Windows Vista 64: New convert says goodbye to old workhorse

Well, it’s been five days since I installed Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit as a dual boot setup with Windows XP Pro. I must admit, I was not all that enthusiastic about the coming of Vista from the beginning…but with decent OEM pricing I said why not.

The install went smoothly and I was up and running in what seemed like no time. At first, I had a few very inconsequential driver problems…but nothing any worse then when I had switched to XP years ago. It didn’t take long to resolve.

After my drivers and other software was installed and running correctly…it was time to start “settling-in” and customizing the OS to my desired look, feel, and behaviors. Finding certain settings, which I could have found on XP in my sleep, was a little frustrating at times. With a little patience and resourcefulness…it became easier and easier until it dawned on me…I LOVE VISTA!!!

Vista is so fresh, fluid, and new…so pleasing to the eye. The more I keep using Vista, the more I notice improvements over XP. I can already tell this will be my favorite OS of all the others I’ve had.

The whole “Vista nightmare” talk was like a “déjà vu” experience from the “XP nightmare” talk. I remember all the people saying they would not switch to XP because of incompatibility issues. In reality it was no big deal when I upgraded to XP. Now the same talk about Vista and the same reality…no big problem whatsoever.

I had thought I would be using XP for quite a while as a phased Vista in. Everything is going much better then planned. Now, when I boot into XP, it feels a little antiquated. XP has been a great workhorse for many years but I think the time has come to say goodbye to an old friend. It’s time for a fresh horse…

Hyperspace

The transition to Vista isn’t at all what it was with XP…

You’re comparing the migration from Win98 (largely built on DOS) to Windows NT5, in the case of XP… The result was miserable upgrades for many users not only in hardware incompatibilities (drivers were vastly different), but software problems as well. It’s apples to oranges. Vista is just an upgrade to the existing platfrom, so you can’t expect the magnitude of problems we witnessed of the change from 98/Me to XP. Most of the problems stem from the 64-bit revolution which require new drivers.

That being said, I completely agree with you on the transition from XP to Vista-- to an extent. There’s too many functions that were changed from XP, to be buried underneath other submenus in the control panel. Often there’s redundancy, where you can find the same function under several different menus. Things were renamed when they shouldn’t have been, only to access the same functions as in XP. Several different menus have been recreated and/or renamed in the control panel which leaves XP users confused. Networking especially.

The hardware requirements leave me completely baffled… I consider myself a power user, but I wasn’t prepared to toss another 200$ in the can for an extra 2GB of RAM to run Vista. I started with 1GB of PC2-6400 on a top-notch system (see sig) only to be surprised that Vista and the core programs I run (AIM, AnyDVD, ATI drivers, Win Defender, Symantec AV, etc) eat up the entire 1GB from the get-go.

As a power user, I need at least some headroom in terms of RAM. I quickly found that running any modern game such as BF2, BF2142, etc, with 2GB was acceptable — until you had to switch to the desktop – That was a nearly 2-5 minute process as Windows paged to the hard drive. So 3GB it was.

I actually contemplated installing Vista on my Laptop which is a P3-1.2ghz w/ 768mb of RAM. After seeing it run on my desktop, no way would I consider it… How Microsoft can vouch for compatibility on a 512mb RAM system is beyond me, but I imagine there’s lots of suckers out there upgrading only to purchase a new computer weeks later.

Aye.

Not worth running vista with less than 1GB ram … of course, apparently you can run WinXP with just 64MB ram … but who’s that silly? Right?

I think I had 256MB ram when XP came out … I currently have 1GB … and been running XP happily for a few years.

I figure I need to upgrade to 4GB of Ram to make Vista happy. At the current prices of ram, I think I’ll pass for few years, until the ram prices drop …
Here in Oz, ram prices haven’t budged for almost 2 years :expressionless: They’ve gone up $10, they’ve gone down $10 … but still the same. I remember paying $120 for 1GB (2x512MB) about 4 years ago … It’s now $110-130 depending on where you look.

Yep…as a fellow Aussie I couldn’t agree more with Debro. At the moment things are too pricey for me to go with Vista. I’ll stick with XP for now and use another PC donated by a friend to dabble with Linux (Thanks to Debro’s excellent suggestions, in this dept.) :slight_smile:

>>>[U][B]It’s a given not to install an OS if system specs are not right to run it smoothly[/B][/U]<<<

As you can see I don’t have a high end system, but it gets the job done and runs smooth as silk. This is my system specs, plus the amount of RAM the OS eats after a cold boot:


^

Microsoft is ONLY saying 512MB minimum for Vista Home Basic, which does not have Windows Aero. It’s not talking about Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, or Enterprise.

Windows Vista recommended system requirements

Memory consumption with just a few unnecessary processes turned off in Home Premium 64 (still running Aero, Defender, etc.):

Hmmm …
My entire system rates higher than yours for everything (except ram capacity - I only have 1GB), and Vista feels … incredibly sluggish.

Looking at you windows rating, my vid card should be benching alot higher than it is (4.5). Perhaps the drivers it is using are non-optimal … since it’s the x64 OS … which could suggest that Aero is taking alot more CPU time, rather than using GPU cycles.

And my Business Premium install uses about 18MB less than yours , although perhaps installed apps make the difference … but I’ve disabled nothing :confused:

Perhaps we just have different expectations out of our OS’s :wink:

I have five features you don’t have / You have two features I don’t have. So that could also make the difference.

The Vista Editions


Can you post your Experience Index score window and system specs please? What kind of video card are you using? I’m using a eVGA GeForce 6800 GS CO SE / [B]256MB GDDR3[/B] / [B][U]PCI Express[/U][/B].

463MB of memory for just basic processes!! and I thought XP using 120+MB was excessive. :bigsmile: At least Microsoft has committed to support XP to 2014.

Vista loads as many commonly used processes as possible into RAM. The more memory you have the more it uses. The plus is the system doesn’t need to load these processes when required, so everything seems faster. :slight_smile:

Unfortunately Not :expressionless:
After mixing HD’s, installing linux to one, fixing the MBR on with WinXP drive … Vista has kind of … err … got booting issues.
I guess I can reinstall it / performa repair :wink:

My Vid card is the Ati x1600pro / 512MB GDDR2 / PCI Express, which should bench slightly under the 6800GS, but above the 6600GT.

edit Correction on GDDR3->GDDR2 /edit

The fact remains is that 512mb of RAM under any Vista release would be the equivelant of running XP on 64 or 128mb RAM. I had 1Gb from the get go, and it was not enough to run Vista Ultimate, period.

And what sort of normal user is expected to disable processes? That is something that has always been reserved for power users, something that the average Joe has no understanding of. To say that Vista can run on 512/1024mb RAM (version dependent) is insane.

That’s what I was pointing out earlier :slight_smile:
128MB for XP would be the same as 512MB for Vista. You could do it, but it really only just fits the OS in there :wink:
You need 2GB for it to be worthwhile, and 4GB to make it happy.

Here’s some pics to compare it to…

I was unable to run Vista smoothly on 1gb RAM, and it was tough going back and forth to the desktop while running games even with 2GB.