View Single Post
      01-06-2009, 03:06 PM   #5
hipvspec
Captain
hipvspec's Avatar
United_States
55
Rep
607
Posts

Drives: you crazy
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Slippery Parking Lot

iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by UltimateBMW View Post
I think the real question here is... why would you get 32bit Vista? If you want 32bit, XP is by far the better choice. If you want to go all out, then Vista 64 is the logical conclusion. Vista 32 is probably the lowest option on the totem pole.

Regardless, since you have Vista 32 and no use continuing that discussion. SP1 has been a pretty positive update to Vista from my understanding. Lots of bug fixes, and it has been said that SP1 is what Vista what it should of been at launch. It makes it 'usable'.

So you should embrace your update. You might find your computer works a bit better after its all said and done. Plus, the SP1 compatibility issue would of hit you eventually. Most games produced now that support Vista require SP1.
thanks for the kind words man, i am fully aware of the mistake of getting 32bits vista. my original intention of getting 32bit is so i can still use my old softwares and play my old games and i like some of the vista ultimate features(i am not much of a gamer and/or a bt downloader) But even at a marginally performance oriented system like mine, SP1 made my computer start slower, shutdown slower, takes longer to start any game or any program, plus higher core temperature for the benefit(s) which i can not yet to see. since i didn't run into any of those vista bugs with this computer or my laptop(the laptop was brought nearly one year ago, and is ironically a vista ultimate 64bit with only geforce 8600m GT, the reason why i didn't put the game on the laptop) i am not saying sp1 is useless and i will never come across any vista bug, but i just didn't like the side effect of the sp1, and all that incompatibility crap with sound card drivers and stuff etc.. as it took me a long time to find out how to get sp1 working on my computer, and from what i can see, microsoft said nothing about these details on their website(i only knew about them on that Washington Post link above), the complication kinda annoyed me. oh adding some salt to the wound, it's like i paid for 100% of the performance for my computer, and then sp1 just takes 15% of it away. i am not claiming this will happen to everyone with sp1, i just feel sad for why does sp1 needs to add such a high amount of "digital" drag to my computer. ranting completed
__________________

Last edited by hipvspec; 01-07-2009 at 05:03 PM..
Appreciate 0