- last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT
Yeah I know what you guys are saying, and it seems we all do agree that Vista is not the worst ever (by a long shot, as I said i believe XP had a worse launch) and that eventually it will be a much better OS more Viable for pretty much everyone.
Posted by: Shdwsnipa
As for anyone complaining about how slow it is, I can say this and this only: YOUR COMPUTER IS THE ONE THAT'S SLOW, NOT THE OS.
It's hard for me to put into words. First let me say that yes, you are right. Their computers don't exactly leap over the min sys specs for Vista.
XP, after how long it has been out, is now a lightweight operating system. The crappiest systems on the market can run XP quickly and with little to no problems. Since I have a pretty High end computer, I'm used to my OS booting in very quickly, and being able to have system resources to spare for all my applications.
People aren't used to Vista. It pulls on your computer harder, takes longer to boot, even when you have more than the minimum the fact is it's GOING to boot slower than XP because it's larger and more elaborate. This doesn't mean it's loose code, it means that when you make something more complicated it's going to show even with High-end computers.
Which brings us back to the "wait and see" argument. Eventually the boot times for Vista will be lowered because of better computers, and although it will still be longer than if you had the same system with XP people will accept it because by then Vista will be the standard.
For the record though, my neighbor has a Core 2 duo Laptop (I can't remember the exact model of the proc though it was a store bought so it's probably pretty low) with 2gb of RAM. She can run Vista very well. Boot times aren't great but when you're actually using it there's only about half a second lag when she's running two or three things at the same time.