Windows Vista

[Humble Magii]

Vista isn't that bad from my impressions of it so far. XP has DRM so does Vista but it isn't as locked up as you might think. Overall I think they are doing ok however I am skeptical of the minimum operating requirements. Vista is going to take a good 512mb of ram 1gig at least IMO to run well not to mention you better have a 2+ gig CPU fairly recent one as well from AMD or an Intel 2.4+ to run it.

I am hoping for a more modular OS from MS after Vista such as choosing what to install from the get go and breaking sections of the OS down into these modules. I think this will get more people to upgrade and make alot a lil more happy in the long run as we can slightly custom tailor it to our needs. This would cut down on bloat more power users dislike as well aslimit what is copied over. Make bootable DVD's more common than CD's as well.

 

[bsobel]

no you didn't answer my question..my question again is...
If I decided to upgrade, can I upgrade from XP OEM to Vista?

Sorry, missed the second question in the thread. The short answer is, no-one can say for sure as the upgrade options and terms haven't been officially announced. The longer answer is yes you can, you have been able to upgrade to new MS OS's from OEM copies of the previous version for over a decade. There would be no reason for MS to change this policy.

 

[Link19]

I am hoping for a more modular OS from MS after Vista such as choosing what to install from the get go and breaking sections of the OS down into these modules. I think this will get more people to upgrade and make alot a lil more happy in the long run as we can slightly custom tailor it to our needs. This would cut down on bloat more power users dislike as well aslimit what is copied over. Make bootable DVD's more common than CD's as well.

That is exacrly what I want as well. I want flexibility with Vista. I want the ability to be able to not install features I don't like. For instance, will Vista have an option to completely uninstall error reporting, Windows Media Player, and IE? I sue hope so.

What I want is improvements in the OS kernel. I don't want to be forced into submisison from MS in Vista.

WHat I want in Vista are these things:

Faster performance and stability on a relatively decent PC

Low RAM usage. The amount of RAM my system uses upon startup in Windows XP is 121MB. That is with some services disabled and NOD32 AV and video card drivers set to load at system startup. Only 19 processes running at system startup. Not as bare bones as some tweakers like to take it, but by no means bloated either. I want a very functional Vista system with improvements in memory management and the kernel while not using much more system RAM than Windows XP already does just for the OS to run well.

How much RAM will 32-bit Vista require to run? Is it really going to require 512MB minimum? ANd with 512MB of RAM, the system will be slowed down and not have much RAM available for applications to run just like it was in Windows XP with only 128-256MB of RAM? I sure hope not.

 

[bsobel]

Low RAM usage. The amount of RAM my system uses upon startup in Windows XP is 121MB. That is with some services disabled and NOD32 AV and video card drivers set to load at system startup. Only 19 processes running at system startup. Not as bare bones as some tweakers like to take it, but by no means bloated either. I want a very functional Vista system with improvements in memory management and the kernel while not using much more system RAM than Windows XP already does just for the OS to run well.

Honest question, why does this matter? Have you charted memory prices over the last 5 years since XP was released? Vista should require about the same 'investment' (as in cost) in memory as XP did when it was released. But, you'll get alot more memory (in MB) in return for that investment.

You can pretty much apply this to any system requirement (disk space, cpu usage, etc), and since the cost/performance curve continues to favor performance (price continues to drop for the same performance or space) why shouldn't newer OS's have higher requirements?

 

[Link19]

Honest question, why does this matter? Have you charted memory prices over the last 5 years since XP was released? Vista should require about the same 'investment' (as in cost) in memory as XP did when it was released. But, you'll get alot more memory (in MB) in return for that investment.

You can pretty much apply this to any system requirement (disk space, cpu usage, etc), and since the cost/performance curve continues to favor performance (price continues to drop for the same performance or space) why shouldn't newer OS's have higher requirements?

I have 2GB of RAM in my current system, so not having enough RAM isn't the issue. But I want almost all of that 2GB to be utilized for running games and intensive video editing, not a large portion of RAM just for the OS to run. But the time 4GB or more RAM becomes common in desktop computers, then it won't matter.

 

[FrustratedUser]

I am keeping Win2k until I can't do what I want to do.

 

[xtknight]

I'll give Vista a shot (and probably keep it) if there is nothing really lame about it, like some new form of DRM that requires me to purchase anything additional. Screw it, at least for a while. Damn...I was just getting breaked in to WinXP. It's finally fast now. Vista on this A64 3500+ will feel like a 400 Mhz Celery in Win2K again. Wouldn't it rock if the next Windows actually sped something up rather than slowing stuff down every generation? Oh well, such is life.

 

[GTaudiophile]

I will wait at least a year after Vista comes out before even considering an upgrade. I did that same going from 2K to XP (with SP1A) and never regretted the move.

I doubt businesses will rush to adopt Vista either.

Edit: Heck, before I build a machine with Vista, there is a better chance of me buying a $500 2nd-Gen, Intel-Powered Mac MINI with OS X.

 

[theMan]

i never upgrade right away. i didnt move to win98 untill 2000, didnt move to 2000 until 2002, and didnt ever move to xp, no reason to.

