"There's lots to like in the newest version of Windows. Vista's look is stunning, the OS should be more secure, and finding things is often easier. But Windows wouldn't be Windows without those aspects, big and small, that just drive you nuts with frustration. Here's our list of Vista features that just make us wonder, 'What were they thinking?'"
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-02-21
Hardware may have become cheaper, but that is not the issue. I just checked laptop and desktop systems at a major brick and mortar retailer over the holiday. I have two observations.
1. Any version of Vista is a memory hog
2. Boxed copies of Vista are expensive.
On the first point; Vista Home Basic, the stripped version, was using 70 percent of the RAM (512MB) without any applications running. In other words just to run System processes, IDLE, it consumed 70 percent of the RAM. Checking out systems with 1GB RAM, it was using 48 to 51 percent of the RAM while IDLE, no applications running. So hardware is an issue, and this is with the least resource intensive version, Home Basic.
On point two; the reason the prices are higher than posters are acknowledging are the requirements to upgrade to the preferred versions of Vista. Just read the boxes in the stores, I did, and you will see there are conditions on upgrading. You almost have to go with OEM install or full install, because of the many conditions on upgrading.
Saying that RAM is inexpensive does not help, since the machines are being sold with the minimun specifications Microsoft suggests for Vista, and retailers will not add RAM without a hefty fee. Most casual users do not add components that require opening the case, and will not be aware that Vista needs 1GB to be tolerable and 2GB to work
as well as their XP systems.
Edited 2007-02-21 04:41
Member since:2006-01-02
1.5 GB is quite adequate for me. You're right about the lack of RAM in retail machines. But the users who buy those probably won't notice or care that things take a few seconds to launch. And once apps are up, things will be fast enough.
I agree that less than 1GB is pretty bad.
Member since:
2006-01-02
I'm tired of the hardware requirements card.
Hardware has always been getting cheaper. Why do you think that trend will suddenly stop? Why should someone write an OS for old hardware, when the old OS works just fine on that old hardware?
Vista has high requirements in the memory department, but nothing else is that surprising. On the other hand, given enough memory Vista starts up and launches applications faster than XP with the same memory. Sure, wasting cycles is bad, and I don't recommend running Vista on your PDA. But, given that Vista actually runs just as fast as XP on its target hardware and is faster at many tasks, what's your beef?
I haven't tried linux on my hardware to see how the speed compares. I'm looking forward to offloading some files and trying it out soon.