Is Vista Any Good?

flashdiamond

Dec 16 2006, 04:08 PM

i hear that you need like 1GB of ram min for vista and other upgrads, just so you can run vista. it is probaly better to buy a new pc with vista on it.

is it worth it?

twitch

Dec 16 2006, 04:50 PM

You don't need 1GB at all.

Look at the specifications given by Microsoft before asking.

Personally, I'm not into the whole Vista thing, then again I am not a big fan of Windows. I'm looking forward to being able to buy an Apple Mac.

You'll need a good amount of memory, processing power and graphics capabilities if you want to run Aero as well and all other capabilities of Vista.

xboxrulz

Dec 16 2006, 05:54 PM

Windows Vista is just a copy of MacOS X. I rather get myself a Mac or stick to Linux.

xboxrulz

Aka_Bar

Dec 16 2006, 06:10 PM

So, More Recomandations stopping on next Config:

-512MB RAM (1GB for Premium)
-A 'modern processor (at least 800MHz)", which later becomes more specific -or "Vista Premium" as 1GHz x86 or x64 processor
-A graphics processor that can run DirectX 9 with support for WDDM, Pixel Shader 2 and 32-bits per pixel as well with 64MB of video RAM to support a basic desktop monitor resolution 1024x1280
-A 40GB hard disk with 15GB of free space
-DVD-ROM drive

Look Overhere:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx

and if you are interested lookhere:

http://windowsvistablog.com/

borlafu

Dec 16 2006, 11:12 PM

QUOTE(Aka_Bar @ Dec 16 2006, 07:10 PM)

So, More Recomandations stopping on next Config:

-512MB RAM (1GB for Premium)
-A 'modern processor (at least 800MHz)", which later becomes more specific -or "Vista Premium" as 1GHz x86 or x64 processor
-A graphics processor that can run DirectX 9 with support for WDDM, Pixel Shader 2 and 32-bits per pixel as well with 64MB of video RAM to support a basic desktop monitor resolution 1024x1280
-A 40GB hard disk with 15GB of free space
-DVD-ROM drive

Look Overhere:

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx
and if you are interested lookhere:

http://windowsvistablog.com/

I supose that vista can disable some features so it can run in a "minimal recommended machine" but anyway every simple PC with Vista running on it that I've seen was using at least 700MB of RAM.

On a presentation of Vista they were running it on an Athlon64 x2 3600+ w/1GB RAM and it worked fine.... but thats not the recommended PC at all!!

dhanesh

Dec 17 2006, 01:30 AM

QUOTE(xboxrulz @ Dec 16 2006, 09:54 PM)

Windows Vista is just a copy of MacOS X. I rather get myself a Mac or stick to Linux.

xboxrulz

Dude .. thats just mean .. LOL

... mean shleen .. M$ really needs to get lessons in customer satisfaction. I mean y make 6-7 versions of vista in the first place with all having different specs. and even if they did that, y the heck make them so damn graphic intense that a good ol NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 has no choice but to go blank on installation of the RC2 ..

Ohh well .. as far as specs are concerned .. i think my laptop with 1GB RAM and 30GB HDD space .. with a 128 shared intel GFX handles vista pretty well .. but then again .. most of the drivers dont really work ..

Vista is actually XP on steroids ..

Regards
Dhanesh.

Jimmy89

Dec 17 2006, 03:05 AM

I installed RC1 on a test computer at home a few months ago and so far it seems to be running reasonably well. Specs below..

Processor: AMD Sempron 2800+
Memory: 1gb
HD: 80gb
Graphics: 256mb ATI Radeon 9250

the computer seems to run well but does lag now and again when trying to open a few programs at once (maybe 5 or 6 at a time). when i load the computer and have just my background tasks running, im normally using around 256mb of ram. so, for everyone out there that wanted to run vista on 512mb i would recommend them to upgrade - its not going to be goodon 512, even 1gb runs slow now and again!

the 80gb hard drive is heaps to install vista (from memory it only needs 15gb to install (thats vista ultimate!)). so it leaves heaps of room for everything else. if your planning to do some serious video editing or audio recording i would suggest a bigger hard drive (or even better, an upgrade to mac! much better choice

)

then comes aero. as much as i would like to see it run on my computer it is just not going to be possible (without having to upgrade). Vista will not run on the ATI Radeon 9250!! apparently, according to ATI vista needs pixel shader 2.0 to run aero effects. This graphics card only support 1.3 (from memory i think) which is a real shame! i have read articles where people have tried to 'hack' vista to get aero to work, and even if you have enough graphics memory you will not get it to go without the hardware!

my advice, if you wanted vista just for the 'aero' effect, just use xp and download window blinds (great program) and get an aero/vista skin for xp, much easier and you dont have to worry about buying a new pc (or the new parts for your old one)!

hardware and driver support so far is excellent. my pc installed without a hitch and none of my hardware had problems installing. other devices (like my phone, printer etc etc) installed perfectly, vista actually had drivers for them whereas xp did not. the actual OS install is quick (quicker then the betas!) and is very simple for anyone to understand. Setting up new feature like the account control is done behind the scenes and does not require input from the user at anytime!

in the coming months new pcs are going to start coming out with vista pre-installed, if you want windows you may aswell just get one of those pcs, they will be equipped with everything ready for vista and you wont have to upgrade anything! (yet anyway)

my advice again, bide your time, wait for a while. wait untill vista has emerged into the market and everyone has gotten used to it (and maybe the price may have fallen a bit

) still, vista is a stable system and so far from what ive seen it should be good! (for those who use windows anyway)

kgd2006

Dec 17 2006, 06:46 AM

I wonder how long before most computers be running with windows vista. I mean XP was just introduced not to long ago I believe like at least 3 years ago? I guess thats a long time. But I'm not ready to migrate to another operating system. But I guess change is good. Ill just wait on it, and give it a couple of years before I move on to the next level of the windows user interface.

nightfox

Dec 17 2006, 07:55 AM

QUOTE(kgd2006 @ Dec 17 2006, 01:46 AM)

I mean XP was just introduced not to long ago I believe like at least 3 years ago?

5 years ago... going to be 6 soon. Anyways, I work a lot with the IT industry and my school's IT department had a goal to get every computer running WinXP. Nope, never happened. We still have 9X machines still being used in the classrooms (high school is completely running XP, exception is our thin client lab which is running stripped down version of 98 which is used to connect to the Windows terminal server, middle/junior high school is 20% 9X with newer machines replacing the older ones, intermediate school is 80% 9X with the exception of teacher computers which are new/refurb Dells with XP, and our lower grade level buildings are 98% 9X with 1 Dell per classroom with XP). We do not have any 2K machines, ME machines, or NT machines. The sad thing is, we still have 11 year-old operating systems and 11 year-old computers still in production use and still being maintained. However, each summer we might get a good deal from Dell and order a few hundred machines.

Point being, most places will continue running a mixed environment of 9X, XP and Vista, like my school. Some places will experience XP/Vista environments only. It really depends on how often the place upgrades equipment.

Oh, and in case anyone here doesn't belive xboxrulz, please watch this video on Google: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=26...q=windows+vista

[N]F

Quatrux

Dec 17 2006, 09:40 AM

As I usually say, I don't even want to try Vista until I don't see at least Service Pack 1, because it will really be unstable and the main thing for me I think is a Stable Operating System. I have managed to make my XP installation quite stable and don't really have problems with it.. To use Vista normally I would need to upgrade my Hardware which I don't want to because it is really enough for me, Internet, webdesign, studies...

If you really want to have something better than XP, just install some Linux distribution or MacOS and learn how to use it, you won't want to get back to Windows unless you are a gamer and want to play games, on Vista Games will be even more slower, I remember when people didn't really liked XP, because it was resource hungry.. they still used win98 and said Games run better on that system, for two years now I don't really hear thins kind of stuff or they stopped playing old games or something like that, so I don't think that you won't have problems using Vista for the first year, I don't like problems - I won't use it.

Latest Entries

Chesso

Feb 15 2007, 01:42 AM

He has a point, and even if he does exagerate a little, I think it's mostly to give one the idea of just how bad it is (and certainly shouldn't be).

It doesn't matter what Microsoft say it does and doesn't do, it matters what it does and how it behaves to a consumer.

