Apparently this is crappy but it's the first absolutely new computer I ever owned and it blows everything else in my house out of the water. I could have got a cheaper one with better graphics specs but I wanted the quality build of the business-class thinkpad.
Specs: 1.6Ghz Core2Duo (Newest model is 2.6, but it was widescreen and twice as expensive. )
RAM: 3GB
Graphics: Whatever integrated solution this thinkpad has. Runs the 3D games I've tried on it, so I'm happy.
80GB HDD (not sure of the RPM) with 5.46GB free. (Part of it was taken for the recovery partition. )
Originally Posted by Dr. James Whats a windows experience indux?
exclusive to vista ponsiness. its interesting to see how specs translate to this but... as an avid XP user (ie determined to live in the past) it doesnt matter to me.... plus my machine is a bit elderly now
Oh that thing. Heh I remember when the first MBP's came out they were the highest ranking laptops using that ranking system. Mine was 5.something but that was back on a paltry 1gb of ram.
SP1 fixed most of the problems but forcing to use NTFS is why I'm going to sit back. I still feel like I have more control over XP incase something breaks.
Also yes I was working at a computer/AV shop at the time of XP's launch and we were all given free versions. Was great. Buggy but nifty!
Originally Posted by ωξяξW○○F I heard that almost everyone hates Vista. They said it was even buggier than XP. I'll probably just stick and stay with XP.
Lol I remember when XP was new.
Vista is perfectly fine. These people whining about Vista are merely relaying information they hear crapped out of other peoples mouths who heard it from other people. None of it's true.
Vista really is great. It may be partially because my new computer is... well, new. But I haven't had Vista crash on me ONCE. And my old XP computer freezes for no apparent reason when I open context menus. Vista is an improvement over XP overall, and Vista harping is, as BrandonC said, just recrappage. After turning off that gall-blasted UAC and tweaking a few things, I'm lovin' it. No hardware incompatibilities either and the built-in bluetooth stack is genius for playing emulators with Wiimotes.
There are little niggles, but I think it's a fine upstanding OS.
Oh, and once you're used to the new UI look, you love it. Or at least, I do. I find myself wishing I could install Vista on my other computers, but alas they are all slow and old.
I personally hate Vista, and that opinion is formed from my own experience with using OS's since Windows 95. However, i don't believe in living in the past and have therefore decided not to re-install XP (which at this moment in time would make me happier!) as all OS's are crappy at the start of their lives.
I'm sure one day Vista will eventually become better than i believe XP is!
You shouldn't install a newer operating system if you don't use newer hardware. Haven't we learned this lesson in the past with firmware upgrades on old hardware? It has the tendency to either slow them down or mess them up. So you don't hate Vista, you hate how your computer runs Vista. At it's current state, Vista has been a hell of a lot more stable for me then Windows XP ever was. I always found myself cleaning up after XP's little messes, defragmenting very often, constantly running cleanups, so on. Vista does all that behind the scenes, and I know you can set XP up to schedule tasks do, that's not what I mean. I mean Vista does all this stuff behind the scenes. My last defragment was completed the beginning of this month, and at no point do I ever recall having any dialogs up on my PC or my hardware clicking non-stop. Vista exploits hardware, it doesn't waste it.
Computer manufacturers cant build Vista compatible PC's to save their lives. They're the reason Vista has such a bad word out for itself, outside of the bullshit stories spread around by Mac fags. I've yet to see a manufacturer send out a "Vista Compatible" system that actualy functioned correctly.
...
...
Come to think about it, I've yet to see a computer manufacturer actually ship out a single computer that actually functioned correctly. Curious.
Yea, the hilarious thing is that Vista runs great on Macs. Vista gets a bad rap because Microsoft is nice enough to let us run it on whatever hardware we want, and people aren't always educated enough to make sure the specs are good. OSX only runs on Apple-designed computers, so everything runs the way they want it.
Neither is wrong, just different ways of going about it.
Well, I take that back. You can run osx86, but it's not sanctioned and certainly doesn't run the same.
If I ever get Vista I'll wait for a price drop. I've used XP since I was ten so It's really grown on me. Not sure how I got attached tho...
Weird.
