Technology Get the latest on technology, electronics and software…

Who's got Vista?

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 07:05 PM
  #41  
West6MT's Avatar
Senior Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,294
Likes: 169
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Running it on my brand new IBM T61p fully loaded laptop and on an HP Desktop PC about 2 months old.

No problems for the most part, reboot once every two weeks.

I recommend 3GB + for ram seems to run very smoothly with alot of ram.

I just got a T61P as well ,.........but I got it with XP.
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 07:14 PM
  #42  
Python2121's Avatar
The hair says it all
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 7,566
Likes: 0
From: Manhattan, NYC
I own vista but I didn't like it so I'm back with xp. Actually my HD died yesterday so Ubuntu live cd. Slower, more annoying and all of the options are buried somewhere nonsensical. Seriously I use linux/osx/windows, I'm not afraid of change but there is just nothing in Vista for me to like.

another ME

If they included a journaling fs I would probably have stuck with it
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 07:22 PM
  #43  
Shoofin's Avatar
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 17,085
Likes: 740
From: Brooklyn, NY USA
I liked it up until the other day...Visuals are nice, everything else sucks!
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 09:17 PM
  #44  
HQuakers's Avatar
giggity giggity giggity
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,217
Likes: 0
From: MontCo, PA
If I buy a computer with Vista already loaded, is there a way to take it off and put XP on?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 09:24 PM
  #45  
Mokos23's Avatar
Race Director
 
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 10,741
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
My folks just bought a new PC with Vista. I kind of like it, but find it odd. Like when I want to select a certain file it doesn't highlight it when I want to select it and move it to another folder. I think the switching between screens is a neat feature.
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 09:27 PM
  #46  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
Originally Posted by Shoofin
I liked it up until the other day...Visuals are nice, everything else sucks!
curious, what happened "the other day"?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 09:38 PM
  #47  
doopstr's Avatar
Team Owner
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25,967
Likes: 2,685
From: Jersey
Until some killer application comes out that requires Vista, I can't see us moving from XP and Office 2003. Right now there is nothing we can't do on XP and everyone knows how to use it so no reason to upgrade.
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 09:48 PM
  #48  
eclipse23's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 3
From: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Originally Posted by 04EuroAccordTsx
My folks just bought a new PC with Vista. I kind of like it, but find it odd. Like when I want to select a certain file it doesn't highlight it when I want to select it and move it to another folder. I think the switching between screens is a neat feature.

Well, if you want eye candy use Ubuntu.

If you want speed use XP.


If you want cutting edge, use Vista.

If you want to drink lattes and occasionally suck a cock use Tiger.

If you want a challenge go back to DOS you fucking noobs. :P
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 11:08 PM
  #49  
stogie1020's Avatar
Thread Starter
Needs more Lemon Pledge
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 52,768
Likes: 2,000
From: Phoenix, AZ
Wow. Eclipse, someone pee in your cheerios?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 11:33 PM
  #50  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
Originally Posted by stogie1020
Wow. Eclipse, someone pee in your cheerios?
Reply
Old Nov 27, 2007 | 11:42 PM
  #51  
onebadna1nsx's Avatar
Hello Friend
15 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 10,953
Likes: 219
Vista doesn't work with PictureIt99
Other than that, I don't really have probs with Vista.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:05 AM
  #52  
Malayalee King's Avatar
ഥഎണഡഏ Fellas Inc.
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,823
Likes: 8
From: $,{MD,CA}
Originally Posted by Whiskers
You know, I really don't know why Windows ME got such a bad rap....It worked.
yeah really -- it was just an amped Win 98 SE. Never had any problems with it more than I had with 98 SE (again whenever ME dropped, I think I was already on 2K)
Originally Posted by Billiam
Oh yeah, that's another thing. You STILL can't fully manage Exchange 2003 servers from Windows Vista workstations. At this point I'm assuming it will never be possible.
no MMC plugins or terminal services into EX2K3 boxes? hmm weird.
Originally Posted by srika
there's no problems but your shit would be 2x faster on XP :P
yup, but add 1....Win XP SP3 is supposed to run laps around vista SP1 3x as fast. wow.
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Well, if you want eye candy use Ubuntu.

