Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: RayChuang88

Ah, you are so faithful... Actually, Vista failed especially when it became popular and available for for machines that had extra memory and processor speed.

That is when it showed its problems because many more uses were upgrading as the hardware became available, but I am sure you disagree.

Vista was never viable for the masses and was proven so by the rapid development of the next OS to fix the problems (by Microsoft). To support Vista, you have to have to loved the earlier OS that had major problems.

Really, do you think the problem with Vista is not enough advanced systems available out there in the world of gamers, enthusiasts, etc. that it just did not get a good test? Geez!

Sorry, but the gamers alone would and did tell the problems with that OS!


15 posted on 05/03/2015 9:56:07 PM PDT by Deagle (ui)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: Deagle
I've run Windows Vista with machines less than 4 GB of RAM in 32-bit memory addressing mode--they were awful. But once you get to 4 GB of RAM (where it switches to 64-bit memory addressing) with a CPU that runs x86-64 instructions, Vista actually runs quite well.

But due to those complaints, when Microsoft developed Windows 7, they cleaned up a lot of the operating system code so even with 2 GB of RAM, it could still run in 64-bit memory addressing mode if your CPU supported x86-64 instructions. In many ways, Windows 7 is essentially the fixed version of Windows Vista.

23 posted on 05/03/2015 10:18:14 PM PDT by RayChuang88 (FairTax: America's economic cure)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson