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.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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.