true. I have xp running on a core2duo 2.0ghz cpu. with xp, in preperation for vista if I really had to use it I put a second gb of ram in the box, I was tempted to max it out by putting another gb on that but I didn't have the cash. My dad's system is faster at 2.20ghz. Runs much faster with internals but this was the fastest and cheapest system I could get at the time. The last transitional system or one of the last ones. At 11:46 p.m. 4/08/2008, you wrote: >Hi Damien, >Yeah, I can definitely tell you a 1.8 GHZ processor is way too slow for >Vista. It would technically run, but it would run pretty slow. Vista is >a massive resource hog, and one reason it needs a really new computer to >run half way decent. >In 2007 whenI was evaluating Vista my first mistake was I initially did >the install on a 2 GHZ Celeron machine with 512 MB of ram. It ran so >slow I couldn't believe it. I upgraded the system to 1 GB of ram, and it >ran a little better, but was still pretty slow. I was so disgusted with >Vista's system performence I removed Vista from that box and put XP back >on their. >Currently my wife and I have two laptops with 3.6 GHZ processors and 1 >GB of ram and Vista runs ok on them. It doesn't seam too slow. Sure >Linux and Windows XP would actually run better on these laptops, but >Vista needed the 3.6 GHZ processor to run like XP on a 1.2 GHZ machine. >Every time I read the Vista system requirements online I have to laugh, >because they are dead wrong. Acording to Microsoft Vista needs an 800 >MHZ processor, 512 MB of ram, at least an 8 GB hard drive, etc. I have >never tried Vista on a system with those specs, but if a computer with a >2 GHZ processor and 1 GB of ram couldn't do it effectively a system >such as Microsoft describes would take 20 years to boot, to load web >pages, open applications, etc. >you know with system performence like that out of Vista I am almost >afraid to see what Windows 7 needs. I think Windows has reached the >point where it is just bloted, a huge resource hog, and half the stuff >they added was unnecessary. Like did they really need to add the 3D >Windows Arrow interface? Did the Windows Arrow desktop have to double >system resources just to show the desktop in 3D? Did all the icons have >to have 3D animation and move around slowing the system to a crawl? No, >but they did it anyway. > >Damien Sadler wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> That's interesting because my current laptop, which was originally going to >> have Vista on it, is only a 1.8ghz Celeron processor. >> Regards, >> Damien > > >--- >Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] >If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at >http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. >All messages are archived and can be searched and read at >http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] >If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, >please send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- Gamers mailing list __ [email protected] If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at http://audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org. All messages are archived and can be searched and read at http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list, please send E-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
