Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 25th Dec 2006 13:11 UTC
Windows Microsoft's Nick White blogs about the system requirements for Windows Vista. "We've officially released more detail on the system requirements for Windows Vista. These requirements outline what determines whether a PC is categorized as Windows Vista Capable or Windows Vista Premium Ready." Out of experience I can say these requirements are fairly realistic; the only thing I do not advise is the 512MB for Vista Capable; I'd suggest to up to 1GB no matter what.
Thread beginning with comment 196080
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Vista? No thank you!
by proftv on Mon 25th Dec 2006 19:56 UTC
proftv
Member since:
2006-01-01

This happens every time Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they make everyone upgrade their hardware to use it. I could see people doing this in the past because before Windows XP every consecutive Windows release was a slight improvement offer the last, but still junk over all. Windows XP was finally a really usable and stable operating system, and that's what everyone wanted all along. I am a system builder for my family and friends and I will not be installing Vista on any computer until I absolutely have to. Instead I will continue to install Windows XP (if it ain't broke don't spent tons of money to upgrade) or Linux Mint (Ubuntu) and I've been recommending to everyone to do the same.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Vista? No thank you!
by Doc Pain on Mon 25th Dec 2006 22:19 in reply to "Vista? No thank you!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

Sorry for doublepost, the next posting, please. :-) Can't imagine how this could happen...

Edited 2006-12-25 22:25

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Vista? No thank you!
by Doc Pain on Mon 25th Dec 2006 22:24 in reply to "Vista? No thank you!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"This happens every time Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they make everyone upgrade their hardware to use it."

Taking advantage of new hardware is good, really, but there's a problem you can see in actual development: The quotient SPEED = HARDWARE / SOFTWARE seems to stay the same. A new Linux distribution or "Vista" on a new PC with C2D and 1024 MB RAM runs as fast as, let's say, Geoworks Ensemble on a 386DX/40 with 8 MB RAM. So there's no real speed gain. If you use "old fashioned software" on new hardware you'll be surprised how fast it is. You can even see people running apps on a 300 MHz P2 with 256 MB RAM with BSD as fast as actual apps run on "Vista" with a new PC - and they don't care, because it works. Never change a working system. :-)

"I could see people doing this in the past because before Windows XP every consecutive Windows release was a slight improvement offer the last, but still junk over all."

Remember when "Windows '95" was released? Everyone thought a new keyboard with the "Windows keys" is needed, but in fact, nearly nobody uses them. Can you imagine how hard it is to get a notebook without these space wasting keys? Or a regular 102 key keyboard with a wide space bar?

"I am a system builder for my family and friends and I will not be installing Vista on any computer until I absolutely have to. Instead I will continue to install Windows XP (if it ain't broke don't spent tons of money to upgrade) or Linux Mint (Ubuntu) and I've been recommending to everyone to do the same."

Recommended everyone to buy "Windows XP" retail? :-) Stay with Ubuntu, it's surely a better solution. (I'll continue installing FreeBSD and Solaris/x86 and recommending buying a Mac in most cases.)

You'll soon encounter a problem (I hope you won't): Users are not happy with this "old crappy XP" because there's something new available. "I want to run new games!" or "This looks so old, we have it at work, I want something new at home!" will be things you'll hear. Furthermore, what about driver availability and interoperability (as far as you can use this term according to MICROS~1 products)?

But I agree with you, "Windows XP" will stay on the stage for soame years until everyone (haha) has a "Vista" capable PC. Most people don't see a need to invest in new hardware and software because what they have is still working. And if you install an old "Windows XP" on a new PC, maybe you can really enjoy how fast your hardware can be. "Vista" will be interesting for "Windows" interested people at the moment. Time will tell if home or corporate users will adopt.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Vista? No thank you!
by leech on Tue 26th Dec 2006 07:36 in reply to "RE: Vista? No thank you!"
leech Member since:
2006-01-10

A lot of this is due to lazy programmers or badly optimized code. Think of it this way, back in the early 90's with the Amiga and Atari ST, we had a whole 8mhz of computing power, 512KB (yeah, back when half a meg of ram was a lot) and yet people still got work done, and things were very snappy and worked great.

Since we had a standard hardware platform back then, there was time for programmers to learn all the little optimization tricks, so they could do things that even the original hardware designers didn't intend.

Part of the problem of the IBM compatible PCs that hurt us even to this day is that there is no real standard platform to program and optimize for. Plus the hardware is moving so fast that developers can't anymore. Windows should fix that with standard APIs, but it doesn't. Everything keeps getting bigger and more bloated.