 

[Rottie]

Originally posted by: bsobel

no you didn't answer my question..my question again is...
If I decided to upgrade, can I upgrade from XP OEM to Vista?

Sorry, missed the second question in the thread. The short answer is, no-one can say for sure as the upgrade options and terms haven't been officially announced. The longer answer is yes you can, you have been able to upgrade to new MS OS's from OEM copies of the previous version for over a decade. There would be no reason for MS to change this policy.

Thanks for the answer I might want to wait 1 or 2 year after it release so I can get my hand on Vista retail upgrade instead of OEM upgrade.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: sigs3gv
Vista will be probably both 64bit and 32bit. I will be "upgrading" from Windows XP to Linux when Vista comes out

:thumbsup:

 

[niomosy]

Originally posted by: The Linuxator

Originally posted by: rodneykm

Originally posted by: sigs3gv
Vista will be probably both 64bit and 32bit. I will be "upgrading" from Windows XP to Linux when Vista comes out

Sounds like a downgrade to me. I prefer my stuff to be able to run all the games and programs I like. Linux is overrated. No offense intended.

From my experience here are the areas where Linux apps are lacking :

- Media editing (I am obliged to turn to my windows box for mixing my trance tracks, and videos)

- Gaming as everyone knows, though there alot of games that do work for Linux as well as windows, like doom in all variations, Wolfenstein, quake stuff like that, currently I am playing wolfenstein.

- You dont get super polished apps, alot are hobbyist app like, but the major apps are tuned very well and work as intended.

- High learning curve, you got to be ready to bust it out old books style (well that's me) but the difference with Learning Linux and anything else, is that you really have a pleasure out of learning how to work with stuff like the BASH shell, learn about the Filesystem...etc it's not like any OS you will encounter(non-open source at least), because when you learn Linux as it should be learned, there is no Limit to what you can change in it, you can open it up and rehaul it all over the modifications and the tweaking are unlimited and it's all fun.

If you are not concerned by anything that is mentioned above, then you don't know what you really missing ;D

I do know what I'm missing. I'm pretty happy that I'm missing it, to be honest. Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. They've done a lot from the 90's but they've still got a long way to go before I'd consider it as a primary desktop. I'd hardly consider it a gaming OS at all. Most of the games you're playing for it are already on Windows. Linux is gaining far more ground in the server market (mostly due to perceived lower cost).

As for all the tinkering. I deal with 250 Unix (AIX, Sun and Linux) at work. I've lost my interest in really tinkering with my desktop. I just want to use it and be functional without me having to go into text files to configure this, that and the other thing then still lose out on apps and games in the process.

I'd like Linux to succeed. I've used it off and on since '94. It still needs work, though and I don't have the time to screw with all the tweaks, extra libraries, old libraries, etc. that Linux and its apps need.

 

[MegaRoll]

Originally posted by: Digobick

Originally posted by: The Linuxator
The only extra "calling home" that Vista will be doing is for Anti-Spam updates (Windows Defender), Anti-Virus updates (Windows Defender), and Anti-Phishing updates (Internet Explorer). All of which can easily be turned off.

Vista wont allow you to turn those things off? Why wont they let me run anti-spyware/virus protection/firewall programs I can trust?

Ive heard from Beta I and II reviews that Vista is 'fast' in terms of performance because of the increased usage of the GPU and decreased use of the CPU. Now Im all for performance but Im a gamer. If anything uses my GPU it WILL be my games, not some buggy OS. Ive also heard that the 'Ultimate Edition' will include game tweaking tools for gamers. Any news on what exactly does this do?

 

[Seeruk]

Link19 - You are simply put.... a buffoon

I heard there is a yeti called bigfoot, that both lord lucan and elvis live, and that the US government and the world at large are controlled by lizards.... does that make them truth?

Thanks for the laughs though


As for performance... a alot of misinformation in this thread about that too. I run Vista 5270 on a box with just 512mb Memory, a Sempron 3000+ and a radeon 9600. With the 3D Glass UI, no optimization, all the default services running, using only the MS supplied unoptimized drivers.

It seemed slow after the 1st boot but that is because it does a crap load of indexing for the virtual folders. After that... smooth as butter on as system built for less than £400 and considerably faster than Ubuntu + Gnome which dual boots on the same box.

 

[MegaRoll]

Originally posted by: Seeruk
As for performance... a alot of misinformation in this thread about that too. I run Vista 5270 on a box with just 512mb Memory, a Sempron 3000+ and a radeon 9600. With the 3D Glass UI, no optimization, all the default services running, using only the MS supplied unoptimized drivers.

It seemed slow after the 1st boot but that is because it does a crap load of indexing for the virtual folders. After that... smooth as butter on as system built for less than £400 and considerably faster than Ubuntu + Gnome which dual boots on the same box.

Im not worried about what computers can or cannot run Vista, Im more worried about if it will be so much of a bloat that it will affect my gaming performance (loss of fps for example).

 

[eXx08]

I will be upgrading.