formatted hard drive after 3 days, installed xp pro and two linux distros...
formatted hard drive after 3 months, installed xp home and 1x linux distro...
formatted hard drive 1 hour, installed xp pro sp2 and 1x linux distro...

the first is my own(had to have a play, second is my best friends and the third one is my daughters best friend...)
all our laptops came with vista, my best friends laptop died and recommendation from ms was re-install, so we did but not with vista...rofl...
I never bothered making a boot copy but still havent removed the authentication sticker yet...

what do i love about vista, makes it very easy for me to place linux on a vista users pc, so lets tell every one to try it first then show them what linux can do from a dvd drive, its still faster than vista when you dont install it...

if i were to get rid of windows system for good , i would try something else that can assumingly let me stay away from distractive confusions once and for all ...

granted , at least right now only a windows system can gives me that even if i dont care about it anymore , sort of like letting it rot alone and rot away ...



//but so far , still waiting ...



.

Why would I not want to use it? Vista sure uses a lot more memory than XP does, but it not only does that, but it also uses the memory in a far more effective way than XP did. And that is what people apparently are overlooking.

I am now writing from a XP machine with relatively fast 2GB of RAM. The RAM is just sitting there, doing nothing. I've paid for it, it would be better to put it to some good use.

And it is not like Windows is the only Operating system that asks for more RAM on every release. Most Linux distributions do that, OSX does it, Solaris does it too...

But hey, let's blame MS and say that Windows sucks. That is what a Linux community is all about right ;)

But explain, what exactly is that good use you are talking about? I hear that story from every devout Vista user I've talked to. It is useful because it is being kept reserved? I don't see how that would make it more useful than non-used RAM that can be accessed as the need arises.

I hate operating systems that think they know better then you, I don't know what this is like in vista, but in xp and earlier the operating system thought it knew better then you and it had that stupid dog in the search thing

come to think about it ... why anything would want a search thing , in windows , in mac and in linux ... i have never use any of them and yet many times systems are selling themselves on that ... they are like spending millions and sending scientists off to study this thing ...

i dont get it ... as if we donno what we are doing like after i do something with a file , in a sense "like very serious like that" , in the end asking "now , where the hell did i put it ... "


//dumb ...



.

so what your basically saying, is that vista creates a better memory partition arrangement than windows-xp...

To me, there are a lot of operating systems out there using different types of memory partitioning, and the basic limitations in some, seems to be the amount of ram they are able to access...
If they have a limit of, lets say 3.2gb(as xp has), yes i agree, that can be a little limiting, but most average computer users wouldnt even utilise that amount of ram with the applications they run..

If vista is able to utilise the ram so much better, then why does it need so much more...is that not like saying(about a car), it uses more fuel but uses it better...

I agree that the new distros of linux require more ram, but they also have more features that people are adding, and you can still use it on older equipment...

I have noticed speed differences on xp systems, when you add more ram, from 256mb, thru to 4gb(admittedly its only using 3.2gb) and each increase has been significant...vista(from what i have seen of it) is very ram hungry, but the starting amount i have used was 512mb, and it was very slow, but on 1gb machines, it seemed just as bad...on a 2 gb machine it seemed average... there where other things about it that let it down for me, and hopefully they are addressed in time, but i cant see an advantage over another os based on vista's use of ram, expecially when it requires large amounts of ram to start with...

sorry to say but it is worse...
try altering things to make them work the way you need them to work...not easily configurable...rofl

but a vista advocate will tell i'm wrong...

(even after i fixed it when they had spent 4 hrs trying... :) )

I had my new Windows system last fall shipped with XP. I don't want Vista.

-Raymond

XP 64? It's working fine with 4GB. But since you brought that up, there is something else that I find slightly intriguing. Someone recently pointed out to me that their Vista 64 bit is superior as it can use up to 16GB of RAM. Wow, six-teen GB. How much can a 64 bit Linux use? 128, more?

Do you know what really gets me about all this discussion on what vista, or any os can do?
The fact that most people i know buy a pc that can only have 8gb at most and put two 512mb ram chips in there at most...
as for linux's abilities, well we wont go there as this thread is about who's buying vista...

Nice point tho jay73!

For those who like vista, or are going to buy it
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...ga-outage.html
what do you think of an os that can be controlled by microsoft

Under normal circumstances, any operating system should automatically use all of the memory available in the machine ... for something. (Note that you might have to use different Linux builds or options if you have an extreme amount of RAM.)

Different uses have different priorities, such that when (and if...) memory pressure does develop, there are various rules for resolving it. "Stale" memory-segments, file-buffers, and so on are all low-priority uses.

But as for Vista, I'm very happy to wait. Windows-XP was "no damn good" until Service Pack 2, and I expect that Vista will be similar. However, I might not upgrade to Vista for many years because at this point I have very little work that requires Windows.

Vista is great. Come on guys, lighten up! Some at least of you must enjoy fooling with computers and operating systems. Personally I hate to go a week without repartitioning. Vista is a fine OS, the graphics spoil you. When I go back to Fedora or XP I feel like I'm looking at a cartoon.

I have quadruple boot setups - always changing of course. I've tried vista basic, premium, and ultimate in both 32 and 64 bit versions. I have XP home, media, and pro - pro in 32 and X64bit versions. Of course I have a number of linux distros also.

The point being that I am not a "true believer" in any of them and I have tried a few. (I do HATE Macs - nothing they make is compatible with the rest of the world).

XP is ok, Vista is better - more pleasant to stare at and more secure. It comes in 64 bit at a better price than XP. Sure it's big - (not necessarily the same as bloated) - but today the machines come with more power. I hardly notice a difference between the vista versions. The one real exception is that in home you can't display a stack of windows in 3-D fanned out so you can see them and click on them. (You can see them in 2-D.) Sure the edges of the windows are clear in premium and up. Big deal. Knoppix lets me turn the panel transparent and doesn't get excited about it.

I find I need windows for some business reasons. I much prefer the freedom of open source. But windows exists, and Vista is a very good OS.

read what I posted above, then decide if you like it or not