Upgrading to Windows Vista

I've been thinking about installing Windows Vista (maybe Ultimate) in my computer. But I still have my doubts about doing it. Will my computer have the same performance to run games like rFactor and GTR 2 or I'm also going to have to upgrade the computer itself?

My computer's this:

- Pentium 4 3GHz HT
- Radeon X550 256MB
- 1GB RAM
- 160GB hard drive
- 17" screen @ 1280x960


Thanks

---

Um dois três quatro cinco seis sete oito nove dez
Eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs sieben acht neun zehn
One two three four five six seven eight nine ten
Один два три четыре пять шесть семь восемь девять десять

I would rather stay on winXP with that computer configuration. Vista eats a lot of RAM, so maybe you should think about buying some more of it.

From my expiriences with Vista it's more or less winXP with a lot of 'eye candies', nothing so special that you should need a change from winXP, so if I were you (and I almost am, because I also have P4 3GHz HT and 1GB of RAM) I would stay on XP

---

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2007 12:07AM by anze89.

Vista eats a lot of RAM

No, it doesnt. Thats possibly the biggest Vista myth of the lot. It preloads a bunch of stuff when it works out what your using most. Also like XP frees up RAM when other stuff is needed. I bought my RAM to be used and I want it to be used.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No, it doesnt. Thats possibly the biggest Vista
> myth of the lot. It preloads a bunch of stuff when
> it works out what your using most. Also like XP
> frees up RAM when other stuff is needed. I bought
> my RAM to be used and I want it to be used.

The man speaks the truth. Vista has excellent memory management.

What you have to ask yourself though, is do you want to spend the time downloading Vista and the trouble applying a crack, when currently XP will give you similar end performance with fewer potential headaches.

//edit: sorry, Anze replied, so this is an automated response to that.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2007 02:15AM by gav.

im trying to put vista on my new pc atm. its lost of fun when it tells you the hardware dosent support booting to that drive! :\

NeilPearson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> im trying to put vista on my new pc atm. its lost
> of fun when it tells you the hardware dosent
> support booting to that drive! :\

Good luck, my friend had a similar problem and it took him ages to get it to boot. Once he had it on, he unistalled it again and put xp back on because in his words "vista is a better looking version of xp that runs like s!it and wastes your money!". So i am staying well away from vista for as long as i can!

Runs like sh*t? I put it on a machine with a XP2000, 512mb ram and no graphics card and it ran as well as XP did...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Runs like sh*t? I put it on a machine with a
> XP2000, 512mb ram and no graphics card and it ran
> as well as XP did...

Well he said he lost around 20 -30FPS on his games and logging on, application opening etc was much slower than xp. He was using Windows Vista Ultimate and i dont see any point in me upgrading as it doesn't offer any major improvement that i want/need! The earliest i will upgrade is when DX10 arrives, but i doubt i will even bother till a few years time!

And how long has he been using it? After a week of slightly slower application usegae Vista had adjusted to what I use and now even Photoshop in all its bloated slowness is considerably faster than what XP Ever managed for me.

And of course he lost FPS. You dont GAIN FPS in an Operating System shift. I lost about 5 FPS. Hardly a big deal when Im at 70fps.

Really Im not saying you need to switch, or its definatly better for what you want to do but the usuall excuses of "it runs so slow and eats my ram" really arent true and anyone whos used it for a considerable length of time can say that.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

mika19b Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well he said he lost around 20 -30FPS on his games
> and logging on, application opening etc was much
> slower than xp. He was using Windows Vista
> Ultimate and i dont see any point in me upgrading
> as it doesn't offer any major improvement that i
> want/need! The earliest i will upgrade is when
> DX10 arrives, but i doubt i will even bother till
> a few years time!

Vista's not to blame. A graphics card running DX9 will run just as fast in Vista as it did in XP. Just because the graphics driver roll-out has been dire (blame nVIDIA and ATi for that) it means it's a poor operating system?

ATi were originally a bit slow getting drivers out, but they're miles better than the nVIDIA ones. Even now (6 months after Vista went gold) they're still very poor. They were utterly hopeless until the release last week.

People complain about the performance of Vista without giving it a chance. The new SuperFetch system means it'll adapt to your usage - this requires you to use Vista! It'll use your RAM to fill it with programs you use regularly so they load instantly, and can even recognise what day of the week it is, and what type of software you are more likely to use on a weekend than during the week. The indexing also takes time, but so long as you dont have a mouse on a wheel for a computer, it'll be quicker than XP.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/05/2007 04:28PM by markko.

Opera opens like a folder now! So fast! Even 3D Max and Photoshop are so much faster to open than they ever did. Its a brilliant system (yet so simple really).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

The main question is really "why would you want to upgrade to vista?" though

H E L L O

Because it runs faster, it looks nicer, its MUCH more logical and easier to use and its built in features are excellent. All the little things such as the new address bar in explorer make life alot easier in the long run.

Vista certainly has helped my productivity on texturing with how fast it is and how smooth it is.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

i've used it for a day (survived without my network card-there's no vista driver for it (I really should check these things)) and i felt it getting faster each time the system started. Was very impressed. Once i replace my mobo, it'll be going on my system full time

_______________________________________________________

Team Japan Owner - GPGNC

i like vista, i think its awsome, i had it on my old pc but because my pc couldnt handle it with gaming i was spending more time in xp than in vista, so i got rid of it.

now i got a super kick ass computer i am on vista.

Daniel Knott Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main question is really "why would you want to
> upgrade to vista?" though

Because it's better. It's been in development for years now to supersede XP, and is better in every respect.

That's why.

Thanks for the information, Dave, gav and markko. I'm going install Vista today, and then I'll try and post the performance changes (if any) it originated.



Daniel Knott schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The main question is really "why would you want to
> upgrade to vista?" though


No, it's "will one with a high-end one-year old computer have a considerable performance loss upgrading to Vista?"

---

Um dois três quatro cinco seis sete oito nove dez
Eins zwei drei vier fünf sechs sieben acht neun zehn
One two three four five six seven eight nine ten
Один два три четыре пять шесть семь восемь девять десять

And the answer is no. I stuck it on a budget laptop (Sempron + 512mb RAM) at work and it just lapped it up. If I'd installed the same programs (my usual collection, which I was checking for computability) onto XP, it would have just ground slowly to a halt. The memory management is simply brilliant, especially if you take advantage of ReadyBoost.

Vista has problems because of 2 reasons. Drivers - graphics and sound of the major components (which will get much, much better, but shouldn't have been bad in the 1st place), and pretty much any printer, scanner or webcam. Companies just don't produce drivers for them. They're unbelievably lazy.

markko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> People complain about the performance of Vista
> without giving it a chance. The new SuperFetch
> system means it'll adapt to your usage - this
> requires you to use Vista! It'll use your RAM to
> fill it with programs you use regularly so they
> load instantly, and can even recognise what day of
> the week it is, and what type of software you are
> more likely to use on a weekend than during the
> week. The indexing also takes time, but so long
> as you dont have a mouse on a wheel for a
> computer, it'll be quicker than XP.

Seriously?!

I've been thinking about getting Vista, not sure what edition though, and running it on a 2nd PC along with one or two Linux OS'. This'll give me the chance to get used to Vista and how it works. Then when all the drivers I need for my hardware are out for Vista I can then switch over permanently.