LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksebuyer was the cheapest last week when i got mine (oem version)
(url-removed: need 20 posts) - Latest Project
Web Host Chat - The UK's hosts forum since 2001!
Hosting Forum
ebuyer was the cheapest last week when i got mine (oem version)
(url-removed: need 20 posts) - Latest Project
Dont expect anything amazing, when you first see the desktop you do notice a small difference, but then you realise theyve just added two clocks, time and cpu. And an interface that is slightly "transparent" "Aero". Give it a go by all means its not rubbish, but if your comfortable with XP I dont see any reason why you should be rushing to the shops right now (give it more time)
I've gone back to XP now.
Martin Robinson
(url-removed: need 20 posts)
Sales: 0845 838 2379
The issue about the system memory usage isn't really an issue.
It's just making use of unused resources, by sort of caching data that you use quite regularly and therefore making them faster to load/reload.
I used Vista Ultimate for some time. If I used it for browsing and photoeditting only I would still be on it. The problem was the drivers that are out at the moment are nothing short of shambolic, especially for gaming (graphics cards and sound card drivers at the moment aren't up to scratch). I ended u p converting back to XP because I got a good 40fps more while gaming.
I've got it and I enjoy it!
£100 for Ultimate OEM from ebuyer, bargain if you ask me.....
(url-removed: need 20 posts) - iNX-Network LTD...
I didn't like it when it first come out however i have installed it and its growing on me
Seems alot faster than XP belive it or not
I have it running now on a new pc I bought, to be honest I am not overly impressed, tweaking IE so it wont freeze when Java comes up, re-configuring things like apache and mysql to work properly. Trying to get certain apps to run, its all a bit much.
I eventually got it to run with everything I need but its still quirky with some apps, shutting them down for no apparent reason.
I will probably revert back to xp.
Despite what most people would like to think, the newest version of windows does not mean it's the best version of windows. Windows Vista has a few instances where it beats Windows XP, however Windows XP is much more interactive and less annoying to the user.
Originally Posted by mypaidhost
I’ve had the same experiences with Vista. Every system we ‘upgraded’ to Vista, has since been upgraded back to XP or Linux.
All the eye candy in the world doesn’t help a jot when you can’t get your work done. The never ending list of new features in Vista just seem to conspire to slow your work flow to a crawl.
Les(url-removed: need 20 posts)Hosting Services.
Web Hosting : Reseller Hosting : Virtual and Dedicated Server Specialists
Company Number: 05577074 | VAT Registration: 872 7201 24
What kind of hardware you running it on Les?
Jon Rohan
Please note: My views are my own and not those of the company I work for.
Hi Jon,
I've run Vista 32/64bit on anything from P4 2.6Ghz / 2GB Ram to Dual CPU boxes / 4GB Ram (NUMA) / RAID 10 Array with good spec GPU's - XP SP2/Win2K3 or Linux still works better for us!
Regards,
Les
Les(url-removed: need 20 posts)Hosting Services.
Web Hosting : Reseller Hosting : Virtual and Dedicated Server Specialists
Company Number: 05577074 | VAT Registration: 872 7201 24
Last edited by Websites.Co.UK; 19th February 2008 at 11:06 PM.
im running 64-bit vista on a quad core and it feels faster and easier than XP did on this machine.
I would have thought Vistas kernel is going to be much more optimised than XP's for that number of cores. I still feel the hardware requiments needed are pretty nuts for most home and office users and simply does not provide anything more in any area that helps doing your work quicker or easier.
If you look at OSX, at least most of the eye candy features do improve your work flow if used correctly, it’s a shame it’s tied to Apples hardware only and does not give the freedom that we enjoy with PC hardware to build our own spec systems, at least we have Linux, FreeBSD and Solaris for this - these operating systems are not really the best choice for my old mum doing her emails or the kids doing their homework and playing current commercial games etc are they.So it looks like we're still stuck with Microsoft's XP for older systems with lower hardware specs.
File copy speeds in Vista were a nightmare before Vista SP1, I hear (from Microsoft’s docs) that has now improved? Can anybody verify that is the case after installing SP1?
Regards,
Les
Les(url-removed: need 20 posts)Hosting Services.
Web Hosting : Reseller Hosting : Virtual and Dedicated Server Specialists
Company Number: 05577074 | VAT Registration: 872 7201 24
Last edited by Websites.Co.UK; 20th February 2008 at 08:51 AM.
In "windows" copy speed is abysmal, especially to remote drives.
Dropping to a command prompt and doing the copy doesnt suffer the same problem - so it's not a disk issue, an i/o handling issue or a network issue - it's purely all the processing going into that animated sh!te slowing it down
Rob Golding Othello Technology Systems Ltd AS29527 Company#03894981 VAT#GB-782561410 Tel:0871 277 6875
consultancy domains email forwarding resellers ecommerce colo rackspace ip transit secondary mx/dns dedicated servers backup/DR
* OthelloHosts.net Linux and Windows Clustered High-Availability Professional Email / Web / Secure Hosting
* OthelloVPS.net Managed Xen Enterprise Virtual Private Servers and Dedicated Servers
# Currently buying web hosts and domain resellers - www.hostacquisitions.co.uk
Windows Vista was terrable for me, It kept on crashing giving me blue screens, stuff like that.
Even after I spentthe £70 on it, improving ram, and buying the copy of Windows it's self it still ran on unreal speeds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote