Installing Vista on 'older' systems?

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by Sunil Sood, Apr 10, 2007.

  1. Sunil Sood

    Sunil Sood Guest

    Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and if
    so, how you found it?

    I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering installing
    Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    similar machine specs:

    Athlon 1000/1800
    512MB RAM
    32MB Geforce 2 MX

    Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed the
    graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    processors are quite old (relatively speaking).

    People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    also be of interest to me..

    (*i.e. in real life, not just meeting MS's miminum operating requirements!)

    The reason I am asking is that I need a new monitor and am trying to decide
    between upgrading one or both of these machines or buying a complete system
    from Dell (something like a Core2duo 4300, 1024MB RAM and a 256MB Geforce
    7300) rather than just a monitor.

    Alternatively, if one/both of these machines could be upgraded sucessfully -
    that would be a lot cheaper than buying a new base unit.. however, these two
    machines are getting slightly 'long in the tooth' and if upgrading them
    isn't going to be of much benefit, then a new system would seem to be the
    way to go..

    While I would like to 'experience' Aero/Vista as you can probably gather,
    I'm not a 'gamer' and just need some machines for office/internet use +
    watching video etc..

    Any advice welcome.

    Regards
    Sunil
     
    Sunil Sood, Apr 10, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sunil Sood

    Leythos Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:17:15 +0100, Sunil Sood wrote:

    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >
    > Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed the
    > graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    > you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    > processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >
    > People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    > also be of interest to me..


    Don't bother, vista doesn't offer anything worth having at this time, at
    least not above XP.

    A typical system needs to have a FAST CPU, 1GB or more of RAM, and a fast
    video card just to be considered the minimum.

    I have a 3.2ghz P4 (hyper-threaded), 2GB RAM, 128MB RAM video, 120GB
    Drive, in my laptop and vista runs dang slow on it. It loaded vista on a
    Dual Xeon 3ghz with 4GB RAM, 512MB Video card, and it also ran slowly.
    Both machines used 600+MB (890MB on the 4GB system) at idle with just
    vista installed.

    I've moved back to XP (since they were just test machines) and can't find
    any valid reason to move to Vista at this time.

    --
    Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
    *** WARNING - this links contains foul/pornographic content of an
    abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
    website ***
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/leythos.htm
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/bughunter.htm
     
    Leythos, Apr 10, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "Sunil Sood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if
    > so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing
    > Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    > similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >
    > Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed
    > the
    > graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    > you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    > processors are quite old (relatively speaking).




    > While I would like to 'experience' Aero/Vista as you can probably gather,
    > I'm not a 'gamer' and just need some machines for office/internet use +
    > watching video etc..
    >
    > Any advice welcome.
    >
    > Regards
    > Sunil
    >



    Here's my advice. If you want to "experience" vista, go down to you local
    computer store, sit down at one of the machines on display-- and experience
    to your heart's content. If you want to "experience" it at home, go buy
    yourself another computer. A low-ender with vista is yours for just a few
    hindered bucks....

    Doc
     
    J. H. Holliday, Apr 10, 2007
    #3
  4. Sunil Sood

    Chris Whelan Guest

    Sunil Sood wrote:

    >
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working
    > 'well'* on similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >


    I tried it on an Athlon XP 3200, 1GB, and a GeForce 5200. It ran like a
    slug.

    It might be interesting to try it on one of your boxes, but IMHO it would
    not be remotely usable.

    Chris

    --
    Remove prejudice to reply.
     
    Chris Whelan, Apr 10, 2007
    #4
  5. Sunil Sood

    dgk Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:17:15 +0100, "Sunil Sood"
    <> wrote:

    >
    >Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and if
    >so, how you found it?
    >
    >I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering installing
    >Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    >similar machine specs:
    >
    >Athlon 1000/1800
    >512MB RAM
    >32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >
    >Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed the
    >graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    >you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    >processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >
    >People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    >also be of interest to me..
    >
    >(*i.e. in real life, not just meeting MS's miminum operating requirements!)
    >
    >The reason I am asking is that I need a new monitor and am trying to decide
    >between upgrading one or both of these machines or buying a complete system
    >from Dell (something like a Core2duo 4300, 1024MB RAM and a 256MB Geforce
    >7300) rather than just a monitor.
    >
    >Alternatively, if one/both of these machines could be upgraded sucessfully -
    >that would be a lot cheaper than buying a new base unit.. however, these two
    >machines are getting slightly 'long in the tooth' and if upgrading them
    >isn't going to be of much benefit, then a new system would seem to be the
    >way to go..
    >
    >While I would like to 'experience' Aero/Vista as you can probably gather,
    >I'm not a 'gamer' and just need some machines for office/internet use +
    >watching video etc..
    >
    >Any advice welcome.
    >
    >Regards
    >Sunil
    >
    >
    >


    I just bought a laptop that runs Vista Home Premium and it came with
    1gb ram. There is a gadget that shows the CPU and memory utilization
    and without doing anything the memory utilization hovers around 65%.
    This laptop does not have bloatware installed. I think a system with
    512 would be accessing the disk constantly. That would not be good.