An old and washed up once-kid
Peblo Custom ratings must be 50 characters or less
Registered 05/07/2002
Points 185
14th March, 2009 at 15:36:41 -
Eh? If they shipped out a computer properly configured, it could last a long time. Why would they spend money and upgrade their computer if theirs works perfectly fine?
$$$
Edited by Peblo
"Isn't it always amazing how we characterize a person's intelligence by how closely their thinking matches ours?"
~Belgarath
Vista isn't ment to be bought and installed on older systems, because naturally speaking, these older systems, if properly cared for, should work as perfectly fine as they did the day they were bought. The reason for Vista is for people who have a computer that can handle it or want to build a new computer that can handle it. Now whether this was Microsoft plan is not my concern, I'm not here to defend Microsoft, I'm defending their product.
Originally Posted by OldManClayton Yea, the hilarious thing is that Vista runs great on Macs. Vista gets a bad rap because Microsoft is nice enough to let us run it on whatever hardware we want, and people aren't always educated enough to make sure the specs are good. OSX only runs on Apple-designed computers, so everything runs the way they want it.
thats because microsoft only makes money off the software. the OS. mac builds (or used to build. now theyre getting standardized, using intel, etc) the hardware and the software. not positive but cant you buy OSX and run it on a PC?
on topic. i dont have vista so i have no idea what my experience number thing is. on my laptop during the short time i did use vista it was like a 3.5.
But hey, it's a laptop only around US$800, so it's worth it, I suppose
IMHO, Windows Vista does suck. Upon starting up, my laptop had 1 GB used up and 60 GB. And it's a lot slower than it should be too. Why does "default graphics" have 3.5? An operating system should use minimum requirements, not try to drain everything it can.
With a high power computer, it sucks less, but it's not doing what it's intended to do - provide a functional, working computer to the average person, not just the powergamers.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
"An operating system should use minimum requirements, not try to drain everything it can. "
In the land of labtops that is true (for the sake of the battery), but not at all for desktops. Vista uses your Ram to cache programs you normally use so that they will start faster. Thus firefox is already on the welcome screen before i finished clicking the icon. When an app needs the ram, Vista gives it it. So vista isn't "draining" the ram, it's just using it while you're not. Also, because Vista takes care of itself in the background, you never have to defrag or do any of that other system maintenance.
It's not a perfect operating system, but it's no where near as bad as people pretend it is.
XP runs perfectly faster than Vista without any kind of maintenance. And it boots up a lot slower. So basically, if running XP, I could just shut down when I'm not using it. Then when I want to turn on firefox, I power it up, sit for a few seconds, then double click the firefox icon. And it's there.
With Vista, I have to put it in standby or it'll take a long time to boot up (enough for me to get out of the shower, brush my teeth, put on some clothes). Then yay, firefox is on the welcome screen. Then I click the icon.. it starts up a little, then lags. I then go do my hair, look at the screen, put on some socks, and yay, I get internet.
if i were rich and had a good, powerful computer, i would love windows vista.
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
Thats kinda why i like vista, becuase i have a big powerful machine, it can start up vista in under a two minutes, and there is no lag when starting up programs.
I tried to make a dual boot system a few days ago, i installed XP and stuff correctly, but when booting into XP none of my hardware drivers were on their and thus it was pretty much useless to me. So i uninstalled XP.
Originally Posted by RickyG
Sure just like you can steal tic tacs from a 7-11. No one will catch you, except for God.
Originally Posted by Muz XP runs perfectly faster than Vista without any kind of maintenance. And it boots up a lot slower. So basically, if running XP, I could just shut down when I'm not using it. Then when I want to turn on firefox, I power it up, sit for a few seconds, then double click the firefox icon. And it's there.
With Vista, I have to put it in standby or it'll take a long time to boot up (enough for me to get out of the shower, brush my teeth, put on some clothes). Then yay, firefox is on the welcome screen. Then I click the icon.. it starts up a little, then lags. I then go do my hair, look at the screen, put on some socks, and yay, I get internet.
if i were rich and had a good, powerful computer, i would love windows vista.
Windows Vista starts up faster then Windows XP did for me, and for the casual PC user, Windows XP actually requires a hell of a lot more maintenance then Vista ever will. The most obvious one is simply put, Vista keeps the hard drive defragemented and runs a lot smoother because of it.
