|
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Apr 18 2006, 11:14 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Member - Active Contributor Group: Members Posts: 98 Joined: 27-January 06 Member No.: 10,907 |
To take all pontecialitys of the new version of Microsoft windows Vista you should have at least 1gb RaM in your system and a Graphic Card that support Aero interface of Vista.
This means that half of PC's can't take 100 % of Vista Operative System. The conclusion is from a Garter Group witch is objective is to help companys to get ready to the arrivale of New Operative System, and help with the new buys of equipments. About the notebooks also are pointed some limitations, according to Gartner Group only CPU core Duo with Chipset 945G and a 1Gb of Ram are able to get the new version of Windows Vista. Remember that Microsoft confirmed recently that Windows VIsta comercialization is predicted to January 2007. Lots of PC analists dont beleave that this date is the final one, and some also beleave that add some more time until the lauch will be benefic, specially for hardware sellers. In my case i'm sure that i cant have vista, at least unitl upgrade my pc. and you ? are you able to run this new operative system ? |
|
|
|
Apr 18 2006, 01:05 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Teh Coder Group: Members Posts: 1,053 Joined: 18-April 06 From: Australia Member No.: 12,833 myCENTs:89.25 |
Older systems will be capable of running Windows Vista without a problem, it's just recommended for all the nice extra junk you probably don't need that they throw in.
The release date has been pushed back twice to my knowledge and they are supposedly working out what to do with the next Windows Operating System to come after Vista..... There are also alot of things that Windows Vista supposedly won't include in it's initial release package that were almost promised at an earlier stage like the new File System and misc other new features. |
|
|
|
Apr 18 2006, 10:06 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Colonel Panic Group: [MODERATOR] Posts: 2,876 Joined: 25-March 05 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 3,233 myCENTs:50.40 |
the minimum requirements still requires you to have at least 512 MB RAM (= my computer). I can get all those cool features on Linux without extra cost.
xboxrulz |
|
|
|
Apr 18 2006, 11:46 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Teh Coder Group: Members Posts: 1,053 Joined: 18-April 06 From: Australia Member No.: 12,833 myCENTs:89.25 |
Yeah and just how easy is Linux to use compared to Windows? Do you enjoy having to compile the source of programs you like to use lmao.
512mb of ram is tiny..... I only have 768mb but everyone I know has 1gb stick and onwards. Guess it's just us poor guys that will be slightly out of range heh. |
|
|
|
Apr 19 2006, 08:26 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
That really was a Hattori Honzo sword. Group: Members Posts: 473 Joined: 27-August 05 From: Texas, USA Member No.: 8,126 |
I'm sticking with XP as long as is reasonably possible. I know that I'll eventually *have* to upgrade, but by the time that happens Vista will have been out for a while. Long enough, in other words, for the majority of the nastier bugs to be worked out/patched/whatever.
Then again, I'm just not excited about Vista. I'm 99.999 percent happy with XP, so I don't really see the point of running out to upgrade. |
|
|
|
Apr 19 2006, 10:55 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Teh Coder Group: Members Posts: 1,053 Joined: 18-April 06 From: Australia Member No.: 12,833 myCENTs:89.25 |
Same here really, I don't plan on using Vista if at all possible. Windows XP has done the job so far, though I would like to see some real improvements.
Making it use DX for everything isn't going to fix all the problems..... plus they are apperently leaving alot out of the initial release of Vista. So for those of us that don't have money too waste or time to waste on it, were better off waiting until theyv'e covered most ground and given us the extras they were going to in the first place. |
|
|
|
Apr 20 2006, 01:06 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Colonel Panic Group: [MODERATOR] Posts: 2,876 Joined: 25-March 05 From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Member No.: 3,233 myCENTs:50.40 |
regarding to Chesso's comment on Linux needing to compile everything is definitely NOT true. Linux is fairly easy. Especially software installation. There are tools that lets you search repositories for the program you want and install the packages for you and deal the dependecy without ever punching in any extra command.
It's almost a one command download/install. Of course there are GUI frontends for these tools, yet I prefer not to use them as I find them slowing down what I'm doing. You don't get that on Windows now do you (regarding the tools I'm talking about)? These tools include: smart (APT/YUM), apt-get (DEB/RPM), yum (RPM) and emerge (this one requires compilation, Gentoo Linux). Frontends depends, but they include: Adept and YumEx. Linux is also not hard to configure, depending on your distribution. For example, I find SuSE Linux very easy to use. It's powerful, works like traditional Linux and it's easy for newcomers. Especially with their YaST (Yet another Setup Tool) configurator. Unlike Ubuntu/Linspire how it makes it dummy proof and lessens the power of Linux (I don't like their security ideas). Gentoo is just if you really want to learn Linux inside out and don't mind compiling software. xboxrulz This post has been edited by xboxrulz: Apr 20 2006, 01:08 AM |
|
|
|
Apr 23 2006, 10:47 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Way Out Of Control - You need a life :) Group: [HOSTED] Posts: 1,087 Joined: 2-August 05 From: Kapellen (Antwerp, Belgium) Member No.: 7,585 |
Same thing overhere, I'm sticking with WindowsXP for as longs as possible, and for many reasons.
1) Windows is getting simple, M$ wants every user to understand windows, this results in annoying messages explaining and asking for lots of things (look at SP2 and you'll know what I mean) 2) performance, yeah, no explanation I think 3) Limitations like DRM etc ... 4) Securtity: new target = less viruses/spyware/... for XP ? 5) price ... And actualy, I'm pretty happy with XP. |
|
|
|
Apr 27 2006, 03:58 AM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Newbie [ Level 2 ] Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 12-April 06 Member No.: 12,683 |
Well my PC can handle vista but i don't really want it, what i have in windows terms is enough, i only need it for my M206 course in university for now, and maybe some other courses, maybe occasional games too, so XP is more then enough for me, actually 98 is more then enough if it was supported by my board. As for the main system, i use Gentoo Linux, I'm happy with recompiling everything on upgrades, i just know i have a stable system optimised to my needs, however Linux as said above is easy, and i even find it easier to use then windows, i personally prefer gnome interface and themes over windows, i also prefer typing the name of the app to run instead of having to click start --> programs --> bla --> bla --> bla.exe i find it much easier, faster and straight forward.
|
|
|
|
May 1 2006, 02:06 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Member [ Level 1 ] Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 1-May 06 From: Boston, MA USA Member No.: 13,126 |
here goes:
These are the systems that I have sucessfully installed vista: (march msdn and previous) p4 2.8, 1gb ram amd xp 2800 1gb ram amd xp 3200 512gb ram laptop: thinkpad t41 (1.5ghz pentium moble) with 512 ram Failed installs: compaq proliant dl 380 g3 (4x2.4ghz) and 4gb ram ( i think its a gen 3 at least) compaq armada m700 laptop (500mhz p3 256 ram) The only thing i have run into is driver issues with sound really, and there are fixes for them now available. Vista will run on an old nvidia card, but has an issue with radeon (go figure, ms in bed with nvidia.. naaaaaah) thats just from testing to see what works where on a lot of work machines. |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
Similar Topics
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 2nd December 2008 - 01:19 PM |