Vista grrrr!

Vista

Why are there so many people down on Vista? Especially media people? I am so tired of hearing Vista failure! Vista disaster! Vista sux!

I think every one of these people have a very short memory. I have been doing computer support for over 15 years, most of it supporting end users at the consumer level and enterprise level. My first enterprise/corporate task was to upgrade Windows 3.1 computers to Windows 95 for “Outlook” email. I have deployed Windows 2000 and Windows XP as major projects to help corporations standardize their hardware and software platforms. I know the ins-and-outs of the operating systems pretty well.

There are some basic truths to be had. It doesn’t matter how well an OS is designed, tested, and maintained, the user will find a way to break it. The user will always find something doesn’t work (OS compatibility) no matter how much time is spent making sure that compatibility issues are worked out. Lastly, you will not be able to satisfy everyone.

For the consumer, going from Win9x to XP was a huge experience. It was a great step forward in stability, user interface enhancements, hardware support. Still there were new bugs found. USB hardware, especially, had issues. Driver hardware was very lacking. Then there were several security holes found. From the enterprise side, there was a very big issue with blue screen errors resulting from image deployments. Out comes the first service pack for XP, which fixed a large number of bugs and performance issues, including a majority of hardware drivers and many security issues. It wasn’t until SP1 that most corporations started seriously deploying XP.

For the most part, going from Windows NT to 2000 was just as big of an experience for corporate users as was consumers upgrading to XP. However, going from Windows 2000 to XP wasn’t nearly as big a transition. It was a more natural evolution.

Then came the litany of security holes in XP, Internet Explorer, and other Microsoft applications. There began a very big push for security improvements. Service Pack 2 for XP made many changes to the OS including a better firewall, improved Internet Explorer, and many, many security fixes. Out of this came a new mindset regarding a ground up focus on security.

Windows Vista was developed to be more secure and offer a lot more internal enhancements. At this they have been very successful. Looking at our own support forums, though, I see a familiar trend. Users are finding ways to break it. Users are finding things that aren’t compatible. T exact same thing was experienced when XP was released. Slightly different issues and slightly different fixes are required for the same general problems.
Does Vista have problems? Sure it does. Are they anything new compared to other operating system launches? Nope. Been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Will Vista SP1 fix everything? Probably not. It will go a long way to resolving many of the complaints out there. It will fix a large number of things people want to be addressed.

The only thing I think MS failed at was bringing about enough new technology in Vista to give it the “wow” factor. I know they dropped a number of enhancements for a variety of reasons. I hope in the next iteration of Vista they are able to bring those technologies to the platform.
So to those that are quick to bash Vista for its shortcomings and issues, please take a look in the mirror. This isn’t the first OS to go through this. Please temper your tirades with quiet reflection on OS history.

  • From personal experience I would suggest not buying windows vista for a laptop,at least until they have the final SP1 out. On a desktop I'm sure it would be alright. But On a laptop no.

    -AgentMES

  • From personal experience I would suggest not buying windows vista for a laptop,at least until they have the final SP1 out. On a desktop I'm sure it would be alright. But On a laptop no.

    -AgentMES

  • James_8970

    Vista is fine on a laptop, I'm running it on mine and couldn't be happier.

  • James_8970

    Vista is fine on a laptop, I'm running it on mine and couldn't be happier.

  • Blair

    Starjax originally posted this in the forums.

    I thought he had an interesting perspective, and asked him to post it here on the homepage.

    You can find my reply in the forum post. In a nutshell, Windows Vista development was also driven too much by enterprise, and doesn't offer enough for consumers. I don't think Microsoft did a very good job of marketing what it does offer. I do think it's a good operating system, and a worthy upgrade. Stability and security are much improved.

  • You either love it or hate it, lol

    -AgentMES

  • You either love it or hate it, lol

    -AgentMES

  • Burro

    I don't know if I have a bug or it's VISTA itself...
    programs keep saying NOT RESPONDING, then Check For Solution.. after 5 minutes waiting it finds no solution.

    Also the memory usage is very high and takes ages to do the simplest thing like opening a web page.

  • Burro

    I don't know if I have a bug or it's VISTA itself...
    programs keep saying NOT RESPONDING, then Check For Solution.. after 5 minutes waiting it finds no solution.

    Also the memory usage is very high and takes ages to do the simplest thing like opening a web page.

  • I think that once the Vista Service Pack 2 or 3 comes out, and more programs are compatible, it will probably work just fine.