A very good example of horrible optimizations in a program is Battlefield 1942. When it first came out there were many support posts about bad performance on 'high-end' systems, and good performance on 'low-end' systems, but it wasn't consistent anywhere. Patches that came out afterwards had fixed most of the issues, but still it makes one wonder what was going on.

More than likely most people won't worry too much about upgrading to Vista unless they are people who read OSNews or other computer related sites. Most people as others have stated, will only use Vista if they buy a new computer that is pre-installed with it.

I agree with the original poster of this thread, I won't be installing Vista on any of the computers that I build for people.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Vista? No thank you!
by Doc Pain on Tue 26th Dec 2006 00:13 in reply to "Vista? No thank you!"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"This happens every time Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they make everyone upgrade their hardware to use it."

Taking advantage of new hardware is good, really, but there's a problem you can see in actual development: The quotient SPEED = HARDWARE / SOFTWARE seems to stay the same. A new Linux distribution or "Vista" on a new PC with C2D and 1024 MB RAM runs as fast as, let's say, Geoworks Ensemble on a 386DX/40 with 8 MB RAM. So there's no real speed gain. If you use "old fashioned software" on new hardware you'll be surprised how fast it is. You can even see people running apps on a 300 MHz P2 with 256 MB RAM with BSD as fast as actual apps run on "Vista" with a new PC - and they don't care, because it works. Never change a working system. :-)

"I could see people doing this in the past because before Windows XP every consecutive Windows release was a slight improvement offer the last, but still junk over all."

Remember when "Windows '95" was released? Everyone thought a new keyboard with the "Windows keys" is needed, but in fact, nearly nobody uses them. Can you imagine how hard it is to get a notebook without these space wasting keys? Or a regular 102 key keyboard with a wide space bar?

"I am a system builder for my family and friends and I will not be installing Vista on any computer until I absolutely have to. Instead I will continue to install Windows XP (if it ain't broke don't spent tons of money to upgrade) or Linux Mint (Ubuntu) and I've been recommending to everyone to do the same."

Recommended everyone to buy "Windows XP" retail? :-) Stay with Ubuntu, it's surely a better solution. (I'll continue installing FreeBSD and Solaris/x86 and recommending buying a Mac in most cases.)

You'll soon encounter a problem (I hope you won't): Users are not happy with this "old crappy XP" because there's something new available. "I want to run new games!" or "This looks so old, we have it at work, I want something new at home!" will be things you'll hear. Furthermore, what about driver availability and interoperability (as far as you can use this term according to MICROS~1 products)?

But I agree with you, "Windows XP" will stay on the stage for some years until everyone (haha) has a "Vista" capable PC. Most people don't see a need to invest in new hardware and software because what they have is still working. "Vista" will be interesting for "Windows" interested people at the moment. Time will tell if home or corporate users will adopt.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Linux? No thank you!
by tomcat on Tue 26th Dec 2006 20:12 in reply to "Vista? No thank you!"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

This happens every time Microsoft comes out with a new OS, they make everyone upgrade their hardware to use it.

Look, it's a fairly constant fact that, if you use modern operating systems, they're going to outrun existing hardware over time. And it isn't just a Windows issue. It affects all platforms. For example, getting many Linux distros to run on hardware from even a few years ago often doesn't work without stripping things down in ways that obviate the usefulness of the later versions. Complaining about the growth of software is like complaining about taxes and aging: It's kind of pointless. Nobody can "make you upgrade". You have a free will. If your current platform works for you, use it.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Linux? No thank you!
by proftv on Tue 26th Dec 2006 22:45 in reply to "RE: Linux? No thank you!"
proftv Member since:
2006-01-01

I agree with what you are saying. I don't expect newer versions of Windows to run well on 'run of the mill' computers. I think you may have missed my point though. First of all I wasn't complaining about anything, I was just letting people know that I plan not to use Vista until XP has truly outlived it's usefullness and I am recommending that everyone do the same. I just don't see the point of normal people upgrading their computers or buying a new ones just so they can run Vista when XP still works just fine with the computer they already have. Before XP people continued to upgrade to newer versions of Windows mainly for the marginal improvements in stability, but now that we have Windows XP, that's very stable and works relatively well, why fix something that isn't broken? I say save your money and stick with XP for as long as it still works for what you use your computer for, or better yet, upgrade to a Linux OS (I recommend Linux Mint).

Reply Parent Score: 2