Each day, members of the Windows team gather inside the 'shiproom' to go over the bugs that remain, and to debate which of these can still be fixed in the days left until Vista is declared finished, a milestone that is expected any time now. The intense 'end game', as these final weeks are known, is a well-worn tradition inside the shiproom, which is on the third floor of the Windows development building. The small room, with its dated, dark wood conference table has been the war room for every Windows release since Windows 2000. In the meantime, Ars takes a look at running Vista on older hardware.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-10-19
Member since:
2006-06-19
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2006-06-19
Dont forget all the hotpacks and fixes too. 
Was ME after 2000? I didn't think it was. Heck does ME count as a release? I thought ME was recalled and destroyed and stricken from the record books?
How much code changes were in any of those "releases"?
Don't forget windows CE and Windows Kiosk and Windows embedded and.... Take a OS, rip out a few pieces and call it a new release? Nah, I dont think so.
They made the room sound like a old, venerated, back in the dos days, sort of war room with pictures of dos, win95, and so forth hanging on the walls.
I am just joking around guys, I usually rant on the linux threads only. Just thought I would be silly on this thread. Don't get your panties(with Bill Gates) all in a twist please.
Edited 2006-11-08 16:46
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-06-12
"I still don't understand why they even made ME"
They probably had a meeting in the war room, and it went like this:
Bill: Let's not even release ME, 2000 is great.
Others: But we spent so much time working on ME, can't we go for it?
Bill: Hey marketing guys, do some numbers and see if we loose money by releasing it, or if we make a little off of it.
Marketing Guys: You won't make any money, but it will make Microsoft look better if it has more products, even if they aren't good.
That is my thinking.
Member since:2005-11-10
Windows 2000, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows XP SP2, Windows Server 2003 R2, Windows Fundamentals, Windows Vista, Windows Longhorn Server.
There was also Windows XP Media Center Edition.
People saying that MS hasn't released new version of desktop OS since Windows XP are just plain out of touch.
If we count every release of Fedora, Ubuntu or MacOS X as really big new thing, so we can count XP SP2, XP Media Center Edition, too.
Member since:2005-10-02
Well, I would consider XP-64 to be a different windows release since it has a newer kernel.
But apart from Windows XP-64 and Win2K3 there has been no new OS releases as such.
There has been updates, but that's not the same. An update to FC5 isn't a new distribution release, but a new release would be exactly that - a new release (in this case FC6).
Personally I think people are spending too much time on releases rather than considering the incremental improvements in software.
The problem with Windows compared with the Linux distributions is the lack of modularity. It would be nice if you could update your Win2K kernel from NT 5.0 to NT 5.2. Or could eradicate elements you really don't need (like WMP on a _server_).
With Linux (and *BSD) you don't have to update to a new release in order to support new functionality. You can just update some packages, incl. the kernel.
For that matter you could be running Redhat 6.0 and still have Gnome 2.x running (if you don't mind doing a lot of work manually - I cannot recommend the solution).
Member since:2005-11-10
An update to FC5 isn't a new distribution release, but a new release would be exactly that - a new release (in this case FC6).
Yeah, right. Fedora Core 6 was a new release (compared to FC5, that was a new release compared to FC4...etc), while XP Media Center is not (compared to XP)?
I don't think so. We can only agree to disagree.
Member since:2005-10-02
Of course we can agree to disagree. Especially when we're looking at two different criteria in order to determine "release". If that's what we disagre about. Or perhaps it is whether or not people are staring to much at release numbers rather than the functionality of an updated system. We can agree to disagree on everything - just let me know 
The basic system in XP Media Center is identical to any other XP, while the basic system in FC6 is different from FC5 which is again different from FC4.
On the other hand, Windows XP 64-bit has a different basic system than Windows XP 32-bit and therefore in my mind is a different release.
What you put on top is irrelevant to me in regard to determine whether it's a new release or not. But that's probably just me being old-fashioned and all.
Member since:2005-11-10
Following your logic, Windows XP was not a new release itself, since it is not that much different from Windows 2000.
Yeah, right.
