Windows Vista - *RANT*

randruff

randruff

New Member
Ok, disclaimer first, this is my opinion but please feel free to contradict/criticize me as I hope I am wrong.

What is all of the hype over Windows Vista about? I am lost, I dont get it. Microsoft basically took a retractable baton and shoved it up all of our, the consumers, arses. I cannot beleive the amount of DRM that is being integrated into the hardware level. So, my Samsung LCD I bought this summer and my new box I just built last night may not comply with DRM standards because companies like the MPAA and RIAA put too much pressure on Microsoft? I'm sorry but that is a bunch of bull$h!t. Microsoft has no business policing/guiding/controlling/dictating how we, as consumers, use our PC's that we have shelled out hard earned money for. I guess I just view this next OS as being very corporate interest friendly and a big FU to the consumer/user. Personally, I do plan to hold off and use XP for as long as possible. As I stated above, if I am wrong in any way please correct me, I would love to hear none of this is true. I personally have not tried any of the Betas and im sure it will have alot of useful features but I am really am not comfortable with the whole "Microsoft giving into movie/music industry demands to control content in which we pay for" thing. Didn't the DMCA already do that?
 
What you are saying is very through, however most people are not aware of the implications / dangers of DRM. Many people believe that there are some good to DRM, but we should ask ourselves – who should control what we do with our computers that we bought with our own money? Should it be us or some large corporation?

I use Linux and support Open Source, thats just my little stand against it.
 
yea dont worry about it.. im sure most people agree if they have looked into vista or seen its requirements.

i've tried the betas.. and to be honest it really isn't worth it..its pretty much the same thing with all the nifty NEW gui and SPECIAL effects. microsoft is trying to approach windows with a MAC like look and interface because they have never been able to get to the level that MAC is when it comes to the look of windows. so thats why all these nifty ifty stuff is being added on..

the betas, its nice, its just a new sleaker cleaner interface to windows with specialties like.. 3D windows, transparent windows, new icons, larger cleaner more organized workspace, a so-call "widget" side bar also known as the gadget bar/side bar.. new "solitaire" bg, wow?!.. there is nothing special about it..

just the fact that you need a "SPECIAL" computer that can actually run it..

so im sure most people will be holding off for vista for a while.. a long while.. as u can see, most companied and organizations still run WINDOWS 98. as most people will say its the best windows OS... so yea

i do agree on that tho..
 
all your looking at is the GUI, they say that there will be improved search features, so it doesnt take so long to find stuff. But the thing about DRM not letting you use an LCD, how is that possible? you cant pirate an LCD, lol
 
Anyone wanna guess the specs required of video cards trying to run Longhorn? Just for the desktop: 256 megs of ram! That's just the friggin' desktop! It shouldn't be this difficult. If the desktop alone is requiring 256 megs of video RAM, imagine what kind of quality we can be expecting in games. You know what they're saying, too? 256 mb is for MODERATE settings! To run it smoothly at full-blown quality a video card posessing more RAM will be required.

Vista will also be requiring heinous amounts of system RAM. For the 32-bit release the minimum, MINIMUM, required is: 512. For the 64-bit release the required will be 1 gig of RAM! "Wow, 1 gig of DDR RAM!?" you may be saying, "Could it really require that much?" Nope. It requires 1 GIG of DDR3 RAM! Daaaamn, that's not even close to being out there! Anyone else feelin' like sharing outrage with big billy via nailbat?

The replacing of a monitor mentioned previously is actually, partially, accurate. To "prevent pirating" movies in HD-DVD and Blu-Ray format will require a special type of monitor to play properly. Current monitors will be able to play thoroughly fuzzed-up versions of movies. That's right, to play movies on your computer you will need a special monitor. This, however, is (imagine this) not Microsoft's doing. This is just a property of the encoding methods for the new-gen DVD's.

So...while I'd really love to "upgrade" to Longhorn (I don't care what they're officially calling it, Longhorn just sounds a little less....retarded than "Vista"), I really don't feel like shelling out several hundred dollars for a second-rate OS just to have to shell out several hundred more for a new video card, motherboard, processor, hard-drive, and monitor (which would ALL have to be upgraded, and I just built my computer a year ago). I'm not going to assist big Billy in giving everybody the finger. I'm sticking with XP/98SE and Linux, and unless everybody suddenly gets a few thousand extra dollars and a mortal fear of keepin' it, I think I won't be the only one doing so.
 
Last edited:
Well, it is nice to know that there are people out there who feel the way i do about this. I dont know if anyone in here reads digg.com but when people digg stories about "OMG!!!! WINDOWS VISTA BETA 0.45.35.645324234234234234!!!!!!!", it makes my blood boil. By running that peice of stinky morning after a long night of drinking $h!t they call Vista, people are ultimately restricting themselves and what their computers are capable of.
 
Yea and what is up with the system requirements of this os they are outrageous and to think that I have been waiting for this os since I first herd of it. 256 meg of video memory for the desktop I can bearly afford a 32 meg card let alone a 256 meg card and then to get all the features of the desktop you need more!.Microsoft better pull their head out of their ass and do someting good with this os if I'm ever gonna buy it. I don't care if I sound stupid or what.
 
Last edited:
i was kind of excited about the new file system they are implementing but the whole GUI reeks of the windows ME flop. Maybe they'll come out with an enterprise version that will be streamlined like they did with NT origionally.

I am curious to see what the 3d menus are like, but I don't need shadows and transparency. It's just a waste of computing power. That's why I stuck with 2000 until I couldn't stand the compatibility issues and turn off all the candy coating on XP pro. I would seriously stick with Suse (already dual boot it) if more companies ported out to it.
 
Kinda scary posting in a thread where everyone is worked up,they might just take my head off LOL.

You guys this is great and all but for the most part this forum is intended I'm sure to help educate people and with that said it wouldn't hurt your cause at all to post a few links where people can read this information in other places and decide what is credible and what is not.

Without interjecting anything really useful myself I will say that some things mentioned are things people complained about for years that Microsoft should do/implement and now they are and they are frigging idiots for it? Or is it too little too late? Now I must admit some of that stuff you guys mentioned sound a little scary but without links your not educating anyone but rather repeating what you read/heard somewhere. Post the links and let US decide if the information is credible.
 
Thank you very much for links.

Edit:

K this might sound like i'm starting somthing and I'm giving these all a good read over but does anyone else have the same information via different sources? This helps one determine if what we are reading is accurate. Also some would consider those bad sources.
 
Last edited:
With regard to the min-sys-req's I got my info from http://apcstart.com/teched/pivot/entry.php?id=6 although I did not limit myself to that web-page alone (I looked at a couple of other sources to verify, although seeing as they all got their information from the same source, Microsoft, I'm pretty sure it's accurate enough).

EDIT: To clarify the video card requirements: A 128 meg video card or better will be required to operate Vista in the new "Aero" GUI. There will be an optional "classic windows" GUI, which, despite the name, is not the classic look at all, but rather a replication of the XP "Luna" GUI. For the full-blown (and fully vector graphic based) GUI, titled "Aero Glass", a 256 meg video card or higher will be required.
 
Last edited:
In regards to actual appearance and system requirements I must admit everywhere I've read basically agrees with what your saying and it's pretty darn high. Although most people nowadays can fill those requirements with their current rigs. For those that cannot fulfill the requirements are given a good excuse to upgrade.

For a long time now most people complain about the sterile look of Windows and how Linux and Mac are superior in appearance. Now Billy tries to make the folks happy in this department and all I hear are complaints :P. As for the appearance of the new GUI of the upcoming Vista I think it's on the right track. And if this means people are going to have to upgrade then so be it.

Edit:

Now I take a look at the link you provided and immediately I read.

"One of the things you'll notice about Vista beta 1 is that it runs dramatically quicker than Windows XP. The reason is the GPU is now doing a lot of work that the CPU used to have to do. There are a couple of gotchas though. The GPU needs a very high speed bi-directional bus to communicate with main memory. That has not been the case in the past, and what it means is that AGP will not be optimal.
Click to expand...

Hmmm this seems like a good thing to me. If I have to upgrade for a faster/better computing experience then bring it on :-).
 
Last edited:
first, there is more to vista then just a new gui.

And to the person who said you need at least a 256mb video card to run the desktop, you need to get your facts straight. It requires 64MB of video memory, and you cant use integrated, and you can switch back to classic view and not have the transparency effect, then you dont need to worry about needing a special video card.

The new file system known as "WinFS", wont be shipping with the release of vista, but it will be available in the future.

The new searching features will let you find files much easier and quicker then in previous version, and as always, it promises to fix many security holes.
 
recommended RAM: 512DDR for 32 bit, 2 gigs of DDR3 for 64??? f*ck that.. "memory is cheap nowadays, so it shouldent be a problem" how about donating RAM to us then microsoft? besides, DDR2 doesnt even work with AMD yet, none the less DDR3.... these guys are ghey...
 
Anyhow every windows release requires higher system requirements. This only makes sense has needs change things improve and the world continues to spin. I say for those that feel the need then downgrade to Win98 or later and those others stay with Windows XP and for those of us that want improvement upgrade to Vista.

Then They'll have theirs and you'll have yours and I'll have mine, And together we'll be fine. Different strokes will move the world! :).
 
actually.....more demanding video card requirements might be a good thing. Maybe it will help balance the system out. Currently to significantly up the system performance requires upgrading the processor and Ram, possibly the mobo. If more is passed off to the gcard, then upgrading the gcard (cheaper then other components) could improve system performance more then currently upgrading the CPU on XP. It should also leave more system resources open for raw crunching.

It's almost like things are progressing towards a cellular architecture where the CPU is no long "central." Same concept we were all drooling over when the PS3 was announced
 
actually.....more demanding video card requirements might be a good thing. Maybe it will help balance the system out. Currently to significantly up the system performance requires upgrading the processor and Ram, possibly the mobo. If more is passed off to the gcard, then upgrading the gcard (cheaper then other components) could improve system performance more then currently upgrading the CPU on XP. It should also leave more system resources open for raw crunching.

It's almost like things are progressing towards a cellular architecture where the CPU is no long "central." Same concept we were all drooling over when the PS3 was announced
Click to expand...

Thats the spirit :D.
 
i'm not saying it WILL be better. Just that it has the potential to be. I'll pass judgement when I see it.

BTW, I think cellular shared processing is a fantastic technology and will be the next evolution after we finally hit the upward speed limit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top