    One of the reasons I bought this laptop (Everex XT5000T) is because
    the ram was a single 1gb stick (instead of two 512s), so I put in
    another 1gb and it is quite fast. But I sure wouldn't run it with 512.
     
    dgk, Apr 10, 2007
    #5
  6. Sunil Sood

    Gaz Guest

    Sunil Sood wrote:
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if
    > so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing
    > Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    > similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX


    Well, as you already know, you need 1gb of memory.


    > Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed
    > the
    > graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    > you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    > processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >
    > People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    > also be of interest to me..


    Painfull. It is pretty much intolerable. but the performance improvement at
    1gb is substantial

    Stick yourself a cheap geforce 6200 in there as well and you will be fine
    for aero.

    Gaz
     
    Gaz, Apr 10, 2007
    #6
  7. Sunil Sood

    Gaz Guest

    Leythos wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:17:15 +0100, Sunil Sood wrote:
    >
    >> Athlon 1000/1800
    >> 512MB RAM
    >> 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >>
    >> Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed
    >> the
    >> graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    >> you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    >> processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >>
    >> People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    >> also be of interest to me..

    >
    > Don't bother, vista doesn't offer anything worth having at this time, at
    > least not above XP.
    >
    > A typical system needs to have a FAST CPU, 1GB or more of RAM, and a fast
    > video card just to be considered the minimum.
    >
    > I have a 3.2ghz P4 (hyper-threaded), 2GB RAM, 128MB RAM video, 120GB
    > Drive, in my laptop and vista runs dang slow on it. It loaded vista on a
    > Dual Xeon 3ghz with 4GB RAM, 512MB Video card, and it also ran slowly.
    > Both machines used 600+MB (890MB on the 4GB system) at idle with just
    > vista installed.


    I found vista reasonably snappy on my centrino laptop with 9700mobile ati
    graphics and 2gb of memory. Memory was the biggest improvement, going from
    512mb to 2gb, i get something like 3.9 on the performance rating.

    What is stopping me moving over, is more to do with the laziness of
    transferring my installed programmes etc on my dual boot xp.

    Gaz
     
    Gaz, Apr 10, 2007
    #7
  8. Sunil Sood

    Leythos Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:50:50 +0100, Gaz wrote:
    >
    > Painfull. It is pretty much intolerable. but the performance improvement
    > at 1gb is substantial


    But the performance is still less than XP at 512MB and even XP with 1GB.

    --
    Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
    *** WARNING - this links contains foul/pornographic content of an
    abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
    website ***
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/leythos.htm
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/bughunter.htm
     
    Leythos, Apr 10, 2007
    #8
  9. Sunil Sood

    Leythos Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:53:08 +0100, Gaz wrote:
    >
    > I found vista reasonably snappy on my centrino laptop with 9700mobile ati
    > graphics and 2gb of memory. Memory was the biggest improvement, going from
    > 512mb to 2gb, i get something like 3.9 on the performance rating.


    I got 4+ on everything except video, but it's still slower than XP at all
    levels, still doesn't offer anything of benefit, isn't worth the time/cost
    to change.

    --
    Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
    *** WARNING - this links contains foul/pornographic content of an
    abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
    website ***
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/leythos.htm
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/bughunter.htm
     
    Leythos, Apr 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Sunil Sood

    Rod Davies Guest

    Well my 9yo socket 7 (?) motherboard equipped PC upgraded to Vista Home
    Premium no probs. BIOS was, according to upgrade advisor, a potential
    issue...nup, no prob!

    I have a 2.8ghz Celeron, nothing special there, and 2.75GB PC3300 Ram, not
    quick stuff, but a fair bit of it! An old 30GB WD 7200 seek HDD (or
    something like that!) and PCI - NOT PCI Express, slots, and USB1 (YES USB1 -
    but that's going to change tomorrow!).

    Vista for me (apart from some very minor quirks and a MAJOR networking issue
    with wifey's XP Pro pc!) is SO MUCH better than having the same PC run XP
    Pro its not funny.

