Should I put Vista on this machine?

[BC_Programmer]

Hi everybody- System specs:

Pentium 4 1.6ghz
1GB DDR266 RAM
160GB HD partitioned into 2 (I have a bunch of extra large drives, so space isn't really a problem anyway- two other 80GB, and another 160GB...(Only one is in the computer)
Nvidia GeForce 5500FX AGP
Sound Blaster X-FI ExtremeGamer
D-Link Xtreme-N Wireless Network Adapter

Now I've been hearing a lot on both sides of the fence for Vista, and I figure the best way to form an opinion is to try it myself. Now Vista's minimum requirements state a 700Mhz Processor and 1GB of RAM. which I meet- however, bear in mind that Windows 98 minimum requirements where 24MB of ram, and it didn't exactly run smoothly, so is that the case now as well? Is 1GB of RAM enough to "try" vista (I'll probably set up a dual boot system with it for that purpose).

I believe that the optimal solution (and I have a feeling many will agree) would be to wait until I get a new computer (never bought a new one in my life new), or build myself one. What I'd like to do is learn a few things about the OS before I use it to work with my valuable data, so if anybody could point out any differences they discovered when they started using Vista, so maybe I won't be as surprised.

[Broni]

Your processor speed looks low.
Secondly, you need 2GB of RAM for Vista.
I don't know about your video card RAM...256MB of RAM on it, this is what Vista will need, at least.

BTW...whatever M$ says about minimum is a lie.

[BC_Programmer]

Your processor speed looks low.

Not to me I just replaced my AMD K6-2 350Mhz- but to Vista I guess 1.6 Ghz is slow. This computer is still fairly new to me so I'll stick with it as is, and if I ever get vista it will be with a computer more capable of handling it's outrageous requirements- and that could be a while, I had the K6 for almost 6 years, and was quite content (mainly for programming).

So I suppose that the "real" minimum would be Microsoft's "recommended" setting? makes sense- fairly true with previous versions as well. I'm actually quite skeptical of minimums regardless of their company of origin, in both directions- for example, XP ran fine on my 350Mhz, and it originally had 32 MB of Ram installed when I upgraded from 98 (yes I know, I shouldn't have, but oh well). It ran about the same speed as 98, when I disabled as much stuff as I could- didn't have the net so I really only worked in VB6)


Besides, after a little research I don't think Vista really offers anything for me. That is, "I don't see a Vista on my horizon" that's a good quote... I'll see what the next windows offers...


Ok- thanks Broni. I'll just tell Patio I can't be his guinea pig for your Vista Tweaks before he tries them then

[hakerkid41493]

I'm personally against vista products.

[BC_Programmer]

I am also somewhat against them- but I develop software and have to keep up with things even if they are BS- I want to make sure my programs run proper on Vista. I'll probably set up a Dual boot just for curiousities sake, and if I'm bored one afternoon.

[hejlik]

There is nothing wrong with Vista IMHO  But I also don't think it is worth buying if you already have XP. It does offer some security advantages.


 Vista will run on your computer as far as speed goes, although rather sluggishly.  The problem you may have is drivers for your graphics card and such.

[Broni]

I'm personally against vista products.

I the reason is?

[BC_Programmer]

He doesn't need a reason! He's "the master", and thus his opinion should be shared by all! lol

http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,56668.msg355753.html#msg355753


PS: would you call that a flame?

[daniel1212]

Stick with XP for speed.  More comments on similar thread. http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,56589.msg355766.html#msg355766:

[Broni]

OK. The point is, Vista is fine operating system, as long, as your computer configuration is ready for it. If it's not, stay with current OS.