“Within the next few weeks, Microsoft will be releasing beta 2 of Windows Vista. The actual ship date of Vista hasn’t been announced, but Microsoft’s new OS is likely to ship sometime this Fall. Since Windows Vista was announced, some of the bleeding-edge features have been scaled back. For example, WinFS, a file system built using relational database concepts, won’t be included in the final release. But it’s likely that the Windows Vista’s feature list is now stable enough that we can predict what kind of system you’ll need to build today to accommodate the new OS.”
What makes these ‘requirements’ so heavy? The G4 Mac I’m using to type this run equivalent features quiet smoothly with only 32MB of video memory. Is it the diversity of systems Vista is developed to run on? Anyway, it all sounds rather inefficient.
Windows run on normal wide-range hardwares (known as white-box?), whereas Mac OSX run on “apple-only” certified hardwares. That means OSX is developed, compiled with optimised driver for such apple-certified hardwares.
——————–
http://www.bcm.fh-furtwangen.de IT Business Consulting BCM, Faculty of BIT, Furtwangen Univ., Germany
Signatures are against the rules (see #14). You are allowed to link to your products and services as long as they are on topic and it fits the discussion.
http://www.osnews.com/rules.php
I don’t think this falls under a “promotional pyramid scheme.”
It might fail the “merely a pretext for including the promotional text” test though.
The intent seems fairly obvious to me:
Likewise, if you develop a filesystem, we welcome you to extoll its virtues in a thread about filesystems, but if you bring it up out of the blue during a discussion of developer tools, your comment will be removed.
I don’t see how a generic IT consulting link is on-topic. If you want to link your posts to something, store it in your profile’s URL field.
And I don’t understand why my original post was modded down. People should be told at least once when they violate the rules; otherwise, they think they’re being modded down for posting unpopular opinions.
That’s a good excuse but doesn’t cover the whole issue. MS could do better, they just know they don’t have to.
Linux projects will get the job done right. Watch.
And how much system memory do you ened to run smoothly?
Even people I know that love OSX admit they need at least 512mb for it to run comfortably smooth. That’s about the same as Vista. Except Vista will let you run inc lassic still which will be able to run on much older hardware just fine.
Well, I have the lastest version of the Vista Beta and I can say for a fact that it is pretty slow at the moment. This was on a 2.8 Ghz P4 with 1GB of DDR400 memory. The video card was “only” a GeForce 4MX (64MB), so it did not get the full Vista interface. I am hoping that Microsoft tidies up the speed before the full release. On a different note, the average price people pay for entry level PC’s will go up for the machines to adequeately support Vista, so hardware companies may be able to eek some more profit thant the current generation of low end PC’s.
They will. Remember that betas include debug information in the binaries. Also, remember that the drivers you are using are probably not very good either. Once nVidia and ATI come out with mature driver (hopefully when Vista is released), you will see a definitely performance improvement.
On a different note, the average price people pay for entry level PC’s will go up for the machines to adequeately support Vista, so hardware companies may be able to eek some more profit thant the current generation of low end PC’s.
This isn’t necessarily true as Glass will be supported on a number of integrated chipsets as well. Existing chipsets from ATI and NVIDIA are capable of supporting Vista’s full featureset, and the 945/950 chipsets from Intel are also Vista Ready.
The DWM also provides features like virtual memory and cross-process resource sharing to cut down on necessary hardware resources. In newer GPU designs, IHVs can also take advantage of the Advanced driver model and move more of the pipeline into hardware to further improve rendering efficiency, taking advantage of things like demand-paging and context-based scheduling.
No it does not.
Your G4 with OS X and 32MB of video memory is drawing and caching each window buffer in main memory and then syncing them up to your graphics card for display and final rendering.
Vista’s system will send up drawing commands and draw in video ram and then finally render (composite) in video ram. It’s a vastly superior way of doing it, and it probably needs more than 32MB of RAM at around 10 windows or so: 1024*768*(4 bytes)*(10 windows) + 1024*768*4*(1 screen) = 33MB. As you can see, it wouldn’t take too many maximized windows to require your 32MB card to start swapping VRAM.