    Much quicker, intuitive, much more STABLE, prettier, and, did I say this
    already?, quicker than XP.

    Installer beware - but I went for the upgrade on an O-L-D box, and so far so
    good.

    Rgds


    "Sunil Sood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if
    > so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing
    > Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    > similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >
    > Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed
    > the
    > graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    > you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    > processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >
    > People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    > also be of interest to me..
    >
    > (*i.e. in real life, not just meeting MS's miminum operating
    > requirements!)
    >
    > The reason I am asking is that I need a new monitor and am trying to
    > decide
    > between upgrading one or both of these machines or buying a complete
    > system
    > from Dell (something like a Core2duo 4300, 1024MB RAM and a 256MB Geforce
    > 7300) rather than just a monitor.
    >
    > Alternatively, if one/both of these machines could be upgraded
    > sucessfully -
    > that would be a lot cheaper than buying a new base unit.. however, these
    > two
    > machines are getting slightly 'long in the tooth' and if upgrading them
    > isn't going to be of much benefit, then a new system would seem to be the
    > way to go..
    >
    > While I would like to 'experience' Aero/Vista as you can probably gather,
    > I'm not a 'gamer' and just need some machines for office/internet use +
    > watching video etc..
    >
    > Any advice welcome.
    >
    > Regards
    > Sunil
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    Rod Davies, Apr 10, 2007
    #10
  11. Sunil Sood

    John Barnes Guest

    I had it installed on an AMD 3500+ 2 gig ram and was always waiting for
    activities to stop hanging. Now using a 5200+ and it works great.


    "Sunil Sood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if
    > so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing
    > Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    > similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >
    > Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed
    > the
    > graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    > you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    > processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >
    > People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    > also be of interest to me..
    >
    > (*i.e. in real life, not just meeting MS's miminum operating
    > requirements!)
    >
    > The reason I am asking is that I need a new monitor and am trying to
    > decide
    > between upgrading one or both of these machines or buying a complete
    > system
    > from Dell (something like a Core2duo 4300, 1024MB RAM and a 256MB Geforce
    > 7300) rather than just a monitor.
    >
    > Alternatively, if one/both of these machines could be upgraded
    > sucessfully -
    > that would be a lot cheaper than buying a new base unit.. however, these
    > two
    > machines are getting slightly 'long in the tooth' and if upgrading them
    > isn't going to be of much benefit, then a new system would seem to be the
    > way to go..
    >
    > While I would like to 'experience' Aero/Vista as you can probably gather,
    > I'm not a 'gamer' and just need some machines for office/internet use +
    > watching video etc..
    >
    > Any advice welcome.
    >
    > Regards
    > Sunil
    >
    >
    >
    >
     
    John Barnes, Apr 10, 2007
    #11
  12. Sunil Sood

    Gaz Guest

    Leythos wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:50:50 +0100, Gaz wrote:
    >>
    >> Painfull. It is pretty much intolerable. but the performance improvement
    >> at 1gb is substantial

    >
    > But the performance is still less than XP at 512MB and even XP with 1GB.


    I didnt find performance hit that bad. The os in a few ways felt as quick ,
    i have to say though, turning aero off, the OS looked far uglier then XP.

    Do you not find that XP though was quit a bit slower then 98se and w2k??
    Turn off the visuals on XP though and you get a massive improvement in
    speed.

    Gaz
     
    Gaz, Apr 10, 2007
    #12
  13. Sunil Sood

    Leythos Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 21:22:36 +0800, Rod Davies wrote:
    >
    > Much quicker, intuitive, much more STABLE, prettier, and, did I say this
    > already?, quicker than XP.


    Your older PC, as you said, can not possibly run Vista faster than it did
    XP with the same applications. Since vista requires removal of many
    applications that most people run under XP, your performance has changed.

    Vista on every PC we've tested is slower, much, than XP Pro configured on
    the same hardware.

    --
    Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
    *** WARNING - this links contains foul/pornographic content of an
    abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
    website ***
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/leythos.htm
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/bughunter.htm
     
    Leythos, Apr 10, 2007
    #13
  14. Sunil Sood

    Leythos Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:34:20 +0100, Gaz wrote:

    > Leythos wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:50:50 +0100, Gaz wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Painfull. It is pretty much intolerable. but the performance improvement
    >>> at 1gb is substantial

    >>
    >> But the performance is still less than XP at 512MB and even XP with 1GB.

    >
    > I didnt find performance hit that bad. The os in a few ways felt as quick ,
    > i have to say though, turning aero off, the OS looked far uglier then XP.
    >
    > Do you not find that XP though was quit a bit slower then 98se and w2k??
    > Turn off the visuals on XP though and you get a massive improvement in
    > speed.


