EPTFYI
http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/en/sm/WF25a/321957-321957-64295-3955549-3955549-3688868.html?jumpid=re_r552_ca/smb/psg/volumeLead_prod_ref/landing/nbks/b3
2gb ram
Vista or XP
| Blogs > ThE_OsToJiY |
|
ThE_OsToJiY
Canada1167 Posts
FYI http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/ca/en/sm/WF25a/321957-321957-64295-3955549-3955549-3688868.html?jumpid=re_r552_ca/smb/psg/volumeLead_prod_ref/landing/nbks/b3 2gb ram | ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
| ||
|
triangle
United States3803 Posts
I have yet to see any reason to switch to vista. Edit -- free upgrade to 7 is a pretty compelling reason :p | ||
|
Hacksaw11
Australia359 Posts
if u ahve 4gb go for vista, then windows7 think its free upgrade if you go from vista sum1 confirm :p | ||
|
b3h47pte
United States1317 Posts
if you don't want Windows 7 ( for whatever odd reason), go XP. | ||
|
Folca
2235 Posts
| ||
|
ThE_OsToJiY
Canada1167 Posts
| ||
|
Hacksaw11
Australia359 Posts
i tried vista, didnt like it. so XP it... yeah you love it | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
| ||
|
ThE_OsToJiY
Canada1167 Posts
| ||
|
skronch
United States2717 Posts
| ||
|
Grobyc
Canada18410 Posts
On September 18 2009 11:11 Stuyvesant wrote: stick with XP i tried vista, didnt like it. so XP it... yeah you love it I find a lot of people who have used XP for ages and have not played around with Vista say this. I'm not saying one is better than the other, but some people just don't like change. If you are willing to spend the little extra time to familiarize yourself with an OS, I would just go for Vista/Windows 7. EDIT: Also, as the above post says, there's no big reason to upgrade to Vista, but if you have the choice of starting out with one of them, I'd have to say there's no major reason to pick such an older OS such as XP over Vista or 7. | ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
| ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
| ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
it's funny how people recommend 7 and then be lik omg vista is so bad because for the average user they are nearly the same. i used to think there was no reason to switch to vista over xp but i also used to format routinely (like every 3 months) because xp would slow down drastically over time. vista is less affected by that to the point where i dont format anymore at all for speed reasons. | ||
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
If you're talking XP vs. 7, it's tougher. It depends on what kind of a Windows user you are really. Though if you don't convert to 7 eventually, might I recommend Linux? :D | ||
|
Saddened Izzy
United States198 Posts
On September 18 2009 11:11 Stuyvesant wrote: stick with XP i tried vista, didnt like it. so XP it... yeah you love it Translation I tired the new OS i don't know shit about it...now i'm scared man this sucks... imma switch back to XP Also i think you are getting shafted for 2 gigs of ram you should get 4 gigs ez at ddr2 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820148191 This is what it should have in it 4 gigs of 1066 ddr3 ram which that chipset and cpu support and is recommend with that fsb I mean at least 4 gigs of ddr2 ram in that suckka http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820227251 cost diff 20 bucks on consumer side it's like nothing for hp they are probably getting rid of over stocked ram or some shit | ||
|
caldo149
United States469 Posts
EDIT: and by all means go for Windows7 if you can, I hear it's better than either XP or Vista. | ||
|
BookTwo
1985 Posts
make a poll? | ||
|
FragKrag
United States11567 Posts
| ||
|
Kurosaki
United States158 Posts
| ||
|
meegrean
Thailand7699 Posts
| ||
|
Fr33t
United States1128 Posts
| ||
|
geometryb
United States1249 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
On September 18 2009 11:31 mahnini wrote: vista if you have the hardware it's funny how people recommend 7 and then be lik omg vista is so bad because for the average user they are nearly the same. If you have the hardware. Yes you are correct, but if you don't have the hardware for Vista but do for XP then you can also run 7. The thing about 7 is while it is very close to Vista it is a huge performance leap on older or weaker hardware. For example, I cannot run Vista (without it being as slow as piss) on my netbook and you would find it near impossible to find a netbook with Vista on it. But I loaded 7 onto it and its amazingly fast for the hardware specs that it has (go do a search for netbook specs, they're all roughly the same). So yes if you have the hardware the differences are harder to notice, but if you don't exactly have a great machine then 7 does shine. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Chuiu
3470 Posts
Its like being served three drinks that are roughly the same and drinking the crappiest one because 'eh they're all roughly the same'. | ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
| ||
|
writer22816
United States5775 Posts
On September 18 2009 13:26 Chuiu wrote: I'm sure as hell not going to recommend Vista. XP and 7 are both better, why the fuck wouldn't I recommend them? Its like being served three drinks that are roughly the same and drinking the crappiest one because 'eh they're all roughly the same'. Eh, did you turn off UAC and aero in vista before making judgment? Because if not, you're pretty stupid. How do you expect to run a shit ton of eye candy on one OS, nothing on the other and then complain that the former is too slow? Most netbooks have integrated graphics so of course Aero is going to really slow the computer down. Anyway I recommend Vista because it runs very fast on my laptop and you can upgrade to windows 7 without having to do a clean install. I have xp desktop and vista laptop and there is NO advantage that xp has over vista. In fact, my desktop has been getting countless blue screens while my laptop has gotten literally nothing. Of course, the desktop has a lot more software and different hardware and other crap installed so I'm hesitant to blame it on XP. But vista has never crashed on me yet and I will be upgrading to 7 on both computers. