Windows Vista - *RANT*

[NeuromancerWGDD'U]

to the person who said you need at least a 256mb video card to run the desktop, you need to get your facts straight.

Evidently, in your haste to criticize, you missed my clarification.

My biggest fear with the shift of tasks from the CPU to the GPU is that gaming will be near impossible (unless I kept it on the "Luna" GUI, and even then...). Even with XP I've had to tone down settings in games that ran quickly in 98SE to even be able to play them at semi-acceptable speeds.

Another issue I'm having with Longhorn is that MS has decided to completely cut out 16-bit support
(source: http://forums.microsoft.com/msdn/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=75783). Don't most programs still use 16-bit for installers? If Longhorn has no 16-bit support, then installing older programs will be very difficult unless you go out of your way to get an emulator, or Microsoft releases a service pack/fix to enable 16-bit support. If that is true, then installing pre-Longhorn games and apps will be very frustrating. (Please, if anybody knows how Microsoft plans on dealing with this, or if this will even be a problem, let me/us know)

 

[randruff]

i still say screw this whole DRM scheme crap. That is my biggest beef with everything. If i buy a computer, it then becomes mine. Not mine to lease under a controlled usage of microsoft, RIAA, or MPAA. It is mine to use however i see fit. Again, im sorry to rant about this but it is so damn frustrating. Blue, I do appreciate you criticizing about this thread only because you are showing the other "side of the field". I am a firm beleiver that there is two sides to every truth but in the case of big business such as the RIAA, i dont think that applies. They have the money and power to lobby and pressure certain people/corps to adhere to their desired standards of operation. I guess it could be summed up by an old cliche in that "the customer is always right".....i guess that doesnt apply anymore. Am I out of line by saying that the vast majority of computer users, being informed of DRM, would strongly disagree with it?

 

[Geoff]

i really dont like DRM, i reformat my hard drive and i lost my 40+ paid-for songs. Personally, im just going to stick with XP for a long time, i have no need for vista anytime soon.

 

[vortmax]

My biggest fear with the shift of tasks from the CPU to the GPU is that gaming will be near impossible (unless I kept it on the "Luna" GUI, and even then...). Even with XP I've had to tone down settings in games that ran quickly in 98SE to even be able to play them at semi-acceptable speeds.

But with this set up the graphics card will only be rendering active graphics. So if you are playing full screen there is no need for the G-card to do anything with the desktop, so nearly all resources should be allocated to the game. The entire desktop could be suspended to ram and then re flashed to the GPU when needed. Part of the reason for the high memory badwidth of the G-card.

If done right (like I hope it will be) the OS will be smart enough to allocate resources as needed to level strain. So if the game does start to stess the card because of other process it is running, the CPU could take those over (assuming it's load is lighter) and allow priority to the Grapchics processes.

 

[maroon1]

i can't believe that vista need at least a 256mb video card to run the desktop, windows xp desktop runs fine on 4MB video card, and i think vista will be the same, and not 256MB lol.
and vista doesn't need a very high end system to run it.

 

[Super_Nova]

I think any measure taken to make legal store bought copies of any media from playing properly on whatever medium the consumer sees fit only serves to encourage piracy. I may not be able to play the legal version on my computer without a special monitor, but I can sure download it and it will play just fine! I know this isn't microsoft's doing but it sure isn't a smart move. Give people enough time and they will create a HD-DVD or Blu-Ray ripper that will rip the movies to standard video files that will play just fine and distibute over the P2P network of choice.

Also, with the specs required for this I'm not even the least bit interested in it. I've just now started to use XP exclusively. I'll keep it or 2000 on my system until such time as Linux becomes compatible enough with windows software. And in the event that doesn't happen all the windows software I care to run will run just fine on 2000 or XP, so dual booting will serve my purposes.
I'll learn vista for my job just in case they decide to migrate some day which is highly unlikely because they're just beginning to deploy an XP image. Maybe some day when it's cheap to build a computer with 4 gigs of RAM , a terabyte hard drive, a 1 GB video card and a 5 Ghz processor I'll look at vista.

