernible degradation in performance so there is little to no incentive to waste resources on two products that do the same thing.

Quote:

but the hardware has not caught up with the software as most Motherboards will only take 8gig of ram with 32bit it will only use3.5gig

Again, I disagree. While it is true that most motherboards support only 8Gb, that is not a "current technology" issue with motherboards, it is more of a RAM and real estate problem - cramming more than 2Gb on a single module is just not there yet. There are motherboards with more than 4 RAM slots but people are demanding smaller PCs - that requires smaller motherboards, not full size ATX extended boards. And of course, cost is a factor too.

And it is important to note that the 3.x GB limit you referred to is not a limit that Microsoft designed into their 32-bit systems, nor is it a limit the hardware makers put into their 32-bit systems. Actually, the limit is 4Gb but the ceiling you mention is due simply to addressing overhead. And the 4Gb limit is imposed by simple math (physics actually) and nothing else. 2^32 (2 to the power of 32) = 4,294,967,296 = 4Gb (where 1K = 1024). What this means is ALL 32-bit systems, whether that be an OS (Windows or Linux), an software application, or hardware, all have a 4Gb limit.

Because of that physical 4Gb limit, and because 99% of the software out there runs just fine in a 32-bit environment, again, there is little to no incentive to increase the capability. The gaming industry may change that - we will see.

Avie · 01-10-2007, 01:23 AM

Vista it will be. Anyone care to review my purchase and give suggestions for any needed items. there is no Vista driver by Creative for my Blaster Live 5.1. sound card. What should I purchase? I know so little of the megs and gigs and other language of items. Advice will be heeded and appreciated. Thanks everyone at DAL, (See post 9/24 #19). Avie

DJNafey · 01-10-2007, 06:23 PM

I don't think that this discussion should be dismissed on the belief that XP and Vista are so different. On the contrary - that is the very point of the topic. We are trying to collect opinions based on how good our hardware needs to be in order to run Vista and also what problems we are likely to come up against, e.g. driver support.

The consensus at the moment seems to be that those running a high-end Pentium 4 or a Pentium D or Core Duo (or better) processor with 2GB of RAM will probably be happy with the performance. Gamers / power users might want more RAM and probably a decent dedicated graphics card. No-one seems to be making a big deal about the hard disk space requirements on Microsoft's ambiguous minimum/recommended spec list so I guess that we're finding that it's not as massive an install as we were led to believe.

Part of the reason for this topic was to identify these "real life" requirements to try and save novice users from going into their local PC World store and assuming that a Vista system must be better for them because it is newer. A new budget laptop running an Intel Celeron processor and 512MB (or even 1GB) RAM with shared graphics is likely to be a complete load of rubbish. In these cases, the novice user could get much better value for money by choosing an "old" XP system instead.

**jephree** · 02-10-2007, 01:19 AM

For those users that find they made a "mistake":

Quote:

While Microsoft is still pushing Vista hard, the company is quietly allowing PC makers to offer a "downgrade" option to buyers that get machines with the new operating system but want to switch to Windows XP.

http://www.news.com/The-XP-alternati...3-6209481.html

bootneck02 · 13-10-2007, 05:47 PM

I have reluctanty revised my feelings over Vista 64 bit, not because of the reliability of the system but of the lack of software and drivers out there, so I have reverted to the 32bit version. I am a lot happier as now I have access to more compatable software and drivers. I was planning to upgrade the RAM to 8gb but until the software houses provide more compatable software the 64bit is a bit of a white elaphant for the general home user. Luckley the Retail version of Vista gives you the choice of ether or certanily the Ultimate version does.

It is a shame but the 64bit version runs like a dream and if there were the software out there in quantity it would be my prefered version, but until there is I will stick to the 32bit Vista.

**Digerati** · 13-10-2007, 06:22 PM

Quote:

I have reluctanty revised my feelings over Vista 64 bit, not because of the reliability of the system but of the lack of software and drivers out there, so I have reverted to the 32bit version.

Good post bootneck. I feel I must add, however, that users of 64-bit XP have encountered the same problems - 64-bit drivers and software is a problem for all, and as long as 32-bit technology meets the needs all but a select few, and as long as 32-software runs on 64-bit systems, I don't see the issues you bring up getting better.

bootneck02 · 13-10-2007, 10:50 PM

My personal opinion is that the home PC world is in the hands of the gamers, of which I am not one, unless you count Microsoft Flight X. When they start to demand software which 32bit cannot handle and the software houses wake up to the potential and really start to produce games using 64bit only then will the market will swing to 64bit, but it will be a long time coming.

I am very satisfied with Vista generally a better and more stable than XP as was XP was against preceding OS.

**Digerati** · 14-10-2007, 02:43 AM

Quote:

My personal opinion is that the home PC world is in the hands of the gamers

Not even! Gamers are a small minority of home PC users. The vast majority of home PCs are used for Internet research for work, school, and personal interest, email, and on-line banking/shopping.

Gamers are, however, driving advances in the cutting edge of hardware technology and they have a tremendous influence on home-build industry - and extreme systems.

Fred42 · 11-11-2007, 03:31 PM

Overall Vista is doing a decent job with my Dell Inspiron with 2 gb of Ram and 1.78 ghz. Sometimes it does freeze up a little and the amount of time it takes to start could be a little quicker, but I think over time Microsoft will work out the kinks in its relatively new OS.

bootneck02 · 11-11-2007, 05:02 PM

Hi Fred42
I understand that when the SP1 is released early next year that it will resolve on the heavy drain on resourses.