DAC1138

Feb 15 2007, 01:15 AM

QUOTE(Alegis @ Feb 14 2007, 07:36 AM)

Not correct implication. You assume they are way too high because there are alternative options that are as well an operating system. That is like comparing the fuel usage of a F1 racecar and a sedan because they're both cars. It would be much more reasonable and logical to state WHY they are too high because of the options in Vista, not because there is an alternative contender in the same category. "For example; Aero can run in Linux on a Pentium 2 computer". Which of course is nonsense but would be better than what was written there.

It's certainly acceptable to state your displeasure. But when it's done so exaggerated, credibility takes a hit:

800 mhz and 512mb ram is vista minimum requirements. And yes it does install and work then. You'll miss some bling bling (aero etc) but if the NASA is onlu using such computers, or mine which runs it without any problems - shuttles are in for a problem. It's still a consumer product and if you're on a pentium 1 it may be time to upgrade.
Also bear in mind that Vista does not gradually slow down after installation the way XP does. It's more efficient.

Maybe state which application, and consider it hasnt given proper support yet, but will soon? Try to throw in at least a little bit of data before you bring some 'friend of a friend' tales. It's always easy to badmouth but not so much to do it reasonably. That is the problem, not that it is about vista. More info on this please.

... It's actually noticeable and written about already that install and shutdown/boot times have gotten significant boosts. If you've installed Norton, undo that and watch the boot time decrease.

So your conclusion is: 'it looks the same=about same code' . I hope you realize now how wrong that is.
---
Too many versions is a pro indeed. It's not rocket science (for your NASA computer! haha!) to understand which version is best for you. But more choice for the consumer is a pro that keeps it cheaper so you don't pay more for extra stuff you won't use. Consider that ultimate were the only version. More options is still a benefit for the user. It does not take much intelligence to distinguish a version. You are a home user? Basic or premium. Real geeks can consider ultimate.

It's a cost. And it's certainly worth it. When I ask people what the price should be, they compare it to a game or an application product. It takes either ignorance or blindness to compare them to that in what they do and what the scale of the dev project is. Bear in mind it's an OS over 5 years and there are (oh noes, more versions!) upgrade versions available. Free is always cheaper, but it's not expensive for what it is. I think of the contrary. But it is a big sum of money.

My point with the hardware requirements is that people dont want to use their operating system; they want to use their applications on top of their operating system. When you have 800mhz and 512 Mb ram, and then you're trying to run an office suite on top of that, maybe have a few spreadsheets open, vista can be bogged down quite a bit. Sure, I've seen people run Windows XP on a 200Mhz processor and 128 MB ram. I even installed XP myself on a 266 Mhz machine and 128 Mb ram. Did it run? Yes. Did it run ad an acceptable speed? If you like waiting 20 minutes for a web page stored on your hard drive to load, sure. Make sure you keep a few magazines handy.

And my conclusion was not 'it looks the same=about same code'. There was an article a long while back that I'll see if I can dig up about Mircosoft trying to speed up the development process by just copying and pasting old code from XP into the new (at the time it was called Longhorn) operating system. My example again would be the device manager. Why would you recode something completely so it looks and operates the same? It's just stupid. Yeah, they might have cleaned up the code and fixed a few bugs here and there, but it's not completely from scratch. I'll say that most of vista's new stuff is new, and probably coded from scratch, but not all of it.

I've been booting and rebooting vista computers for the past week, and they are slow. For brand new top-of-the-line machines with vista, you'd think it's abnormal for an operating system (running on 1.5 Gb ram and a dual core processor) to take more than 2 minutes to get to a useable desktop. I spend a lot of time with older machines running XP that boot faster than that running on slower hardware. Since I have first hand experience with both machines and have put both of them to the test, I can say all this with confidence.

xboxrulz

Feb 14 2007, 10:11 PM

There's definitely software support. Most of my Windows XP software works on Vista.

Only Office 2003 crashes on me.

xboxrulz

_Dragon_

Feb 14 2007, 05:36 PM

Win Vista dont have any software support yet. I love my XP Sp2 in my PenitumD 3.4mhz. In a few year maybe i change to WinVista.

Cristian.

Alegis

Feb 14 2007, 04:57 PM

There has been a great deal rewritten which is noticeable in stability and performance. Judging it by looks as was done isn't a bright procedure. What's your point? Give me their statement and why it is false. Else you're resorting to the straw man logical fallacy.