Microsoft announces Vista prices, specs (or, Wake up you dozy W******! pt. 2) - by oudeis
aguywhoplaysthief on 12/9/2006 at 05:15
Quote Posted by Turtle
Well, seeing as I'm running the not-ready-for-prime-time version and it runs great, I'm not too worried.
Have you checked to see how much RAM all the windows-related apps and services use? On the basic version with the classic windows UI and all the extra goodies that I could quickly find turned off, Explorer alone still used enough memory to run at least three copies of windows 98 at once. When I was fiddling with it, explorer was using a bit over 5x the amount it does in XP, and I was just looking at the desktop.
It's hardly different than XP - it looks the fucking same.
I want to know
what the fuck its doing with all that ram! Give it back explorer, give it BACK you cock. :mad:
Turtle on 12/9/2006 at 05:36
Quote:
Give it back explorer, give it BACK you cock.
It does, as soon as another program needs it.
Until then it uses as much as it can get its hands on.
Renzatic on 12/9/2006 at 06:07
Quick question. To upgrade from Beta 2 to RC1, I'm assuming I'll have to download a new ISO and burn it to a DVD instead of upgrading from inside the OS and rebooting, correct?
Edit: Nevermind. I just realised I recieved an email from MS telling me all the steps I need to take to upgrade.
Rogue Keeper on 12/9/2006 at 07:29
Quote Posted by Bjossi
I don't think those specs are bad at all, I expected worse.
Yah, something like this?
Inline Image:
http://histoire.info.online.fr/images/eniac5.jpeg1GB RAM and 128bit videocard may be common for gamers and other geeks, but common PCs in administration and low level business won't need 1 gig RAM for some time and certainly not that DX9.0 GPU with pixel shader and other 999 patented 3D imaging technologies. I wonder if the Business version has the same requirements. People in bureaus doing accounting and typing in Word don't need that fancy accelerated interface, so why to bother with buying Vista licenses?
Sure, they wanted to look forward to the future, but since this is apparently their biggest leap in basic hardware requirements and they made a first OS really aimed at "upper 500 000", I can smell a minor marketing failure in the air.
Quote Posted by redrain85
Call me crazy: but I think the higher video spec - at least - for Vista is actually a good thing. Vista "Premium Ready" PCs with integrated graphics will be required to be DX9 capable, at a minimum. No more shitty integrated graphics. So people will stop whining when their games don't work because they're too cheap to get a real video card. Games might run slow as hell, but at least they'll run. :p
Wait... you must be crazy! What kind of problems you have?
Legion of Zombies on 12/9/2006 at 08:10
Why would anyone want to upgrade to Vista anyway? From what I've seen from demonstrations it just looks like Win XP with a new skin and a gimmicky 3d program alt-tab feature, and it's a resource hog beast as well. Windows XP with SP2 is stable, runs all the apps and games I want, has good compatibility with hardware. That's all you need in an OS at the end of the day imho.
d0om on 12/9/2006 at 09:15
Most laptops only have 60-100GB of HD space. No way I am going to take up half my harddisk with vista!
Its ridiculous how bloated windows installs have been:
Win95:~50meg
Win98:~500meg
WinXP:~2GB
Vista:~40GB
Its just absurd!
Rogue Keeper on 12/9/2006 at 09:45
All those hi-res error messages need some space on the disc afterall.
Didn't they mean that installation takes 15GB and at least 40GB hard disc is suitable for system restore backups, virtual memory...?
Thirith on 12/9/2006 at 10:19
Quote Posted by Legion of Zombies
Why would anyone want to upgrade to Vista anyway? From what I've seen from demonstrations it just looks like Win XP with a new skin and a gimmicky 3d program alt-tab feature, and it's a resource hog beast as well. Windows XP with SP2 is stable, runs all the apps and games I want, has good compatibility with hardware. That's all you need in an OS at the end of the day imho.
DirectX 10, which won't come out for earlier versions of Windows. Meaning that any games building on DX10 won't work with non-Vista Win.
d0om on 12/9/2006 at 10:27
Hopefully that means that games companies won't use DX10 as they know that not many people will have compatible computers.
Hopefully.
Legion of Zombies on 12/9/2006 at 10:36
Quote Posted by Thirith
DirectX 10, which won't come out for earlier versions of Windows. Meaning that any games building on DX10 won't work with non-Vista Win.
Yeah, but how many developers are going to willingly cut out most of their potential customers just to support a newer tech? Maybe in 4-5 years time when Vista is the dominant OS in the marketplace, you'll start to see vista-only games, but I doubt it'll happen anytime soon.