I’m pretty sure Apple doesn’t enable Quartz 2d Extreme on anything under 64MB of video RAM for that reason. However, they might; but I really doubt it. But Quartz 2d Extreme is what you need to have something that’s equivalent to Vista’s system. It’s still not quite the same, but it’s equivalent.
I’m gettin’ really tired of defending Vista, but, their new graphics system doesn’t seem like bloat to me. It actually seems like a pretty elegant solution. We’ll see how it is in 3 years when we’ve seen it used extensively. There are things I dislike about it, but from a technical view it’s a very nice system. And it’s not bloatware.
Besides, you can turn it off.
Besides, you can turn it off.
Than what is there left worthwhile?
Since MS scrapped a lot of key “features”.
Ironically,”vista” means vision,that’s just what MS lacks these days.Just a bunch off guys from the ’80’s who are viciously trying too defend their predictions and personal ideas.
Those visionairs haven’t predicted google,i-tunes etc either.
Than what is there left worthwhile?
Since MS scrapped a lot of key “features”.
MS scrapped no key features. WinFS and possibly MSH are the only features that won’t be included in the RTM of Vista. Both of these features will be available in the Vista timeframe, MSH at launch, and WinFS sometime after. Both of these technologies are currently in Beta, MSH publically available, and WinFS available to MSDN subscribers.
Besides the above technologies, you get better default security, new managed-code Windows API (WinFX), new networking, audio, and presentation stacks, kernel enhancements, system-wide support for transactions, fast searching, virtual folders, enhanced Explorer navigation and data organization/visualization features, new in-box applications, enhanced versions of existing in-box applications, more drivers in user mode, less reboots and greater system resilliance to subsystem faults in part because more drivers are in user mode, better syncing, sharing, and wireless support, centralized parental controls, next-gen media support, this-gen digital cable/HD support, support for DirectX 10, new hardware support, and more.
Edited 2006-01-24 09:10
new in-box applications
So something really equivalent to Nero is included?
Windvd , nero vision or equivalent included?
If so will there be regular updates(=upgrades)?
enhanced versions of existing in-box applications,
An improved calculator?
this-gen digital cable/HD support,
Like SATA HD’s?
About time i would say.
and more.
Ah something about improved security.
Will this mean the amount of successfull windows exploits will decrease dramatically with the release of Vista?
less reboots and greater system resilliance to subsystem faults in part because more drivers are in user mode
Linux for example doesn’t have to reboot at all,does this mean it has verything in “user mode”?
That’s right. It’s bloated. That’s what MS does best.
KDE/XGL/looking glass/GNOME/etc projects which are working on a 3d desktop for linux will make it work right like apple has done.
Who needs microsoft anymore? They’re way too expensive. You need a whole new computer just to run the OS, much less the applications. One of the goals with a 3d desktop(I forgot where I read this) was to *OFFLOAD* alot of the processing to the GPU, so theoretically a properly designed 3d OS should be sufficient with less of a CPU than your older style OS.
No matter how fast AMD/Intel/nVidia/ATi make their products Microsoft will find a way to slow things down again.
Edited 2006-01-24 16:51
What makes it bloated and the others not?
For OSX, you had to get a new computer if you wanted decent performance, unless you had a very recent one. It’s no different with Vista, and they will improve it over time.
Also, what is ‘work right’? How does OS X and the rest work and how does Vista’s method not work?
Please, if you make such claims, at least try to back them up.
————-For OSX, you had to get a new computer if you wanted decent performance————
For Vista, same thing. Time for you to buy a new computer. It seems to me that the upcoming windows OS needs more processing power than Doom 3.
———–Also, what is ‘work right’?———-
Not everybody lives in Microsoft’s(or Apple’s) world of replacement computers every year or so. They could at least make their software a *little* bit more efficient.