If you want speed use XP.


If you want cutting edge, use Vista.

If you want to drink lattes and occasionally suck a cock use Tiger.

If you want a challenge go back to DOS you fucking noobs. :P
brilliant

i had the vista, just not something i need right now. playing around with the betas and then playing around with compiz in ubuntu....no challenge. as a side, the new office2K7 is solidly slick and functional, but u dont need vista to run it.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:09 AM
  #53  
stogie1020's Avatar
Thread Starter
Needs more Lemon Pledge
 
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 52,768
Likes: 2,000
From: Phoenix, AZ
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
as a side, the new office2K7 is solidly slick and functional, but u dont need vista to run it.

Really? I hate the new interface... Haven't looked into a way to make it look like 2003 yet though. Too lazy.. Anyone? Anyone? Bueler?
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:13 AM
  #54  
Malayalee King's Avatar
ഥഎണഡഏ Fellas Inc.
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,823
Likes: 8
From: $,{MD,CA}
i thought so at first too but then i got used to it. its intuitive and gives you options based on what you are doing, or common tasks. like in if you highlight a dataset or a table with data in it it'll move the make chart, or calc function tabs forward and things like that. i just cant get enough now.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:18 AM
  #55  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
hells yes SP3 is gonna be FTW
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:45 AM
  #56  
Kikaida's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
I have Vista (Premium) on my home computer. It runs fine, but that is probably because it came preinstalled on my new computer (Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz with 2GB ram).

I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.

Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:50 AM
  #57  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
Thanks for injecting some substantive evidence into this thread (other than the article). If you get a new computer and it has Vista on it, how would you know how it would have performed with XP on it.

ps. nice setup.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 08:37 AM
  #58  
97BlackAckCL's Avatar
Senior Moderator
Regional Coordinator
(Mid-Atlantic)
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 92,740
Likes: 4,676
From: ShitsBurgh
Originally Posted by Kikaida
I have Vista (Premium) on my home computer. It runs fine, but that is probably because it came preinstalled on my new computer (Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz with 2GB ram).

I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.

Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
You need a heavy hitting machine with lots of cores and ram, that's my main complaint with Vista, but it runs great on our dual cores and xeons at work, I just had too many damn problems trying to run media apps at home, not to mention quake 4 didn't run on vista for shit
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 09:07 AM
  #59  
eclipse23's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 3
From: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Originally Posted by Kikaida
I have Vista (Premium) on my home computer. It runs fine, but that is probably because it came preinstalled on my new computer (Core 2 Quad 2.4Ghz with 2GB ram).

I installed Vista (Business) on my old PC (P4 2Ghz with 640MB ram) and it ran like total crap. XP Was way better on it.

Also, I think the wireless config on Vista sucks ass. I am not saying that the zero config utility in XP was great, but I never used it as most times I could use a different client to control my wireless.
My experience has been (and I had to get a WPA2 aruba network to work on this thing) is that is tries to connect too quickly so it shows failed. Then, it connects after bootup.

Minor glitch i'm sure on the list to be fixed.

Other than that I think they actually made the wireless setup utility harder than easier.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 11:04 AM
  #60  
Billiam's Avatar
Big Block go VROOOM!
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,578
Likes: 1
From: Chicago Burbs
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
no MMC plugins or terminal services into EX2K3 boxes? hmm weird.
Terminal services works fine but I effectively consider that as managing a server locally. The Exchange 2003 System Manager will not install on Vista. You can do some E2K3 management through the Exchange 2007 Management Console but it's not the complete set of options.

Even more problematic than server management is basic Level I and Level II account stuff. You have to isntall the Exchange management tools to get mail related tabs in AD Users & Computers. This means that your Help Desk staff is forced on their own machines to choose between either running Vista to assist with OS issues or running XP so that they can do basic adds/drops/changes for user accounts.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 12:10 PM
  #61  
Belzebutt's Avatar
I'm the Firestarter
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 12,309
Likes: 1,042
I've been on Vista Ultimate for several months now, and I like it a lot. It looks a lot better than XP, it actually uses your graphics card more than just in games. I love how my Desktop has nice graphics too.