 

[Blue]

Maybe some day when it's cheap to build a computer with 4 gigs of RAM , a terabyte hard drive, a 1 GB video card and a 5 Ghz processor I'll look at vista.

I feel that one day we will look back and have to laugh at how some people blew out of proportion the requirements for Windows Vista.

 

[NeuromancerWGDD'U]

I feel that one day we will look back and have to laugh at how some people blew out of proportion the requirements for Windows Vista.

That's most likely true (I reeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaally hope that's true). All we really have to go on for now are the requirements that Microsoft has given us, and, in my experience, developers always greatly exaggerate requirements for products. But, if we're not scrutinous and picky it's very easy to take advantage of us (which is, depending on who you ask, what Microsoft's doing right now).

 

[Geoff]

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

check that out you guys, it doesnt say you need 2gb of memory ro run it, people just over estimate things. Thats the real stuff.

 

[NeuromancerWGDD'U]

check that out you guys, it doesnt say you need 2gb of memory ro run it, people just over estimate things. Thats the real stuff.

*sigh* Nobody here has even said anything close to that. For the 32-bit version Vista requires 512 megs of system ram, and 1 gig for the 64-bit version (this was stated by an MS representative). It is recommended for the 64-bit version that the system posess 2 gigs of RAM; 1 gig for the 32-bit version.

Please read through what was actually posted.

 

[Geoff]

i can't believe that vista need at least a 256mb video card to run the desktop, windows xp desktop runs fine on 4MB video card, and i think vista will be the same, and not 256MB lol.
and vista doesn't need a very high end system to run it.

it doesnt need a 256mb video card!!! how many times must this be said? Did you read the link that i posted from microsoft, it recommends 512mb or higher ram (xp recommended 256mb or higher), and it says a decent video card.

PC Magazine actually reviewed it and they said that it only needs 64MB of dedicated memory (a.k.a. 64mb video card), and you can put it in classic mode (so its like xp), and that wont need a special video card.

 

[Geoff]

*sigh* Nobody here has even said anything close to that. For the 32-bit version Vista requires 512 megs of system ram, and 1 gig for the 64-bit version (this was stated by an MS representative). It is recommended for the 64-bit version that the system posess 2 gigs of RAM; 1 gig for the 32-bit version.

Please read through what was actually posted.

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...

You guys are making it seem like you'll need at least 2GB of ram to run Vista, when in fact you only need 512MB for the 32bit, and im sure you can run the 64bit with 512mb, seeing how people run windows xp with less then 128mb of ram.

This whole thing is getting blown out of proportion, and as Blue said, we will probably look back on this and will be reminded of all of our ignorance.

 

[Super_Nova]

I feel that one day we will look back and have to laugh at how some people blew out of proportion the requirements for Windows Vista.

Yeah I remember when 1 gig was huge!

Cause you know, no one should ever need more than 640k of RAM.

 

[Ku-sama]

Cause you know, no one should ever need more than 640k of RAM.

thats a quote by billy gates, is it not? lol, what a moron, i believe he made this one computer and he said no one would ever need more power then it could put out..... my old GeForce4 MX440 had more power then that lil hoe....

also, i was just stating how dumb M$ is... they dont know enough about hardware, i have tried out the vista beta, it ran fine on my desktop, non OC'd and before i got it all good and shit (same CPU, 256MB RAM, 20gigHDD..)

 

[Geoff]

also, i was just stating how dumb M$ is... they dont know enough about hardware, i have tried out the vista beta, it ran fine on my desktop, non OC'd and before i got it all good and shit (same CPU, 256MB RAM, 20gigHDD..)

thats similar to what i was saying, although it is a BETA and not all the features are in it yet, but all the hype of system requirements is just making people think that vista isnt a good os.

