Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Oct 2007 20:18 UTC, submitted by Corinne Iozzio
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."
Thread beginning with comment 277064
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
That said, Vista uses about 300-350 MB without Superfetch/cache, so I still expected it to be responsive. OS X seems fine with 512 MB of RAM.
Having ran MacOS X on a PowerPC with 512MB, I can assure you, it was painful with 10.2/10.3 and 10.4 - you need atleast 1gig to make it barable. Please, this is the same junk that was spouted several years ago about the fictional 'G3 233Mhz with 128MB and runs MacOS X wonderfully'.
Windows Vista has its issue, but there is no 'perfect operating system' which can address all end users requests. With that being said, I think this whole 'Vista bashing' is nothing more than a side-effect of 'its what all the cool kids are doing, so I better do it too - so I don't feel left out'.
I moved back from OpenSolaris for the same reason I moved back from Linux (of various distributions), the lack of focus on integrating the components together, the lack of hardware support for my devices. I'm not saying that Windows doesn't have flaws, what I am saying is that compared to the alternatives out there, given my circumstances, its not all that bad.
Lets remember folks the same drama when Windows XP was released; the backlash against it with vendors 'demanding' Windows 2000 Professional to still be available - people deduced that 'Windows Vista' is not wanted by OEM vendors, incorrect, what the OEM vendors want is more time to transition given the radical changes which Windows Vista bought forward.
Member since:2007-09-18
I'm typing this on a Powerbook G4, 1.67 GHz, 512 MB of RAM on Tiger and it feels snappy to me. What's so unbearable about running 10.4 on 512 MB of RAM? Care to share what was slow?
Regarding Vista bashing, I've used Windows since 3.0, each version has been better for me. I have a history of liking Windows releases, but Vista is different. It's hard to find a feature or a list of features worth $200. Not only that, it's the first time I can write a list of cons for a Windows release. Vista criticism might be popular, but it's well-deserved.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2007-09-18
DDR prices are higher than DDR2, so I'm not sure if I want to invest in a computer that I might not use much longer. My desktop is old and slow enough that adding $60 worth of memory is probably not worth it. I'll stick with XP for the time being.
That said, Vista uses about 300-350 MB without Superfetch/cache, so I still expected it to be responsive. OS X seems fine with 512 MB of RAM.