    I always turn off the visual toys, and yes, XP was/is slower than 2000.
    Vista is slower than XP, even with the toys turned off.


    --
    Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
    *** WARNING - this links contains foul/pornographic content of an
    abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
    website ***
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/leythos.htm
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/bughunter.htm
     
    Leythos, Apr 10, 2007
    #14
  15. Sunil Sood

    Alun Harford Guest

    Leythos wrote:
    > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:17:15 +0100, Sunil Sood wrote:
    >
    >> Athlon 1000/1800
    >> 512MB RAM
    >> 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >>
    >> Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed the
    >> graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    >> you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    >> processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >>
    >> People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    >> also be of interest to me..

    >
    > Don't bother, vista doesn't offer anything worth having at this time, at
    > least not above XP.
    >
    > A typical system needs to have a FAST CPU, 1GB or more of RAM, and a fast
    > video card just to be considered the minimum.
    >
    > I have a 3.2ghz P4 (hyper-threaded), 2GB RAM, 128MB RAM video, 120GB
    > Drive, in my laptop and vista runs dang slow on it. It loaded vista on a
    > Dual Xeon 3ghz with 4GB RAM, 512MB Video card, and it also ran slowly.


    Looks like you have driver issues then.

    > Both machines used 600+MB (890MB on the 4GB system) at idle with just
    > vista installed.


    That'll be Superfetch. If you really want to have expensive memory
    sitting there doing nothing instead of using it for caching, you can
    turn off the Superfetch service.

    Alun Harford
     
    Alun Harford, Apr 10, 2007
    #15
  16. Sunil Sood

    Kerry Brown Guest

    "Sunil Sood" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if
    > so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing
    > Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working 'well'* on
    > similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >
    > Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed
    > the
    > graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    > you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    > processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >
    > People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    > also be of interest to me..
    >
    > (*i.e. in real life, not just meeting MS's miminum operating
    > requirements!)
    >
    > The reason I am asking is that I need a new monitor and am trying to
    > decide
    > between upgrading one or both of these machines or buying a complete
    > system
    > from Dell (something like a Core2duo 4300, 1024MB RAM and a 256MB Geforce
    > 7300) rather than just a monitor.
    >
    > Alternatively, if one/both of these machines could be upgraded
    > sucessfully -
    > that would be a lot cheaper than buying a new base unit.. however, these
    > two
    > machines are getting slightly 'long in the tooth' and if upgrading them
    > isn't going to be of much benefit, then a new system would seem to be the
    > way to go..
    >
    > While I would like to 'experience' Aero/Vista as you can probably gather,
    > I'm not a 'gamer' and just need some machines for office/internet use +
    > watching video etc..
    >



    I have tested Vista on many computers. If you upgrade yours to the ATI 9550
    and 1 GB of RAM it will be slow but usable with Vista. I ran a test system
    for several months during beta testing with a P4 1.6 GHz, ATI 9550, and 1 GB
    of RAM. I was testing a typical business system to see what was needed for
    it to run Vista. I started with a P4 1.6 GHz, ATI 7000, and 512 MB of RAM.
    Once I upgraded it to the ATI 9550 and 1 GB it was perfectly acceptable
    running as a business computer using Office 2007. It is however a dead end
    street. That is pretty much as far as you can take that system. My
    recommendation would be to spend a few hundred more and get a new system
    designed for Vista.


    --
    Kerry Brown
    Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
    http://www.vistahelp.ca
     
    Kerry Brown, Apr 10, 2007
    #16
  17. Sunil Sood

    Mike Easter Guest

    Crossposting snipped to 24hshd

    Sunil Sood wrote:
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines
    > and if so, how you found it?


    Vista isn't just a problem for older machines, it is a problem for
    cheaper new machines 'off the shelf'.

    Not very long ago my local Fry's had a good deal on a laptop for $449 w/
    rebate and less tax, and I didn't buy it because it came with Vista
    installed.

    I was planning on dual booting it with a Win and a Linux, the hardware
    was inadequate and problematic. The Vista was Home. When I researched
    the mobo, it turned out that the linux drivers were a problem, in fact,
    even XP drivers were a problem, but that XP problem was solvable if a
    person had an XP which they could use and activate which I didn't.

    So, I would have been paying a MS tax for a hardware that wasn't up to
    running Vista, and the Vista I would be getting wouldn't be the Aero you
    are so interested in anyway, and the LT wasn't going to be able to
    handle linux which is part of my 'requirements'.