  • GeekTech

    I had vista on my brand new laptop, and I have to say one thing it is a lot slower than XP and I have 2GBs of RAM and a 2GHz Processor! I would suggest to anyone considering vista on a new laptop that they have at least 3GBs of RAM.
    Also if you have a Home Network with other computers that have XP you will run in to some incompatibility between the two OSs.

    But if you are buying your fist computer and don't know much about computers. then I would suggest Vista because it is really dumbed down and tries to help you a lot.

    And for someone who has a lot of experience with OSs then I would YELL "Hey STOP don't use vista it thinks you are a dummy who knows nothing at all about computers sure it look really neat, but it is hard to work around all it's autopilot stuff!"

    But thats just me and I prefer Windows XP(and that might be only because I have never tried Mac 😉 )

    GeekTech

  • I think that once the Vista Service Pack 2 or 3 comes out, and more programs are compatible, it will probably work just fine.

  • GeekTech

    I had vista on my brand new laptop, and I have to say one thing it is a lot slower than XP and I have 2GBs of RAM and a 2GHz Processor! I would suggest to anyone considering vista on a new laptop that they have at least 3GBs of RAM.
    Also if you have a Home Network with other computers that have XP you will run in to some incompatibility between the two OSs.

    But if you are buying your fist computer and don't know much about computers. then I would suggest Vista because it is really dumbed down and tries to help you a lot.

    And for someone who has a lot of experience with OSs then I would YELL "Hey STOP don't use vista it thinks you are a dummy who knows nothing at all about computers sure it look really neat, but it is hard to work around all it's autopilot stuff!"

    But thats just me and I prefer Windows XP(and that might be only because I have never tried Mac 😉 )

    GeekTech

  • ctrpapa

    all new operating systems are "slower" than older operating systems. for example, if you got rid of vista on your laptop and replaced it with windows nt then everything would run super fast (but you would probably be missing some important functionality)

    here's the the conundrum with windows xp vs. windows vista...

    for most users windows xp has about 200% the functionality they need/use while vista has about 300% the functionality.

    do i really want my computer to run slower so that i can have 30,000 things i don't use compared to running faster and only have 15,000 i don't use?

  • ctrpapa

    all new operating systems are "slower" than older operating systems. for example, if you got rid of vista on your laptop and replaced it with windows nt then everything would run super fast (but you would probably be missing some important functionality)

    here's the the conundrum with windows xp vs. windows vista...

    for most users windows xp has about 200% the functionality they need/use while vista has about 300% the functionality.

    do i really want my computer to run slower so that i can have 30,000 things i don't use compared to running faster and only have 15,000 i don't use?

  • I guess it really depends on who is using the vista machine, and for what purpose. While vista is touted for security, it undeniably doesn't have the software vendor support of XP... and never will... before the next OS comes out. True XP has been out much, much longer, but then again for someone to move from XP to Vista, all current XP apps must work immediately. This has not been the case for me and this is why I strongly believe Vista lacks. I am not patient enough to wait for vista to catch up while my programs and work suffers.

    When XP came out, many software vendors didn't immediately support it too, but shortly thereafter, many started dropping Win98 in lieu of XP. XP's stability was the key to this.

    While Vista is stable, it's offering of unprecedented nagging has turned the opinions of major computer manufactures against it. Customer complaints of incompatibility and usability has hit the bottom line. Reputed on-line reviewers also second-guessed their first reviews and backed out. Sure, nagging can be turned off by user preference... but doesn't that disable what vista is partially about? Many tweaks can be done on a vista machine to make it run like... XP?

    Vista has problems. Period. And to deny it is irresponsible to say the least. I have too many clients and friends that have switched back to XP... an expensive move. Too many that have begged their vendors for an XP downgrade(???). They are much happier now.

    Just my 2-cents!

    makai

  • samson

    Starjax is not a knowledgeable Tech to get information from. Starjax should learn English first.

  • samson

    Starjax is not a knowledgeable Tech to get information from. Starjax should learn English first.

  • Pingback: Comment on Vista grrrr! by makai()

  • Pingback: Najlepsze Programy, Recenzje, Informacje. » Blog Archive » Comment on Vista grrrr! by makai()

  • Thank goodness there are a few bastions of sanity left in the world. All this Vista bashing is simply ridiculous.

