Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 22 of 22

Thread: Upgrading Vista to XP ! - need to keep drivers !

  1. #21
    Chewie's Avatar Chew E. Bakke
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,008
    Quote Originally Posted by BawA View Post
    this is where i stop Chewie

    Quote Originally Posted by Digmen1
    I have a friend who was sucked in to buying a new pc with Vista and only 512K of RAM
    Quote Originally Posted by BawA
    @peat, am talking facts am trying to help them over come their wrong point of views, vista is much faster if you have correct hardware for it
    talk out of your mind not your ass
    Where you stop doing what?
    Every new version of Windows requires more memory and processor power, why should Vista be any different? When XP was released there were plenty of people slagging it off as a performance degrader with nothing new but eye-candy.
    This makes it a non-issue for me.

    Whether the OP mentions that the system only has 512MB (not the 512KB he actually stated, BTW) or not has nothing to do with your statement that views other than your own are 'wrong'.

    My son and daughter have Vista on an XP2400+ and Celeron 2.54GHz respectively, both with 1GB RAM and they're quite happy with lower performance compared to their previous XP installations.
    peat and others disagree.
    Like I said, it's subjective.
    There isn't a bargepole long enough for me to work on [a Sony Viao] - clocker 2008

  2. Software & Hardware   -   #22
    BawA's Avatar FST Pioneer BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Some Where but not here
    Age
    41
    Posts
    4,213
    Quote Originally Posted by Chewie View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BawA View Post
    this is where i stop Chewie


    Quote Originally Posted by BawA
    @peat, am talking facts am trying to help them over come their wrong point of views, vista is much faster if you have correct hardware for it
    talk out of your mind not your ass
    Where you stop doing what?
    Every new version of Windows requires more memory and processor power, why should Vista be any different? When XP was released there were plenty of people slagging it off as a performance degrader with nothing new but eye-candy.
    This makes it a non-issue for me.

    Whether the OP mentions that the system only has 512MB (not the 512KB he actually stated, BTW) or not has nothing to do with your statement that views other than your own are 'wrong'.

    My son and daughter have Vista on an XP2400+ and Celeron 2.54GHz respectively, both with 1GB RAM and they're quite happy with lower performance compared to their previous XP installations.
    peat and others disagree.
    Like I said, it's subjective.
    do you even know what your trying to prove


    "You can be mad as a mad dog at the way things went; you can swear and curse the fates, but when it comes to the end, you have to let go"
    Benjamen button

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •