Vista runs on (too) slow PCs?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Eric
  • Start date Start date
E

Eric

Vista requires 800MHz processors at minimum according to the specs. Has
someone tried to run it on a slower PC? Does this work (although very slow)?
Or does the setup prevent an installation? If there's a setup limit: can
this check be overridden somehow?
 
Eric

There comes a point where, in order to run the latest and greatest, you
really do have to invest in a newer computer.. if XP runs slowly on it,
Vista will will be worse..
 
Hello Mike
Thanks for your answer. The computer is almost only used for Internet access
and a few more things. Therefore hardware performance is not of great
interest. XP doesn't run slow (except booting). Question was: DOES Vista
run? If I understood you correctly, you said yes (even more slow than XP),
but yes, it does run. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks for your
response.
Eric
 
No, Eric, I did not say that.. the minimum spec for running XP is only just
able to handle the task.. expecting a computer that only just runs XP to be
able to handle Vista is not realistic.. you would be better advised to stay
with XP than to waste money on an OS that most likely will not load or run..
 
I've received a free license and would just like to try it out (especially
the new parental controls).
 
Then go down to your local Walmart and buy a new computer
for less than $500.00 that will be capable of running Vista.
Or build you own.
 
I ran a beta version (not RTM) on an old 600MHz system with 768MB's of ram
and it ran fine :-)
 
I think it is an interesting question raised by Eric.

I took an old HD out of an old computer and installed Vista, the HD is only
30 gigs, I am getting a 250 GB HD to replace it.

I was wondering if I put the Vista HD back into the old HP with a 766
Celeron processor and 384 mb of ram what would happen?

I plan of giving away the old pc, I could just leave the Vista installed or
I could put Millennium back in. Either way, it is being given away to my
brother-in-law who only needs it for a few Excel files.
 
Hello Steve
In the meantime I found out that the setup of Vista (GUI-version, started in
XP) doesn't run if memory is less than 512MB. But I don't know if Vista
itself really requires this. But I assume that processor speed isn't
checked - as John E. Carty told us too.
If you install Vista on another system and then put the HD into an old
computer it probably won't work. If this would work, Vista could copy simply
all system files onto the HD instead of installing. There are many files
that are hardware-dependant. Well, at least XP was this way and I assume
Vista hasn't changed this. But you may have luck also and it works -
depending on the hardware differences of the two machines.
Eric
 
Eric said:
Hello Steve
In the meantime I found out that the setup of Vista (GUI-version, started in
XP) doesn't run if memory is less than 512MB. But I don't know if Vista
itself really requires this. But I assume that processor speed isn't
checked - as John E. Carty told us too.
If you install Vista on another system and then put the HD into an old
computer it probably won't work. If this would work, Vista could copy simply
all system files onto the HD instead of installing. There are many files
that are hardware-dependant. Well, at least XP was this way and I assume
Vista hasn't changed this. But you may have luck also and it works -
depending on the hardware differences of the two machines.
Eric
Click to expand...
 
Hello Steve
I haven't seen any text in your last post. Probably something went wrong.
But I'll also try this. I'll install Vista in a fast and new computer and
then try to transfer the HD to the old one. I expect blue-screens etc., but
I'll try it (see thread below with ACPI) and post feedback then.
Eric
 
Eric said:
Hello Steve
I haven't seen any text in your last post. Probably something went wrong.
But I'll also try this. I'll install Vista in a fast and new computer and
then try to transfer the HD to the old one. I expect blue-screens etc., but
I'll try it (see thread below with ACPI) and post feedback then.
Eric


Sorry about the lack of text, I swear it was there, it's a conspiracy man, to quote George Carlin from Cars.
Click to expand...

The two pc's are like night and day so I may not even try to add the HD to
the old HP, it was more a curiosity thing. After having Vista really inserts
it's own will as far as what programs I can add to my hd, it is not worth the
struggle.

WMP 11 is so problematic, all it really can do is play MP3's, certainly not
a worthy burning component. Vista when I first installed it had compatibility
issues with Nero so I uninstalled it, Vista will not allow me to reinstall
Nero or Roxio, which is too controlling IMO. If I want the software it SHOULD
be my choice not Vista's. Everything that I have tried in WMP 11 just errors
out like playing a simple MMS file that other players do not have trouble
with. I even spent about twenty minutes trying to change settings to get
WMP11 to play an MMS. VLC handled it immediately, The more time I spend with
Vista, the more Ubuntu is looking more advantageous. Their 3d desktop videos
look much better than Aero on Youtube.

Any of the things that Windows has built into their OS, third party software
can do much better, like unzipping files and burning media etc.

I disabled UAC but since wanting to give it a chance I re-enabled it but I
do not like the control that Windows wants to exercise, a stripped down
version of Vista like Vista light would be the way to go without all the
extra stuff thrown in, I have seen the Vista light, but since it is not
offered by MS, I would think that legally it is not copasetic.
 
As expected - didn't work. After POST only a black screen appears and
nothing more happens. Obviously different HAL.

Eric
 
Back
Top