Aqua-Soft Forums[newsimg]http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/08/Vista--_XP.jpg[/newsimg]Sometimes one damning statistic can put it all into perspective. Through a survey of 3,000 computers, it was found that 35% of those systems built to run Vista had been downgraded (by computer vendors or users) to run XP. Keep in mind, this metric wouldn't include systems like mini-laptops that are only able to load XP because of their frail, low-grade hardware. So, uhhh, who's pumped for Windows 7? 
Over 1/3 of All Machines With Vista Have Been Downgraded to XP
aaaaaaagh.
To be honest there's a good reason for this. My dad got a new laptop from work, said vista compaitible but it WASN'T. I downgraded it for him.
Bring on windows 7, not that I don't love vista.
You might want to consider renaming your topic, as it's quite misleading. Three thousand is nothing near 140 million.
I have ran Vista on machines of various brands and specs, and it is every bit as efficient as XP. Nobody I know in real life with a clean install of it has ANY problems whatsoever, only people online who ***** about it's "accessories" wherein they aren't even part of Vista, but some 3rd party crap that a vendor added to it. Vista is better than XP in every possible way, unless you plan on running it with less than a 1.5GHz single core and 768MB of memory. It's pretty clear to me that people only say the things for the sake of jumping a bandwagon.
Windows Seven is going to be the exact same.
^Was going to say the same thing. Reminds me of that "news" post about iTunes being the biggest vendor because it had X amount of sales - IN ONE MONTH, which amounts to nada as far as validity goes. Same with this "statistic."
Well, you know, I try. 
Some people I know who owns a Laptop or PC and has 'build in to run Vista' has migrated to XP because some PCs configuration just barely satisfy Vista's requirement. (And some PCs configuration are really screwed up, working with 512 Mb RAM, still with Intel Celeron, etc, and they have the little tag that says 'Build for Windows Vista') I believe that for most people XP is the best of Windows for it's low system requirement. In some way, when Microsoft released Vista, they didn't thought about those people because, many people prefer to Update their OS than buying a new PC, and Vista system requirements where quite high, and many people had a poor-medium system configuration, and of course, they installed Vista, they didn't have the system requirements and Vista crash up or froze up. Vista was a new world, which you need the patience to know how it works, and having you're PC not help with that, you get fed-up XD. Dislike the extreme popularity of XP, Microsoft will stop updating it, stop making programs for XP, and finally, stop supporting XP. Vista is the future, and if you like it or not, you have to update. Vista is a very nice experience, a new world that nobody had think of. I personally like Vista, the first time that I used it, I felt that I ready knew it, so it and still is a nice experience. 
^If Vista will run perfectly flawless on a 1.8GHz Pentium M with 1GB of RAM and integrated graphics I'm pretty sure that it will run fine on anything available in the market today. Like you said, those people bought computers with Vista and replaced it with XP. Chances are they didn't give a fresh, decent install of Vista a chance.
The only real issue with Vista I can tell is that it's built for a modern PC.
So people with old PC's used it, thinking it'll run great 'cause they have a leet PC, and it doesn't. So they say it has stupidly high sys reqs, and people believe them.
Same exact thing happened with Crysis. CryEngine2 is brilliantly scalable, it'll run on a low-end machine from last year. Vista uses absolute shedloads of RAM and system resources (Whenever I leave it alone it starts using ~2GB of RAM and maxxing out my 2.4GHz core 2 duo), but what people don't think is... would you be using them otherwise? Is it hurting you? No, because if you need them, vista will give them back asap.
The DWM (aero) uses LESS RAM than the old method, despite DWM.exe looking like a RAM*****!
Having said that, internet explorer 7 isn't much better 
Doesn'y it need a decent graphics card? I'm not sure, but that's the only reason that's kept me from putting it on to bootcamp on my macbook.
