Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1
    ottomaddox's Avatar
    ottomaddox is offline "Better Safe Than Sorry"
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Fairfax,CA.
    Posts
    2,960

    SP1 For Windows Vista

    I'm very gun shy about this upgrade and am in no way going to subject myself to the misery of having to do a clean install and losing all information.
    What's everyone else have to think?

  2. #2
    ausmanalot is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    i did it no hassels

    u know

    vista sp1
    then there is xp sp3

    both have been benchmarked and xp still is faster then vista

  3. #3
    FrankieJJ23 is offline Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Inside A WaterJug
    Posts
    233
    ok xp is not faster then vista, if your running like 512 ram with like a 2.5mhgz then yes its going to be slow since vista is optimized to run more efficent. Therefor my suggestion is if your going to run vista make sure your ram is straight along with your cpu.

  4. #4
    Bryan2's Avatar
    Bryan2 is offline Supplement Guru
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    3,592
    doesnt really speed anything up, not compatible with all hardware either

    sp3 is just all of the release windows updates in a service pack.

  5. #5
    ausmanalot is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    Dude
    i have 4 gig of ram. how ever since im using a 32bit version of windows i am unable to utilize all 4 gig how ever vista does some how only once i upgraded the service pack

    And yes

    Vista sp1 is slower then XP sp3 on the most high end computers

    www.megagames.com

    see the bench marks

  6. #6
    ausmanalot is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    417
    all the high end computers

  7. #7
    G4R
    G4R is offline Anabolic Voice of Reason
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Scenic Purgatory
    Posts
    3,859
    Ugh... Vista, did we really need another Windows ME disaster?

  8. #8
    Nicotine's Avatar
    Nicotine is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CANADA!!
    Posts
    3,783
    Quote Originally Posted by going4ripped View Post
    Ugh... Vista, did we really need another Windows ME disaster?
    no, but no one remembers how HORRID the migration to XP was.

    everyone thinks it was gold out of the box.

    since it's based off NT kernel, NOTHING from 9x based kernels worked AT ALL.

    programs and driver support for xp sucked for over a year easy. it was worse than vista. but no one seems to remember that.

  9. #9
    0tolerance's Avatar
    0tolerance is offline Associate Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    390
    i think your better off installing the SP1 for Vista... mainly because it has closed alot of compatibility issues and massive security holes..
    And you can run vista as fast as XP you just have to turn of all the pretty interfaces and it can match XP relatively the same.

    Updates are always recommended to be installed..
    the SP1 takes quite a while to install, but ive installed it on multiple machines and in test invironments, it goes smoothly, and automatic.
    so dont worry too much.

    if you have a older more slow computer... its still going to be the same vista, but your better off with XP until you upgrade machines.

    And in relation to ausmanalot..
    the 32 bit version of windows XP can handle 4gb of ram.. if you want any amount higher than that, you have to install the 64 bit edition.
    But XP 32bit does run 4gb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •