digibutter.nerr

[Zelnor]

Well, I had to nuke my old Vista installation because according to my step-dad (40 years in computers, though he's a doctor, not a star trek quote) I *crag* it up as much as if I'd *cragged* Vista-tan with a sandpaper condom strapped on a jackhammer (actually he didn't say that).

So I reused an image from... November 2008. Turns out it's XP.

Well, I've re-installed Kaspersky - ironically, on Vista, it had a weird interface, all old-timey instead of the futuristic shiny one I had previously (I have to reinstall like every year) and seemed to lack some functions, and now that I install it it's all futuristic and awesome again.- and reloaded exported passwords, etc.

Now I wonder if I should even bother with Vista; XP seems to run smoothly, it boots faster and it's search function doesn't suck.

I haven't tried to reinstall Office 07 though...

So, what runs better, takes less resources, or is overall just the better OS ?

I'd like to hear if I should bother doing a new image of a full, successful Vista installation and go through the motions again or be content with what the backup has given me.

[Popple]

Vista lets you allocate flash drive memory for RAM.

[Francis]

wont be long, and Windows 7 will be out, which is said to be much much better than Vista and XP.

You can install the beta for free, and buy it whenever it is released.

[Zelnor]

So you advocate Windows 7 as third option...

'k, I guess I'll keep XP so long.

It is less demanding, is it ?

And I was always content with just 2 GB RAM...