Originally Posted by falkon Thats kinda why i like vista, becuase i have a big powerful machine, it can start up vista in under a two minutes...
2... Minutes?
I don't think XP on my slowest machine takes that long to boot. On my 3gb iMac XP takes 35ish seconds (depending on if it wants to freeze up on boot, but thats because I jiggled around with my graphics card drivers), OSX about 30. Or 40 if I have my freeview TV dongle plugged in which always boots on start no matter what I tell it
If anyone is thinking of upgrading to vista don't. Windows 7 is going to be out later this year. I'm using the beta of windows 7 at home and I use vista at work. I see Vista as worse than XP but I like 7 a lot more than both! It's really that awesome, so it's worth waiting
Originally Posted by Klikmaster If anyone is thinking of upgrading to vista don't. Windows 7 is going to be out later this year. I'm using the beta of windows 7 at home and I use vista at work. I see Vista as worse than XP but I like 7 a lot more than both! It's really that awesome, so it's worth waiting
This is so cliche for people on beta software, you just installed the beta operating system for a new operating system and now you're going around advertising it so you can tell everyone that you have it, without seeming so forward.
This is so cliche for people on beta software, you just installed the beta operating system for a new operating system and now you're going around advertising it so you can tell everyone that you have it, without seeming so forward.
Originally Posted by Cecil thats because microsoft only makes money off the software. the OS. mac builds (or used to build. now theyre getting standardized, using intel, etc) the hardware and the software. not positive but cant you buy OSX and run it on a PC?
Don't know if this was addressed because of the explosion of posts I'm not going to bother reading. You cannot legally buy OSX and run it on a PC. There is such a thing as osx86 which is a modified version that allows you to run it on other computers. Hardware compatibility is a HUUUGE pain though and it doesn't run quite properly. (though usably)
I assume you meant apple, but yea, they make money off of their hardware as much as their software.
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz 5,9
4,00 GB 5,3 (even though my motherboard is at it's limit)
NVIDIA GeForce 9600 GT 5,9
1919 MB Total usable gaming graphics 5,9
HDD 5,6 (Because only 15gb space left)
This pc is about 1 year old but it's going allright
The last I heard it had to be built using hardware that the Mac OS was built for (Intel chips, certain graphics cards etc) but it says in the EULA you can only install the OS on Apple branded hardware. Technically you can, but legally you can't. Though just like how MS dosn't target the end user when someone pirates their OS neither do Apple - just the sellers.
Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.5
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming: 5.9
Hard Disk: 5.7 BASE SCORE: 5.5
Memory lets me down a bit. I might have to loosen the timings a bit. For the record, I love Vista, I used XP for ages, and when I built my current computer I upgraded(!) to XP x64 and it was horrible, unsupported crap. About 7 months ago I installed the 64-bit Vista which I think is great, haven't had a single problem with compatibility and it runs smooth and nice, boots up quick and is all round shiny. Yeah, it uses a lot of memory, but it actually USES it rather than hogging it like a lot of people seem to think.
My specs are:
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz
Memory: 4GB RAM
Hard Drives: 640GB internal & 500GB external
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (768MB)
Originally Posted by AsparagusTrevor Processor: 5.9
Memory: 5.5
Graphics: 5.9
Gaming: 5.9
Hard Disk: 5.7 BASE SCORE: 5.5
Memory lets me down a bit. I might have to loosen the timings a bit. For the record, I love Vista, I used XP for ages, and when I built my current computer I upgraded(!) to XP x64 and it was horrible, unsupported crap. About 7 months ago I installed the 64-bit Vista which I think is great, haven't had a single problem with compatibility and it runs smooth and nice, boots up quick and is all round shiny. Yeah, it uses a lot of memory, but it actually USES it rather than hogging it like a lot of people seem to think.
My specs are:
OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
Processor: Intel Core 2 Quad 2.4GHz
Memory: 4GB RAM
Hard Drives: 640GB internal & 500GB external
Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (768MB)
Advertisement
Post Reply
than post you windows experience index!( and your specs if you are up to it!)
I was working at a computer/AV shop at the time of XP's launch and we were all given free versions. Was great. Buggy but nifty!
Edited by Silveraura
