What is Digg?159 Comments
- ExperiMETAL, on 07/09/2008, -0/+107It also turned 10 in normal ***** years.
- freak3295, on 07/09/2008, -0/+58but its not a dog
- malechite, on 07/08/2008, -1/+54This doesn't suprise me. I installed windows 3.1 the other day on a 400mhz computer for fun. lets just say that boot time to a usable OS was almost instantaneous... i should benchmark that against the other versions of windows
- inactive, on 07/08/2008, -15/+63It's pretty ridiculous for them to "expect" Vista to run better than 98 or XP. XP does a little better because it improved on the underlying core of the OS, but Vista is a newer OS with new features built on that same core, so it was made with the expectation that it would be running on newer hardware.
If you ran Mac OS 9 on a new Macbook, I doubt anyone would be impressed that it runs really well.
I still don't like Vista, but they're not really offering some shocking revelation here. - bs0l, on 07/09/2008, -0/+43It is now safe to turn off your computer.
- zakatov, on 07/09/2008, -2/+44Come on, half a gig of RAM in Vista? Of course it's gonna be slow. He should've at least used the recommended sys requirements for the OSs or used computers that would've cost the same amount of $$$ in 98, 2001 and 2007(6?). Or at least put in 2GB in the Vista just for comparison.
- f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -2/+35Seriously? You would take 98 over Vista? That alone proves that you are an idiot. The place that I am currently doing an engineering internship for the summer has some old computers running Windows 95 and 98. It's a total piece of antique crap by modern OS standards (and by "modern OS standars I mean Windows 2000). It's unstable, it can't handle memory/process distribution, it's just crap. Windows hit perfection with 2000/XP. Those two OSes are rock solid. I've never had Internet Explorer give me a blue screen of death in 2000/XP. I have in 98 and 95. You're so high on your "it's cool to hate Vista" you said something incredibly moronic. But it's okay. You can run Windows 98, I'll run Vista. Vista is like XP/2000. It's also rock solid. It has a slightly bigger footprint, but considering the fact that a good computer with a dual core processor and 3gigs of RAM costs next to nothing these days, it's not that big of a deal.
- indian24, on 07/09/2008, -1/+25Vista isn't a bad OS. It had some bugs, but most of them have been ironed out. The Vista hating does not make you cool. Vista haters are like the people who followed the popular kids in high school like they were the all in all.
- michaels73, on 07/08/2008, -1/+23Long live Windows 98 and all who crashed in her ;-)
- Khanvalescent, on 07/09/2008, -0/+21"When I bought my first computer it came with Windows XP...".
How old is this author?
Also, installing more ram would probably increase the vista results more than it would the other two. 512 seems a bit low when compared to the other components of the test computer. - RKDN, on 07/09/2008, -0/+19How is this surprising? Did anyone find this surprising? Anyone?
- vinceislegend, on 07/09/2008, -1/+20When you said "Surprising results", I expected Vista to come out on top.
You let me down. - hep2djive, on 07/08/2008, -1/+19Almost made me choke on my Viagra.
- SwedishNinja, on 07/09/2008, -1/+19You "have heard". I use Vista on my laptop and it runs great.
- malechite, on 07/08/2008, -2/+17Too bad OS9 wont run on anything newer than an earlier G4 :)
- bullox, on 07/09/2008, -0/+13Do you have any more interesting stories for us?
- devila2208, on 07/09/2008, -2/+14Was that website designed in '98?
- tama00, on 07/09/2008, -1/+13You sir have extremely low standards or your drunk.
- Smills, on 07/09/2008, -0/+10This is a sort of silly comparison. 512mb of ram will seriously bottleneck Vista, whilst for the other OS's it will leave heaps of head-room. He really should have tested with 2 gigs of RAM. Additionally, you would expect Vista to be slower, it has more features and a new GUI. If you have a decent computer it runs very quickly anyway.
No-one in their right mind will be upgrading to Vista with a 4 year old machine. - VSKBadCRC, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11But can it run Crysis?
- f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -1/+11EVERYTHING crashes Windows 98. I spent many a day power cycling when ctrl+alt+delete failed me.
- Zempz, on 07/09/2008, -2/+11i'm real confused by the vista hating...maybe i havent been using it long enough...but after like 3 months of vista on a laptop...i don't see any problems with it..? what exactly do people say is currently wrong with it?
- Lewie, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8I can run Crysis on high with x8 AA on my TI-89.
- waydee, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Whats the point of this? of course Vista is going to run like ***** with 512mb ram and no ***** that Windows 98 screams along on a semi-modern PC.
Buried as lame. - KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Um, let's try that test again with more than 512 RAM. I can tell you right now it would be in Vista/XP's favor (and if you added 4 or even 8 GB Vista would way outperform them all).
