Vista Problems!

Hi

After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.

It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.

It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating about
the hardware being used.

Piet

im not useing a quad processor and my vista premium kicks ass on my pc! my
processor is a single core and its fast enough to run vista games with no
probs.
"Piet" <pietfo@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:80DD8857-7E85-4008-BE7C-D56319BD3D52@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating
> about the hardware being used.
>
> Piet
>
>

Quad processor? That's a bit extreme, I think. I've had it running on a
single core processor at about 2gHz with 1GB of memory and have been pretty
pleased with the result for everyday use.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] rgharper@gmail.com
* NEW! Catch my blog ... http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - http://rgharper.mvps.org/


"Piet" <pietfo@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:80DD8857-7E85-4008-BE7C-D56319BD3D52@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating
> about the hardware being used.
>
> Piet
>
>

"Piet" <pietfo@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:80DD8857-7E85-4008-BE7C-D56319BD3D52@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating
> about the hardware being used.
>
> Piet
>
>


Vista performs well on a system where there are ample resources and where
the individual components and software have decent support from the
manufacturers/authors.

A single core machine will run Vista very well. There is no requirement to
have quad core, although it would be nice of course..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

I have Vista Ultimate on 3 DELL GX-280 (4 years old), 80 Gb HDD (C, 3.8
Ghz of CPU, 2Gb RAM. Works well, better than XP on another partition (extra
SATA HDD installed).

"Piet" <pietfo@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:80DD8857-7E85-4008-BE7C-D56319BD3D52@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating
> about the hardware being used.
>
> Piet
>
>

"AlexB" <alexb@comcast.net> wrote in message news:u7ybXrKbIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> I have Vista Ultimate on 3 DELL GX-280

Malefactor, you're not supposed to be using your MSDN copies
on every day production machines.



-Michael

You posted a message with a poor subject/title. It is very generic and
doesn't tell anybody anything or ask anything of anyone. It's just a
pointless statement.

Stating that Vista runs on a "Good PC" is also a useless statement. It is
very relative and makes little sense. A "Good PC" to one person mail still
fail all system requirements to run Vista. It doesn't change the fact that
the system is a "Good PC", it just means it can't run Vista.

On the other side, a "Great PC", one being better than a "Good PC", still
may have issues running Vista, simply because the "greatness" or "goodness"
has never been an indicator of how a computer would run a certain operating
system.



"Piet" <pietfo@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:80DD8857-7E85-4008-BE7C-D56319BD3D52@microsoft.com...
> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating
> about the hardware being used.
>
> Piet
>
>

/Piet/ said:
> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating about
> the hardware being used.
>
> Piet

Echoing others who have responded, this is a four-year old Pentium 4
with a NVidia 5200 (128) video card...
I do not game or use video-intensive applications, but do run the usual
programs, scanner/printer typical of many users. A 22" LCD is in service.

Truthfully, I have never seen a machine that is more responsive than
this one, even at the office. (Probably because of all the
virus/malware checking there). XP, also on this box, feels similarly
responsive. For my purposes, there is no pressing need for quad
architecture at this time.

I think most people are missing the point of your post. They are hung up on
the "quad processor" statement. I agree with your overall message. There is a
small but very loud group of folks here that for some reason can't let us
discuss Vista without trying to badger and insult the group. I'm not sure
why, but I believe their apparently their technical abilities do not let them
productively participate in their own OS forums so they come here to troll
and cause trouble.

The assumption that Vista requires more resources than, say Ubuntu, leads to
the conclusion that Ubuntu runs better (i.e., faster) than Vista on any given
hardware. While this may be true at a high level, your point is well taken
that posting "Use *nix" for every problem that is posted here isn't welcome
or productive without understanding the root cause of the issue (Ubuntu may
not support the hardware). Occasionally the OP does reply back to say that
they are using XYZ tuner card or ABC software that isn't supported on a *nix
platform and the silence from the open source zealots is deafening.

Not all of us have drank the kool-aid. We're here because we want to be.

Keep posting!

"Piet" wrote:

> Hi
>
> After looking at various comments about Vista it is quite clear to me that
> Vista runs very well on a GOOD PC. Something like a quad processor and
> enough 800mhz memory plus a fast front end bus.
>
> It does not perform well on PC's that are short of resources.
>
> It is no use to tell people to go to Linux etc instead of elaborating about
> the hardware being used.
>
> Piet
>
>

"MICHAEL" <u158627_7@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:OX$bKILbIHA.4344@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> "AlexB" <alexb@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:u7ybXrKbIHA.1376@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>> I have Vista Ultimate on 3 DELL GX-280
>
> Malefactor, you're not supposed to be using your MSDN copies on every day
> production machines.
>

Why not? I do it all the time. Do you think Microsquish is going to come
over and take my computer away?

>
> -Michael
>