Every week there's patchwork in Linux (kerenel), and more patchwork in apps like Firefox --- and when you just put those together, you have a new release??? New release? Patchwork, nothing else. If it was like that, we'd have new Windows release every month when Microsoft releases updates.
If you don't see enough new stuff in XP MCE compared to XP, then you're simply biased. Because MCE incorporates SP2, it is already MUCH different from regular XP (SP1) to be called new release. And it is, indeed.
Member since:2005-10-02
Following your logic, Windows XP was not a new release itself, since it is not that much different from Windows 2000.
That's a right out lie. I made it clear that it did qualify as a release, since the basic system is different.
Every week there's patchwork in Linux (kerenel), and more patchwork in apps like Firefox --- and when you just put those together, you have a new release??? New release? Patchwork, nothing else. If it was like that, we'd have new Windows release every month when Microsoft releases updates.
I have made it very clear that we shouldn't call minor revisions for major releases.
I even wrote it in a reply to you in the comments to the article --> http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=16426&comment_id=180141
You could at least quote me correctly instead of twisting my words.
Member since:2006-06-19
Following your logic, Windows XP was not a new release itself, since it is not that much different from Windows 2000.
You are probably right! I think I agree.
Well there were a good bit of changes, even the theme files themselves changed, interface was very different. But if you say so.
Actually wasn't windows 2000 called NT5 and XP was 5.1?
So maybe you are right they were just point releases. Has there been a release since then?
Member since:2006-06-19
Member since:2006-06-19
Member since:2005-11-10
Maybe you should read about the changes in XP SP2 (that is also included in XP Media Center Edition) compared to XP (SP1).
I guess you're one of those that say changes in Vista are eye candy only, too.
On the other hand, kernel changes in Linux are so frequent that, sure, almost every week we can have "new" version. Funny, patch work is now called "new version." Same with Firefox: for example, here's *NEW* version of Firefox - 1.5.0.8!!! When actually, it was only patch work for 1.5.0.7, right?
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-06-12
Member since:
2006-03-10
Member since:
2006-07-26
I liked this review of Ars, it seems to me rather realistic in the fact that Windows Vista will require new hardware to run no mater which are the requirements specified by Microsoft. By new hardware I mean a dual core CPU (or high level single core one), 2GB fast RAM and big SATA hard disk, as well as a powerful graphics card.
In the computing world, may be my P4/2.4GHz, 1.5GB DDR333 RAM, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 256 DDR and 250GB 7200 IDE UDMA100 hardware can easily be called old hardware, and I'm almost sure that this one won't be able to run Vista as fine as it runs XP or GNU/Linux, but I'd rather tend to make Microsoft guilty of that, not my 'old' hardware.
Member since:2006-05-24
Member since:2006-01-02
Your machine will run Vista just fine. You've got >1GB of RAM, which is the major qualification.
I think your Radeon is fast enough too (it's definitely more powerful than my Intel 945). I've been running Vista for a while now, and I can tell you that it boots faster and loads programs faster than XP on the same hardware. This all comes down to the HDD read optimizations of SuperFetch. Vista will probably be a monster on systems with ReadyDrives, when those come out.
Member since:
2006-01-17
Annoying Disk trashing isn't a surprise even for XP. It will be annoying even on newer hardware, as disk access is few orders of magnitude slower than RAM access and slightly newer hard disks don't change this situation very radically (except for, in some cases, huge on-disk ram cache). Key to this is not to waste all RAM with dozens of open programs.
Vista in prerelease stages might also still have bad memory leaks, RTM should have tons of such bugs fixed and have improved performance.
Edited 2006-11-08 16:32
Member since:
2006-04-03
What sidebar is this ?
http://news.com.com/2300-1012_3-6034529-1.html?tag=ne.gall.pg
Member since:
2006-01-05
Member since:2005-11-13
There was supposed to be a feature in Vista called performance boost,I think,where you used a memory stick in a usb port.
I never recalled seeing any Vista review with it being used.Such as in Ars review with that old Gateway pc.
Its now called 'ReadyBoost' and they mention using it in the ars review.
They said it made a slight improvement.
