|
Herzeg Dva
|
 |
« on: September 23, 2008, 11:20:20 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Mikhail_16
|
|
« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2008, 08:12:48 AM » |
|
i honestly wouldn't touch that with a long pole. even though the site is in russian. if it wasn't meant to work for XP its not meant to work for XP. you have to remember that the XP drivers don't SUPPORT DirectX 10 anyways so whatever works is at best a nasty hack.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herzeg Dva
|
|
« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2008, 04:50:08 PM » |
|
And i wouldn't touch a Vista PC with an even longer pole. At least not in its current state. Hasn't anyone managed to strip the OS off its bloated services?
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 04:51:44 PM by Herzeg Dva »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Access
|
|
« Reply #3 on: September 25, 2008, 11:57:50 AM » |
|
Why whats wrong with Vista? Been using it for months?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anomonous Guy
|
|
« Reply #4 on: September 25, 2008, 01:49:45 PM » |
|
Yeah, Vista isn't so bad... Depends what you want to do with I guess. As a basic user on the laptop it has been fine for me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Access
|
|
« Reply #5 on: September 26, 2008, 11:10:21 PM » |
|
Yeah, Vista isn't so bad... Depends what you want to do with I guess. As a basic user on the laptop it has been fine for me.
As a power user that does more then most people it does me fine? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Red Lightning
|
|
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2008, 03:25:28 AM » |
|
Every version of windows is the worst one ever. Except Millennium Edition - that genuinely sucked.
People jump on the bandwagon every time a new windows is released to soil its name. Granted, if you tried to run Vista on the older machine you've been running XP on for the past 6 years, it will run like shit. Try running XP on a machine from 6 years before its release - probably done for W98...
See a pattern here?
That said I'm intrigued as to Windows 7.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Trouble, find a female. A low power blower, with optional heating, perfect for you I think.
|
|
|
|
Herzeg Dva
|
|
« Reply #7 on: September 27, 2008, 04:33:32 AM » |
|
But XP was based on the NT core and that was the first attempt at penetrating the home and small office market with such a hefty kernel. The analogy is somewhat flawed. Vista offers extended hardware support and better security for the average Joe, but the added features hardly warrant the four times processing power required to run it. XP for instance runs nicely on a PIII 1GHz 256MB RAM machine, but with Vista you barely scratch its bloated surface with a dual core CPU running at 2GHz, and 1GB if RAM is the absolute bare minimum. No matter how you lot defend Vista there's little ethical justification for Microsoft's practices.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Red Lightning
|
|
« Reply #8 on: September 27, 2008, 09:09:15 AM » |
|
By that standard we didnt need the full size hefty core of XP, just a few minor adjustments to Win 98SE (which ran fine on a P166mhz, 40mb ram). Theres more that you dont see going on behind. Could microsoft have optimised it all down and made it better? Absolutely. Is vista the true sixth spawn of satan come to devour your souls and butt rape your kittens like everybody's claiming? far from it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Trouble, find a female. A low power blower, with optional heating, perfect for you I think.
|
|
|
|
Herzeg Dva
|
|
« Reply #9 on: September 27, 2008, 04:05:19 PM » |
|
So when is Windows 7 scheduled to be released? I'm planning on skipping Vista altogether. I hope they don't delay the product like they did with Vista!
Edit - I realise XP was hefty at the time but a friend of mine made it run on a P233 with 192 megs of RAM and played MAME on the thing haha I almost didn't believe what I saw. That was in 2003 btw.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: September 27, 2008, 04:13:12 PM by Herzeg Dva »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anomonous Guy
|
|
« Reply #10 on: September 27, 2008, 04:25:15 PM » |
|
Well you could do something similar with Vista on a lower spec machine, and I'm sure it would run just as well as XP did on a 233MHz machine!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herzeg Dva
|
|
« Reply #11 on: September 27, 2008, 04:34:23 PM » |
|
If that's so then someone please show me HOW!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anomonous Guy
|
|
« Reply #12 on: September 27, 2008, 05:44:17 PM » |
|
Are you a fool? If Vista works on a 1GHz machine, surely that is the equivalent of XP running on a 233 MHz machine?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Herzeg Dva
|
|
« Reply #13 on: September 27, 2008, 07:26:28 PM » |
|
But Vista would never run fine on a 1Ghz machine  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anomonous Guy
|
|
« Reply #14 on: September 27, 2008, 07:52:41 PM » |
|
As XP would never run fine on a 233 Mhz machine :s
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
