LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksDo you think it's common to go to an OS with more features and get a performance increase?Originally Posted by roadie
Do you think it's common to go to an OS with more features and get a performance increase?
Having used Vista since beta and I have vista business 32bit on both my work laptop and home pc, my laptop only worked correctly since it was rebuilt from scratch and my home pc will be back to XP ASAP due to gaming performance not being great and i shouldnt have to shell out for the latest hardware. Im all for the latest technology, server 2008 etc..
Your choice, but to take advantage of an OS that's designed for pretty recent hardware you need to invest in a certain baseline of technology.
To a point I agree with you splash, but i currently have a x2 4400, 2gb ram, 2x250gb raid 1, x-fi and x1900xtx and why should i have to replace about 70% of my system just to run vista, my work laptop which is a new Dell D630 ran vista ok with 2gb ram, but now is usable with 4gb ram, all be it with 3.5gb available.
Im just glad i didnt have to pay for Vista otherwise i would have been very disappointed.
You won't have to replace anything!
I have an E4300, 2gb of RAM and an X1950XT. SO pretty close to your system and Vista runs fine.
Other than the X-Fi (I don't have one myself, but the poor driver support from Creative is well documented here and elsewhere) I can't see a problem with your setup. You're not going to get top gaming performance out of a card that's now a couple of generations old, and you obviously won't see DX10 from it.
At the end of the day it's your choice, but I'm surprised that you get such poor performance under Vista with that setup.
for curiosities sake how many people have made the jump over to the linux camp, as the new desktops from ubuntu and opensuse are pritty awesome for gfx, productivity and work well on all oldish machines.
They do lack in games tho, and I feel that is what puts most people off, am I right?
Iv had vista x64 for a gd few months now & have had no problems with it, wouldnt dream of going back to Xp.
right.
Rightish. Some folks are also put off by the lack of industry standard software such as Photoshop, Dreamweaver (or equivalent) and even MS Office even though there are Linux equivalents. I've been using Ubuntu for nearly a year now though and haven't been put off by either this or the lack of games though. It does take some perseverance to understand Linux and get it working the way you want it but it's worth it in the end IMHO.
An Atlantean Triumvirate, Ghosts of the Past, The Centre Cannot Hold
The Pillars of Britain, Foundations of the Reich, Cracks in the Pillars.
My books are available here for Amazon Kindle. Feedback always welcome!
vista is okay, so long as you have a fairly modern rig.
Deo Adjuvante non Timendum
I have put Linux on the last 3 machines I use for work. Unfortunately, it's not an option on my gaming PCs. Linux runs smoothly on fairly old PCs (incredibly smoothly compared to even XP) but doesn't support the games I play.
MS has a problem with Vista, not because it is intrinsically poor but because there's not enough in it to make it a worthwhile upgrade for most users. The move to XP from '98 was worth doing. It will be interesting to see how far they'll go to 'make' people upgrade.
... I use now a big vent for the whole machine now, but I cant use it forever, it is my grandma's ventilator...
well what people want to see is high performance with high features that fixes any problems, thats what an upgrade should be.
Vista has a reduced performance on most machines, but many more features and most security issues are fixed. However alot of the features can be obtained through 3rd party apps. Vistas real issue is price, a legitimate ultimate x64 edition is over £200. Thats more than some computers! And also whats with all the different editions, everyone should be given ultimate and switch off features that they dont use rather than paying extra for them.
Make it sub £100 and many more "upgrades" will occur.
the different editions are so that people who only want certain features don't have to pay over the odds...
As for the price - it's not really a great deal (and in some cases is cheaper) more expensive than a comparable license for XP.
Not it's NOT. I don't get this comment which is perpetuated ad nauseum by people on forums all round the world. Also what sense does it make to give everyone Ultimate and have them switch features off and make less money because people who were willing to spend the full amount get it for cheaper. That's like saying to BMW "Don't sell 318i's, 320's, 330's and M3's. Just give everyone M3's at 318 prices and let them detune the engine and put skinny tyres on to make it like a cheaper product."
Firstly if you check Basic vs XP Home and Home Premium vs XP Pro. You'll see there's little change in pricing if any at all. Ultimate is a new product has a greater feature set than Home Premium therefore it costs more.
Secondly. Look at the price for a retail copy of Vista Ultimate. It's more than £300. Ridiculous isn't it!!!!! I mean I would never pay that much when there's the OEM version for Just over £100. Leave the retail version for the stupid stupid people who go into PC World and have money to waste. £100 is not an unreasonable price for an OS. Don't go on about how OEM versions are restricted to one motherboard. If you want to move it to a new PC then call Microsoft and say your PC broke and you're installing it onto a new one. They'll make it so you can reactivate again.
Thirdly. When have you seen an OS which has INCREASED performance on the hardware of the day? More features makes for a slower OS. If people like yourself had your way OS's would start devolving and we'd be back at DOS in 15 years or so.
I took so long to compose (more like rant!!!!) that I was beaten
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
