NFSUnlimited.net

Vista= Yes

for me anyways. My mom thinks its easier to use.

Carcrazy wrote:WTF? Where'd you hear about that???

from some linux site, it said that vista has a program that constantly monitors you PC for infractions, it has a program that removes any files that it dosn't like and calls them spyware.
And that it has something built into it that only lets you run certain programs and purposefully "breaks" some software so you have to upgrade.

I heard simialr, but not about the infractions part

I wonder if that's why my User profile won't open...

vista SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!DAMN!!!!! i just installed it today (and posting this using vista) and the computer runs like a turtle whose 3 out of 4 legs have been broken!!!. i gave the computer for upgrades and upgraded it to a 160gb 7200 rpm hd, and a 1 gb 333mhz ddr2 ram and installed vista business and BOOM SHA KA LAKA BOOM!!!!!!!! it now runs like if xp is ran with about 64mb of ram! i mean its too damn slow.i installed nfsu2 and now it runs even slower than when i was using a 256mb ram on xp and a 40gb hd.(i have a p4 1.90ghz and ati radeon9200 i know its old but nfsu2 ran nines)

No surprise there. Vista needs a heck of a lot more power than XP to run smoothly. Have you tried disabling the Aero interface, since the R9200 might choke on that?

Vista rocks imo. Just dual boot XP, and turn off user protection for Vista and that equals no bi**hing about Vista.

i did the interface thing but its to no good.it still jerks to hell! i want to stop the vista for asking for permission before running any DAMN PROGRAM!!!!!!!!!how do i do that.

and check this out. yesterday i installed nfsu2 and it ran jerking like hell! but it ran.
today i installed the driver for my ati9200 and at first the setup didnt open, then it did finally start and after installing the machine asked to restart, i did it, so far so good, AND NOW VISTA JERKS EVEN MORE AND ON TOP OF THAT, NFSU2 REFUSES TO RUN!!!!!!! I AM SO CHANGING THE OS TO XP! AND THANKS TO MICROSOFT FOR THIS ''SO GOOD'' NEW WINDOWS!!!

Lmao, maybe you should consider blaming yourself because you clearly didn't understand in what situations Vista does work properly, such as having it installed on a decent PC.

Vista is quite good, really. But running it on a PC like yours is asking for trouble.

My computer could handle Vista just fine, but I still installed XP over it.

Vista is good as long as you have a high end PC, which in time will begin to be a low end PC for the OS (for XP it was the same, it had too high sys requirements when it was launched but now pretty much everyone can run it with no hitches).

I dual-boot Vista and XP and the thing that keeps asking deny or allow is something called User Account Control (I think). It can be shut off in the User Accounts menu of the control panel.
The thing that made vista jerk for me at first was the sidebar clock. It had to refresh every second and that made my games jerk every second. Now all I have is the calendar and weather and now everything's fine. The only thing I don't like about it is that they don't have Microsoft Sam anymore. =(

Vista > XP

First of all, the Radeon 9200 is a DirectX 8.1 card and, IIRC, it even says on the box that a DirectX 9.0 (or better) graphics processor is required. Secondly, you're running Vista Business w/ 1 GB of RAM, which is the MINIMUM requirement. Thirdly, it's a 4-year-old computer.

Unless you have a multi-core CPU, 2+ GB of memory, and a DX 9.0+ compliant GPU, you shouldn't be running Vista. If you do have those things, Vista runs quite well.

BrontoX wrote:Vista is good as long as you have a high end PC, which in time will begin to be a low end PC for the OS (for XP it was the same, it had too high sys requirements when it was launched but now pretty much everyone can run it with no hitches).

Yes, you are right, but after some years someone will say: "I wanted to upgrade my PC to play NFS 13, but someone said I should try old XP and NFS 13 worked on it flawlessly."
Vista requires more and gives you less. (not only in system requirements).

peterfaj, have you even tried Vista?

Jmac- wrote:
Unless you have a multi-core CPU, 2+ GB of memory, and a DX 9.0+ compliant GPU, you shouldn't be running Vista. If you do have those things, Vista runs quite well.

I'm sick of people saying crap like this. It IS NOT true! You don't need some "OMG SuPr UbeR PC" to run vista well... That is a total load of crap. Okay, I know I'm coming harsh but I'm sick of people dissing Vista when the problem is with the operator. (No Offense)

My little 2.0GHz Sempron is running vista, along with games like BF2; BF 2142; Carbon; MW; GRAW; and other high-end games. It has 1 [repeat one] GB Ram, (which is BTW DDR, not DDR2) and a (not very fast, but still great) nVidia 7600GT. It runs Vista Home Premium with no problem, and has run it for well over 4 months now with no problems. The problem with Vista on Mid-Range PC's (Like mine) is that people don't know how (or just don't care) to configure or maintain it correctly. Yes, Vista will/may run slow when you first install it, and Yes, it will stay slow untill you work on it some. Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty, because unless you forgot to clean your keyboard that shouldn't happen. (Lame joke)

However, it is true that (in my opinion) unless you have a 2.0GHz+ Processor, 1+ GB DDR400 (or higher) RAM, and a Mid 7 or greater 256 MB nVidia (or ATi Equivalent) graphics card, you should not be running vista.

