Vista is not really hated (by people who have a clue); it's just (mostly) useless. It missed on a lot of important feature updates from Microsoft which Windows 7 got, and the small user base made other software developers stop caring about Vista support as well.

Other than small UI differences, which are mostly a matter of taste, there is nothing Vista can give you that Win7 cannot. I don't see a point to a Vista system, any more than I see a point to a Windows 98 "first edition" system; it will just limit you needlessly.

This I say as someone who has a 10-year old Vista system, which has started hitting a very obvious software compatibility wall recently.

CPU-wise - you definitely want a Quad-core for Vista. It can be quite a bit heavier than XP, and the extra cores will give you more breathing room and responsiveness in multi-tasking, without any downsides.

dr_st wrote:

Vista is not really hated (by people who have a clue); it's just (mostly) useless. It missed on a lot of important feature updat […]
Show full quote

Vista is not really hated (by people who have a clue); it's just (mostly) useless. It missed on a lot of important feature updates from Microsoft which Windows 7 got, and the small user base made other software developers stop caring about Vista support as well.

Other than small UI differences, which are mostly a matter of taste, there is nothing Vista can give you that Win7 cannot. I don't see a point to a Vista system, any more than I see a point to a Windows 98 "first edition" system; it will just limit you needlessly.

This I say as someone who has a 10-year old Vista system, which has started hitting a very obvious software compatibility wall recently.

CPU-wise - you definitely want a Quad-core for Vista. It can be quite a bit heavier than XP, and the extra cores will give you more breathing room and responsiveness in multi-tasking, without any downsides.

Oh I know 7 is basically Vista sp3 and there is nothing special. I think of it more like 95 osr 2.5 vs 98se, no reason to use 95 other than because

I just built a Vista machine. Here's my specs, roughly 2007 timeframe (besides for case and power supply). Benches around 15k in 3DMark06 with no overclocking. All parts were less than $50ea besides for the power supply.

- Intel Core2 Quad Extreme QX6850 ($38)
- Zalman 9500 cooler ($22)
- 4GB Corsair DDR2-800 XMS Pro 2 (re-used from original purchase back then)
- Abit FP-IN9 SLI ($25)
- 2x EVGA 8800 GTX SLI ($25 each)
- 150GB Western Digital Velociraptor (re-used from original purchase back then)
- Sony 16x DVD-RW SATA (re-used from original purchase back then)
- Seasonic Focus+ Gold 850w (paid $30 out of pocket from Amazon Christmas gift card)
- Fractal Design Focus G ($48)

Very nice, though I've got my heart set on dual 280s

I might look for a qx68xx over the q6600

No. Oh God no.

For the ultimate Vista experience, any computer which has a 'Windows Vista Compatible' badge... the 'Compatible' part is important.

doaks80 wrote:

No. Oh God no.

Yes, it's like a windows me retro rig, or a Windows XP sp0 rig

If I made a Vista system it'd have to be the running the most inefficient, bloated hardware available in 2006, to go with the most inefficient bloated OS at the time... like a Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (3.73Ghz dual core Pentium D), and maybe 7950GX2 quad SLI.

You could have a system that used twice the power, put out twice the heat and had half the performance of a system released that SAME year, with components from the SAME manufacturers (compared to a Core 2 Extreme X6800 and a 8800GTX SLI). People with a system like that got totally robbed by Intel and Nvidia that year. I myself went from a 6800GT AGP to a 7900GTX, to a 7950GX2 to an 8800GTX all in 2006. The 8800 was on the way all that time and they still kept pumping out cards that were going to be totally destroyed by it later that year. Good times. 😵

Go with the Q6600 G0. That's what I was running back in the days of Vista.

Vista will run much better with a Q6600 than any of those dual cores. Just get a decent cooler and overclock it to 3.6Ghz or higher.

3.2Ghz should be possible without even upping the voltage one bit.

The LGA775 platform starts to shine once you get around 450Mhz fsb.

And then it gets destroyed by LGA1366... hehe.

Ozzuneoj wrote:

If I made a Vista system it'd have to be the running the most inefficient, bloated hardware available in 2006, to go with the most inefficient bloated OS at the time... like a Pentium Extreme Edition 965 (3.73Ghz dual core Pentium D), and maybe 7950GX2 quad SLI.

You could have a system that used twice the power, put out twice the heat and had half the performance of a system released that SAME year, with components from the SAME manufacturers (compared to a Core 2 Extreme X6800 and a 8800GTX SLI). People with a system like that got totally robbed by Intel and Nvidia that year. I myself went from a 6800GT AGP to a 7900GTX, to a 7950GX2 to an 8800GTX all in 2006. The 8800 was on the way all that time and they still kept pumping out cards that were going to be totally destroyed by it later that year. Good times. 😵

It happens, also nothing wrong with the 79xx cards, they are good cards

Hehe I am planning to do the same 😀

* Asus Crosshair
* Athlon 64 X2 4200+ (ordered X3 8650 because I already have a dual core and quad core system :p)
* Coolermaster 212 EVO cooler
* 4GB RAM (2GB Crucial Ballistix and 2GB something else)
* 8800 Ultra
* 450W Coolermaster PSU non modular
* 120GB SSD on its way
* Corsair 230T case
* DVD drive

No RGB bling for me ATM.

But I'd go,in your case for the Q6600...

I have one running since a few weeks. Athlon II X2 280, 8GB DDR3, HD7790, 240GB SSD on an Asrock 880GM main board. I know it is not really retro, but the MB has all the legacy interfaces: Floppy, RS232, Parallel, IDE... And I had most if the parts laying around anyway.

So, it is a very good bridge machine between old and modern times and Vista seems to be an appropriate bridge OS. The board also still supports XP.

At the time when Vista was new I believed all the media blabber about how bad it was. I stayed on XP until Win 7 came around. Now that I use Vista just for fun it becomes obvious that it was the biggest step in Microsoft OS development since they ditched the DOS platform. There is really not much difference between Vista (Sp1) and Win7. Vista is kind of the PentiumPro of Windows OSses, I dare say. 😉

BTW: Vista doesn't support TRIM for SSDs. I found a workaround for that. I occasionally boot Ubuntu 18.04 off an USB stick, manually mount the SSD on /mnt, and run the "fstrim -v /mnt" command.

I've decided and it's installing Windows now.

Q6600 GO
4GB DDR2 800
GTX 280 SLI
1TB HDD split (50gb XP, 100gb vista, rest for driver/iso storage)
THERMALTAKE 850W
Windows XP Pro SP3
Windows Vista Home Premium SP2