I'm still using the ~3 yr old computer I have in my sig. I know Vista will run, but will I notice any performance loss vs XP because of the higher system demands for it? I want to reformat soon, and I figure I should just make the jump to Vista as long as it runs as fast as my XP currently does.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Should I be running Vista or XP?
- Thread starter Arti
- Start date
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
Your system looks to be a great candidate for Vista if you bump the memory to 2GB. (pretty cheap these days!) You should definitely run the upgrade advisor and/or check your vendor's website for Vista drivers - but driver support on Vista is pretty outstanding out-of-the-box.
A good question is what sorta use will your laptop get? For desktop applications, Vista will be much snappier and your applications will launch instantly (since they will be preloaded into RAM (fast) instead of having to read from the hard drive (slow), like in XP. For games, performance for most games is not quite up to XP levels yet, but pretty darn close.
I was running Vista on a 3 year old Dell and it ran like a dream compared to XP!
A good question is what sorta use will your laptop get? For desktop applications, Vista will be much snappier and your applications will launch instantly (since they will be preloaded into RAM (fast) instead of having to read from the hard drive (slow), like in XP. For games, performance for most games is not quite up to XP levels yet, but pretty darn close.
I was running Vista on a 3 year old Dell and it ran like a dream compared to XP!
Wonder how many people think that's all I'd actually say on this... hehe
Ok, let's break it down:
- That processor is just not capable of using Vista adequately. It lacks L2 cache which will simply murder it in day to day performance
- The RAM is DDR, not DDR2, and it's just too slow to give you any useful performance compared to XP using the same RAM. Besides, 1GB is enough to use Vista, but more is better, no one would argue that point. XP can run very very well in 1GB doing all sorts of things.
Here's a screenshot I took earlier today of my XP x64 box with EVERYTHING I HAVE running on it - every single application I have installed as of two days ago, running, all of it, at the same time, doing stuff for the most part, and look at how much RAM is in usage and how much physical RAM is still free even so:
Of course that was taken to show what this machine could do, and at one point the actual available physical RAM got down clear to under 5MB left; if it had hit 0 it might have complained about virtual memory but I have 2 1GB pagefiles, one on each hard drive, so I'm covered there.
Your video card is just barely going to make it. It'll run Aero since it's a DX9 capable card, but the RAM on it, the limited bandwidth, etc, all of it will basically cause you to almost immediately realize "Damn, this thing is slow compared to XP," and on your hardware you'd be right.
That's the point.
Vista is a new OS, it wasn't designed with machines 2+ years old, nor was it designed with those same 2+ year old machines in mind for running it. It uses the latest technologies, the latest performance improvements, security stuff, etc, to make it a mean beast but it requires hardware that can handle it so the user experience will be a nice one.
No, it's not XP, it never will be, it was never meant to be. If you're going to buy a new machine at some point, even the low end hardware available today (Dell sells some machines for under $400) are completely Vista capable and will smoke that "old faithful" box you currently have.
There's really not much you can do to bring that old machine up to spec to run Vista reliably; your best bet is consider a full blown new system when you can. The money spent would be considered spent wisely as continuing to dump money into that old machine isn't going to make that much difference at this point.
Hope this helps...
Ok, let's break it down:
- That processor is just not capable of using Vista adequately. It lacks L2 cache which will simply murder it in day to day performance
- The RAM is DDR, not DDR2, and it's just too slow to give you any useful performance compared to XP using the same RAM. Besides, 1GB is enough to use Vista, but more is better, no one would argue that point. XP can run very very well in 1GB doing all sorts of things.
Here's a screenshot I took earlier today of my XP x64 box with EVERYTHING I HAVE running on it - every single application I have installed as of two days ago, running, all of it, at the same time, doing stuff for the most part, and look at how much RAM is in usage and how much physical RAM is still free even so:
Of course that was taken to show what this machine could do, and at one point the actual available physical RAM got down clear to under 5MB left; if it had hit 0 it might have complained about virtual memory but I have 2 1GB pagefiles, one on each hard drive, so I'm covered there.
Your video card is just barely going to make it. It'll run Aero since it's a DX9 capable card, but the RAM on it, the limited bandwidth, etc, all of it will basically cause you to almost immediately realize "Damn, this thing is slow compared to XP," and on your hardware you'd be right.
That's the point.
Vista is a new OS, it wasn't designed with machines 2+ years old, nor was it designed with those same 2+ year old machines in mind for running it. It uses the latest technologies, the latest performance improvements, security stuff, etc, to make it a mean beast but it requires hardware that can handle it so the user experience will be a nice one.
No, it's not XP, it never will be, it was never meant to be. If you're going to buy a new machine at some point, even the low end hardware available today (Dell sells some machines for under $400) are completely Vista capable and will smoke that "old faithful" box you currently have.