    I made a post at CoU, which references a blog by Ed Bott of ZDNet, which points out that one particular critic of Vista, extolling the virtues of XP, was saying many of the same things about XP back in 2001. The link for the post is http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=17484&view=findpost&p=76173

    Basically, the Ed Bott blog, http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382, made me realize that it's the same old stuff all over again. After referencing the blog, I go on to say the following:

    "I have been saying much the same thing to a lot of people in a lot of places, including right here at CoU. In fact, I post a few times in that thread, and every time I harp on the ridiculous notion that M$ should even consider continuing to sell XP as a new product. It's time is over. It's well nigh done. Let it go.

    Furthermore, that article goes on to show how the blogger that Ed Bott quotes had some very similar things to say about *XP* back in the day....and, just for grins and giggles, let me add my own experience:

    I beta tested XP well before it's October 25,2001 release, and I ran it (albeit very very slowly) on a Pentium 200 MHz machine with 96 MB RAM. I learned quickly the limitations of using less than adequate hardware - but it ran and made for a great file server and testing on very very slow machines.

    I then, in Jan and Feb of 2002, started building my new computer - dual 20 GB 7200 rpm drives, a GeForce 4 MX 440 (I wasn't *that* much into gaming then) and a sweet P4 2.0(A) GHz (Northwood) CPU - backed by 1 GB of RAM.

    XP never complained again. *I* never complained again. Well, not on my own system - because I was paranoid enough to keep myself pretty well protected, as I knew I needed to - because I ran XP the way most end (read: home) users did - as an administrator (or, in my case, as *the* administrator).

    Fast forward to 2006 - My P4 2.0 is still kicking, with an upgraded video card (ATI Radeon x1650 Pro AGP 8x), upgraded HDs (120 GB Barracuda, 80 GB WD and 40 GB WD, all 7200 rpm IDEs) and I start testing Vista - again, a bit slow, especially with only 1 GB RAM, ***but not as slow on a P4 2.0(A) GHz machine as XP was on the Pentium200. I then upgrade my mobo and CPU to my current MSI and P4 3.2E (Prescott) CPU, and upgrade the RAM to 3 GB of Corsair XMS 3200 RAM (3 x 1 GB). Vista runs great. On a CPU that is, for all intents and purposes, ***3 generations old*** (after the P4 came the Pentium D, the Pentium 4 numbered CPUs, the Core2Duos and then the Quad Cores). In terms of performance, Vista runs a hell of a lot better, smoother, and jest generally more secure on a 3 generation old CPU than XP did on a 3 generation old CPU (P4, PIII, P2, Pentium). Furthermore, there was a *major* clamor against XP - basically, nobody wants to move forward anymore.

    Apparently, change is *not* inevitable."

    Thanks, starjax, for making this blog. I am also referencing it in my post at CoU.

  • Thank goodness there are a few bastions of sanity left in the world. All this Vista bashing is simply ridiculous.

    I made a post at CoU, which references a blog by Ed Bott of ZDNet, which points out that one particular critic of Vista, extolling the virtues of XP, was saying many of the same things about XP back in 2001. The link for the post is http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?s=&showtopic=17484&view=findpost&p=76173

    Basically, the Ed Bott blog, http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382, made me realize that it's the same old stuff all over again. After referencing the blog, I go on to say the following:

    "I have been saying much the same thing to a lot of people in a lot of places, including right here at CoU. In fact, I post a few times in that thread, and every time I harp on the ridiculous notion that M$ should even consider continuing to sell XP as a new product. It's time is over. It's well nigh done. Let it go.

    Furthermore, that article goes on to show how the blogger that Ed Bott quotes had some very similar things to say about *XP* back in the day....and, just for grins and giggles, let me add my own experience:

    I beta tested XP well before it's October 25,2001 release, and I ran it (albeit very very slowly) on a Pentium 200 MHz machine with 96 MB RAM. I learned quickly the limitations of using less than adequate hardware - but it ran and made for a great file server and testing on very very slow machines.

    I then, in Jan and Feb of 2002, started building my new computer - dual 20 GB 7200 rpm drives, a GeForce 4 MX 440 (I wasn't *that* much into gaming then) and a sweet P4 2.0(A) GHz (Northwood) CPU - backed by 1 GB of RAM.

    XP never complained again. *I* never complained again. Well, not on my own system - because I was paranoid enough to keep myself pretty well protected, as I knew I needed to - because I ran XP the way most end (read: home) users did - as an administrator (or, in my case, as *the* administrator).

