maybe this was too early for me to upgrade to a T61p

Message

danny_isr · #1 Post by **danny_isr** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 6:59 pm

i find myself thinking , on this lately.

Seems Vista is heavy OS, sure my laptop run just fine. but it's not zippy. my T43 feels quicker many times (on XP).
so then i hear in this forum and i'm going to do it myself to - Install XP on it. so what's the point ? i could just stay with my T43....
it was just fine with XP , it's was FAST laptop when i bought it...and it didn't get tired and old . it's still 2Ghz machine with 1G RAM. it's still fast on XP.

maybe Vista will be good OS in a year or two when computers will be faster then today.
Same as when it was with XP at start. with P3 ....

maybe todays laptops are just falling between the chairs ....

just my thoughts ...

sugo · #2 Post by **sugo** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:02 pm

If it isn't the x64 I need for my work, I would have stayed with T42 as well.

mattbiernat · #3 Post by **mattbiernat** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:21 pm

i tried Vista and I rolled back. i refuse to use it for various reasons. i will wait until the next OS comes out.

danny_isr · #4 Post by **danny_isr** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 7:22 pm

well for me Vista is OK ....nothing special . works fine.
but why would i pay for such a machine and get about the same or less performance wise .... doesnt make sense to me.

BradS · #5 Post by **BradS** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:06 pm

My vista thinkpad runs faster then my XP desktop, although this says nothing about vista vs XP, I can say that I have had no (read: ZERO) problems with vista on my T61 and am actually quite impressed.

danny_isr · #6 Post by **danny_isr** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:09 pm

your XP is probably old install Vs fairly new Vista ( i assume here)
i didnt have any problem with Vista either , that wasnt my point

mattbiernat · #7 Post by **mattbiernat** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:12 pm

old or not very well maintained.

danny_isr · #8 Post by **danny_isr** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:13 pm

i doubt Vista runs faster then XP on same machine with same install.
if that is the case something is very wrong with my brand new machine ...

because my not very well maintained XP run faster on my T43 then my empty VIsta on the T61p

#9 Post by **carbon_unit** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:34 pm

The same thing happened when Windows 95 came out and when Windows XP came out. The new computers with the new OS seemed slower than the slightly older computers with the older OS. Eventually the computers will speed up to the point where Vista is lightning fast. Then Microsoft will release the next OS and slow them down again. This process is referred to as the Wintel conspiracy.

danny_isr · #10 Post by **danny_isr** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 8:37 pm

well at least you agree that they are slower.
but my point is, this release of new OS is not that often.
and buying a computer just on the switch may be not the greatest idea ...
that's what i mean by , maybe this was too early for an upgrade ...

SHoTTa35 · #11 Post by **SHoTTa35** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 9:22 pm

waiting till next year to upgrade might be the smarter thing to do if you run critical systems that need to be rock solid.

Getting a new machine (if you can afford it) to run a new OS is also a good thing to do if your old machine can't run it well. The new OS will get a tarnished reputation when installing it on a older machine. There are lots of features that require certain hardware and i guess MS is finally starting to show that. Before XP would run the same (minus speed differences) no matter what machine you run it on, now we get to actually "see" the difference instead of just windows opening .2 seconds faster.

#12 Post by **ryengineer** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 12:45 am

Sir, well the thing is Windows Vista is a fairly new OS and needs some time to settle down. Lenovo has tested both Windows XP and Vista on identical machines and have found the former more consistent system software than the latter. Please keep in mind speed was given very less preference and not counted to differentiate between these OS, running the machine more efficiently and making hardware and other features work were.

Statistics also reveal that more and more consumers are taking advantage of downgrade rights, on the other hand corporate channels were never interested in Vista in the first place and always stressed and demanded XP for their orders.

Whatever numbers Microsoft show on increment of Vista sales are fair but they lack the stats of users turning back to XP after giving Vista a shot. Also, Service packs are to be released for Vista, XP has aready matured and gone through that phase.

I have been forced to use Vista since late April and I've started to live with it.

killigrew · #13 Post by **killigrew** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:41 am

Prehaps you should get 2GB Ram,
i heard 1Gb is not enough for vista.

cu

danny_isr · #14 Post by **danny_isr** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 4:44 am

yes this is what i'm actually doing at this moment.
but i still don't see that it uses even 1G ...

i wonder if i got more then 1G it will take advantage of it regardless

#15 Post by **carbon_unit** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:07 am

Yes, Vista loves more ram. It will use it. You will notice it.

maybe this was too early for me to upgrade to a T61p

maybe this was too early for me to upgrade to a T61p

Re: maybe this was too early for me to upgrade to a T61p

Who is online