Pommie said:Having now persevered with vista for 2 weeks, I have finally given up.
makes no difference if the programs he wants/needs won't work3v0 said:No personal experiance here. None of my machines are fast enough to run it. No hurry to go there either.
Have you tried turning off all the bells and whistles on Vista ? I have been told that if you do it will run almost as well as XP.
Styx said:makes no difference if the programs he wants/needs won't work
justDIY said:Athlon (64?) 3800 isn't exactly a fast processor these days. vista on the Core 2 Duo is pretty awesome - hrmm, Microsoft and Intel, what a coincidence :/
looks like you've got some of the "visual effects" turned on too, transparent 'crystal' windows, etc. those features need a high end video card (dx9 at least, dx10 best) to preform well
vista is not a good fit for a low-end to mid range computer, just as XP was not a good fit for the low to mid range of what was out in 2002-2003. xp runs so well on todays computer because even the cheapies far outstrip what it was designed for back in 2002
j.p.bill said:BTW, it's interesting to see my wife's computer labor harder and harder with every round of "updates" from MS. Sometimes I think the slowdown is calculated to make you want to get a new computer. Wish Linux would get a bit serious and become a realistic alternative to MS. I got the Kubuntu release, but there always seems to be a new version about to be posted. Too much busywork in that, plus there is the ridiculous matter of having to mount my drives. If I'm running an IBM360 with 24 CDC tape drives, that's a valid thing to do - especially in batch processing. But on my desktop?!? It's simply obnoxious.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?