English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-12-01 13:51:35 · 11 answers · asked by Jammie_♥ 4 in Computers & Internet Hardware Add-ons

11 answers

It takes a lot more memory than XP, because of all the added security features plus stupid features like widgets. That's why it's a lot slower. So if you add more memory it should correct the problem. BUT....they did rush it out and failed to correct some of the problems with it. Like simple things like copy/paste. They may address them with a service pack, but who knows when that comes out. Anyways, I was so frustrated with it, I bought XP and switched it out. It's a so much faster, it's incredible.

2007-12-01 14:03:55 · answer #1 · answered by wambamthankyouman 1 · 0 0

It's so much more of a resource hog than XP or anything else out there on the market. A computer with 1024MB of RAM will see a half to two-thirds of that memory available given to Vista when it is only idling. It's not very secure either. That was one thing Microsoft touted when it released Vista, but in my personal experience, they've dropped the ball. We see brand new Vista computers coming back at work for service because either the operating system has been horribly infected (even with fairly good security software) or there are other failures within the OS itself. Want a good alternative to Vista? Get a Mac. Or throw Linux on one of those bad boys. You'll have a much more positive experience, even with a learning curve.

2007-12-01 14:01:29 · answer #2 · answered by Kyle 1 · 0 0

This sounds like a trick, or at best a loaded question.

Nothing is really wrong with the OS. The number of actual reported bugs is lower than nearly all other OS's put out to date. It was more than a year late, so it was definitely not rushed out, and it is shown in a lot of the security decisions built in. If you hear a lot of negative press about it it's most likely from:
1 - Confusing price/feature sets. Way to many options and some major differences between them. Why they didn't simply go with three (a home, a Pro, and an Enterprise version) is absurd.
2 - System requirements to make use of all the features (ie Aero interface) is much higher then previous releases.
3 - Configuration and customization's are not as well known yet for it compared to XP. Like any other OS, you can make it quick by disabling certain visuals.

2007-12-01 14:11:58 · answer #3 · answered by Josh H 2 · 1 0

Vista is a resource HOG

But 2 of my pc's have Vista home premium

2007-12-01 14:35:16 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

It incredibly relies upon on what you're searching for. I grew up utilising living house windows all my existence yet transitioned to Macs some years in the past and have in no way grew to become back. living house windows is extra advantageous for networking and wide-unfold compatibility, considering that a great type of the artwork stress makes use of living house windows. additionally, maximum game enthusiasts use living house windows for enjoying their computing device video games. although, for something creative like song, pictures, artwork, action picture making, Macs are actually a thank you to bypass. As, with classes like Boot Camp and Parallels, it is undemanding to apply living house windows on a Mac. the element with Vista is it incredibly is living house windows attempting to apply particular issues from Mac. All they actually wound up with replaced right into a incorrect living house windows gadget this is way less nicely matched. I artwork with desktops, and we don't help Vistas. So, it incredibly relies upon on what you would be utilising your computing device for. i'm hoping this helped!

2016-12-10 09:33:53 · answer #5 · answered by carmean 4 · 0 0

nothing wrong

Perple who complain about DON'T realize it was released 5 YEARS after XP.
Come on, after five years (an eternity in computer time), don't you think hardware requirements go up?

By the way, here's high performance DDR2 800 RAM-
for under $50
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820211165

2007-12-01 15:37:51 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I understand that it is resource hungry. Why did MS stop supporting WIN98/ME - I imagine WIN98 would fly using present PC configs.

2007-12-01 14:01:57 · answer #7 · answered by timelord 3 · 1 0

in 1 sentence -> it wasn't ready, Microsoft rushed it out, leaving many unforeseen problems.

2007-12-01 13:55:12 · answer #8 · answered by Monkey 2 · 1 0

another poorly executed platform rushed out to the public......just to capture our imaginations......and to keep up with Mac's leopard system.....

Bill gates your the best...LMAO

2007-12-01 13:58:42 · answer #9 · answered by itsdaddyus 3 · 0 0

I think that people say it was not that easy to use but get use to it

2007-12-01 13:55:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers