Pambs wrote:cyprusgrump wrote:Pambs wrote:shahmaran wrote:Pambs wrote:new technology is better technology. and dont believe that thin that xp is better than vista. what sort of pc do you have, give us the specs and i will tell you
I have a quad opteron with 4gb ram and 500mb video and around 1tb of disk space, trust me I know Windows like the back of my hand and I see Vista as the equivalent of Windows ME which was a piece of crap that they used to make money with before releasing XP. Was ME better than 98? No it was not, but it was newer. I am sure Windows 7 will be much better than Vista but Vista was no way near better than XP. In fact Vista was a very shitty copy of OS X that did not work.
There is a world of difference between having to tweak your machine to the level of insanity in order to remotely have a stable system and to just whip out your Macbook from its box and voila, its working like a clock, a super fast clock as well.
i'm using vista 64 with an i7 proc, 6gb ram and more than 2 tb hd. i never encoutered an issue while i used to had more in xp. what exactly is your issue with vista?
actually 7 have a lot of things in common but they are more lite
For me, the issue is that you shouldn't need an i7 and 6Gbytes RAM to run software that used to run perfectly well on a 800MHz P3!
lol try running some of the software i use and even the 920 is low
I don't begrudge needing supercomputing power to run certain software!
But needing a supercomputer to load an operating system that used to run on steam power is taking the piss!
I'm sure Micro$oft add a few thousand NOPs in every 'update' they force you to download...
not like vista that eats up the ram
