Why Vista?

[prx984]

Try installing Vista on a 1.4ghz P3 with 512mb of ram, a 64mb GeForce3 and a 4200RPM 40gb drive. Guess what? It actually works just fine. I don't understand why everyone assumes it absolutely requires uber-end hardware to run?

if your content with 5 minute boot times, then so be it. i ran it on a 1.8ghz machine with a good video card and a lot of memory, and it took forever to install and run. i dont like it. xp imo looks better too.

not trying to be rude, just stating my own personal experiences.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Cygnus

[Albuquerque]

Try installing Vista on a 1.4ghz P3 with 512mb of ram, a 64mb GeForce3 and a 4200RPM 40gb drive. Guess what? It actually works just fine. I don't understand why everyone assumes it absolutely requires uber-end hardware to run?

if your content with 5 minute boot times, then so be it. i ran it on a 1.8ghz machine with a good video card and a lot of memory, and it took forever to install and run. i dont like it. xp imo looks better too.

not trying to be rude, just stating my own personal experiences.

So? How long did it take XP to install and boot on a P3/533 with 256mb of ram, a 16mb TNT card and an 8gb harddrive? From personal experience, it took just as long.

If you're going to run a NEW operating system on an old machine, then you're going to get sub-optimal results. But saying that the new OS requires uber hardware is incorrect. You're sitting here talking about a four year old operating system running on hardware that we were just dreaming of when the OS was released...

How happy with XP were you when it first released? What hardware were you running then?

Everyone continues to gripe about how "bloated" it is and how it needs more resources and all this nonsense. But nobody stops to consider the bigger picture -- those resources, on today's machines, are a spec-on-the-radar in scope. When XP came out, it used ~100mb of ram on a 256mb machine. Today Vista is using 400mb of ram on a 1GB machine. We're not too far off, now are we?

[prx984]

So? How long did it take XP to install and boot on a P3/533 with 256mb of ram, a 16mb TNT card and an 8gb harddrive? From personal experience, it took just as long.

If you're going to run a NEW operating system on an old machine, then you're going to get sub-optimal results. But saying that the new OS requires uber hardware is incorrect. You're sitting here talking about a four year old operating system running on hardware that we were just dreaming of when the OS was released...

How happy with XP were you when it first released? What hardware were you running then?

Everyone continues to gripe about how "bloated" it is and how it needs more resources and all this nonsense. But nobody stops to consider the bigger picture -- those resources, on today's machines, are a spec-on-the-radar in scope. When XP came out, it used ~100mb of ram on a 256mb machine. Today Vista is using 400mb of ram on a 1GB machine. We're not too far off, now are we?

1.) wrong, i run windows xp on a 366 with 384mb of ram and an 8 mb ati rage pro. it boots in under 1 minute. including the POST. A minute and 15 when i have every single peice of software loaded that i need.

2.) they should at least have a version of vista that doesnt need a very powerful computer. when XP was first released, some older computers could still run the OS. i have a 233 with 64mb that ran XP, it took a bit more time to boot up, but once running, it ran alright. (kind of like vista on my 1.8ghz )

3.) i was very happy with XP when i got it because i got a new computer at the same time. the first new computer i had gotten. the first computer i had was a 120mhz with 32mb of ram and it was a year old when i got it, when i got me new one, it was about 5 or 6. that computer had been upgraded to a 200 with 155mb of ram and i had XP installed on that a few times. and it ran alright. small hard drive prevented me from doing too much.

4.) XP isnt as "bloated" as vista is/will be. the UI in vista is so much more than what the average person needs. if you want it, fine, but MS should release an OS that doesnt have ANY of that crap in it so the average user can utilize the newest software on older hardware (im talking about computers that are maybe 500mhz and up)

look at when XP was released and the minimum specs it required/asked for . 233mhz with 64mb of ram and 1.5gb drive space. Vista needs 1ghz or higher (i dont even recommend that, maybe a 2ghz) 512mb ram, and a DX9 video card with 64+ mb. why the drastic increase? because of the "bloated" ui.

i rest my case. i will not post back here any more as its gone on long enough IMO.

-cygnus

[Thunderbolt 2864]

No, Vista worked fine but I think its ridicilious that you need a high amount of RAM and hard drive space to run Vista.

[Albuquerque]

1.) wrong, i run windows xp on a 366 with 384mb of ram and an 8 mb ati rage pro. it boots in under 1 minute. including the POST. A minute and 15 when i have every single peice of software loaded that i need.

Really? And this is a 100% wholly stock, no services stopped, no removal of software, no nothing outside of the standard install of Windows and associated drivers? Right? Because I don't believe you, and neither does the 533mhz 256mb ram box in my basement...

