Computer question

Is a Hp Pavillion desktop with AMD Phenom x4 2.2 ghz processor,2MB L2 + 2mb shared L#3 bus,6gb ram,and 640 gb hard drive. a good size?
Most importantly, with a NVIDIA Ge Force 9100 graphics and 256 MB dedicated up to 1599MB (allocated by windows Vista) enough to play my kid's video games such as Sim City and other applications??????
Thanks in advance for your opinions.
 
So long as the programs you're running are for Vista, that should work out nicely.
 
Is a Hp Pavillion desktop with AMD Phenom x4 2.2 ghz processor,2MB L2 + 2mb shared L#3 bus,6gb ram,and 640 gb hard drive. a good size?
Most importantly, with a NVIDIA Ge Force 9100 graphics and 256 MB dedicated up to 1599MB (allocated by windows Vista) enough to play my kid's video games such as Sim City and other applications??????
Thanks in advance for your opinions.

It really depends on what you want to use it for. The system itself is towards the higher end of home computers, so if you're planning to use it for work purposes/surfing the Internet etc... it'll be great. It'll run games, yes, I just wouldn't suggest running, say, Crysis on it at the highest settings.
 
My eyes burn when reading gear specs listed like that.

But I saw 6gb RAM in there and was wondering whether you use Vista 32-bit or 64-bit?
Because from what little I know I think Vista 32-bit as OS won't be able to make full use of it - so you might as well use DDR2 for ~4gb RAM if possible to save some money. Memories are usually kinda cheap though so it doesn't really matter.

On the other hand maybe a quad-core requires Vista 64 in the first place so all I'm saying could be abundant, don't take my word for it :D

Conclusively, that's some badass hardware and as for the gfx. I use a pretty old Radeon HD 3800ish card and can run Crysis on high very smoothly, and just about any newer games too for that matter. I think it's more important to look at the memory and processor since they're usually the bottleneck when it comes to gaming.
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
So long as the programs you're running are for Vista, that should work out nicely.

Sorry but "Vista" and "work out nicely" just don't go together in the same sentence at all from my vantage point. Personally, if you can afford to wait at all, I'd hold out for the release of Windows 7. Everything I have read about the beta version so far has been very positive....certainly a vast improvement over the disaster that is Vista.

Just my :2 cents:
 

Aces&Jacks

Retired Mod
Vista wasn't a disaster. It just suffered from the bad image of Microsoft operating systems and being the operating system that replaced the widely distributed Windows XP and the backlash from the trouble people had when they had to upgrade Windows 98 to Windows XP. It is in fact, the most stable operating system that Microsoft has developed to date and the development of Windows 7 was just as much of an image rehabilitation tool as it was an upgrade of an operating system.

As far as the specs on your computer Garrisonjj, you have a top of the line system that can handle 99% of the games currently on the market. And since games are the benchmark by which any system is measured, it will certainly run any video applications with ease.
 

Aces&Jacks

Retired Mod
Well, it sure has been for me. I know lots of people who share that opinion too. :dunno:

I'm not disputing people had a problem with Vista. People have problems with all operating systems (and 80% of the time the problem is caused by the user). But in the grand world of computer geekdom, Vista is a very good operating system that because of problems not necessarily associated with it's function, got hung out to dry.
 
Well, it sure has been for me. I know lots of people who share that opinion too. :dunno:
I have to say I never agreed on the criticism given to Vista, or Microsoft either for that matter, having used Windows for nearly 15 years without any issues at all.

But then recently this sudden bug struck my system, where the computer bluescreens once or twice every time I boot it. It's not a big deal, but sort of annoying because it takes like 30 minutes until I can use my computer from the point I switch it on. Also, it can lead to some really annoying problems with certain programs provided you aren't aware of it happening (which was the deal in the beginning when I thought it was a once or twice-deal.)

I've tried everything, and it's not a hardware nor safety issue. I even know of people with the same problem who tried to reformatting their computer without results.

But what pisses me off the most is that this is a bug is a Windows-programming flaw - but they still haven't provided any solution to it or show the least interest to do so, despite hundreds of people complaining about it on their website. The only solution they offer is one that removes the error from your computer log which is kind of ironic since that's meant to prevent errors.
Also, Vista itself offers a new error message for every BSOD, including different error codes - which makes the issue impossible to trace down. One day it says the USB drivers are fawlty, and the other it's the sound system.

