Vista Hardware requirement

[Data miner]

Dear Folks,

My pc specs are as follows,

P4 1.7 Mhz (single core)
Ram 1 gb
Vga 256 mb (ati radion 9600pro)
os : xp professinal and ubuntu 7.10


Now plz, advise me if I should upgrade my OS to Vista (ultimate or
business) or not.

btw, i know the official requirement from the MS. I just want to know
some experience
from you who use vista in a low-end pc.

Thanks in advance.

 

[philo]

Dear Folks,

My pc specs are as follows,

P4 1.7 Mhz (single core)
Ram 1 gb
Vga 256 mb (ati radion 9600pro)
os : xp professinal and ubuntu 7.10


Now plz, advise me if I should upgrade my OS to Vista (ultimate or
business) or not.

btw, i know the official requirement from the MS. I just want to know
some experience
from you who use vista in a low-end pc.

Thanks in advance.

I installed Vista on an XP-2800 cpu machine with 1.5 gigs of RAM and a
somewhat similar video card.

It runs Win2k, XP and PClinuxOS just great.

However I was quite disappointed with Vista's performance.

I'd honestly NOT go with Vista. Though I did not found it to be
horrible...there was nothing I could see about it that was an improvement
over XP...
so I got rid of it.

 

[Data miner]

quote:

'However I was quite disappointed with Vista's performance.'

you mean the os is unstable or its slow on your pc ?

 

[Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]]

It can run Vista for sure, but I would recommend maxing out the RAM if
possible. if you can upgrade the video card too, go for it. But, you can't
be 100 % sure, so what I would do is run the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor
to guarantee that everything is in order.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/buyorupgrade/upgradeadvisor.mspx

 

[Data miner]

thanks for the reply. however graphics card is ok imo.
only problem i would guess is running flash based stuffs.
it takes a huge part from the cpu while running.

 

[HeyBub]

I installed Vista on an XP-2800 cpu machine with 1.5 gigs of RAM and a
somewhat similar video card.

It runs Win2k, XP and PClinuxOS just great.

However I was quite disappointed with Vista's performance.

I'd honestly NOT go with Vista. Though I did not found it to be
horrible...there was nothing I could see about it that was an
improvement over XP...
so I got rid of it.

Most of the new stuff in Vista is not visible anyway - it's under the hood,
so to speak.

 

[philo]

quote:

'However I was quite disappointed with Vista's performance.'

you mean the os is unstable or its slow on your pc ?

<snip>

Vista was certainly as stable as XP...
it just ran slower.

I'm sure...with some pretty new H/W Vista would run fine...but with "modest"
H/W I'd say
Win2k or XP would be a better choice

 

[James David Byrne]

In my experience, given the same hardware spec, Vista will be noticably
slower than XP. With 1gb I found it impossibly so. Suggest 2gb min. Would
personally recommend you stay with XP. I've had so many niggles with Vista
and found such frustration trying to use the mess that once perfectly good
facilities have now become -if they are still there at all- that I can't in
all honesty recommend it other than to those who are teckkies!