MetalheadGautham
AFK
^^transformation packs are by no means realistic in performance compared to the real thing. They suck and should be avoided at any cost.
A new way for Windows, XP or upgrade to Vista?
- Status
T
tallbeing
Guest
But why, they only contain some GUI elements
MetalheadGautham
AFK
lack of proper OS intergration.
inferior programming.
T
tallbeing
Guest
Oh, Thats why IE7 takes ages to load.
But I installed the one released by Microsoft
But I installed the one released by Microsoft
MetalheadGautham
AFK
I promise you that you will see a difference in Vista.
Just install it legally from friend's copy WITHOUT key and use for 30 days.
T
tallbeing
Guest
I've used it already on one of the desktops (p4 2.4,,1 GB of RAM and onboard GPU) of my geeky friend. The interface was nice. Flip 3D was a bit slow to action. The real problem came now:
Ms Office 2007 feels like using it at the earliest form of beta. Every command would start only after 4 sec wait.
The processor usages never came below 70%.
RAM usages was average though, just 600 MB page file (cuz the instalation was still fresh, just 1 hr)
But his shiny new Lenovo Laptop (2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core 1.8, Dedicated 7400 GT Graphics 128 MB DDR2) had just the opposite effects.
Every app bundled ran smoothly.
Processor usages were on acceptable 50% mark.
Page File usages were a mere 400 MB.
I didn't run benchmarks because I didn't like the idea of taking risks on my friends 50K Laptop.
So, If you are on premium hardware (most probably your gaming station), then only you can think of shifting to Vista, that too 64 bit. Games are still made on DX9 API and DX10.1 cards which can support DX10 Games in their full glory still costs an arm and a leg. The entry level DX10 cards like 86GT supports DX9 flawlessly. So Entry-Level and Mid-Range P.C. users best way will be to wait, for at least.............................
Ms Office 2007 feels like using it at the earliest form of beta. Every command would start only after 4 sec wait.
The processor usages never came below 70%.
RAM usages was average though, just 600 MB page file (cuz the instalation was still fresh, just 1 hr)
But his shiny new Lenovo Laptop (2GB RAM, Pentium Dual Core 1.8, Dedicated 7400 GT Graphics 128 MB DDR2) had just the opposite effects.
Every app bundled ran smoothly.
Processor usages were on acceptable 50% mark.
Page File usages were a mere 400 MB.
I didn't run benchmarks because I didn't like the idea of taking risks on my friends 50K Laptop.
So, If you are on premium hardware (most probably your gaming station), then only you can think of shifting to Vista, that too 64 bit. Games are still made on DX9 API and DX10.1 cards which can support DX10 Games in their full glory still costs an arm and a leg. The entry level DX10 cards like 86GT supports DX9 flawlessly. So Entry-Level and Mid-Range P.C. users best way will be to wait, for at least.............................
Last edited by a moderator:
MetalheadGautham
AFK
cpu was the bottleneck.
you NEED a dual core.
you NEED a dual core.
T
tallbeing
Guest
Yes, I told him about that but he replied that even if the P.C. goes kaput, he will have no problem.
The laptop though gave a decent performance didn't it
Enough for today, I will post tomorrow
The laptop though gave a decent performance didn't it
Enough for today, I will post tomorrow
T
The Conqueror
Guest
Upgraded to Vista Already, although xp still exists on my pc (dual-boot), I use xp only for games....
axxo
99.9% Idle
I don't see any software at all online for XP advertised as running on XP 64.
PS: what do YOU use ?
I downgraded from vista x64 to XP x64 now another downgrade to xp 32.
Vista's performance was not bad compared to xp but the background hDD thrashing is what I dont want to see again. Even @ idle HDD seems to be active all the times(even after disabling indexing and background defrag services). And where in the world would anyone prefer something like this to happen on 4GB RAM, which was the only reason that Xp x64 become my primary os.
But my recent job shift brought AT&T client into the picture that has null suport for xp x64. Currently using the x86 version of xp.
J
JEskandari
Guest
dont forget the memory vista Os reserve 512Mb of memory to begin with and thats without any effect and visualization if i'm not wrong for XP its 64 MB
tried to install Ubuntu 8.04 it was incompatible with one of my devices (i never was able to find which device )so the Dvd stop booting and ask me to provide the driver.without even saying driver for What.
Last edited by a moderator:
speedrider_100
Broken In
Well, with no other Option available , We have to use Windows till there "New" " Fully Operational" System comes.
OP
cooldudie3
Boom Boom Boom
Windows 7, I can't wait for it. I am sooo going to upgrade. Is there a beta version to test?
gopi_vbboy
Cyborg Agent
Thats true..xp is only one of good one among windows versions.....these days m$ is concentrating on $ rather than 10101
roshan1236a
The rated R superstar.
In office i use AXIS it better than any OS
ring_wraith
=--=l33t=--=
I've been alternating between XP and Vista for well over a year now, and cannot seem to decide which one is truly better. Sure I love the added security and the great changes to the UI that Vista brings, but its too little to make up for the performance losses, so I am sticking with XP right now. If performance was not an issue, I would be on Vista in a heartbeat.
SunnyChahal
...
Vista for gaming on my PC.Ubuntu 8.04 is also installed but it's been long since I booted into it.I am happy with Vista.Looks good,is fast,has DirectX 10 and it is the ultimate gaming platform.
T
tallbeing
Guest
You must have have tried the 64 bit processor. Anything below Core 2 series from intel and Athlon64 from AMD WILL NOT WORK. That is the reason why you are not able to find which hardware is not supported since the OS was not able to access the processor which is the heart of the computer. Try the 32 bit one
- Status