Vista Readyboost makes a difference.

Conor_3

be_alright wrote: »

Which is what I meant, because 3GB usually would come in 3 DIMMS :rolleyes:

Why? Just because you've decided it does? If it were a performance rig, there's no way I'd do an upgrade on it which meant it didn't use dual channel. I'd explain to the customer that they'd be better off upgrading another 2GB instead of 1GB even if ~1GB went unused with Win32.

Conor_3

Marty_J wrote: »

Conor, do you run Vista on 512 MB of RAM?

I have. And I've run it on 1GB, 2GB, 3GB and 4GB. Home Basic runs OK on 512MB, Premium is a bit slow.

But as a 1GB DIMM costs less than a couple of packs of fags, where is the problem?

Tribulation

Biggest problem with Vista is either with people on old PC's upgrading to it, or certain pre-built manufacturers pre-installing it along with a load of unneeded other crap and sending it out with 512MB RAM.

If you look at various forums, almost no one that has built their PC's from scratch and installed Vista has had any major problems with it whatsoever. Drivers are always a problem on new op systems, they were when XP came out and they were when Vista came out, but things have improved imensely.

I ran a dual boot (well triple as I also run Linux) for a while but have since deleted XP as I simply get absolutely no problems with my Vista 64 machine.

When you can buy 4GB RAM for £50 now, there's no need for people to buy new PC's with stupidly low amounts of RAM in them.

Brother in law brought his recently purchased laptop round the other day as it was going like a dog. It had 512MB RAM in it. A very quick goggle and I found 2GB RAM for it for £28, could probably have found it cheaper, but he was more than happy with that price. He cant believe the difference and says it's like having a new PC.

I have no problems running CS3 on my vista system and the new versions coming out (such as light room 2) are optimised for 64 bit systems.

I hear a lot of Vista bashing from people, but very very few of them have actually tried it for themselves, most are going on what they've read or what a fat bloke told them down the pub.

I don't even have UAC disabled and I hardly ever get bothered by it. I simply set up a c:\games directory and put things like WOW in there, and they go away and autoupdate without any interruption whatsoever.

Inactive

Conor wrote: »

What are you prattling on about you clueless gimp?

Oh nice, usual signs of a lost argument, throw insults.:rolleyes:

Inactive

Conor wrote: »

Oh grow up will you? You haven't the first clue !!!!!! you're on about. I bet you take your computer to PC World as well when it needs sorting.

Nope, I never use PC World, wrong again.:rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

Conor wrote: »

Why? Just because you've decided it does? If it were a performance rig, there's no way I'd do an upgrade on it which meant it didn't use dual channel. I'd explain to the customer that they'd be better off upgrading another 2GB instead of 1GB even if ~1GB went unused with Win32.

Quite correct, but you can't run 3GB under anything but single channel

Inactive

Another good reason to avoid Vista;

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/08/vista39s-security-rendered-completely-useless-by-new-exploit

:rolleyes:

robt_2

Inactive wrote: »

Another good reason to avoid Vista;

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/08/vista39s-security-rendered-completely-useless-by-new-exploit

:rolleyes:

No, it is sensationalist 'journalism' that would require the user to disable UAC, and then knowingly run a program to exploit the weakness, which will be patched within days anyway.

You obviously don't like Vista, try to use a good argument against it if you want your opinion to be respected.

[Deleted User]

Inactive wrote: »

Another good reason to avoid Vista;

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/08/08/vista39s-security-rendered-completely-useless-by-new-exploit

:rolleyes:

And Windows XP too, since the exploits target security which is present in both? The advantage you get with Vista is that UAC will prevent this and in this case IE7 with UAC enabled is more secure than any other browser on Windows Vista due to the exploit targetting plug ins, in particular JRE and Flash.

But, good effort in trying to scaremonger with something you don't actually understand.

Inactive

That will be alright then..