well im planning to buy a laptop...well with vista, and my friend has vista and he says that switching from f2p to mem world takes over 30 mins..

 

 

 

has this happened to any of you guys?

 

(or should i just upgrade to xp =P)

 

 

 

edit: due the new updates....and the off topicness of the subject...just discuss i suppose

No, you friend has a problem with their computer/browser/internet.

 

 

 

Changing worlds goes equally fast whether you're on OSX... Vista...Ubuntu...XP... etc.

No. Your friend is an idiot who confuses internet speed with computer speed.

No. Your friend is an idiot who confuses internet speed with computer speed.

 

Agreed! Vista is better than XP in my opinion. Just turn off the UAC and you should be good.

I don't know much about vista, i had it but then i had to take it off because it kept crashing my computer

That might have been because you had less RAM than Vista requires. 2GB RAM is sufficient for it to run smoothly, although the minimum recommended RAM is lower.

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

If the Laptop has sufficient hardware in it to run smoothly, then Vista should run fine and you should be problem free. However, if the Laptop does not have good enough hardware to run it, it will probably crash.

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

off topic: jesus christ dude....of course its gonna work on ur pc....look at the hardware >_> thats godly....and about 3k+ worth of stuff

 

 

 

on topic: kk i suppose ill get a lappy (<-- dont ask) and 2 gigs of ram...thx guys =P

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

off topic: jesus christ dude....of course its gonna work on ur pc....look at the hardware >_> thats godly....and about 3k+ worth of stuff

 

 

 

on topic: kk i suppose ill get a lappy (<-- dont ask) and 2 gigs of ram...thx guys =P

 

$1050, actually. My 1100$ lappy runs vista like a dream. I threw the SSD in it once just for fun, and it beat the pants off almost any computer I've ever used, except for my 'work' desktop with an SSD.

[hide=From previous posts...]

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

off topic: jesus christ dude....of course its gonna work on ur pc....look at the hardware >_> thats godly....and about 3k+ worth of stuff

 

 

 

on topic: kk i suppose ill get a lappy (<-- dont ask) and 2 gigs of ram...thx guys =P

 

$1050, actually. My 1100$ lappy runs vista like a dream. I threw the SSD in it once just for fun, and it beat the pants off almost any computer I've ever used, except for my 'work' desktop with an SSD.

[/hide]

 

->As it relates to the topic of the thread:

 

Vista works fine, provided you have the appropriate hardware and specs, as has been said so far. I'm typing this right now on my Vista Home Edition. I have 2 gigs RAM, and it works just fine, so the others were spot on where that is concerned. Compatibility is hardly an issue now, because any company/program manufacturer who is worth something, would have made their programs/products Vista compatible by now, yes?

 

 

 

->Off-topic though:

 

I'm intrigued by your system specs, compfreak847. Just curious though, what exactly does "SSD" mean? and also what part of the system is "Corsair TX750"?

 

[hide=Too much text]

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

off topic: jesus christ dude....of course its gonna work on ur pc....look at the hardware >_> thats godly....and about 3k+ worth of stuff

 

 

 

on topic: kk i suppose ill get a lappy (<-- dont ask) and 2 gigs of ram...thx guys =P

 

$1050, actually. My 1100$ lappy runs vista like a dream. I threw the SSD in it once just for fun, and it beat the pants off almost any computer I've ever used, except for my 'work' desktop with an SSD.

 

 

 

->As it relates to the topic of the thread:

 

Vista works fine, provided you have the appropriate hardware and specs, as has been said so far. I'm typing this right now on my Vista Home Edition. I have 2 gigs RAM, and it works just fine, so the others were spot on where that is concerned. Compatibility is hardly an issue now, because any company/program manufacturer who is worth something, would have made their programs/products Vista compatible by now, yes?

 

 

 

->Off-topic though:

 

I'm intrigued by your system specs, compfreak847. Just curious though, what exactly does "SSD" mean? and also what part of the system is "Corsair TX750"?

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

Yahoo or Google is your friend.

 

SSD=Solid State Drive. For more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

 

Corsair 750=A 750W power supply unit from Corsair. More info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Supp ... _(Computer) (add the ) after the r... weird link)

 

 

 

Green text... Why?

[hide=Too much text]

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

off topic: jesus christ dude....of course its gonna work on ur pc....look at the hardware >_> thats godly....and about 3k+ worth of stuff

 

 

 

on topic: kk i suppose ill get a lappy (<-- dont ask) and 2 gigs of ram...thx guys =P

 

$1050, actually. My 1100$ lappy runs vista like a dream. I threw the SSD in it once just for fun, and it beat the pants off almost any computer I've ever used, except for my 'work' desktop with an SSD.

 

 

 

->As it relates to the topic of the thread:

 

Vista works fine, provided you have the appropriate hardware and specs, as has been said so far. I'm typing this right now on my Vista Home Edition. I have 2 gigs RAM, and it works just fine, so the others were spot on where that is concerned. Compatibility is hardly an issue now, because any company/program manufacturer who is worth something, would have made their programs/products Vista compatible by now, yes?

 

 

 

->Off-topic though:

 

I'm intrigued by your system specs, compfreak847. Just curious though, what exactly does "SSD" mean? and also what part of the system is "Corsair TX750"?

 

[/hide]

 

 

 

Yahoo or Google is your friend.

 

SSD=Solid State Drive. For more information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

 

Corsair 750=A 750W power supply unit from Corsair. More info - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Supp ... _(Computer) (add the ) after the r... weird link)

 

 

 

Green text... Why?

