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: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:
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.