Like I said(and I was honest about forgetting where I’d read it) but having 3d desktops was *supposed* to involve the GPU more. Having the GPU to offload to should make Vista less CPU intensive than XP is.
So yes, I stand by my “work right” comment. How much you wanna bet Apple gets their offload-to-the-GPU working correctly? I know the Linux projects will.
Edited 2006-01-26 12:18
As much as I’m not a fan of Microsoft, I’ve got to admit, this feature in particular looks mighty damned handy…
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/features/foreveryone/speech.m…
Not only voice commands, but dictation as well.
This sort of expeculation found in this article have a tendency to fail, they feature list is not so stable after all, too much ambiguity about almost half of features cripple this prediction. Even the min specs to run it is not defined with sure. This happened with winxp, happened with win2003 and will happen with Vista. The only way to see what MS will really show to world is the final version being leaked.
Their “basic” Vista system is still way overpriced. Multi-core is not a requirement for a “basic” system, so scratch the ~$300 processor.
You can put together a fully Vista-oriented system for $750 CAD *right now*. Lame article.
Probably less than that even. But yeah, I think that’s a very fair price.
I was going to say the same thing. In any case, IF the basic PC capable running Vista is over 1000 bucks when self-built, it means the HW requirements are too high. Mind you, I am not saying that that’s the case, just that if a beige box (i.e. not even a brand name) PC capable of running vista in a basic, office mode, then I personally am in trouble, because I know I want a system capable of running various games, too, and it seems I can’t afford it.
What kind of games are you looking to play, and what is your budget? I can help you out.
What kind of games are you looking to play, and what is your budget? I can help you out.
HOMM VI and Civ IV …and such. I hope Windows 2000 will be supported by game developers for a long time to come.
What’s your budget?
LOL, yeah, you did ask me that :oD
Let me try to describe it to you this way: I didn’t think/prepare myself to upgrade my current system (which is an Athlon 1200 MHz, 512 MB DDR RAM, Asus AGP-V3800P (which is basically a TNT2 Pro with video capture)) a whole lot, My upgrade was supposed to be an Athlon XP 2500+ (Barton) with new motherboard and copper heatsink. I thought that bump-up would have allowed me to play the before-mentioned games. But if I’ll ever want to run Vista, it seems that upgrade won’t do me much good anyway. I would be better off waiting a bit longer and get an Athlon 64 of some sort, and a much better graphics card. In any case, I am looking at a threefold increase in my HW upgrade budget, for that. At least.
Hmm, alright.
Keep in mind that you don’t have to blow a lot of money to get a very good system.
http://osnews.com/permalink.php?news_id=13405&comment_id=88966 — I wrote up a rough draft of a mid-level gamer’s system for $800 CAD here
But a basic PC to run Vista can be had for under $500. A decent system for a power user to run Vista can be had for probably $1000 or less NOW. By the time Vista comes out later this year, it’ll go down a little bit.
People can bitch and moan all they want, but it’s been 4 1/2 years since a major release to the client version of Windows, and that’s a long time.
But any decent system built within the last year or even two will be able to run Vista with all the bells and whistles. Even if you don’t have a system that can handle it all, you can disable the fancy stuff (which a lot of people running lowerend systems want to do anyway) and still run it.
Look at the early 90s. Almost 5 years between computers, and paying $1000 or less for a new system to run a new OS would be a STEAL.
XP will still work though. So if you don’t want to upgrade now, continue to run XP (or something else) and wait until you upgrade or get a nice new system.
Could Microsoft make Vista run better on lower hardware? Probably. But doing so would probably also hurt the product in the end. They would be focusing less on other things, like security, and stressing so much over performance (I’m sure they already do) is bad for a product. It’s not like Vista is going to run dog-slow. I’ll take a slight performance hit (which I don’t think Vista will even have when compared side-by-side with XP) to gain better security and a better user experience.
