Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd May 2007 10:20 UTC, submitted by Eugenia
ITtoolbox reviews Windows Vista, and they conclude: "If you value innovation, new technology and you can afford it, Vista is a great buy and I seriously doubt you'd regret it. If you're a business user, the justification for the additional cost just isn't there quite yet (with a few exceptions). I was pleasantly surprised how nicely it has come together (at least at this point)." My take: Soon, I will write an article about how I feel about Vista after having used it for a much longer time than was the case in my previous review. I will also have something to say on using Vista on some lower-end hardware (it ain't pretty).
Thread beginning with comment 236564
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-04-27
If Vista requires high-end hardware, that means that overall performance is not good, eq the lower the system requirement the better the performance, in my opinion MS has gone overboard with the requirements.
I agree. And the author of this article seems to agree that you need expensive hardware to run Vista smoothly. Check out the system that the author of this article built for Vista:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/windows/alex/archives/building-a-vista-r...
As for me, I have an HP Media Center PC with 2GB of RAM and a Pentium D processor running Windows XP (Media Center Edition). Maybe Vista will work fine on it, or maybe its Aero interface will bog things down. It seems like a gamble at this point. I keep reading that turning off Aero boosts performance substantially, but why should I pay a hundred or two hundred bucks for a fancy new OS if I very well might end up having to turn off one of its prime features (Aero) in order to use the OS? And then I read that UAC is basically an attempt to patch a fundamental design flaw in Windows, namely that it allows programs to assume that they are running in Administrator mode instead of in a normal user account.
Personally I think I'm about at my breaking point with Windows. Windows XP is fine for now, but eventually I'll need a new machine for one reason or another. But I don't think I'll spring for a Vista system. There's just something unseemly about it somehow -- no way should you need over a full gigabyte of RAM for the operating system, for heaven's sake.
I suppose I could switch to Ubuntu, but meh...
If I have to spend another wad of cash on new hardware to go beyond Windows XP, well, all my big files are on USB external hard drives, and the Intel-based Mac mini machines are looking very very nice right now, small but powerful, and the applications are all scriptable. Yum. I could even run Windows apps using CrossOver on the Mac.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-23
If Vista requires high-end hardware, that means that overall performance is not good, eq the lower the system requirement the better the performance, in my opinion MS has gone overboard with the requirements.
Edited 2007-05-02 13:02