There are a few quirks in application and driver support, most of all in sound drivers, but no show stoppers. I like the Media Center, I like how it wakes up and suspends faster. I can't complain about game performance either, I didn't notice it being slower than XP.

I used to use ME and I don't think it's anything like that. First of all ME was also competing against 2000 at the time, so you had a more stable choice. Vista is not unstable. Vista is more secure. The GUI improvement from XP to Vista is huge, it's the biggest graphical overhaul since the Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 change. That's worth the upgrade IMO.

Plus Vista is not the bastard child in the family, it's THE OS Microsoft is selling to everyone at the moment. You know they're commited to it. They're selling it to companies, not just consummers.

Comparisons with ME are baseless.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 12:38 PM
  #62  
Billiam's Avatar
Big Block go VROOOM!
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,578
Likes: 1
From: Chicago Burbs
Originally Posted by Belzebutt
Plus Vista is not the bastard child in the family, it's THE OS Microsoft is selling to everyone at the moment. You know they're commited to it. They're selling it to companies, not just consummers.
From every industry article I'v read the situation is more like they're offerring it to companies, but actually selling it to consumers. Regardless of how committed Microsoft is to Vista, the simple truth is that there is a substantial, if not overwhelming, resistance to Vista on corporate desktops.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 12:41 PM
  #63  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
Great. I dunno, you kinda assume they used the SAME BASIS for the test???? Whatever happened to validity and reliability??? Have these people never taken a stat class????

http://www.betanews.com/article/XP_S...ion/1196208954

XP SP3 outperforms Vista SP1, but less when running same Office version

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

November 27, 2007, 7:32 PM

A heavily promoted performance test by an evaluation software firm appeared to situate Windows Vista SP1 performance against Windows XP SP3. But the initial workloads were actually different due to the Office software used, testers admitted to BetaNews today.

Devil Mountain Software's test results comparing similar workloads on systems with varying editions of XP and Vista -- including the latest service packs or their equivalents -- show the Vista system performing astonishingly more poorly, by a staggering 144%.

But a breakdown of the team's initial tests reveal that, although they used identical Dell computers, they actually compared Office 2007 performance on Vista to Office 2003 performance on XP.

"All testing was conducted against fresh installations of the respective OS platforms," the CTO of Devil Mountain Software, Craig Barth, told BetaNews this afternoon. "In the case of Vista, we installed the RTM code only -- no updates were installed in order to preserve a pristine image. We then installed Office 2007 and the DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker tools. Once benchmarking was complete, we upgraded the installation with the v.658 build (RC0) of Service Pack 1."

For the XP test, Barth said his team followed a similar methodology, but one which equipped the older operating system with the older applications suite.

Barth said his tack for the XP rig was "first, installing and testing a pristine XP + SP2 image (via the integrated CD ISO image from MSDN); adding Microsoft Office 2003, DMS Clarity Studio and Tracker; testing under SP2; then upgrading with Service Pack 3 and repeating the tests under the updated configuration."

But some readers noticed that both systems weren't being tested using the same workload. And since the team's testing software focuses on such factors as ActiveX Data Objects (ADO), whose deployments are very different for Office 2003 than for Office 2007, the differences do matter.

So by their request, the team installed Office 2003 on the Vista system, keeping in mind that Vista may still replace much of the infrastructure from the OS upon which the suite relies. When that happens, the performance gap narrows...to a mere 82%.

It may still be enough, though, for the team to uphold its claim from last week that Vista SP1 is "a performance dud." "Extensive testing by the exo.performance.network research staff," reads the team's blog, "shows that SP1 provides no measurable relief to users saddled with sub-par performance under Vista."