    Fast forward to 2006 - My P4 2.0 is still kicking, with an upgraded video card (ATI Radeon x1650 Pro AGP 8x), upgraded HDs (120 GB Barracuda, 80 GB WD and 40 GB WD, all 7200 rpm IDEs) and I start testing Vista - again, a bit slow, especially with only 1 GB RAM, ***but not as slow on a P4 2.0(A) GHz machine as XP was on the Pentium200. I then upgrade my mobo and CPU to my current MSI and P4 3.2E (Prescott) CPU, and upgrade the RAM to 3 GB of Corsair XMS 3200 RAM (3 x 1 GB). Vista runs great. On a CPU that is, for all intents and purposes, ***3 generations old*** (after the P4 came the Pentium D, the Pentium 4 numbered CPUs, the Core2Duos and then the Quad Cores). In terms of performance, Vista runs a hell of a lot better, smoother, and jest generally more secure on a 3 generation old CPU than XP did on a 3 generation old CPU (P4, PIII, P2, Pentium). Furthermore, there was a *major* clamor against XP - basically, nobody wants to move forward anymore.

    Apparently, change is *not* inevitable."

    Thanks, starjax, for making this blog. I am also referencing it in my post at CoU.

  • Gale Mack

    I do not have a comment I have a question:hello, my question is , I want to allow a program and I am trying to add it to my firewall so it will allow it, but I do not know what a IP number is or where to locate it ,can you help me please I am not to up on computers. tyvm Gale

  • Gale Mack

    I do not have a comment I have a question:hello, my question is , I want to allow a program and I am trying to add it to my firewall so it will allow it, but I do not know what a IP number is or where to locate it ,can you help me please I am not to up on computers. tyvm Gale

  • AgentMES

    This isn't an area for questions. If you need help, go to the forums please.

  • AgentMES

    This isn't an area for questions. If you need help, go to the forums please.

  • peterm

    The main trouble people have with Vista is they have upgraded an xp machine and expect Vista to run on it as fast as xp. It won't happen. If you build a machine that is Vista ready (using parts that are made for Vista) then Vista will run fine.
    The other problem is Microsoft issuses specs that are not real.
    They did this with xp and we had the same problem.
    Vista will run on 512mb of ram but it will have a very lucklustre performance.The retailers sell machines that are built to the minimum specs and they preform lousy. The GUI is as easy to use as any of the previous versions.The plug and play works very well if you buy Vista ready accessories.
    The main nag I have with Vista - 2000 and XP is the software compatability mode, There is no reason why a program that runs on 98 can't run on Vista - arter all is that not what compatability mode means? Let's not forget that they are all still a 32 bit operating system

  • peterm

    The main trouble people have with Vista is they have upgraded an xp machine and expect Vista to run on it as fast as xp. It won't happen. If you build a machine that is Vista ready (using parts that are made for Vista) then Vista will run fine.
    The other problem is Microsoft issuses specs that are not real.
    They did this with xp and we had the same problem.
    Vista will run on 512mb of ram but it will have a very lucklustre performance.The retailers sell machines that are built to the minimum specs and they preform lousy. The GUI is as easy to use as any of the previous versions.The plug and play works very well if you buy Vista ready accessories.
    The main nag I have with Vista - 2000 and XP is the software compatability mode, There is no reason why a program that runs on 98 can't run on Vista - arter all is that not what compatability mode means? Let's not forget that they are all still a 32 bit operating system

  • John,
    I like you comments very much. I know it's been a while since I made this post. When I posted it in the forums, I never intended it for frontpage material. My preferences would have been to spend more time massaging the writing to be at the level I desire.

    Given that aside, I have a few more observations. XP took up a huge adoption rate for multiple reasons. It offered a great deal of bling for the consumer. It also offered a lot to enterprise market. Specifically it allowed a reduction in the cost of support by allowing to standardize on one operating system. To do that it took an investment in new systems and upgrades. Mostly hard drives and memory.

    Back in 2004, I ran a project to upgrade 4500+ system upgrades. At that time 800mhz and 256megs ram was the minimum requirement. If needed, they got a 40gig hard drive. If they didn't meet the specs, they could get a new system (dell gx60) or they could purchase one of their choosing.

    A year later the system specs on new system was 512megs of ram. Finally you began to hit the sweet spot with xp's performance with the right amount of ram and processor speeds.