Vista also has amazing security. I used XP on a PC for 20 minutes with no Anti-Virus or Firewall, and it was so bugged up, you couldn't use it after just 20 minutes. I ended up having to format it and installed Linux. (Well, tried to install Linux - didn't want to run well )

I've never had Any spyware/adware on Vista, and the AVG (free) Anti-virus has NEVER found anything. :p

IMO, Vista is great! there are a few bugs with games that came out before Vista, but it's ok. Vista is a YES for me.

The last few updates made the startup programs load up 2x faster for me. =D (I have like 12 taskbar icons and then some other background apps on startup, including Kaspersky Startup check.

Huh... I just figured it was my PC with the extra 256 ram, but mine has been starting faster as well.

Carcrazy wrote:

Jmac- wrote:
Unless you have a multi-core CPU, 2+ GB of memory, and a DX 9.0+ compliant GPU, you shouldn't be running Vista. If you do have those things, Vista runs quite well.

I'm sick of people saying crap like this. It IS NOT true! You don't need some "OMG SuPr UbeR PC" to run vista well... That is a total load of crap. Okay, I know I'm coming harsh but I'm sick of people dissing Vista when the problem is with the operator. (No Offense)

My little 2.0GHz Sempron is running vista, along with games like BF2; BF 2142; Carbon; MW; GRAW; and other high-end games. It has 1 [repeat one] GB Ram, (which is BTW DDR, not DDR2) and a (not very fast, but still great) nVidia 7600GT. It runs Vista Home Premium with no problem, and has run it for well over 4 months now with no problems. The problem with Vista on Mid-Range PC's (Like mine) is that people don't know how (or just don't care) to configure or maintain it correctly. Yes, Vista will/may run slow when you first install it, and Yes, it will stay slow untill you work on it some. Don't be afraid to get your hands dirty, because unless you forgot to clean your keyboard that shouldn't happen. (Lame joke)

However, it is true that (in my opinion) unless you have a 2.0GHz+ Processor, 1+ GB DDR400 (or higher) RAM, and a Mid 7 or greater 256 MB nVidia (or ATi Equivalent) graphics card, you should not be running vista.

Vista also has amazing security. I used XP on a PC for 20 minutes with no Anti-Virus or Firewall, and it was so bugged up, you couldn't use it after just 20 minutes. I ended up having to format it and installed Linux. (Well, tried to install Linux - didn't want to run well )

I've never had Any spyware/adware on Vista, and the AVG (free) Anti-virus has NEVER found anything. :p

I'm going to try to be nice about this:

1) I am a computer technician ... I work w/ a lot of Vista computers every day in a lot of different situations. As such, I know what runs well and what doesn't and my definition of runs well is probably different from yours, given what you've posted on this forum in the past. My system is leaps and bounds better than yours (AMD 3800+ OCed, 2 GB of RAM, 8800 GTS 640 MB) and I consider it to be decent and your system to be low-end. My desktop runs Vista very well, my laptop not so much (Turion64 ML-37, 2 GB of RAM, ATI Xpress 200M) and it's faster than your PC (except in gaming). XP runs considerably better on my laptop than Vista does; not that Vista is awful on the laptop, I'd just rather have considerably better performance.

2) Many people who purchased computers from my store got the free Vista upgrade, which was installed at the store free of charge once they received it. Many of these had single core processors w/ 1-2 GB of RAM. Even w/ a similar configuration, the dual core CPUs ran Vista MUCH MUCH MUCH better than the single core CPUs w/ similar hardware configurations. Also, I was able to use the computers before and after Vista, so I know what hardware configurations perform better w/ XP and which ones perform better w/ Vista.

3) XP is optimized for single-core CPUs; Vista is optimized for multi-core CPUs. XP runs MUCH better on single-core CPUs than Vista does in my experience. XP runs much better on 1 GB of RAM in my experience. Like I said, if you've got a multi-core CPU and 2+ GB of RAM, you'll run Vista fine. However, if you have a single-core CPU and/or less than 2 GB of RAM, I would suggest running XP instead of Vista.

4) AVG anti-virus is not exactly what I would consider to be a reliable measure of security. It's better than Norton and it's free, but that's not really saying much.

Here's a question for you, how long have you been running vista?

Jmac- wrote: 4) AVG anti-virus is not exactly what I would consider to be a reliable measure of security. It's better than Norton and it's free, but that's not really saying much.

Hm... So you're saying it's bad, but yet it's better than the #1 selling anti-virus in the US. Weird how that work's isn't it?

I think Jmac is just overexaggerating the required specs to run Vista smoothly. But like he said, his definition of smooth might be different from yours.

And sales numbers don't say anything, really. Norton is shiznit after all.

Point taken, I said that before (so you're right), and (you're also right.)

Although I am upgrading to 2GB RAM.
(I'm building a PC for a friend for free since they can't afford one, so I'm giving them the 512 out of my PC.

Well, I think we can all agree that Vista runs a lot better on a dual-core CPU w/ 2 GB of memory than it does on a single-core CPU w/ 1 GB of memory ...

I think ive said something similar on a different thread but anyways. I'm considering getting visa although im not sure on alot of things about it really, also my sister gets pi**ed off at errors etc and then blame's it on me, so im not sure... Oh and another reason why im thinking of getting vista is coz the price i saw in a shop was $175.

May not have the correct specs etc for it too though.

I'd go to newegg.com and get an OEM. I got Home Premium for 120, and that was in it's first month.