/Your friendly “Microsoft shill”
You probably could put together a vista-oriented system for that little, but i’m sure the point of going this route would be to have some sort of productivity. You’re going to need more processing power than that puny little S750 dollar box can offer to the massiveness that is Windows Vista.
It’s hard to recommend 512MB ram to people running XP today. I can’t imagine recommending someone skimping out on their vista machine with *only* 1 gb of ram. You’re going to need more.
I think that you are spinning wildly out of control. IMO most relatively modern (i.e. 2GHz+ or the corresponding rating) PCs will run Vista just fine with a simple RAM upgrade. Remember that most PCs are not sold to power users who keep 20+ apps open on multiple desktops.
————-IMO most relatively modern (i.e. 2GHz+ or the corresponding rating) PCs will run Vista just fine with a simple RAM upgrade.————-
Interesting. You tell me I’m spinning wildly out of control then you basically agree with me.
If you have 2ghz + and 256MB or 512MB ram, why would you need a ram upgrade *just for the operating system*?
I mean, besides the obvious answer. It’s bloatware.
You don’t need to be a power user to see today’s machines with 256MB of ram get crushed by XP and it’s requirements. What can we expect from Vista, I’m sure it’ll be more of the same.
How *much* processing power am I going to need for Windows Vista? You sound like an expert, and seem to know a lot about Vista, so why don’t you tell me? I guess the fact that the UI is composited on the video card will increase CPU usage? Hmm …
In any case, ignorance aside, $190 CAD will get you an Athlon 64 3200+ Venice, and 512 MB of PC3200 is $48 a piece. A decent motherboard (~$100), a great case with a good power supply (Antec Sonata II w/ 480W PSU, $130), a 120 GB SATA hard drive ($90), a GeForce 6600 GT 128 MB PCI-E ($190), and 1 GB of said RAM will run you just under $800 CAD.
Going by the typical low-end Intel shit that Futureshop/Best Buy sell you, the above system is *very* fast, and all for $800. You get an awesome, modular, black + glossy case too. Of course, you can reduce those costs further by opting for a cheaper case and a GeForce 6200/Radeon X600/X700.
In any case, the article is debunked.
Does the author think that computer manufacturers will only offer Vista on their $1000+ computers? Maybe these system requirements will produce a better experience, but I guarantee that once Vista comes out, every major computer company will sell only Vista-certified computers, and most of them will be much cheaper (and have much worse specs) than these.
What is clear is that you can build a system today, with existing available parts, that will do a bang-up job of running Windows Vista. Even if you’re not convinced enough to make the plunge on launch day, upgrading your system so that it’s Vista-capable will pay dividends in better performance with today’s applications.
Why yes, a faster computer system WILL run my current programs faster. That’s… not news.
The improvement in spell-check speed is worth it alone!!
The second statement is not news, but it is obviously not supposed to be; instead, the statement is reinforcing the justification for upgrading now for a future OS. Y’know, maybe the article’s content wouldn’t look so stupid if you didn’t take it out of context.
Then again, if this is all you have to add to the discussion, it doesn’t say very much for you, does it? Not that your post was any better than many of the posts in this discussion, though. They’re too busy taking cheap shots at MS to notice how petty they look.
Edited 2006-01-24 15:11
Well if we compare it with XP then lets not forget that the hardware prices have fallen since the time XP was released. At the same time the purchasing power of people have increased at least twice ( well mine has). So in effect I can easily afford Vista based PC, whereas XP based PC at the time of XP launch was considered self pampering.
And considering the features — well every penny spent on Vista is worth.
Vista without the keys features like Winfs makes it look like a rehash windows Xp with alot of eye candy added to it. it’s not worth getting a new system, just for that.
MS had about five years to complete Vista and yet alot of key features are left out,nah i won’t upgrade i’ll just wait for vienna or even better go buy a mac.
At the Chicago Windows Users Group meeting a few days ago, someone asked a Microsoft TS when Beta 2 of Vista would be available. He responded saying that there will be no more Betas, only CTPs until the release.