PCMag takes a look at the Vista SP1 beta, and concludes: "The actual first beta of SP1 may not deserve a fanfare, simply because - like all first betas - it has its own set of issues to resolve. But by the time you can get SP1 on the Microsoft Update site or as part of a new Vista installation DVD, you'll want your PC to have it. Nothing dramatic here, but SP1 is a solid, useful upgrade that makes the operating system a little safer and a little faster."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-08
"Why would they do that? It would not be in keeping with Windows' history. New versions of Windows are always slow on the hardware which is common in at the time the OS is first released. Microsoft then waits for hardware to get faster. It was true with Windows 3.1, and it is still true today. "
Of course it is true, because it drives the market. Newer software - better hardware - new features - new software - ... continue ad libitum. This is "straight forward" software - designed to run on future hardware. And users essentially need it. :-)
Member since:2006-06-21
I'm finding quite a few people nowadays are starting to question this race for newer everything. Obviously, there's no actual need for more speed and more RAM if you don't play [the latest] games or do other resource intensive stuff. And most people don't, they'd be just as happy with 5 year old hardware. Sure, when it breaks they'll buy whatever they can get, but I won't be too sure they'll go get 2 GB of RAM just because Microsoft says so.
And please don't tell me "RAM is cheap" because some people need to watch how they spend every penny, and if it's not RAM it's something else (video card, processor) and it still adds up.
Frankly, I find Vista "requiring" you to spend on components and upgrade quite rude. For what? Just to run the OS and the desktop interface? That's crazy. The OS should be as lightweight as possible.
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
"""
Why would they do that? It would not be in keeping with Windows' history. New versions of Windows are always slow on the hardware which is common in at the time the OS is first released. Microsoft then waits for hardware to get faster. It was true with Windows 3.1, and it is still true today.
Edited 2007-10-08 21:40