Apart from that Vista works pretty fine for me once it's up and running. But I think Microsoft could handle customer contact much better, and something inside me tells me they often spend the least effort in what's most important - which is the engineering, programming and maintenance of their products. That goes for the 360 as well.
 
The Problem i've seen alot with vista is the ram given in most of the machines it comes with. I know several people all gamers like myself on a PC, Vista is a bitch if your a gamer because you'll need 2gb Ram to run it properly and probably a little extra if your going to start using it for gaming. Many people also had problems with Vista game versions, about two years ago an online game i played saw several of my friends have installing errors because of vista not being stable for it.

Yeh Vista probably is a good OS for the normal working and internet surfing users but gamers may have some small glitches in setup with Vista.
 
The Problem i've seen alot with vista is the ram given in most of the machines it comes with. I know several people all gamers like myself on a PC, Vista is a bitch if your a gamer because you'll need 2gb Ram to run it properly and probably a little extra if your going to start using it for gaming. Many people also had problems with Vista game versions, about two years ago an online game i played saw several of my friends have installing errors because of vista not being stable for it.

Yeh Vista probably is a good OS for the normal working and internet surfing users but gamers may have some small glitches in setup with Vista.

I'd say about 85% of that blame should fall on Direct X 10 and its Microsoft developers. That's the true reason that Vista is absolutely abysmal for gaming.

Vista wasn't a disaster. It just suffered from the bad image of Microsoft operating systems and being the operating system that replaced the widely distributed Windows XP and the backlash from the trouble people had when they had to upgrade Windows 98 to Windows XP. It is in fact, the most stable operating system that Microsoft has developed to date and the development of Windows 7 was just as much of an image rehabilitation tool as it was an upgrade of an operating system.

As someone who has dealt with these issues professionally, and is intimately familiar with the problems Vista has caused people, I have to disagree. Yes, it is a stable OS, and yes, it does a great deal more than XP in many areas. But there are a few things that ultimately have made me look at Vista as a failure.

The biggest issue has been the lack of driver support that Vista came shipped with. I've been working professionally with software for almost a decade, and I've never seen any product shipped that had drivers issues anywhere near the scale that Vista did. There were drivers that were included with XP (when it shipped) that didn't ship with Vista. Microsoft made a HUGE deal out of the fact that Vista would play nice with all of the existing and older hardware and peripherals out there, and plain and simple, it didn't. The other issues are bloat and its effect on laptops, specifically battery life, and the lack of software compatability. There is absolutely no reason that Vista should have as big a footprint as it has, for the marginal improvements it has made.
 

Aces&Jacks

Retired Mod
I'd say about 85% of that blame should fall on Direct X 10 and its Microsoft developers. That's the true reason that Vista is absolutely abysmal for gaming.



As someone who has dealt with these issues professionally, and is intimately familiar with the problems Vista has caused people, I have to disagree. Yes, it is a stable OS, and yes, it does a great deal more than XP in many areas. But there are a few things that ultimately have made me look at Vista as a failure.

The biggest issue has been the lack of driver support that Vista came shipped with. I've been working professionally with software for almost a decade, and I've never seen any product shipped that had drivers issues anywhere near the scale that Vista did. There were drivers that were included with XP (when it shipped) that didn't ship with Vista. Microsoft made a HUGE deal out of the fact that Vista would play nice with all of the existing and older hardware and peripherals out there, and plain and simple, it didn't. The other issues are bloat and its effect on laptops, specifically battery life, and the lack of software compatability. There is absolutely no reason that Vista should have as big a footprint as it has, for the marginal improvements it has made.

Every operating system goes through a few growing pains and has to be tweaked in it's early stages, especially those from Microsoft. People tend to forget the total chaos that occurred when Windows XP replaced Windows 98. The compatibility issues, the driver issus, etc. And half of those problems involved Microsoft products. But over time, with fixes, updates and service packs, it grew to be the XP we now know and love. Vista hasn't even come close to those types of problems and is now a sound, stable system. Manufacturers always have to update drivers for compatibility issues and between the new operating system and gaming manufacturers thirst to always provide bigger and better, there will always be issues, no matter what operating system.