Barth revealed to BetaNews further details about the hardware platforms his team used. "The test system was a Dell XPS M1710 notebook," he said, "equipped with a Core 2 Duo CPU at 2 GHz (T7200), 1 or 2 GB of Corsair Value Select DDR-2 667 MHz memory, a Hitachi 7200 RPM 80 GB hard disk and nVidia GeForce Go 7900GS video adapter."

Devil Mountain Software does not appear to have compared performance when running Office 2007 on both Windows XP and Windows Vista.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 12:43 PM
  #64  
spdy0001's Avatar
I now drive an accord....
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 4,800
Likes: 2
From: Etters, PA
Originally Posted by Billiam
From every industry article I'v read the situation is more like they're offerring it to companies, but actually selling it to consumers. Regardless of how committed Microsoft is to Vista, the simple truth is that there is a substantial, if not overwhelming, resistance to Vista on corporate desktops.
Our company has one machine for testing, but will not make any other installations. Alot of the software my company uses isn't compatible and in our industry companies aren't jumping to rewrite code to accommodate vista.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 12:50 PM
  #65  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
our company is planning on moving to Vista around 2014 or so.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 01:00 PM
  #66  
fdl's Avatar
fdl
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,672
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by Whiskers
You know, I really don't know why Windows ME got such a bad rap....It worked.

Blue Screen of Death. FTL
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 01:22 PM
  #67  
West6MT's Avatar
Senior Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 9,294
Likes: 169
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
i thought so at first too but then i got used to it. its intuitive and gives you options based on what you are doing, or common tasks. like in if you highlight a dataset or a table with data in it it'll move the make chart, or calc function tabs forward and things like that. i just cant get enough now.
At first I didn't like it, but now I am used to it and actually like how things are setup/layout etc.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 01:33 PM
  #68  
fdl's Avatar
fdl
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,672
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/dOvfXuk_3oQ&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/dOvfXuk_3oQ&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 01:49 PM
  #69  
Kikaida's Avatar
Burning Brakes
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,204
Likes: 0
From: Hawaii
Originally Posted by eclipse23
My experience has been (and I had to get a WPA2 aruba network to work on this thing) is that is tries to connect too quickly so it shows failed. Then, it connects after bootup.

Minor glitch i'm sure on the list to be fixed.

Other than that I think they actually made the wireless setup utility harder than easier.
Yeah, they definately made it harder. Took me forever to figure out how to get to the profiles...

At least Vista supports WPA2 out of the box. I would still rather use a vendors client though, especially since Vista doesn't support LEAP, and many vendors XP clients do.

XP's WPA supplicant add-on was kinda iffy for me.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:12 PM
  #70  
Billiam's Avatar
Big Block go VROOOM!
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 8,578
Likes: 1
From: Chicago Burbs

Do any of you guys know if it's possible (XP or Vista) to somehow "package" wireless network configuration settings in any way other than Group Policy? I didn't see anything in local policy settings and I've done registry searches for SSID strings. Nada.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:21 PM
  #71  
SupaRookie's Avatar
Kang Ho
 
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,872
Likes: 0
From: SJ, CA
Our company ship only Vista Ultimate. It's definitely looks nicer than XP. I deal primarily with the media center interface than anything else. MS needs to support HD-DVD natively in media center. All the 3rd party plugin gives many problems. I may switch to Vista @ the end of the year because my XP just look so plain.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:42 PM
  #72  
Malayalee King's Avatar
ഥഎണഡഏ Fellas Inc.
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 4,823
Likes: 8
From: $,{MD,CA}
Originally Posted by Billiam

Do any of you guys know if it's possible (XP or Vista) to somehow "package" wireless network configuration settings in any way other than Group Policy? I didn't see anything in local policy settings and I've done registry searches for SSID strings. Nada.
windows network setup wizard?
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 02:47 PM
  #73  
Whiskers's Avatar
Go Giants
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 70,003
Likes: 1,260
From: PA
Originally Posted by Malayalee King
windows network setup wizard?
A wizard is the oppisite of a package....
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:06 PM
  #74  
eclipse23's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
 
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 3
From: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Originally Posted by srika
our company is planning on moving to Vista around 2014 or so.
Not for nothing Srika but you are obviously very slanted away from Vista. While it's easy to throw rocks at the Microsoft Goliath I'm glad to see that they still keep moving forward with new operating systems even if they tend to prematurely release them.

