XP vs VISTA

[Anurag]

I got a point here, that VISTA is good as compared to XP.

I'm having 512 MB RAM
I used to run some converters in XP, which utilizes 100% of CPU power.
then using some another application simultaneously was not possible or not that easy.

But after that I installed VISTA, and got rid of this problem.
While using some converter I can easily use any other application simultaneously
and also the PC configuration is same.

Can anybody give me a satisfactory explanation, why ????
thnkx.

[nonoitall]

I don't suppose you could let us in on a few details? (What "converter" you're running, and what it's doing in each instance, perhaps?) Vista is not known for being more nimble than XP, particularly on a machine like the one you described.

[Dv8ted2]

Vista uses better memory management employing techniques such as Superfetch.

[redwudz]

Vista usually just barely runs with 512MB RAM. I use 2GB minimum for most of my Vista machines, and 4GB on the two newer ones. At idle, my Intel Quad shows 1GB in use.

But I do prefer Vista over XP. It might be bloatware/eye candy, but I like that. W7 shows a lot of promise if MS doesn't muck it up.

[jagabo]

It's called scheduling. Just lower the process priority of the CPU hog in XP.

[pepegot1]

If you have legacy software-it may not run on Vista. This also applies to hardware-though new drivers might be available for your device.

[Anurag]

Thnkx everyone!!!