    With every os release from Microsoft, there is always a gap in hw. A period of time when you are "capable" of running it and what it will run it well. Vista is the same way. If I could, I wouldn't recommend anything less than a e6xxx series dual core (desktop) or a 4 series (laptop). For a higher end system you should go with a quad core or 9series.

    I run a intel q6600 with 4gigs of ram and 8800gts 640meg video card. My old system is an AMD 4200+, 3gigs of ram, and a Nvidia 7900. Both of them run Vista well.

    I think Nvidia has said it well. Intel has hurt itself with integrated graphics. They did well with enterprise. It hurts performance because you have a limited upgrade path.

    XP certainly has its place. It has held up reasonably well. Keep in mind its over 5 years old. Vista is just slightly over a year old. Now that sp1 out now, I can't complain about any issues.

  • John,
    I like you comments very much. I know it's been a while since I made this post. When I posted it in the forums, I never intended it for frontpage material. My preferences would have been to spend more time massaging the writing to be at the level I desire.

    Given that aside, I have a few more observations. XP took up a huge adoption rate for multiple reasons. It offered a great deal of bling for the consumer. It also offered a lot to enterprise market. Specifically it allowed a reduction in the cost of support by allowing to standardize on one operating system. To do that it took an investment in new systems and upgrades. Mostly hard drives and memory.

    Back in 2004, I ran a project to upgrade 4500+ system upgrades. At that time 800mhz and 256megs ram was the minimum requirement. If needed, they got a 40gig hard drive. If they didn't meet the specs, they could get a new system (dell gx60) or they could purchase one of their choosing.

    A year later the system specs on new system was 512megs of ram. Finally you began to hit the sweet spot with xp's performance with the right amount of ram and processor speeds.

    With every os release from Microsoft, there is always a gap in hw. A period of time when you are "capable" of running it and what it will run it well. Vista is the same way. If I could, I wouldn't recommend anything less than a e6xxx series dual core (desktop) or a 4 series (laptop). For a higher end system you should go with a quad core or 9series.

    I run a intel q6600 with 4gigs of ram and 8800gts 640meg video card. My old system is an AMD 4200+, 3gigs of ram, and a Nvidia 7900. Both of them run Vista well.

    I think Nvidia has said it well. Intel has hurt itself with integrated graphics. They did well with enterprise. It hurts performance because you have a limited upgrade path.

    XP certainly has its place. It has held up reasonably well. Keep in mind its over 5 years old. Vista is just slightly over a year old. Now that sp1 out now, I can't complain about any issues.

  • fliifl2

    I upgraded to Vista Business from XP Pro to test compatibility with other corporate software as we are a Microsoft OEM.

    I have a five year old Dell Latitude with a 1.7 Ghz Intel M with 2 gigs of memory.

    After installing Vista I was dissapointed as my machine was now a dog.

    I knew there were going to be a few driver issues, so I rooted through my hardware and found that my Nvidia display adapter was using a Vista driver.

    After a little surfing and found out that both Dell and Nvidia did not support Vista for my adapter, I simply forced the XP driver. Upon reboot my Vista had been turbocharged.

    I don't think that the Vista drivers optimize the features incorporated with the older display adapters.

    Since then, our corporate software including the AutoCad 2007 and 2008 (resource hogs) have run as well as they did in XP.

    Additionally, all of the PLC programming softwares have been preforming admirably. As well as they did with XP.

    Several have required additional administrative priveledges, and it is a bit tedious to configure them, but now work flawlessly.

    Good luck

    fl

  • fliifl2

    I upgraded to Vista Business from XP Pro to test compatibility with other corporate software as we are a Microsoft OEM.

    I have a five year old Dell Latitude with a 1.7 Ghz Intel M with 2 gigs of memory.

    After installing Vista I was dissapointed as my machine was now a dog.

    I knew there were going to be a few driver issues, so I rooted through my hardware and found that my Nvidia display adapter was using a Vista driver.

    After a little surfing and found out that both Dell and Nvidia did not support Vista for my adapter, I simply forced the XP driver. Upon reboot my Vista had been turbocharged.

    I don't think that the Vista drivers optimize the features incorporated with the older display adapters.

    Since then, our corporate software including the AutoCad 2007 and 2008 (resource hogs) have run as well as they did in XP.

    Additionally, all of the PLC programming softwares have been preforming admirably. As well as they did with XP.