- f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Way to give into peer pressure. I propose an alternate solution; build a computer and install one of the many Linux distributions. If you are that against Vista, why not tread the cheaper path and avoid being tied down to Apple's proprietary software/OS. Computer components have gone wayyyyyyy down in price, so unless you are buying a video card, you can build a really nice computer for under 500, easily.
- VyPR, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9Only a Pixar render farm could run it WELL.
- Epistaxis, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8I am 22 and my first computer had MS-DOS 5.
- dagnome1984, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Hell 512MB of ram in XP is even a bitch considering if you run a few programs the memory is used up in no time.
- artfuldodga, on 07/09/2008, -1/+9really? this made the front page...
if i could i'd bury this more than once - bdbr, on 07/09/2008, -0/+8Actually it is now safe to leave your computer ON.
With Win '95, I was doing good to go a day without a blue-screen. With '98, I was doing good to go a week without a blue-screen. With XP, I get a blue-screen maybe a couple times a year. - KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -2/+10Vista on 512 RAM? Hell no I wasn't surprised by those results. Try it again with 2GB of RAM and I can guarantee the outcome will be different.
- KMartSheriff, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8As a Mac user who also has Vista 64 running in bootcamp, no, Vista is not "slower". It was, say, 2-3 years ago when it was first released, but then again so was XP. It's funny how people forget that. XP inhaled so much ***** when it first came out too (up until SP2, when people started excepting it). Now people are using Vista and they're finding it's pretty nice after all. History is just repeating itself.
Anyway, Vista 64 is awesome. Granted I only use it for games, and Leopard for everything else, but still, don't bash it if you haven't even tried it yet. - f4nt0m4s, on 07/09/2008, -1/+8I don't know where you've been, but you don't need 3000 dollars worth of hardware to run Vista or build a pretty kick ass computer these days. Negating the GPU, you can build a really solid machine with a good mobo, decent dual core processor, and 2-3gigs of ram, for under 500. Your price may vary if you invest in a GPU, but for just running Vista for day-to-day tasks, and even for playing movies, you can probably get by with a super cheap GPU.
In fact, if you do some research, the cost of buying computer components is cheaper now than it was back when Windows 95 and 98 were out. So if this benchmark test comparing the OSes took price into consideration, you could probably build a machine better suited to run Vista than you could to run Windows 98.
It's true...when I got a Dell back in the day with Windows 98, it was like 3000. Computers have come way down in price. - Gizza, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6I would've like him to put in 2Gb of RAM just to see if that evened the scores up at all, to prove that Vista simply needs more RAM.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6My first computer was DOS/Windows 3.11 and I'm 25..
Age really doesn't have anything to do with it.
But yeah... having your first computer being an XP machine kinda gives some doubt to the validity of the article.
Also, you are dead on with the 512 being low for Vista.
I would have loved to see the scores if they bumped up all three machines to 1 or 2GB.
And here's another example of how this really isn't a balanced test:
"None of the installs used firewalls, anti virus, or protection software of any sort. All update, and unnecessary background programs were disabled."
He probably had the last version of Windows 98 (included most updates) and Windows XP SP2 (again, includes many updates) and Windows Vista release (no updates). - UltraDavid, on 07/09/2008, -0/+6Is that the most random thumbnail in Digg's history? It's in the running.
- tama00, on 07/09/2008, -3/+9You dont have to lie to impress us.
- bullox, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6I like Ubuntu, and you make me not like liking it. Quit being a douche.
- ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -3/+8with CPUs running 100x faster today, it shows you all the junk is loaded during startup.
- thebrain1288, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5No. No they didn't.
- Loxias, on 07/09/2008, -2/+7Viva la 98SE!
- GT35R, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5do you think maybe it because you are running it on very high ?
- Karmavs, on 07/09/2008, -1/+6If you *really* wanted; you could run it on a PowerMac G5 http://db.tidbits.com/article/7617
- afx1, on 07/09/2008, -0/+5now with internet connection sharing
- scb0825, on 07/09/2008, -0/+564bit OS...
- JeffD, on 07/09/2008, -1/+62gigs of ram goes for about $32 now (http://www.ncixus.com/products/19337/OCZ2P800R22GK ... you don't need a $3000 computer to meet vistas system requirements.
- nolt, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4why is it surprising that operating systems designed to run on arcane computers run faster than current operating systems on any given computer with compatibility?
sorry i kno im being redundant but i felt like posting.
also i must mention that the dog:human 1:7 thing is not really that accurate at all. its really not that linear, and breed specific at that. - BlakeEM, on 07/09/2008, -1/+5I think you're thinking of Windows ME not Windows NT.
- ThirdPrize, on 07/09/2008, -0/+4I got it running on my 3G iPhone as well.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 165 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is