Member since:2006-06-30
Member since:
2005-11-12
When I worked in IT I had this slogan hanging on my cubicle wall that said, "Uninstall, reinstall, service pack 2" Since people asked me all the time how to fix their problem I would just point to the sign.
Vista will probably follow this same path. All the missing parts and major bug fixes probably won't surface until Service pack 2 comes out. It looks like it will be a significant upgrade from XP but I definately would wait until the first service pack came out before using it in a production environment.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The test machines
Momma's five-year-old workhorse (July 2001)
Gateway 1200
Athlon 1.2 GHz
512MB PC133 RAM
20GB UDMA-100 hard drive
NVIDIA FX-5200 (64MB VRAM)
Vista performance Index: 1.6
The Small Form Factor Special (March 2004)
Shuttle chassis
Pentium 4 2.8GHz (Hyperthreading enabled)
1GB PC3200
160GB UDMA100 HD
NVIDIA FX5200 (128MB VRAM)
Vista performance index: 2.1
Mr. Corporate Laptop (August 2006)
IBM ThinkPad X41
Pentium M 1.5GHz
1GB PC4200 RAM
40GB SATA HD
i915gl integrated graphics (shared memory)
Vista performance index: 1.0
The higher the performance rating the better?
Member since:
2005-07-03
Member since:
2005-12-05
"In the computing world, may be my P4/2.4GHz, 1.5GB DDR333 RAM, ATI Radeon 9600 Pro 256 DDR and 250GB 7200 IDE UDMA100 hardware can easily be called old hardware, and I'm almost sure that this one won't be able to run Vista as fine as it runs XP or GNU/Linux, but I'd rather tend to make Microsoft guilty of that, not my 'old' hardware."
Actually I have Vista RC2 installed on an AMD XP 3200+ with 1GB ram and ATI 9550 Video. It runs quite well honestly even with all the Aero stuff turned on. It's still smooth. So I think the requirements might be bloated some. Any computer bought/built in the last couple years should be fine for Vista.
Edited 2006-11-08 18:12
Member since:
2005-12-18
The companies that come also get their own rooms that lock with a code combination that only they know. They can use PCs from Microsoft, or bring their own machines. Either way, the computers can connect directly to the Internet without going through Microsoft's network.
Should he have said: either way, the computers running Vista have a number of backdoors that we unadvertedly placed so that we can gather information from our customers... and so we can get what they are doing?
I wonder. ;-)
Edited 2006-11-08 18:33
Member since:
2005-07-03
Member since:
2005-07-06
looking at Microsoft history... Lets wait for some time... and I dont see any need to rush and buy Vista... the later build we purchase more bug fixes will go!
In terms of normal live... i dont think vista is going to affect XP users in next 6 months. It is just gonna give different theme on top of Windows OS.
Member since:
2006-02-11
Vista has officially RTMed
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/08/i...
http://soapbox.msn.com/video.aspx?vid=4676b4eb-2b04-481b-bac3-ca582...
at last..
Member since:
2006-08-01
I'm not a huge fan of MS or Vista, but I do have to give them credit for one thing. I have some old machines that came with Win 98 on them but wouldn't support any of the OS's that came after that, i.e. Me, 2k, XP, but I can install Vista on them just fine. I know most of you are saying "Why not install Linux?", even that wouldn't run properly. MS must have significantly improved hardware support. They may not be the fastest machines on earth but at least they have a second chance with Vista.
Member since:2006-10-08
"I have some old machines [...] They may not be the fastest machines on earth but at least they have a second chance with Vista."
If they have 640kB free, which should be enough for everyone... :-) But I think you won't have much joy using "Vista" on such machines, even if it's possible to install it. BTW: Did you have to purchase a seperate license for every machine?
Member since:2006-08-01
I'm running RC1 so I didnt really pay anything, sort of. I requested two license keys early on during the beta and I also bought RC1 on DVD from MS for something like $5, which gave me a 32bit DVD and a 64bit DVD which also came with another license key, giving me a total of 3 unique keys. If I remember right, each key can be used up to 10 times for the beta's and RC's, so I should be good for something like 30 machines
Edited 2006-11-09 03:13