 

[Blue]

Of course if runs fine because that's all the hardware you should need to run the operating system. Also remember as already said its not all there . I think this is perfect proof that the OS is not going to need the huge specs that most are saying. Now once its all there and everything turned on sure it's going to need a bit more specs but as already said allot of that crap can be disabled. Too say that the folks at Microsoft don't know nothing about hardware is a pretty dumb statement.

 

[Doom_Machine]

other than winfs & virtual folder search, you can make xp look and act like vista using some 3rd party apps.

1> Longhorn transformation pack 10.5 free - all the wallpapers,themes,icons..etc found in vista
2> Dreamrender 2.19 shareware- uses graphics cards instead of cpu, a replacement for avalon - create/download 3d animated wallpaper/use videos,liquid effects for wallpaper/transparency..etc
3> Desktop X shareware - another simliar replacement for the avalon feature- 3d icons, wierd start bars and menus, apple icons/animated icons lots of stuff dedicated to eyecandy
4> Google desktop/coppernick/findfiles-free - of course these search utilities are not virtual folders like how vista's search works, these find whats on your drive pretty fast anyway.
5> Truelaunch bar -shareware-you can create virtual folders,combine shortcuts in groups..etc, replaces old quicklaunch
6> WinFX - shareware- different effects for menus
7> Armor tools/pcsecure/securexp...etc - replacements for vista's user account protection (which will be quickly hacked and taken advantage of)

heres a list of some features that i think many enthusiasts will at some point find them to be resource hogs,not applicable to user or eventually replaced by 3rd party software.

support for tablet pc's (wow..tablets)
broad IPv6 support,
improved client-side caching of data stored on a server,
whole-volume encryption... (i have a 2 yr old prog that does that)
a revamped synchronization engine....(ooo..revamped)
the ability to support laptops with an auxiliary display
automatic hard drive optimization and a secure boot-up process (i think diskeeper and bootloc already does that)
more outlook security features (do people use this crappy thing whith all the alternatives out there?)
user account protection- (something else to hog resources)
security features for corporate,roaming and mobile environments (cripes theres already a virus for it and why would home users need those extra securities, more resource hogging crap with countless patches that will be needed within a year)
service hardening monitors critical services for abnormal activity (great if your a paranoid antivirus freak but more monitoring, just what we need)
IE7 (nuff said, many will still want firefox)
Network access protection ( everyone will have to use an AV anyway..why bother with this crap)
Winsat- best for gaming noobs, no way it can be entirely accurate.
Firewall with incomming & outgoing protection ( no one will trust this or it will be exploited anyway and use 3rd party firewalls)
A.C.T (most users will still not know how to use this and request help or pay someone anyway)
faster bootup/sleep and better memory management ( great but is that worth $300)
U.I. (avalon) glass and new window animiation ( will get boring quick and you can have all that on XP that also uses your video card instead of cpu)
Virtual Folder (great but again one of few features of any real interest)
winfs (nice but dont expect miracles in performance)
Network projection for mobile pc's (i'm pretty sure theres software on xp for this)
indigo (i'm not impressed nor would i expect to see this utilized to full potential anytime soon after release)

who cares what the specs requirements for vista are, if you cant match it then likely you dont need it. also you have to remember that vista has to last till 2012...the min requirements will be quite standard long before then. and if they didnt upgrade technology...which requires higher specs...then whats the Fn point of making new os's?

 

[Geoff]

I'd rather buy an OS that comes with all that stuff, i dont like having numerous 3rd party apps that only make it "look" like Vista. And WinFS isnt shipping with vista, it will be available later on.

 

[Super_Nova]

Even the pre-release copies of ME ran ok. Once it was released for sale it was crap.

 

[Doom_Machine]

lol...rather pay $300 than download some some stuff, but those can make it act like vista too, i have beta 1 and comparing there isnt much difference but vista boots faster and xp is faster in games but hopefully they'll make it faster when released.
you wont find dreamrender on it which is better than 2d wallpaper.

winfs just sits on top of ntfs to aid in searching drive..its not a new file system itself