    So, I passed on buying the machine. If it had come with XP installed,
    maybe I would have bought it, or maybe not, because that didn't solve
    the linux problem anyway.


    --
    Mike Easter - anti-crossposter
    Any crossposting with which I disagree
    has been trimmed away in my own reply
     
    Mike Easter, Apr 10, 2007
    #17
  18. Sunil Sood

    Leythos Guest

    On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:57:30 +0100, Alun Harford wrote:

    > Leythos wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:17:15 +0100, Sunil Sood wrote:
    >>
    >>> Athlon 1000/1800
    >>> 512MB RAM
    >>> 32MB Geforce 2 MX
    >>>
    >>> Now I realise that I woudn't get Aero working on these but if I changed the
    >>> graphics card to a 256MB Radeon 9550 and perhaps doubled the RAM - how do
    >>> you think these two machines would cope with Vista (inc Aero?), given the
    >>> processors are quite old (relatively speaking).
    >>>
    >>> People's experiences of running Vista on machines with 512MB of RAM would
    >>> also be of interest to me..

    >>
    >> Don't bother, vista doesn't offer anything worth having at this time, at
    >> least not above XP.
    >>
    >> A typical system needs to have a FAST CPU, 1GB or more of RAM, and a fast
    >> video card just to be considered the minimum.
    >>
    >> I have a 3.2ghz P4 (hyper-threaded), 2GB RAM, 128MB RAM video, 120GB
    >> Drive, in my laptop and vista runs dang slow on it. It loaded vista on a
    >> Dual Xeon 3ghz with 4GB RAM, 512MB Video card, and it also ran slowly.

    >
    > Looks like you have driver issues then.


    Nope, used the Vista provided drivers and then the Nvidia drivers later,
    same results. It's just vista is not a good performer.

    >> Both machines used 600+MB (890MB on the 4GB system) at idle with just
    >> vista installed.

    >
    > That'll be Superfetch. If you really want to have expensive memory
    > sitting there doing nothing instead of using it for caching, you can
    > turn off the Superfetch service.


    Even turing off indexing, etc... the machines still used more than 600MB
    RAM without any third party or additional apps sitting there.
    --
    Want to know what PCBUTTS1 is really about?
    *** WARNING - this links contains foul/pornographic content of an
    abusive nature created by PCBUTTS1 and still hosted on his public
    website ***
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/leythos.htm
    http://www.pcbutts1.com/downloads/bughunter.htm
     
    Leythos, Apr 10, 2007
    #18
  19. "Leythos" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 14:34:20 +0100, Gaz wrote:
    >
    >> Leythos wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 13:50:50 +0100, Gaz wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> Painfull. It is pretty much intolerable. but the performance
    >>>> improvement
    >>>> at 1gb is substantial
    >>>
    >>> But the performance is still less than XP at 512MB and even XP with 1GB.

    >>
    >> I didnt find performance hit that bad. The os in a few ways felt as quick
    >> ,
    >> i have to say though, turning aero off, the OS looked far uglier then XP.
    >>
    >> Do you not find that XP though was quit a bit slower then 98se and w2k??
    >> Turn off the visuals on XP though and you get a massive improvement in
    >> speed.

    >
    > I always turn off the visual toys, and yes, XP was/is slower than 2000.
    > Vista is slower than XP, even with the toys turned off.



    D'uh, you mean especially with the toys turned off. When you are not using
    the Aero interface, you lose the hardware acceleration. Using full Aero
    glass is faster than using the Classic theme.

    ss.
     
    Synapse Syndrome, Apr 10, 2007
    #19
  20. Sunil Sood

    Gordon Guest

    Sunil Sood wrote:

    >
    > Does anyone have any experience of installing Vista on older machines and
    > if so, how you found it?
    >
    > I have a couple of old base units here on which I am considering
    > installing Vista and was wondering if anyone else had got Vista working
    > 'well'* on similar machine specs:
    >
    > Athlon 1000/1800
    > 512MB RAM
    > 32MB Geforce 2 MX


    Why on earth would you want to bother?
     
    Gordon, Apr 10, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Richard
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    796
    Quantum Leaper
    Aug 24, 2004
  2. Replies:
    9
    Views:
    1,206
  3. George Orwell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    872
    George Orwell
    Jul 23, 2006
  4. bob

    installing older version of XP

    bob, Feb 22, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    511
    GreenieLeBrun
    Feb 23, 2006
  5. Au79

    Help ends for older Windows systems

    Au79, Jul 23, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    546
Loading...

Share This Page