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 18 2009 13:26 Chuiu wrote: I'm sure as hell not going to recommend Vista. XP and 7 are both better, why the fuck wouldn't I recommend them? Its like being served three drinks that are roughly the same and drinking the crappiest one because 'eh they're all roughly the same'. except 7 is for all intents and purposes a slightly faster vista? we're talking about a couple seconds in specific apps. and vista is even faster than 7 in some apps so... the only really large improvements come from network transfer speeds which the average user probably does not care about. they also mention 'snappier ui' but also admit that aspect could not be measured reliably. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3 i'm not saying windows 7 isnt better than vista. i'm saying you cant really insult vista without shitting on windows 7 as well. thus, the fact that you would recommend XP over vista because it is better is kinda bleh when benchmarks show that 7 trades off with vista | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 18 2009 11:31 mahnini wrote: vista if you have the hardware it's funny how people recommend 7 and then be lik omg vista is so bad because for the average user they are nearly the same. i used to think there was no reason to switch to vista over xp but i also used to format routinely (like every 3 months) because xp would slow down drastically over time. vista is less affected by that to the point where i dont format anymore at all for speed reasons. No one pays attention when I say this.  Every speed test is done on a fresh install. Do a speed test on 9 month old systems and XP will get curb stomped by both Vista and 7.Anyways, 2GB of ram is a bit low but I'd get Vista, and then later get the 7 upgrade. I'd also buy some more ram if I were you, since it's pretty cheap anyways and pretty useful. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On September 18 2009 14:37 mahnini wrote: except 7 is for all intents and purposes a slightly faster vista? we're talking about a couple seconds in specific apps. and vista is even faster than 7 in some apps so... the only really large improvements come from network transfer speeds which the average user probably does not care about. they also mention 'snappier ui' but also admit that aspect could not be measured reliably. http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0,3 i'm not saying windows 7 isnt better than vista. i'm saying you cant really insult vista without shitting on windows 7 as well. thus, the fact that you would recommend XP over vista because it is better is kinda bleh when benchmarks show that 7 trades off with vista In synthetic benchmarks, 7 and Vista run very close but I think with animations and response times, 7 is somehow a bit snappier. It might be psychological, but I think the presentation of information (not access times, but display times) is quicker. That said, you're basically right. 7 and Vista are running the same thing under the hood, which is nice because the driver base for both operating systems is about 95% the same. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
or 7 could just plain be faster. i just wish my mobo drivers would come out faster | ||
|
meathook
1289 Posts
| ||
|
haduken
Australia8267 Posts
i just had to. | ||
|
ero
United States66 Posts
it's fine now. | ||
|
emucxg
Finland4559 Posts
| ||
|
FreeZEternal
Korea (South)3396 Posts
| ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
| ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
But of course, as far as I know, Seven preety much trumps both. | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
| ||
|
Kaniol
Poland5551 Posts
I've been using vista for only half a year though. This system tries to control your actions too much lol. Can't use non-certified themes, drivers (daemon tools/peer guardian 2 had problems due to that for quite some time), plus it detects new network in my dorm's LAN like 30 times a day o.O (everyone who used to use Vista here confirms it, it is quite annoying since it "forgets" any "old LAN" when detecting "new one" thus causing disconnects... ) But mostly - i recommend you to use all 3 of the systems simultaneously (or just xp + vista) for like 6 months - probably your HDD does have enough space. Then you will find system that suits you the best  TBH only people who i know that still use Vista are people who use laptops and say that they will lose their guarantee if they reinstall system (even though I've heard that you just can't format the "recovery partition" or w/e it is called but i don't care since i don't use lap anyway) | ||
|
Tom Phoenix
1114 Posts
On September 19 2009 04:17 mahnini wrote: im actually using 2gb with vista 64. isnt low at all. You can still run Vista on a 2GB RAM. The problem appears when you require RAM for something else, like playing games. That is why people usually recommend that Vista users have at least 4 GB of RAM, since then you actually have RAM to spare to run Vista along other RAM-intensive activities. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
XP 100% Poll: ANOTHER LAPTOP QUESTION (Vote): XP (Vote): VISTA (Vote): OTHER (Vote): MAC cause I'm noob | ||
|
mahnini
United States6862 Posts
On September 19 2009 07:33 Tom Phoenix wrote: You can still run Vista on a 2GB RAM. The problem appears when you require RAM for something else, like playing games. That is why people usually recommend that Vista users have at least 4 GB of RAM, since then you actually have RAM to spare to run Vista along other RAM-intensive activities. i've played prototype, fallout 3, dead space, portal, grid, and probably a few more games with no problem. though i dont doubt 4gb would give me more overhead and allow me to run stuff in the background while playing it isnt usually a problem with 2gb. | ||
| ||