4.) XP isnt as "bloated" as vista is/will be. the UI in vista is so much more than what the average person needs. if you want it, fine, but MS should release an OS that doesnt have ANY of that crap in it so the average user can utilize the newest software on older hardware (im talking about computers that are maybe 500mhz and up)

Bloated in terms of what? Windows 3.11 wasn't as "bloated" as Win9x, care to discuss? Win9x isn't as "bloated" as 2000/XP, care to discuss that too? What is it that you define as "bloated" that somehow gets passed over when you defend XP from a previous operating system?

And 500mhz and up processors... When did those come out? A quick glance through Google says March of 1999. Ok, so we want support for processors that are more than seven years old? How well did Windows XP run on a seven year old processor? Lemme give you a hint: Pentium original, non-MMX at 133mhz. Are you serious?

Oh, maybe you meant that you want Vista to run on a processor that's in the middle of processors that are two generations behind the OS release date: Counting backwards we will be at the Core 2 Duo, so the P4 architecture (we'll be nice and say that Prescott was the same architecture as the original P4, which it wasn't...) and then the P3 architecture. Ok, how well did XP run on a processor that was at the bottom rung of two previous generations processor-wise at release? Let's count backwards from 2001 (the era of the shiny new P4): P3, P2... Yeah, there we are again at the 200-300mhz level Pentium setup. Big performance increase? Doubtful.

look at when XP was released and the minimum specs it required/asked for . 233mhz with 64mb of ram and 1.5gb drive space. Vista needs 1ghz or higher (i dont even recommend that, maybe a 2ghz) 512mb ram, and a DX9 video card with 64+ mb. why the drastic increase? because of the "bloated" ui.

Yeah, and look at what you're asking Vista to do in comparison. The minimum system requirements of XP were 2 generations-behind processor core, 2-generations behind memory capacity, and 2-generations behind hard drive space. So let's look at Vista: 1ghz machine? That's P3 territory, aka 2 generations behind. Hard drive space? Yup, 2 gens behind. Memory capacity, arguable, I'll let that slide and say it's only one generation behind. Grand scheme of things? If you run an OS on the bare minimum, then you're going to get bare minimum speed. Same rules apply for XP too, do you agree?

i rest my case. i will not post back here any more as its gone on long enough IMO.

Your case was full of straw-man arguments and false information. Come back when you can counter with something factual.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Albuquerque

[prx984]

maybe your 533piii wasnt running right, did you think of that? my 366 handles xp better than what you say your piii did. maybe you just dont like xp.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Cygnus

[Albuquerque]

maybe your 533piii wasnt running right, did you think of that? my 366 handles xp better than what you say your piii did. maybe you just dont like xp.

Maybe it doesn't.

But where did I say I don't like XP? Putting words in my mouth? Aka "straw man" argument? You know, I happen to like XP. And I defended XP when it came out in the same way that I'm defending Vista right now. People argue, whine, cry and complain because (XYZ) new operating system from Micro$oft (the haters always use the dollar sign) is soooooo much more about profit and not about making a new OS and why is it so bloated and why is it so expensive and why does it have all this crap I don't need and I'm just not going to buy it I'm gonna use Windows 9x forever and ever and ever and then a few more days and why doesn't MS support my software that's going to be 10 years old?

It's stupid, it's ridiculous, and it's utterly against the progression of computing to cry about upgraded software and anyone who's been doing computers for more than a few OS generations should know why.

This is how PC's work. Even Mac's need new operating systems from time to time, and I bet there are people out there whining that their Mac Classic can't run OSX and it's unfair of Apple to stop support OS 7 just because they don't want to upgrade.

If you don't want to stay within half a decade of being current, then you know what? PC's aren't for you.

[prx984]

why cant you just let this crap go? vista is for some, and not the others (i fall in the others market because why the hell should I have to upgrade every 5 years when my 9 year old laptop does just what i want? all i do is email, internet and IM. i dont need a friggin 7gb OS to do that. hell, i dont even need XP, but i choose to run XP on this computer because it is the best OS for it. the average user doesnt need a computer with a 7gb os on it, and if you ask me, windows xp is more usable os than vista. christ, vista asks if you wish to open control panel, what the hell is that? i was installing the driver for my network card (which didnt work i know because its in beta testing and stuff) and i was prompted 7 times if i wanted to install the **** driver. i got so fed up with all this protection crap.

this is my bird, she likes XP, see?

oh and im not shoving words down your throat, i was just saying "maybe you dont like XP"

im tired of this thread, the original question was answered, i think sorry for getting this thread off topic. every person is entitled to their own opinion. dont cut me up for having one.

Edited August 24, 2006 by Cygnus

[Albuquerque]

I keep responding because you and others in this thread keep lodging invalid, non-factual and nonsensical allegations against Vista but somehow are completely ignoring those same fallacies in the OS that you support.

