Ken,
I have 1024 MB of ram, Intel core duo E6300 processor, Intel graphics media
acceleraor 3000, and my "vista experience score" is 3.5. I understand from
you and others that 2 GB of ram is prefferred,
Although some others say that, I'm not willing to do so. How much RAM
you need for good performance depends on what apps you run and what
you do with them. For many people running Vista, 1GB *is* enough;
others need 2GB or more.
however why didn't microsoft
tell me that before I went to the trouble of installing Vista?
Two points:
1. As I said above, it's not a one-size-fits-all situation. Different
people need different amounts of RAM for decent performance, depending
on how they use they computer. Microsoft doesn't know how you use your
computer.
2. Microsoft has a long history of telling people the *minimum*
requirements to run a particular software product, not the
requirements to run with what might be considered adequate
performance. That's for three reasons:
a. Adequate performance, as I said above,
depends on what you do.
b. Your view of what constitutes adequate
performance might not be the same as mine. My
wife, for example, is satisfied with performance
that would drive me crazy, and resists my
offers to upgrade her computer.
c. Like other vendors selling products of any
type, they want to convince you to buy,
not scare you away. The grocery store, when it
advertises steak for $2.99 a pound, doesn't tell
you that it's 40% bone and 20% fat either.
Now I'm stuck
with an underpowered system for Vista and forced to pay up for more memory in
order to do the exact same things I did before with XP.
If you need an extra RAM of memory, yes it costs extra, but
fortunately not very much. RAM is pretty cheap these days.
All for slightly
cooler looking wndows and a gadget bar. woohoo, what a deal...
If you think the improvements in Vista were not worth the cost of
upgrading, OK, but you have nobody but yourself to blame for not doing
your homework before buying it. Simply believing what the ads tell
you, whether you're buying an operating system, steak, or anything
else, is foolhardy, and will cause you to waste a lot of money over
the years.
If you had asked my opinion before deciding to upgrade, I would have
given you my standard answer, as follows:
A change of operating system should be driven by need, not just
because there is a new version available. Are you having a problem
with Windows XP that you expect Vista to solve? Do you have or expect
to get new hardware or software that is supported in Vista, but not in
XP? Is there some new feature in Vista that you need or yearn for?
Does your job require you have skills in Vista? Are you a computer
hobbyist who enjoys playing with whatever is newest?
If the answer to one or more of those questions is yes (and your
hardware is adequate for Vista), then you should get Vista. Otherwise
most people should stick with what they have. There is *always* a
learning curve and a potential for problems when you take a step as
big as this one, regardless of how wonderful whatever you're
contemplating moving to is. Sooner or later you'll have to upgrade (to
Vista or its successor) because you'll want support for hardware or
software that you can't get in Vista, but don't rush it.
I say all the above despite the fact that I'm a big Vista fan. I think
it's the best and most stable of all versions of Windows.
But for someone contemplating buying a new system, and wondering what
operating system to get with it, I definitely recommend Vista.
