> Caveat: I have a Core 2 Duo processor, 3GB of RAM, and a decent video
> card (7600GT).  Obviously, if you try to run it on a ten-year-old
> laptop, you're going to have more problems than I do.

Even just upgrading from 1GB to 2GB makes quite a large difference, and at 
today's RAM prices you'd be really silly to buy Vista without the extra RAM.

> Anyway, Vista actually runs faster than my XP Pro installation did, but
> only just.  The real kicker for me is the disk usage.

The real kicker for me is how fast large programs start up compared to XP. 
My hefty CAD program is ready to use within a few seconds of clicking, even 
the first time after boot.  On XP I was waiting for almost a minute 
sometimes, I think Vista makes much better use of the RAM, or more 
intelligent use of the RAM.

> UAC doesn't bother me at all.

Didn't bother me either, until I had to turn it off for something or other 
(POV I think haha), and I haven't got around to turning it back on yet. 
That's the point though, you can just turn it off if you want to.

> And the GUI?  I waited almost two years after Windows XP was introduced
> before I switched from 2K - the XP GUI drove me nuts, and as soon as I
> found out about FlyAKiteOSX, I switched my GUI to be a Mac clone.  With
> Vista, I liked the GUI straight away.

OOC what things about the XP GUI didn't you like that have been 
fixed/changed in Vista?

Post a reply to this message