Apple was never able to embrace the business world even if it was simply a marketing failure, Novell didn't have a desktop OS to win us over and their absolutely HORRIBLE marketing department kept the rest of the world from knowing who the fuck they even were. Microsoft sold themselves right, took 80% of the marketshare and pulled themselves into almost every business.

No one talks about how good Microsoft Server 2003 is, maybe I'm the only person running 14 different servers at my job all doing different jobs from application hosting to backup with hardly any reboots or problems. Yes I have linux boxes, sun boxes and other flavors but our core user network is domain controlled and running very well.

I guess my point is while I see your stance it's kinda silly to me because in a year from now most people here will be on Vista and in 3 years from now the same discussion will occur for the next OS.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:15 PM
  #75  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
i guess i just need my computer to run as fast as it can. eye candy is fun but processing power is more important to me. :P

a few years down the road, yes most everyone will probably be on Vista, myself included. but, my computer is also going to be much much faster.

in the end, yes, it's pretty silly.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:20 PM
  #76  
Beelzebub's Avatar
Race Director
20 Year Member
Photogenic
Liked
Loved
 
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,929
Likes: 1,051
From: Long Island, NY
Originally Posted by eclipse23
Not for nothing Srika but you are obviously very slanted away from Vista. While it's easy to throw rocks at the Microsoft Goliath I'm glad to see that they still keep moving forward with new operating systems even if they tend to prematurely release them.

Apple was never able to embrace the business world even if it was simply a marketing failure, Novell didn't have a desktop OS to win us over and their absolutely HORRIBLE marketing department kept the rest of the world from knowing who the fuck they even were. Microsoft sold themselves right, took 80% of the marketshare and pulled themselves into almost every business.

No one talks about how good Microsoft Server 2003 is, maybe I'm the only person running 14 different servers at my job all doing different jobs from application hosting to backup with hardly any reboots or problems. Yes I have linux boxes, sun boxes and other flavors but our core user network is domain controlled and running very well.

I guess my point is while I see your stance it's kinda silly to me because in a year from now most people here will be on Vista and in 3 years from now the same discussion will occur for the next OS.
Exactly

I run it all at my job.

We have Windows 2003 servers that only get rebooted once every 3 months to apply the patches, but all our servers do that, Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Linux and Mac OSX. Windows is just as stable as the other OS's as long as you don't constantly install and deinstall software. If you set up the server and let it do it's job it will run forever.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:23 PM
  #77  
fdl's Avatar
fdl
Senior Moderator
 
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 21,672
Likes: 1
From: Toronto
Originally Posted by srika

a few years down the road, yes most everyone will probably be on Vista, myself included.
I'm not too sure about that. VIsta has been a colossal failure. It's time for plan B.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:31 PM
  #78  
Whiskers's Avatar
Go Giants
20 Year Member
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 70,003
Likes: 1,260
From: PA
Originally Posted by fdl
I'm not too sure about that. VIsta has been a colossal failure. It's time for plan B.
SP2...
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:38 PM
  #79  
srika's Avatar
Moderator Alumnus
20 Year Member
Community Influencer
Loved
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 64,092
Likes: 14,244
Originally Posted by fdl
I'm not too sure about that. VIsta has been a colossal failure. It's time for plan B.
I don't think they are not gonna pull the plug on it, Bob-style. I don't think they can. my stance from the first days we have talked about Vista has been, I'll get it once it hits maybe the 2nd or 3rd service pack.
Reply
Old Nov 28, 2007 | 03:57 PM
  #80  
synth19's Avatar
Senior Moderator
20 Year Member
Liked
Top Answer: 1
 
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 16,424
Likes: 720
From: Chicago, IL
Dude, I can't imagine you running any of the audio applications you use with less then 4 gigs of memory! But again, 4 basic shit.... vista works.

Originally Posted by srika
i guess i just need my computer to run as fast as it can.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:27 AM.