There's really not much you can do to bring that old machine up to spec to run Vista reliably; your best bet is consider a full blown new system when you can. The money spent would be considered spent wisely as continuing to dump money into that old machine isn't going to make that much difference at this point.
Hope this helps...
Wonder how many people think that's all I'd actually say on this... hehe
Ok, let's break it down:
- That processor is just not capable of using Vista adequately. It lacks L2 cache which will simply murder it in day to day performance
- The RAM is DDR, not DDR2, and it's just too slow to give you any useful performance compared to XP using the same RAM. Besides, 1GB is enough to use Vista, but more is better, no one would argue that point. XP can run very very well in 1GB doing all sorts of things.
Here's a screenshot I took earlier today of my XP x64 box with EVERYTHING I HAVE running on it - every single application I have installed as of two days ago, running, all of it, at the same time, doing stuff for the most part, and look at how much RAM is in usage and how much physical RAM is still free even so:
Of course that was taken to show what this machine could do, and at one point the actual available physical RAM got down clear to under 5MB left; if it had hit 0 it might have complained about virtual memory but I have 2 1GB pagefiles, one on each hard drive, so I'm covered there.
Your video card is just barely going to make it. It'll run Aero since it's a DX9 capable card, but the RAM on it, the limited bandwidth, etc, all of it will basically cause you to almost immediately realize "Damn, this thing is slow compared to XP," and on your hardware you'd be right.
That's the point.
Vista is a new OS, it wasn't designed with machines 2+ years old, nor was it designed with those same 2+ year old machines in mind for running it. It uses the latest technologies, the latest performance improvements, security stuff, etc, to make it a mean beast but it requires hardware that can handle it so the user experience will be a nice one.
No, it's not XP, it never will be, it was never meant to be. If you're going to buy a new machine at some point, even the low end hardware available today (Dell sells some machines for under $400) are completely Vista capable and will smoke that "old faithful" box you currently have.
There's really not much you can do to bring that old machine up to spec to run Vista reliably; your best bet is consider a full blown new system when you can. The money spent would be considered spent wisely as continuing to dump money into that old machine isn't going to make that much difference at this point.
Hope this helps...
This is exactly what I was looking for. I didn't know much about how Vista ran, and this answered everything. XP it is! Thanks.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
Vista is intended to "use" your available system memory:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/performance.mspx
It preloads all the applications that you frequently use into memory which allows them to instantly load when you click that icon...
About Aero: Aero runs very well with onboard (low performance) video controllers like the Intel GMA950.
Your video card - the FX 5900XT (128MB) reportedly scores a 4.2 on the Windows Experience Index benchmark. The GMA950 scores a 2.0. And again, the GMA 950 runs Aero flawlessly.
By offloading your desktop rendering to your video card, you will further speed up your Windows experience.
You can always borrow a Vista disk from a friend when you go to reformat, and try it out free for 30 days. (just remember to leave your PC on for the first couple days - it will be slower than usual as Windows reorganizes your hard drive to put your frequently used and OS-related files in the fastest locations on your hard drive - and as it indexes your \users\ folder)
I don't make a habit of disagreeing with bbz_Ghost, but I will make one exception. DDR memory is fast enough for Vista. I'm running a test box that has Vista Business x64 loaded on it, and it runs fine for normal office tasks. It's a Celeron D 3.33, with 1 GB of DDR400 memory and an Nvidia 6800 video card. My performance score is 4.2, because of the processor. If this PC is used for basics, like web-surfing, e-mail, CD ripping, etc, it would run Vista just fine.
If the system would be used for gaming, you should consider 2 GB of memory. It wouldn't hurt either way. Of course, your system might not play the newest games, and many older games do have issues with Vista. As mentioned, a quick run of the Upgrade Advisor would give you some answers as to compatibility. You have some older hardware, which should have driver support in VIsta without issue.
If the system would be used for gaming, you should consider 2 GB of memory. It wouldn't hurt either way. Of course, your system might not play the newest games, and many older games do have issues with Vista. As mentioned, a quick run of the Upgrade Advisor would give you some answers as to compatibility. You have some older hardware, which should have driver support in VIsta without issue.
calebb
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2000
- Messages
- 8,758
Based on his last response, I believe the OP had his mind made up before he created this thread...
LstBrunnenG
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Messages
- 6,676
I would agree with this. I am using DDR in both of my main machines, with Vista. Seems fine to me.
My point was the machine he has is ~3 years old. If he's got money to spend for upgrades on such an old machine, he would be best served spending that money on a new PC considering the cost of entire systems these days. Continuing to funnel money into that old machine is - and I don't think anyone would disagree with this statement: literally a waste of dollars that could net him a vastly more capable PC for probably the same amount of money he might spend upgrading the RAM, hard drive, video card, and mobo and CPU.