    Several have required additional administrative priveledges, and it is a bit tedious to configure them, but now work flawlessly.

    Good luck

    fl

  • Anthony

    I have Windows Vista Ultimate and it's SO FAST it would blow you away! It's the BEST SO yet! No problems EVER up until SP1 all is GOOD!

    If you want a GOOD PC then get a AMD Processor with 2GB of RAM.

    If your computer is Dell/HP it's SLOW because there at so many programs pre-installed and thats slowing it down.

    If you want to fix this issue then do this

    1) Click Start
    2) Click Run
    3) Type msconfig
    4) Check Startup Tab
    5) Disable All
    6) Checked Services Tab
    7) Disable All (Make sure you RECHECK your anti-virus software)
    8) Restart Computer

    ------------------------ALSO-------------------------

    1) Click Start
    2) Click All Programs
    3) Point Mouse to Startup
    4) Deleted Everything Out

    ----------------------Finally--------------------------

    Go to your Screen Saver----------Check Power Options

    Change to High Performace...

    WALA! Everything is SO FAST!

  • Anthony

    I have Windows Vista Ultimate and it's SO FAST it would blow you away! It's the BEST SO yet! No problems EVER up until SP1 all is GOOD!

    If you want a GOOD PC then get a AMD Processor with 2GB of RAM.

    If your computer is Dell/HP it's SLOW because there at so many programs pre-installed and thats slowing it down.

    If you want to fix this issue then do this

    1) Click Start
    2) Click Run
    3) Type msconfig
    4) Check Startup Tab
    5) Disable All
    6) Checked Services Tab
    7) Disable All (Make sure you RECHECK your anti-virus software)
    8) Restart Computer

    ------------------------ALSO-------------------------

    1) Click Start
    2) Click All Programs
    3) Point Mouse to Startup
    4) Deleted Everything Out

    ----------------------Finally--------------------------

    Go to your Screen Saver----------Check Power Options

    Change to High Performace...

    WALA! Everything is SO FAST!

  • I have been reading this thread for awhile and I must comment..
    I was a beta tester for Vista, as I was for Win2k. I have been in this business a very long time (started on a Tandy Color Computer programming in basic and compiling it).
    I am a gamer and coder. I found Vista to be missing too many drivers for the release date and the minimum specs were too low for bottom end machines. Gaming with Vista is still a major headache due to permissions and driver problems that I will not go into detail about here. I think Vista is great for the average consumer that is going to do some word processing and cruise the internet. The problem is when the average consumer runs into compatibility problems and then gets the dreaded You don't have admin rights problems and has to spend the next two hours on the net trying to work around these problems.
    You can keep saying how XP had the same problems in the beginning. Some driver problems maybe, but Vista's way it approaches video needs to be corrected. It is the major slow down with this system.
    My 2 cents...

  • I have been reading this thread for awhile and I must comment..
    I was a beta tester for Vista, as I was for Win2k. I have been in this business a very long time (started on a Tandy Color Computer programming in basic and compiling it).
    I am a gamer and coder. I found Vista to be missing too many drivers for the release date and the minimum specs were too low for bottom end machines. Gaming with Vista is still a major headache due to permissions and driver problems that I will not go into detail about here. I think Vista is great for the average consumer that is going to do some word processing and cruise the internet. The problem is when the average consumer runs into compatibility problems and then gets the dreaded You don't have admin rights problems and has to spend the next two hours on the net trying to work around these problems.
    You can keep saying how XP had the same problems in the beginning. Some driver problems maybe, but Vista's way it approaches video needs to be corrected. It is the major slow down with this system.
    My 2 cents...

  • Brian

    I have to agree Anthony, I have Vista Ultimate on a machine running less then 1gig of ram and a 2.4 gig processor. My Vista runs super fast, I have no issues with compatibility and run many programs at once to actually see if and what "lags" my computer. The only time it runs a little slow is if I am running Adobe CS3 Illustrator and around 2-3 Photoshop windows at once. Vista is great and will get better with time. Just like XP did.

  • Brian

    I have to agree Anthony, I have Vista Ultimate on a machine running less then 1gig of ram and a 2.4 gig processor. My Vista runs super fast, I have no issues with compatibility and run many programs at once to actually see if and what "lags" my computer. The only time it runs a little slow is if I am running Adobe CS3 Illustrator and around 2-3 Photoshop windows at once. Vista is great and will get better with time. Just like XP did.