Vista does have a large footprint, but doesn't even come close to the footprint gaming manufacturers put on a system. What has been the result of this large footprint? Computers that now come with 2 to 3 times the amount of ram and hard drive space to support the large footprint. Thus adding additional stability to the system. At rock bottom prices, I might add.

I also do this professionally and have done so since way back when you had to manually add programs to upper memory just to have enough resources to get a game to function. And what I've found while working on Vista systems is that most problems are a result of the user not having enough resources for the OS or have failed to update drivers. Battery issues and other stuff like that can be worked around and to me does not diminish the OS. Other issues are unique or specific to the hardware of the other manufacturer (and usually resolved with a driver update). And just like it's always been in the past, many of the issues are a function of user error, viruses, malware and the failure of the owner to open the manual and read before he does something or when a problem arises.

But, to end this debate (at least on my end), it always seems to goes back to perception. My laptop has crashed once in the the 18 months I've had it. I installed Fallout 3, started playing and I got kicked out. I updated my video card drivers and haven't had a problem since. I've worked on other Vista systems and most of the problems have been simple fixes. I haven't had to reformat a drive and reinstall the entire operating system yet. So my perception of Vista is a good one, but my perception comes with 25+ years of computer diagnostic & repair experience. Your perception is obviously different and is just as valid.
 
Last edited:
I have some programs and discs from windows 98. Would they work on it Stacey? Thanks.

I would say no. The only issue I've run into with Vista is older software. Which, thankfully (some sarcasm there) I have a lot of old stuff that I don't have the heart to throw out.
 
Every operating system goes through a few growing pains and has to be tweaked in it's early stages, especially those from Microsoft. People tend to forget the total chaos that occurred when Windows XP replaced Windows 98. The compatibility issues, the driver issus, etc. And half of those problems involved Microsoft products. But over time, with fixes, updates and service packs, it grew to be the XP we now know and love. Vista hasn't even come close to those types of problems and is now a sound, stable system. Manufacturers always have to update drivers for compatibility issues and between the new operating system and gaming manufacturers thirst to always provide bigger and better, there will always be issues, no matter what operating system.

Vista does have a large footprint, but doesn't even come close to the footprint gaming manufacturers put on a system. What has been the result of this large footprint? Computers that now come with 2 to 3 times the amount of ram and hard drive space to support the large footprint. Thus adding additional stability to the system. At rock bottom prices, I might add.

I also do this professionally and have done so since way back when you had to manually add programs to upper memory just to have enough resources to get a game to function. And what I've found while working on Vista systems is that most problems are a result of the user not having enough resources for the OS or have failed to update drivers. Battery issues and other stuff like that can be worked around and to me does not diminish the OS. Other issues are unique or specific to the hardware of the other manufacturer (and usually resolved with a driver update). And just like it's always been in the past, many of the issues are a function of user error, viruses, malware and the failure of the owner to open the manual and read before he does something or when a problem arises.

But, to end this debate (at least on my end), it always seems to goes back to perception. My laptop has crashed once in the the 18 months I've had it. I installed Fallout 3, started playing and I got kicked out. I updated my video card drivers and haven't had a problem since. I've worked on other Vista systems and most of the problems have been simple fixes. I haven't had to reformat a drive and reinstall the entire operating system yet. So my perception of Vista is a good one, but my perception comes with 25+ years of computer diagnostic & repair experience. Your perception is obviously different and is just as valid.


I think your points are certainly valid, in fact, I think we actually agree on a lot of issues. I just have a hard time with Vista in regards to with what was promised, and what was delivered.

First, Win98 to XP was an almost infinitely bigger jump in sheer function than XP to Vista. That alone should've made the jump easy at least from a driver standpoint.

Microsoft went on record at the time that XP SP1 came out saying that the next iteration of Windows would be streamlined enough to negate any of the issues that XP dealt with, but in the end, the same issues surfaced.

I agree with you that Vista is a stable, functional OS, but keep in mind that both you and I are very experienced computer users (and techs) 95% of the people who use computers have no where near the experience or knowhow that you and I have, which exacerbates the issues with Vista.
 
Top