Linked by Stephen Reilly on Mon 12th Mar 2007 17:47 UTC
Windows I have been both a Windows and Linux user for a long time (I started with Windows 3.1 and RedHat 5.1 kernel 2.0.x if I recall correctly) and have stuck with both for various reasons. I'm writing this article not as a DIY lofty vantage platform by which I can bash MS nor as a 'Why you should switched' flame bate piece, but have tried to keep an open mind and reflect the actually experience that I have had with Vista so far, regardless of OS political propaganda. Please keep in mind this is still an opinion piece and most probably to be taken with a pinch of salt.
Thread beginning with comment 220507
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Amen
by devnet on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:19 UTC
devnet
Member since:
2007-01-16

Amen.

Vista "IS that bad" for those users...No one wants to buy a dual core, 2GB RAM, 256MB Vid Card PC just to check email.

Microsoft's formula for this = retarded...if anything, they should have improved efficiency allowing things to run on existing hardware...even with the eye candy. Kinda like metisse, beryl, and compiz.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Amen
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:22 in reply to "Amen"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Still, my Pentium M 1.73Ghz/768MB RAM/Ati Radeon x300 128MB (dedicated) runs Vista just fine and dandy. I'm really interested in what all these people saying Vista needs 2GB of RAM are doing with their computer.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Amen
by sandwichbutton on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:25 in reply to "RE: Amen"
sandwichbutton Member since:
2007-03-03

You talk about that like its a semi-archaic! I guarentee >95% of the desktop machines deployed throughout the world are not even that fast! (The most popular OS on desktops is STILL Win98!)

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Amen
by Bink on Tue 13th Mar 2007 01:10 in reply to "RE: Amen"
Bink Member since:
2006-02-19

My Core 2 laptop had 1GB of RAM and, when multitasking, Vista was quite slow. I had to move to 2GB to keep myself from pulling my hair out. Previous I was running Windows 2003 on my laptop with 1GB and things were just dandy.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Amen
by hechacker1 on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:27 in reply to "Amen"
hechacker1 Member since:
2005-08-01

He bought those items obviously to play games. Who needs 2 7600's in SLI for email? Not even vista is that resource hungry (vista is about 10% slower across the board compared to XP, with re-architectured brand new drivers none the less)

"Most importantly, all my games run flawlessly now that I have descent SLi support."

Why doesn't Aero run on older hardware? Because it takes advantage of DX9 shaders to improve the efficiency of drawing windows. Beryl (which I also use) is much better about allowing any driver with basic opengl (and appropriate aiglx/xgl support) to render the windows, but you trade efficiency for CPU driven effects (for example I can't run Blur because I don't have shaders, while Aero is always using a blur).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Amen
by CPUGuy on Mon 12th Mar 2007 18:32 in reply to "Amen"
CPUGuy Member since:
2005-07-06

That's just it, it can run on existing hardware.

The Dx9 card spec for Aero Glass is to allow developers to have the freedom to do anything a Dx9 card can do and not have to limit their application to anything less. A Dx8 card can be forced to run the full Aero.

Considering how AWFUL OSX 10.0 ran Vista really isn't that bad.

Now what I would expect an OS to do is not something Microsoft ever does in the development process so...
In my eyes, it should be a major .0 release adds features and such which require more hardware, and then the .0+n release should get more and more efficient until the next .0 release.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Amen
by raver31 on Mon 12th Mar 2007 19:09 in reply to "RE: Amen"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Considering how AWFUL OSX 10.0 ran Vista really isn't that bad.

You cannot compare Vista with a >5 year old system. Vista is DISMAL.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE[2]: Amen
by Ford Prefect on Mon 12th Mar 2007 20:32 in reply to "RE: Amen"
RE: Amen
by Oliver on Mon 12th Mar 2007 20:55 in reply to "Amen"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

2GB and so on, purely nonsense. Try it first before bashing it. I do know it's lot of fun, but it's most of the time just noisy. I have to use it at work, together with applications like Statistica (same machines as before).
Btw. I'm a FreeBSD user, with a decade of Linux experience too, but I can divide between mere bash and reality. It's a bad system because of DRM, closed-source, the whole mumbo jumbo. It's maybe equal to XP, with some small advancements and therefore you don't need to update. Urban legends make me just sick of this so-called opensource community.


http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

Uh, beware it's a Windows guy, but with knowledge :o)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Amen
by Janus on Mon 12th Mar 2007 22:26 in reply to "Amen"
Janus Member since:
2005-07-20

I'm writing this on an Athlon XP 2600+ running Vista. Don't recall exactly when I bought this computer, but judging by Wikipedia it should clock in at about four years by now.

Runs completely fine. Performance isn't noticably different from the time I ran XP on it. So I'd say the rumours about hardware requirements are a bit exaggerated. :-)

Reply Parent Score: 1