CityLifeCrew.net

its a bad habbit...

Lime wrote:Stick to XP. Vista is just a bad ripoff of the most a Mac has to offer. Plus that it's laggy. I only enjoy my computer, with vista, cause I've downloaded some fun programs and Vista does not have fun programs. And most of the things, even new ones, like phones or a MIDI keyboard does not cooperate with vista very good. Too bad but it's true. So, yhea, stick with XP for a little while untill they have like a superupgrade or something. (Sorry for any misspellings )

- I own Mac in my company, eventhough it is idiotically overpriced designer *bad language reported*, because some retarded clients simply need to see Mac in your studio. I have one SiliconGraphics workstation for the same reason (except SGI is real power for those money)
- I find Microsoft's overall intuitiveness a lot more normal than Mac's OS X Panther. Where Vista can make me smile or laugh with their approach to change every setting of the system or peripherals by "finding a problem", OS X is forcing me to throw whole Max outta my window, if you want to do such simple thing like add it to your office network.
- New Leopard OS X is completely new song, though. Stability and application performance of Vista is really questionable. Obviously not my oppinion, I was talking to programmers. Leopard offers the best from the Unix world (not Linux please) and genial Apple's GUI devs. OS X looks a lot more decent and aesthetical than eye candies on my Vista desktop.
Both systems need powerful machines, Vista offers to turn off "Vista" and you cannot notice any "lag", how you funny put it. Not compared to your old XPs at least, on the very same computer. It's simply the same.
- it's well known that Vista refuses to connect to most of your old peripherals, especially any phones, Mp3 players etc, but that's not always a problem of Vista! Did you know that 38% of Vista crashes are caused by NVidia drivers? What you did not mention and is obviously Microsoft's problem is that Vista doesn't work with Firewired peripherals as it should, doesn't refresh HDMI displays as it should, "sometimes" does detect wifi routers correctly, etc. Things Microsoft announced to get better, got worse. Ooops.
My friend, programmer, says as usual: "Wait for Service Pack 2, same for all Windows versions"
LOL, slow down Mr.Gates, we can wait for new version, can you?

i use vista ultimate - if u get vista get home premium at least - otherwise its pointless - i have 3 gigs of ram and nvidia 7600gs grpahics card - amd athalon x2 64 3800 (thts dual core) - this runs vista at exactly same speed as xp and with all the goodies - you can pick up that hardware above for about 100 quid now + an am2 motherbaord (asus generally). i am pleased with vista and get 25 + more fps in lfs than in vista.

thts my opinion - if it can handle it run it - if its border line then dont...

rwhitehead wrote: i am pleased with vista and get 25 + more fps in lfs than in vista.

Well I also got more fps. (Got about 100 now XD) But it seams that every time i hit some wall a little harder or a car or something my fps goes down to about 30 then up again so it looks like it's lagging, wich it maby does. I wonder if it's vista or my computer.

i would ytu vista if someone gave me a copy, but im not just going to go and buy it, unless i can afford it with alot more money to spare

vista is good but you have to atleast have 2gig ram in your computer =/

i got 3gb ram and Duo core T9300 2.5 GHZ cpu on my laptop using vista . It's sucks ... its taking 5 mins to complete opening . It's too slow , eats 1024 ram as said before . Vista's biggest award is THE BEST SLOWEST OS IN THE WORLD !!! But hey Vista lookin cool it's all about theme and make up .. nothing more ..

mines fast.... i love vista

using 32 bit or 64 bit ?

Vista runs great on my computer. I have the 32 bit Vista Business. I have a e2060 (1.8ghz) oced to 3.0ghz, 2 gigs of ram, and a nvidia 7900gs. My computer runs just as fast as it did on XP, I don't have the memory leak problems like I did on xp. My os hasn't rotted like xp used to do. I also haven't rebooted in about 2 weeks. Runs rock solid for me and doesn't slowly slow do like XP did over time between reboots (due to memory leaks etc...). When I do reboot it starts up just as fast as xp did for me.

In terms of gaming I've experienced no difference in performance from xp to vista. FPS is all about the same in every game I play. I really see no reason not to run it if you have a decent computer.

@ Odhismharr, 5 minutes to completely open? Sounds like you need to run msconfig and uncheck all the start up processes that you have running (due to programs you install or pre-installed programs on your computer when you bought it). 5 minutes is rediculously slow. It shouldn't take that long and I wouldn't call it a problem with vista but rather a problem with the programs that are installed on your computer.

I wouldn't say its all about looks an nothing else. Its more stable that XP ever was for me. Haven't had it crash once even with a decent OC and the summer heat. With xp my comp would crash from time to time for no apparent reason even at stock clocks. And as I said before, I'm having a lot better experience using vista vs using xp.

-edit- It still runs faster than XP did for me even though I run 2 instances of Prime95 constantly (affinity set so one instance runs on each core). Thats 100% cpu use all the time and it doesn't lag at all doing anything.

i mean 25 more fps taking ti to about 110 sorry !!!!

Odhismharr wrote:i got 3gb ram and Duo core T9300 2.5 GHZ cpu on my laptop using vista . It's sucks ... its taking 5 mins to complete opening . It's too slow , eats 1024 ram as said before . Vista's biggest award is THE BEST SLOWEST OS IN THE WORLD !!! But hey Vista lookin cool it's all about theme and make up .. nothing more ..

What the heck is wrong with your computer?

I mean my friend has vista home premium laptop laptop, I believe it is only 1.8ghz (dual core). He has 2gb of ram, and it opens up in about 2 and a half minutes.

Although it is a ram eater, I and my friend both of 2gb of ram, and it usually only uses 30% of that so about 600mb?

I think 2GB is recommended if you want to do any gaming, however vista would run fine with 1gb.

Maybe you should check for some spyware, or get rid or some of the programs that open on startup.

i did a timing of my boot up and it takes 37 seconds from pressing the on button to been able to scroll throught the programs list...

rwhitehead wrote:i did a timing of my boot up and it takes 37 seconds from pressing the on button to been able to scroll throught the programs list...

Yeah, that sounds more realistic. For me I was talking about like booting all tray programs and such as well. I also have a lot of programs that open rigth away such as AVG scan, Steam, msn, etc. Though mine still isn't anything more then like 3 minutes.

erm if i let it boot like that maybe about a min and a half (not laods of prgrams) but i just start lfs or something whilst those prgrams boot - let them do it all in the background - id hate to have to wait 5 mins to boot up - if that was the case id be on win 2k - thts if i had no money to upgrade.....