Originally posted by: oojason
apologies - I forgot about my post in this thread - aye it is a single core intel, but it has an ATI Radeon graphics card. The 'Aero' substitute I rarely use as I think it's just a nice gimmick - same as with the sidebar (which seems to be the main cause of the power hogging).
I put Win 2000 on on a dual boot - and that runs very smoothly (as it did on my old P3 2002/3 laptop) - I'll keep both on for now - but at the momoent I can't think of a reason why I'd use Vista over 2000 other than the gimmicks.
Originally posted by: lordjedi
Can I assume it's a single core 1.8 Intel? Like a Pentium 4? Or is it a Core 2 Duo? Also, I'll assume that your graphics chip isn't an ATI or Nvidia. In that case, you don't really hav 200 mb graphics ram. What you've got is an integrated POS graphics chip that's taking 200 mb of system RAM, leaving you with about 1.8 GB of system RAM. You could probably turn off Aero to get a speed boost.
The other question is, what do you consider poor performance? I've personally never seen bad performance from Vista outside of the initial user login (when it sets up the desktop).
Originally posted by: oojason
'Tis 1.8 Intel, with 2gb ram (uupgraded) and 200mb integrated graphics - which 'should' handle Vista Basic easily. For the speed and user friendliness of Vista I shall be going back to previous OS quite soon.
For some reason I did find Vista Premium runs quicker than Basic - though as I couldn't find a permanant (cough) way of upgrading the OS I reverted back to Basic.
Computers, eh?
'Tis 1.8 Intel, with 2gb ram (uupgraded) and 200mb integrated graphics - which 'should' handle Vista Basic easily. For the speed and user friendliness of Vista I shall be going back to previous OS quite soon.
For some reason I did find Vista Premium runs quicker than Basic - though as I couldn't find a permanant (cough) way of upgrading the OS I reverted back to Basic.
Computers, eh?
Can I assume it's a single core 1.8 Intel? Like a Pentium 4? Or is it a Core 2 Duo? Also, I'll assume that your graphics chip isn't an ATI or Nvidia. In that case, you don't really hav 200 mb graphics ram. What you've got is an integrated POS graphics chip that's taking 200 mb of system RAM, leaving you with about 1.8 GB of system RAM. You could probably turn off Aero to get a speed boost.
The other question is, what do you consider poor performance? I've personally never seen bad performance from Vista outside of the initial user login (when it sets up the desktop).
apologies - I forgot about my post in this thread - aye it is a single core intel, but it has an ATI Radeon graphics card. The 'Aero' substitute I rarely use as I think it's just a nice gimmick - same as with the sidebar (which seems to be the main cause of the power hogging).
I put Win 2000 on on a dual boot - and that runs very smoothly (as it did on my old P3 2002/3 laptop) - I'll keep both on for now - but at the momoent I can't think of a reason why I'd use Vista over 2000 other than the gimmicks.
Better memory management, much better support for FireWire. Well, if it were Vista vs Win2k, that's the reasons I'd pick Vista. You're right about the sidebar though. I think that's the one thing I did turn off. Though, it didn't seem like a resource hog, I just didn't like it. And to be perfectly honest, I think the graphical things in both OS X and Vista are nothing but gimmicks. I am quite fond of the 3D flip though, especially since you can flip back to the desktop without having to click the "show desktop" button on the quick bar.