Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/39594/140/

YES! XP stays alittle longer. It looks like ill be jumping on a Lenovo and getting it downgraded to XP by x-mas if i can afford it :D yay

Vista should burn in hell for slowing down all gaming computers.

Agreed. I can see why people like it...But there are still newer computers out there that run better with XP than Vista.

Ignorance is bliss, or so I've heard.

Vistas gaming performance is equal to XP. Period. Benchmarks and tests inside games don't lie. Vista shouldn't burn in hell, haters should.

i run older PC's and usually steal ram from one PC to put in others so this is good for me. since my next laptop is going to only have 1 GB of ram since lenovo standerd gives you only 1 GB

If you could show a source I'd be happy to see it, but as it is I have seen my dad's laptop, (dual-core 2.4GHz, 3GB RAM, 256MB Video card) get far worse peformance playing games than my cheaply built desktop of lesser specs(dual-core 2.0GHz, 2GB RAM, 512MB Video Card).

The problem is, those test vary depending on the specs. For example, single core processors that are fast enough to run Vista are better off running XP. There's better performance on XP with it.

Vista...its buggy still...it does not like older items (OMG its basicly all i run) and i have used it a few times...i dont like how it works...I run older computers...have LOADS of older parts...im stuck with XP forever. I may jump over to a mac next just because I can have XP on it (yes i have a copy of XP pro with a enterprise license) and a reletivly saver OS (OS X) preinstalled too. And personally...i like the look of a mac. I love the size...and for the specs...the price is fine too...atleast compared to lenovo's SL series...they are priced about the same for about the same specs...the only difference is one comes with OSX and can have XP on it and one comes with Vista Buissness which can have XP on it.

And if you would ever consider such insanity, there's always Linux running Wine.

It's the methadone of the Windows addict.

I did that for about 6 months...other then some of the apps i use not being supported when i used wine...it worked. My friend (who i got to use linux...then he learned more then me...) got wine to work with itunes 7 but it was not the best working version...i needed itunes for my iPod Touch...untill i found a new way of syncing it about a week ago...winamp :P and yea i know there are ways to sync an ipod when its jailbroken...but i don't like do have to do extra steps...I will be moving back to linux when Ubuntu 8.10 comes out. 8.04 did not work on my desktop (took recompiling drivers and stuff to get it to run and then i would lose wifi and sound after a few hours of it sitting and with not shutting down a PC does pose a problem with that.)

No [censored]. Why not install DOS? Should boot up in .001 seconds and use just >10mb ram!

It's no secret that new operating systems require more from your computer. XP was the same, the same whining, the same complaints, the same haters. MS only mistake this time was to let people get so damn comfortable with XP that they totally forgot they used to release a new OS every 3rd year or so.

New hardware nowadays costs nothing.

But, why install a new system with negligible benefits? Going from dos to windows 3.1 was a definite improvement(and you even got to use dos too, if you wanted to), then from 3.1 to 95 was a large improvement, giving right-click support and all sorts of other features. 98 had some plug-and-play functionality, and eventually USB support. NT 4.0 didn't have much in the way of media support(gaming really didn't work too well, I tried) and wasn't really a end-user OS. 2000 took the awesome core of NT, and added media/game support, which, compared to ME... Note that, from windows 95 to 2000, the GUI looked almost identical. When XP came along, it was kind of different, and had some backlash because of it, but when you get right down to it, it still acts the same way. You still have the "file, edit, view, ..." menus, the same close, minimize, maximize buttons, and while things look cleaner, and shinier, they still look, and basically act the same.

Vista on the other hand... You still have the close buttons, but no longer do you have the good, old, file menu. Things are just different.

I mean, really, from XP, I can go to a windows 95, 98, NT4.0, or 2000 install and be able to navigate folders in about the same manner. There are more features in later programs, but visually, its about the same.

I figure that users are lazy. They want to use what works, and what they like. If you compare, we haven't really had a GUI change of this magnitude sense the change from windows 3.1 to 95!

3.1: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win311fw
95: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win95
NT 4.0: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winnt40
98se: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win98se
2000: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win2000pro
XP: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/winxppro

Vista: http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/gall ... ndows.mspx

Plus, why upgrade when the old os works, does everything you want, and runs faster on the same hardware? Personally, I am going to downgrade my laptop to windows 2000, because it runs much faster, and I don't need the graphical themes, and it should run everything I need.


-RobbieThe1st

Nothing =/= $1,600 for a custom build.