And it still doesn't make much sense.

You got a 2014 Lamborghini completely decked out, but it has solid rubber tires.

And you got a 89 Honda Civic, and has top of the line Michelins.

Yet the Civic outperforms the Lamborghini somehow.

Regardless I still await feedback from Servant and Hodgman. Common guys I know you've lurked this a couple times.

I posted in your other thread to argue that games can benefit greatly from multi-core CPUs. I still agree with that argument

It turns out the ONLY single component better on the first computer, is the graphics card.

Now that you have provided the full specs, I'm not sure I agree with that statement. There is honestly not much in the GPU difference - Tom's Hardware ranks them in adjacent performance classes.

However, most games at the time didn't take advantage of multi-threading (even now, many don't take much advantage), and on a core-by-core basis, the Pentium 4 punches way above it's clock speed vis a vis that generation of Athalon.

Plus, my experience is that Vista's drivers incurred a serious performance penalty versus XP at the time...

Well apparently PCI-E video cards are always better than integrated ones, as long as they're released within 5 years of each other.

You can compare the video cards if you want. This is a dead horse now, I don't use these computers anymore as I got a Windows 7 one now.

What's the point of this thread? Did you open it just to blame yourself? I don't understand, but somehow I'm mildly interested.

TRWTF is the fact that you're using Vista

What's the point of this thread? Did you open it just to blame yourself? I don't understand, but somehow I'm mildly interested.

Because I assumed these guys were getting kept up at night, still pondering about why my crappier computer has better Minecraft performance.

TRWTF is the fact that you're using Vista

I got it after service pack 1, never had a problem with it.

The people who complain about Vista are the ones who tried to put it on their 512 MB Pentium III computer, and wondered why its so slow.

Vista had too high of requirements compared to other OSes, but once you meet those requirements then its a great OS.

Because I assumed these guys were getting kept up at night, still pondering about why my crappier computer has better Minecraft performance.

The thread is more than a year and a half old. I don't think anyone (except you, perhaps) worries about - or even remembers - your computer specs

I am now hoping someone will make me eat my words for what I just said about Vista.

I am now hoping someone will make me eat my words for what I just said about Vista.

Not me personally, but this article will. There's not one case where Vista is better than Win7. Sometimes, even XP takes the cake for performance, but never Vista.

With that said, I use Kubuntu Linux, and when comparing those, Linux is mostly better:

http://www.tuxradar.com/node/33

ESPECIALLY when it comes down to battery life, RAM usage, I/O speed, and CPU usage. I've also seen Windows games running faster on Linux using WINE.

Why does Win7 need 1 GB of RAM allocated at all times? What on earth could it be doing in the background? I'm currently using 768MB, and I'm running Chrome, Skype, Code::Blocks, Music player, and a few other things. Given the same circumstances on a Windows machine, you'd be close to 2GB of RAM.