If he might consider going through all that trouble to run Vista, why spend:
- money on a new CPU
- money on a new mobo
- money on new RAM
- money on a new hard drive
- money on a new video card
- money on all the necessities (case, power supply, accessories)
and then spend money on Vista itself when...
He could just buy a new more capable computer ready to go with Vista already included in the price and be better off with a manufacturer's warranty thrown in for good measure too (not an extended one, just the regular included one for the first year or so).
Makes more sense to me.
About the GMA950: I've never seen the GMA950 score less than 3.1 on over 300 different machines I've worked on that use that chip for onboard video, from MacBooks to other laptops to even a few Desktop boards. The new(er) X3000 from Intel scores about 3.2 which is kinda odd considering the speed difference between the two video processors. Their limitation is the system RAM: so that would hurt performance on a DDR machine. Understand why?
The GMA950 was designed with Vista in mind. It might not be the most powerful video chip ever made, but it is a fully 256 bit GPU and can handle HD video content up to 1080 at 30 fps quite easily. But... there's an Achille's Heel with the GMA950.
It's powered by system RAM so that lends to the reasoning that if you tie the GMA950 to older slower DDR then you're going to have lower performance than having it tied to DDR2. Surely that makes some sense, right?
And yes, you're right. If he was able to put 2GB of RAM in that old box he's currently got, Vista would run fine, especially if he were able to plug in a 2GB USB stick for ReadyBoost duties to offload some of the SuperFetch and help with some of the minor pagefile hits. It is possible to use Vista on that machine - I never said it wasn't.
But the OP said this:
Now, reading that again, and contemplating what he's saying and asking, let's all be honest here:
Is there anyone that truly believes that Vista, even Vista Home without Aero enabled, could possibly "run as fast as XP currently does" on that machine he's got listed in his sig?
Anyone that says "yes" must not do much with Vista because it simply won't, not even after weeks of running Vista and after it's tuned itself to the usage patterns of the user and the software installed. It simply cannot run as fast as XP on that specific set of hardware.
If he's planning to spend money, again, his best option is look for a new(er) machine, if he can manage to get one for the price. Dell was and probably still is selling workstations that will outperform his current machine for only $299 sans an OS - add Vista Home Premium OEM from Newegg for $109 or so and he's set for years to come.
Just options and suggestions... but this kind of discussion could go on forever. I've said everything I can think of that matters so...
Have fun, always... and to the OP: good luck with whatever you choose to do.
If he might consider going through all that trouble to run Vista, why spend:
- money on a new CPU
- money on a new mobo
- money on new RAM
- money on a new hard drive
- money on a new video card
- money on all the necessities (case, power supply, accessories)
and then spend money on Vista itself when...
He could just buy a new more capable computer ready to go with Vista already included in the price and be better off with a manufacturer's warranty thrown in for good measure too (not an extended one, just the regular included one for the first year or so).
Makes more sense to me.
About the GMA950: I've never seen the GMA950 score less than 3.1 on over 300 different machines I've worked on that use that chip for onboard video, from MacBooks to other laptops to even a few Desktop boards. The new(er) X3000 from Intel scores about 3.2 which is kinda odd considering the speed difference between the two video processors. Their limitation is the system RAM: so that would hurt performance on a DDR machine. Understand why?
The GMA950 was designed with Vista in mind. It might not be the most powerful video chip ever made, but it is a fully 256 bit GPU and can handle HD video content up to 1080 at 30 fps quite easily. But... there's an Achille's Heel with the GMA950.
It's powered by system RAM so that lends to the reasoning that if you tie the GMA950 to older slower DDR then you're going to have lower performance than having it tied to DDR2. Surely that makes some sense, right?
And yes, you're right. If he was able to put 2GB of RAM in that old box he's currently got, Vista would run fine, especially if he were able to plug in a 2GB USB stick for ReadyBoost duties to offload some of the SuperFetch and help with some of the minor pagefile hits. It is possible to use Vista on that machine - I never said it wasn't.
But the OP said this:
Arti said:
Now, reading that again, and contemplating what he's saying and asking, let's all be honest here:
Is there anyone that truly believes that Vista, even Vista Home without Aero enabled, could possibly "run as fast as XP currently does" on that machine he's got listed in his sig?
Anyone that says "yes" must not do much with Vista because it simply won't, not even after weeks of running Vista and after it's tuned itself to the usage patterns of the user and the software installed. It simply cannot run as fast as XP on that specific set of hardware.
If he's planning to spend money, again, his best option is look for a new(er) machine, if he can manage to get one for the price. Dell was and probably still is selling workstations that will outperform his current machine for only $299 sans an OS - add Vista Home Premium OEM from Newegg for $109 or so and he's set for years to come.
Just options and suggestions... but this kind of discussion could go on forever. I've said everything I can think of that matters so...
Have fun, always... and to the OP: good luck with whatever you choose to do.