It's a dirt-cheap laptop, it's fine with a single core.AF wrote:No modern PC should have 512MB or a single core processor. Vista was not optimized for single core cpus. All modern cpus have at last 2 cores or more, and if they don't then they're just ripping you off.
That machine should not have had Vista on it.
On top of that it had Vista basic which is rubbish. Do not get the basic edition.
And yes 2GB ram > 2Gb flash, I said that in a previous post.
How is Vista optimized for multiple cores? O_o
No it should not have had vista.
Vista basic may be rubbish, but it's not going to take any more ram is it?
So why did it run so much worse than XP on a far lesser computer?
Yes you said that ram was better than flash, but you also implied it was close. "Its not as good as DDR2 but it does the job a lot better than that page file." As far as how much you can actually run at once, 200MB ram is probably better than 2GB flash.