The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Vista Vs Windows XP

pinkrose

pinkrose

Slut
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
295
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.zone48.net
I hear it hogs system resources, even the intel duo core systems run faster with XP instead of vista?
 
Vista is the new Windows ME.. Id stick with XP pro for now....and wait till Vienna comes out.. with Winfs etc.... and a yaer and a bit away !
 
I agree with Noelie. I got Vista the first day it was released and the only problem I had was with my sound, it crapped out on me, but I was able to get it fixed. Ever since then Vista has been working perfectly. No complaints from me at all.
 
yep fine here

if you were to run 2 of the same app ie dvd encode on xp and vista it would be slightly slower on vista but this is cancelled out by the way it stores in the ram commonly used programs and gets them to open faster than they do in XP

plus all the new features and it looks beautiful ;)
 
Only problems I had with Vista with certain programs that crashed my system, or certain system drivers.
 
noelie said:
With the right hardware it's... ...fast... ...and very pleasing to the eye.
Click to expand...

BlackWolf said:
I agree with Noelie. I got Vista the first day it was released and the only problem I had was with my sound, it crapped out on me, but I was able to get it fixed. Ever since then Vista has been working perfectly. No complaints from me at all.
Click to expand...

_AJ_ said:
yep fine here

if you were to run 2 of the same app ie dvd encode on xp and vista it would be slightly slower on vista but this is cancelled out by the way it stores in the ram commonly used programs and gets them to open faster than they do in XP

plus all the new features and it looks beautiful ;)
Click to expand...

BrandonSBCA said:
Only problems I had with Vista with certain programs that crashed my system, or certain system drivers.
Click to expand...

robbieadam said:
Total bullshit, Vista works fine as long as you have suitable specifications. I've had no problems at all.
Click to expand...


All true. It's just that the "suitable specifications" for Vista are very substantial. Depending on which survey you believe, somewhere between 75% and 90% of computers currently in regular use out there cannot run Vista acceptably well (that is, they lack the necessary resources).

So yeah, that makes it a "resource hog" by the very definition of that term. And that was the OP's question, not "is it possible to get it to run?" which is what everyone seems to be trying to answer.

That's the basis of the lawsuit Microsoft is currently fighting over the term "Vista capable". Even some people who bought Vista pre-installed on brand new PCs advertised as "Vista-capable" are claiming their computers do not run well enough to be practical, and they are therefore contending that the term "Vista-capable" is deliberately deceptive. Just because a computer can run Vista does not mean that it can run it well enough for general use.
 
^ Okay, you win. Vista is not a resource hog. It just hogs the resources available on most of the PCs out there.
 
My first computer was an 1984 or 1982 toshiba laptop running windows 3.0...Ive had MANY computers since then, and the rule of thumb for me is, run the OS that came with the system. My last computer came with win 98, this one came with XP. Although it is said on the box that this computer can run Vista, and while it meets the basic requirements, my computer does not meet the recommended requirements. I wouldn't gain anything by installing vista, I haven't even noticed any features that could possibly make it worth slowing down my computer for.
 
The only problem I see with my computer is I want to play GAMES. Like The Sims 2, Half-Life 2, with the system specs I have no aren't powerful enough to run those games so I have to upgrade to 2GB or 3GB and a good video card. But that's mostly hardware based, Vista is a nice operating system, it just takes time to learn.
 
I want to try Vista in the future i hate xp it freezes so much. The best os is windows 98 i never had a problem with it. I had Me for a short period of time and i never had any problems with it just aol problems

but i just have problems with xp it just freezes alot
 
Jannus said:
All true. It's just that the "suitable specifications" for Vista are very substantial. Depending on which survey you believe, somewhere between 75% and 90% of computers currently in regular use out there cannot run Vista acceptably well (that is, they lack the necessary resources).

So yeah, that makes it a "resource hog" by the very definition of that term. And that was the OP's question, not "is it possible to get it to run?" which is what everyone seems to be trying to answer.

That's the basis of the lawsuit Microsoft is currently fighting over the term "Vista capable". Even some people who bought Vista pre-installed on brand new PCs advertised as "Vista-capable" are claiming their computers do not run well enough to be practical, and they are therefore contending that the term "Vista-capable" is deliberately deceptive. Just because a computer can run Vista does not mean that it can run it well enough for general use.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, its quite stupid to buy the Vista OS alone and try to put it on a older computer. It is a resource hog and requires a lot of power, and if your computer doesn't have all the lastest and most power hardware, than you wont be able to use Vista at its full capability.
 
ok455 said:
I want to try Vista in the future i hate xp it freezes so much. The best os is windows 98 i never had a problem with it. I had Me for a short period of time and i never had any problems with it just aol problems

but i just have problems with xp it just freezes alot
Click to expand...

ME was the worst one by far, it hogged up a lot of memory, it never freed up memory when you closed a program, it always kept it in the system resources, so you'd end up having 19% of memory left which was retarded.

Some people have said Vista would run better on 2GB of RAM, that's if you're running a shit load of programs some people say it runs great at 1GB of RAM. For me I need at least 2GB, because I usually run a lot of programs.

Also I've been really annoyed with opening programs and getting this piece of shit thing every time I open a program. Yes I use Frontpage 2003, because it's so damn easy to create websites, Dreamweaver CS3 is a big ass system hog!

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • pwned.jpg
    pwned.jpg
    42.6 KB · Views: 119
Vistas defently better!

The only thing I know XP to do better is deleting and copying files.

But then its probably my computer that makes Vista slow at doing that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top