| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 88196 | 2008-03-18 20:14:00 | Which Vista? | R.M. (561) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 650584 | 2008-03-19 02:14:00 | Yes, I'm sure my older son would agree with you! HOWEVER, Photoshop is essential to my daily wellbeing (and yes, I do know about Gimp). So - regrettably, I will stick with Windows... :groan: | R.M. (561) | ||
| 650585 | 2008-03-19 02:44:00 | I never had any luck getting my version of Photoshop to work under Wine, though that's not to say some will not work out of the box. The Gimp is okay, but..... |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 650586 | 2008-03-19 04:06:00 | If you are getting Vista Retail, run Vista Upgrade Advisor first (google it). If you are getting one from a big name company, you don't need to do this. My recommended specs for Vista are: 2GB of Ram (doesnt matter if it isnt fast) A minium of a nVidia 7600GS Any dual core CPU (or a 3.4 ghz single cpu) Vista is great, don't listen to those linux fanboys, they haven't used vista. And SP1 is out, and it makes it as fast as XP, if not faster. |
SPARTAN 860 (2618) | ||
| 650587 | 2008-03-19 04:08:00 | And SP1 is out, and it makes it as fast as XP, if not faster. That may have been the case BEFORE SP3 came out. It wont be when it does |
Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 650588 | 2008-03-19 04:50:00 | XP SP3, hmmmm don't know if its actually going to be faster . Its main job is to combine all the updates of XP since SP2 into one nice package, plus a few minor fixes . Anyway Current XP is fast, so who cares if Vista SP1 is slower than XP SP3, don't tell me XP is faster than Windows 2000 . New = slower (sad but true) |
SPARTAN 860 (2618) | ||
| 650589 | 2008-03-19 05:26:00 | Spartan, please desist from talking tosh. If you have a preference for Vista that's fine, but "Vista is great" is hardly erudite analysis. BTW, for your information, I run XPx64, XPx32 and Linux. I'm a 1/3 fanboy. Just a thought on Vista's speed. Is it still shatteringly fast at copying and deleting files? |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 650590 | 2008-03-19 05:32:00 | New = slower (sad but true) Of course it's going to be relatively slower, unless developing a new OS based on old technology sounds like a good idea to you. A new OS requires modern technology; when people running XP think Vista is going to perform just as well, thats where the problem starts. If XP runs fast on your current system and probably wouldn't perform well with a modern OS, then stick with XP - it's what those on '98 done when XP came out. Also, usually when drivers for devices aren't well represented, that's Vista's fault too, eugh. If only they'd known that faulty drivers are the number one cause of unstable systems and it's the manufacturers responsibility to supply stable drivers. </rant> |
sal (67) | ||
| 650591 | 2008-03-19 08:24:00 | I never said Vista is great, all I said is that Vista is not the performance hog some people claim it to be, I'm the other side of the argument. Provided you have the correct hardware, Vista runs perfectly fine. Would you run XP on 64mb of ram and a pre Pentium Processor? Or Windows 95 on 256kb of ram and a processor that clocks at 1 mhz and a 30 md hdd? No I don't think so, In case you all don't believe me, hers some real life data 3dmark06 Windows Vista RTM lastest updates: 10461 3dmark06 Windows Vista SP1: 11129 3dmark06 Windows XP Professional SP2 wiht latest updates:10820 3dmark06 Windows XP Professional SP3 RC: 11298 This was done with my pc with 4 different partitions, as you can see Windows XP is the better performer, but you will only see the difference comparing Vista RTM with updates with XP SP3 RC, in which case it is about a 10% gain in framerates, but since I am using a 8800GTX, 100 fps and 90fps don't really make much of a difference... Vista SP1 closes this gap to a mere 2% so thats ok :) Overall, if you have bad hardware (eg 3-2 years old) don't use Vista, buy a new pc with it. This is a minor test as I don't have 80 pcs to test it on unlike APC or other magazines. |
SPARTAN 860 (2618) | ||
| 650592 | 2008-03-19 22:04:00 | I never said Vista is great, all I said is that Vista is not the performance hog some people claim it to be, I'm the other side of the argument. Provided you have the correct hardware, Vista runs perfectly fine. Would you run XP on 64mb of ram and a pre Pentium Processor? Or Windows 95 on 256kb of ram and a processor that clocks at 1 mhz and a 30 md hdd? No I don't think so, In case you all don't believe me, hers some real life data 3dmark06 Windows Vista RTM lastest updates: 10461 3dmark06 Windows Vista SP1: 11129 3dmark06 Windows XP Professional SP2 wiht latest updates:10820 3dmark06 Windows XP Professional SP3 RC: 11298 This was done with my pc with 4 different partitions, as you can see Windows XP is the better performer, but you will only see the difference comparing Vista RTM with updates with XP SP3 RC, in which case it is about a 10% gain in framerates, but since I am using a 8800GTX, 100 fps and 90fps don't really make much of a difference... Vista SP1 closes this gap to a mere 2% so thats ok :) Overall, if you have bad hardware (eg 3-2 years old) don't use Vista, buy a new pc with it. This is a minor test as I don't have 80 pcs to test it on unlike APC or other magazines. Ahem! Vista is great, don't listen to those linux fanboys, they haven't used vista. And SP1 is out, and it makes it as fast as XP, if not faster. And why is hardware that is "3-2 [sic] years old" bad? Are you on a commission? And did your "real life" 3DMark tests test real life like file copying and deleting, was Aero turned on? How much RAm in the machine and what versions of the respective operating systems in respect of 32 or 64 bit? |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 650593 | 2008-03-19 22:20:00 | self owned:p 3D Mark 2006 is a synthetic Benchmark. With the reality it's rarely compatible. Your conlusions are all inside the measurement wrongness(?). And to use a vga benchmark to compare 2 different os....:rolleyes: |
Crow1985 (6683) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 | |||||