You (and others) say that Vista is bloated, but you can only compare Vista's "bloat" to what XP currently has. When I point out that XP was "bloated" in comparison to the 9x era, you casually ignore it.

You (and others) say that Vista "needs" new hardware and the minimum system requirements are asburd. You also point out that Vista should run on hardware that's eons old... But when I point out that XP had the exact same limitations and performance implications when running on the lowest-class supported hardware, you casusally ignore it.

And finally, you (and others) continually lodge complains that new features are worthless and you don't need them. When the same complaints were shown to exist against XP, you ignored those too.

Howabout instead of telling everyone how shoddy Vista is, you simply come out and say exactly what you actually mean? You don't intend to buy it, because you don't want it. Not because it's "bloated" (it isn't) not because doesn't support your hardware (it does) but maybe because the features it has really aren't interesting to you right now.

Tada. Perfectly understandable and valid response. I have no argument whatsoever when someone says "Hey, you know, I just need a basic commuter car; a BMW 7-series really doesn't interest me". But when you say Vista sucks canal water because of a bunch of things that aren't true, I'm going to show up to set you (and anyone else who utters it) straight.

[prx984]

ok, fine i will say it. i do not need vista, its too much for a guy like me. all i need is internet and email. rather just want, dont need it as theres more to life than computers.

before, when you said i was a lier? that hurt my feelings

so heres some proof for you that my computer does boot in a minute including boot post (more 1:04 or 1:05 or so). (not tweaked or anything. just loaded all my software on it and stuff) not bad for 7 or 8 year old computer (unsure of the manufacturer's date, but it was shipped early 99)

http://s113.photobucket.com/albums/n227/br...nt=SUNP0001.flv

Edited August 24, 2006 by Cygnus

[Albuquerque]

Not bad, perhaps, for a machine that was built "only" two years before the OS was released.

Let's test Vista on a machine that's two years old when the OS is released, say a Prescott 3.4Ghz, a 160gb drive and a gig of ram? How do you suppose it will run?

I can give you a guess...

[prx984]

my mom said im not allowed to talk to you anymore.

[Albuquerque]

LOL! Tell your mom it's probably a good idea, red-heads have attitude problems

I think this all circles back around to making sure expectations are properly set. XP is a fine operating system to be sure; I use it on every production box in my household; to include my primary gaming rig and both my laptops. But one of those laptops dual-boots to Vista (current version: 5472) and one of my older workstations (dual P3/733, 512mb of ram, 120gb drive) uses it exclusively.

Just as I replied earlier, I'm not going to buy Vista the day it comes out. I'm not going to try to convince anyone to be an early adopter; I would much rather buy the OS after it's had a year or so to mature. But I figure by the end of next year, it's going to be as ready as I want it to be.

I'm sure Vista isn't for everyone, but eventually support for XP is going to stop. And when it does, you'll have a few options: Live with an "unsupported" OS, upgrade to the newest MS offering, or just bail out and go entirely in a different direction. Maybe by then *nix operating systems will be better?

[fizban2]

As entertaining as you guys are Albuquerque and Cygnus, this post has run its course, the question Why Vista has been anwsered well

1. loads of new features, many of them under the hood that you may never hear about but they are there, a lot of reading maybe need to find these out but if you care that much you will read and figure them out.

2. Vista is designed to run on hardware that is considered standard today (most corperate standards are 2.4 - 3.0 ghz with 512 - 1 gig ram) even home computers, check out dell or HP, you would be hard pressed to find a machine that can't run vista.

3. The real problem doesn't go with the operating system, it is with the release time, 4 or 5 years for a release and the Hardware has leaped ahead in technology and power. Vista has to be capable of working with whats out now and what will be coming out in the years ahead.

first of all i would like to say i am in no way criticizing vista...if this question has been asked before, i apologize..

my question is this...

if i went out and bought a new 'vista' compatible pc, fast core 2 duo processor, 2GB Ram etc etc, would my applications runs faster on XP or Vista...if Vista, as an OS, uses more RAM and, i suppose, CPU, would i not be better off sticking with XP?

could some one explain why i would be better off with Vista? i'm not that interested in the GUI..i use windowblinds to make my pc look however i want it to. will programs like the Adobe suite be upgraded to run faster on Vista? i've heard alot about how nice it looks (and it does), how i can search my files better etc, but will it make me more productive?...i do alot of video editing so i want programs like Adobe Premier to run efficiently and with the maximum available RAM

i want to upgrade when Vista come out, but i got to thinking that maybe if i make the investment in new hardware, that i may be better off if i stick with XP?

i would appreciate any comments.

[/qoute]

according to the original post he jsut wanted to see what the latest hardware would run the best, My thought would be Vista, once it comes out it will app better and overall utilize the hardware to a better extent then XP will. but the final decsion is up to him.

he was even nice and tried not to start a war...