 

 

 

First-off, don't tell me Google is my friend...this forum is for asking computer related questions, which I am doing, yes? You easily replied and told me what I wanted to know...I'm sure it didn't disadvantage you in anyway...

 

 

 

Second, I like my text in green...and it will stay in green. It's unfortunate that the grey background of this forum...doesn't exactly blend well with green...but I've been trying to find a lighter shade...that is more legible...

 

 

 

Thanks though, for the quick reply, much appreciated.

 

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

thats bloody insane. I just timed my boot sequence, and it was 33 seconds to desktop. thats more than freakin' double the time. Words cant describe how incredibly jealous of your PC I am.

Nowdays, with SP1 Vista is virtually equal with XP in benchmarks - and much faster in real world usage, due to superfetch and other 'under the hood' performance tweaks. There is really no reason to go back to XP. Compatibility is a non issue - I'm running Vista X64 on one of my desktops, complete with 8 GB of RAM, 64 GB SSD, 3.33 (OCed) Intel E8500, 260 GTX, Corsair TX750 and the lot, and EVERYTHING works on it - from ancient applications to an old scanner and printer. I found X64 drivers for every single device easily. The machine absolutely SCREAMS, with bootups in the 13 second range (Go SSDs ), general program execution in the ~.1 seconds, 60+ FPS on every game out there besides Crysis (Ok, 40+ on Crysis...)

 

 

 

In short, no, there is no reason not to use Vista.

 

 

 

thats bloody insane. I just timed my boot sequence, and it was 33 seconds to desktop. thats more than freakin' double the time. Words cant describe how incredibly jealous of your PC I am.

 

It's all due to the miracles of SSDs. I uninstalled my HD benchmarking programs, so no screenshots, but my read and write times are both well north of 100 MBs. My random access time is .34 miliseconds; that alone tells you the story. And its in a standard LAPTOP form factor. Did I mention 1/4th the power consumption of mechanical hard drives, the 0 vibration due to no moving parts, the virtually 0 heat production for the same reason, the 1,500G shock rating, or the huge reliability increase over moving hard drives? Oh, it cost $260, a bit more then a typical hard drive, but not really considering the advantages. I'm tellin ya, SSDs are the hard drives of the future. Every build of mine from now on is going to come with onoe.

I'm not an expert but I heard that Vista is really bad on LAPTOPS. Again I'm really not sure :/

I'm not an expert but I heard that Vista is really bad on LAPTOPS. Again I'm really not sure :/

 

 

 

That is totaly not true :shame:

 

 

 

My Vista laptop runs a lot better than my XP desktop. They have the same amount of RAM and comparable processors.

I'm not an expert but I heard that Vista is really bad on LAPTOPS. Again I'm really not sure :/

 

 

 

It was, but not so much now. When vista came out the problem was that most cheaper laptops only just met the requirements of vista; or that ones bough with windows vista capable sticker were only good enough to run home basic, and people were putting premium and ultimate on them. If you buy a decent laptop now it should run vista fine. The only exceptions I can think to this are really small cheap ones such as the Asus Eee,

I'm not an expert but I heard that Vista is really bad on LAPTOPS. Again I'm really not sure :/

 

 

 

It was, but not so much now. When vista came out the problem was that most cheaper laptops only just met the requirements of vista; or that ones bough with windows vista capable sticker were only good enough to run home basic, and people were putting premium and ultimate on them. If you buy a decent laptop now it should run vista fine. The only exceptions I can think to this are really small cheap ones such as the Asus Eee,

 

 

 

Yep.

 

A dual core at 1.6ghz +2gb ram on it (or higher) and it will run great on Vista.

 

A mini-laptop runs XP or some Linux dist.

 

I'm annoyed by the green text the Goose puts out.

Vista sucks.

 

 

 

I get the classic 'page doesn't respond' error every 10 minutes when I use Vista Internet explorer.

 

 

 

with firefix i get it maybe once a month.

I get the classic 'page doesn't respond' error every 10 minutes when I use Vista Internet explorer.

I'm assuming you mean MS Internet explorer.

 

with firefix i get it maybe once a month.

As much as I love Firefox, it doesn't have anything to do with your browser. It's the server you're trying to connect to.

I love how everyone blames everything on vista slow internet speeds to offline server.

Vista sucks.

 

 

 

I get the classic 'page doesn't respond' error every 10 minutes when I use Vista Internet explorer.

 

 

 

with firefix i get it maybe once a month.

 

 

 

Specs would be helpful. If your computer doesn't have them, then no wonder you have trouble with Vista, which is much better than XP now.

Vista is nice, but it's such a memory hog, and the fact that XP is not supported come 2009, it is enough to make me switch to Leopard. Vista is not as bad as it's reputation proceeds it however, it has a nice GUI and is smooth and easy to use. The only bad aspect I have come across is driver issues. However, because I got my laptop about a month after Vista, I should have foreseen that, especially with the bare minimum specs I am using. :wall: If you want a Windows OS, go with Vista.

Vista is nice, but it's such a memory hog, and the fact that XP is not supported come 2009, it is enough to make me switch to Leopard. Vista is not as bad as it's reputation proceeds it however, it has a nice GUI and is smooth and easy to use. The only bad aspect I have come across is driver issues. However, because I got my laptop about a month after Vista, I should have foreseen that, especially with the bare minimum specs I am using. :wall: If you want a Windows OS, go with Vista.

 

Everyone classifys vista as a 'memory hog'; have you seen memory prices these days? For 1/2th the price of a copy of XP you can get more memory then a 32 bit OS can support. There's reasons for all that memory being used, notably superfetch and prefetch.