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:2006-06-21
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:2006-10-08
"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."
You see home users doing the same things with their PCs as they did 5 or 10 years ago - treating the PC as a worse typewriter, a music jukebox and a video player. The same functions can be achieved with older hardware, of course, but not in combination with "new" MICROS~1 OSes. Because PCs have been developed into "one tool for all tasks together devices" - in Germany we call this "eierlegende Wollmilchsau" (egg-laying wool milk sow) - users insist on doing everything that's imaginable, finally they paid for it (or got pirated copies of their favourite OS and applications). Finally, just because it's possible to do something using the PC, it will be done in fact. This requires always the newest software (in the mind of the user, of course), and there's only "Windows" existing, so there is no way to get around it.
"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."
They will, sooner or later. I assume, in the near future more and more installations in business and administration will run "Vista", and home users want the same "pictures" as they know them from their place of work. And if this forces them to buy a new PC (upgrading older components does not pay in most cases), they will be happy to get a "free" copy of "Vista" with a brand new PC.
"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."
I won't tell you so, because I'm low on money myself. I try to recycle and use everything that is avaiable and still usable (such as a 300 MHz system - still useful for some tasks). To tell you the truth: It has been nearly completely possible yesterday to do everything that's done today, it's just about how smart you are. :-)
"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."
I tend to agree here. But finally, "modern" OSes include very much software in order to support newest hardware. Furthermore, users want to benefit from this hardware. As an example: If you buy a 3D graphics card, you want to see 3D effects all day long. So this needs to be part of the OS. The "one tool per task" philosophy is usually not present in MICROS~1's OSes and applications, so they grow bigger and more ressource hungry.
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
No one is forcing you to upgrade; once Microsoft has stopped supporting Windows XP - then investigate an alternative operating system.
Yes, the hardware requirements of Windows Vista is pathetic over the top - 2gigs just for an operating system to run acceptably. An operating system which should merely be an interface to allow one to run applications (the sole purpose of a computer) rather than spending vast sums of resources simply sustanting itself.
With that being said, Bill Gates and/or Steve Balmer aren't swinging into your room like a swatt team then place a gun against your head - and force you to purchase and install Windows Vista. You have the power in your hands; if enough people stop claiming to be a victim and use the power of the wallet, they could possibly change things.
Edited 2007-10-10 13:21
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. :-)