Doesn'y it need a decent graphics card? I'm not sure, but that's the only reason that's kept me from putting it on to bootcamp on my macbook.
ah, you have a mac now Ojalord, congratulations, that's why I haven't seen you around here lately;)
It needs one for aero, but functionality-wise, it runs just fine without it.
ah, you have a mac now Ojalord, congratulations, that's why I haven't seen you around here lately;)
I got it on a student discount for college (which, incidentally is starting tomorrow). 
It needs one for aero, but functionality-wise, it runs just fine without it.
Well, I'll replace the current xp install then. Thanks.
The only real issue with Vista I can tell is that it's built for a modern PC.So people with old PC's used it, thinking it'll run great 'cause they have a leet PC, and it doesn't. So they say it has stupidly high sys reqs, and people believe them.
Same exact thing happened with Crysis. CryEngine2 is brilliantly scalable, it'll run on a low-end machine from last year. Vista uses absolute shedloads of RAM and system resources (Whenever I leave it alone it starts using ~2GB of RAM and maxxing out my 2.4GHz core 2 duo), but what people don't think is... would you be using them otherwise? Is it hurting you? No, because if you need them, vista will give them back asap.
The DWM (aero) uses LESS RAM than the old method, despite DWM.exe looking like a RAM*****!
Having said that, internet explorer 7 isn't much better
That's just the thing though, it doesn't use a lot of resources at all on lower-end computers. As I've said before, it manages RAM differently than XP so it only looks like it does. It uses as much RAM as it can for itself until you start running more things, then it loosens up whatever is needed for an application, and the amount it uses drops dramatically if you get anywhere near maxing out. Vista Home Premium never uses under ~850mb / 2GB of RAM on this PC, so I was afraid to install it on my other one with only 1GB of RAM. I did it anyways and realized that when there isn't much RAM available Vista doesn't use much, as it only keeps ~200mb to itself on that computer.
XD, are you sure you're not me?
I must have told that to so many people :3
One area where vista does seem to fail is shutting down, which is weird, if acceptable <_<
I'm your bot, remember?
I don't feel like trying it with this one, but on my Pentium M lappy I just timed off 32 seconds to boot and 19 seconds to shut down. That's not really good (especially comparing shutting down to OS X, but XP has never had a decent shut down either) but not exactly unbearable.
Okay, then, something on my end is wrong 
Man, I never realised just how much difference the DWM makes. I have far cry running windowed, and it really isn't as nice 
I think that 3GB is a good starting point for Vista. 2GB and board mounted video makes for a paltry amount of available ram.
That's just the thing though, it doesn't use a lot of resources at all on lower-end computers. As I've said before, it manages RAM differently than XP so it only looks like it does. It uses as much RAM as it can for itself until you start running more things, then it loosens up whatever is needed for an application, and the amount it uses drops dramatically if you get anywhere near maxing out. Vista Home Premium never uses under ~850mb / 2GB of RAM on this PC, so I was afraid to install it on my other one with only 1GB of RAM. I did it anyways and realized that when there isn't much RAM available Vista doesn't use much, as it only keeps ~200mb to itself on that computer.
Though I'd agree 3GB is a good starting point, only because RAM is cheap right now
And if you have an integrated vid under any os, you should be shot
I think that 3GB is a good starting point for Vista. 2GB and board mounted video makes for a paltry amount of available ram.
I would consider even 2GB an overkill for most regular people, actually. I use a wide array of RAM-hungry designing apps and other things and my RAM usage has only gone over 1.3GB two times that I know of. It rarely tips over 1GB.
3GB is of course better however, especially for somebody who games alot.
well, yeah. Most of the time I'm using just over 1GB, but a lot of that is vista doing... stuff, so that's OK.
When gaming, however, it's much handier. Especially as it means having far cry open in a window and surfing the net is viable
Also 1GB with crysis would CRIPPLE me
Vista sucks !Xp is better !
Quite a mature statement there. Would you care to provide facts, or simply fabricated rubbish?