What makes this Vista article any different? The title provides a clue: it's as much about providing practical working solutions to resolve some of the commonly-quoted Vista annoyances as anything else. That in itself should give all Vista users a reason to read it. However it doesn't matter whether you use Vista or not, because this article does something that most of the others don't: it takes an objective and up-to-date look at the current state of Vista, with a range of facts, clear examples and informed opinions aimed squarely at debunking a lot of the myths and FUD we've been gagging on for the past year. So for those of you still considering whether to make the switch from XP, for those of you who want to abandon Vista and go back to XP, for those of you who used Vista a while ago and who are wondering whether it's worth using again now - this article puts things in perspective with the latest facts.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-25
I thought the XO was a good example, however also bear in mind that Vista is no go on other netbooks (laptops) such as the EeePC and the Acer, they had to use XP instead, which is the main reason support was extended, i don't believe it was extended purely because of the demand to keep XP, Microsoft usually doesn't care.
This doesn't mean to say that Vista is all bad, however there is no getting away from the fact that Vista requires a lot of resources to run.
Member since:2005-10-05
The worst hit to your laptop would be quicker draining of the battery because of the Aero Glass UI putting extra load on the GPU, really everything else that Vista does which tends to drain batteries (Such as indexing) XP does as well. Just because it takes more memory and disk space doesn't mean it takes more battery power just because it's not as slim as XP. Tom's Hardware Guide has this to say on Vista vs. XP power conspumption from http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/xp-vs-vista,1531-11.html :
Windows Vista doesn't require more energy than Windows XP, whether running under full CPU load or idle. We also tried to stimulate the power consumption at the plug by aggressively moving windows or by switching between multiple tasks in 3D mode (Windows key + [Tab]). We would have expected an increased power draw, since Vista and its AeroGlass interface are more 3D-intensive and require 3D acceleration. However, there was no noticeable increase in power requirements due to the involvement of the 3D subsystem. This might be different with automated loads, but a single user cannot cause sufficient 3D load to influence the power draw.
Keep in mind this test was performed in January of 2007, and things have only continued to get better over time as Microsoft keeps tweaking things and the driver providers do the same. Wonder if I could find a more recent article if I gave it a bit of effort...
And yes, I realize you were speaking about resources in general and not merely power consumption and battery life, but when you realize that 500$ easily buys you a laptop capable of running Vista (32-bit, since 64-bit I usually recommend a bit more memory) it's hard to get upset at hardware requirements when you really can't buy anything worse than what it requires unless you look for old/used hardware.
Member since:
2005-10-05
"Basically, the laptop runs the Fedora Linux distribution; On top of the X Window System and the Matchbox window manager, we run a novel "Sugar" user interface and support library, supporting a core set of "activities". Activities are programs that follow the OLPC Human Interface Guidelines. There is an emphasis on Python and GTK. Other Linux software can be run too, but having a common and enabling user interface is nice; requiring additional libraries (KDE, java runtime, whatever) is in tension with disk and memory limits."
Yeah, the OPLC XO machine sounds like is can easily run a full Linux distribution, minus those libraries nobody wants such as KDElibs and Java. Sorry, that's not fully featured and it is for specific cases. The use a stripped-down Fedora, and everything that you can get from the Linux world that will run on minimal hardware requires that you take a performance hit or run older software. KDE 4.1 is on par and KDE 3.3 got quick, so did GNOME a while after 2.x, but the fact remains that they are still rather heavy compared to even Windows XP.
Look, I'm not saying Vista isn't bigger, I'm just saying if you want a fully-functional and fully-featured equivalent Linux distro you will want to have better hardware than the minimum specs for Vista-Capable and closer to the Vista Premium Ready.
I know all about the minimalist distros BTW I end up using them a lot of the time, they're great but they are not even in the same playing field as the full-on distros. They are meant to extend the life of old hardware, they are not meant to be the functional equivalent of a more modern desktop solution. I don't see how you can even think to compare Vista to a slimmed-down Linux of any sort when really, a slimmed-down Linux is usually an order of magnitude more lightweight than a stock XP setup. Are you going to start railing against XP while you're at it? As someone who's used KDE/GNOME/Vista/XP on minimum hardware specs I know that they are all painful on minimum and to be comfortable you go with recommended, it's the same with games.