Sparda is trying to learn how the other half lives

[Sparda]

Vista 'rating;: 3.7, apparently the CPU is crap (what a lie

That CPU is crap and old, lol.

Not really, and Microsoft recommend a CPU of about 1/3 it's approximate processing power.

[digip]

Not really, and Microsoft recommend a CPU of about 1/3 it's approximate processing power.

That is why they are being sued for advertising pcs with lower specs to run Vista when in reality, it demands a higher level of hardware support all its functions properly. As far as being able to run Vista under your current specs, it should be more than able to hande it with that cpu, just not enough horse power to really run the way you woudl with say, XP or Ubuntu since they probably will run circles around Vista in performance tests. I think its not so much what CPU or hardware you have, but how Vista was written and how it differens in the handling of the file system, copying, displaying, etc.

I give it until SP2 at least to be worth my investment, and even SP1 is not enough to entice me to put it back on my machine full time. I prefer to play with in a Vm until it matures fully since a lot of software just isnt compatible yet. The fact that SP1 actually breaks programs, like F-secire and Zone Alarm, etc, makes me wonder how safe the system will be after installing updates, aside from SP1. Its anyones guess as to when it will become as stable as XP, so until then, I am not going to use it outside of a VM. It's just not worth it to me. I do not need Direct-X 10 since I do not play games on the pc, so that is another reason I don't need to switch. I can see for the gamers where Vista with DX10 makes them want that extra power for the newer games that rely on it, but from what I have been reading about games in general, is that even games that can use DX10 and 9 have shown to be slower in DX10 on Vista, vs the same game in DX9 on XP.