I upgraded my home-built P4, 1GB RAM, Ati 9600 videocard, system from XP,
and was none too impressed; I have subsequently created a new Athlon64 x2, 2
GB RAM, ATi 1800 videocard system and am a much happier camper, all-in-all.
The "new" machine is cheap, like the old one, but just enough closer to what
Vista needs, to be a subjectively happier experience. The old machine was a
3.4 on the Windows Experience Index, with most scores in the low 4's. The
new machine is a 5.0
I think Vista is relatively demanding as far as hardware is concerned, and
the change in the driver model makes the potential for frustration in using
some legacy hardware pretty high. And, Vista is not nice to some legacy
software, either -- though, to be fair, the Upgrade Advisor is pretty
impressive in identifying the problems, before you attempt the upgrade.
Windows 95 really was designed to be an upgrade -- it would run acceptably
on a lot of the hardware out there at introduction, and it accepted legacy
drivers pretty readily. People, who did crazy things got into trouble, but,
really, the Win95 installation was one of the Software Wonders of the World,
when it came out, and continued to great stuff right thru WinXP.
The gradual evolution of Win95 into Win98SE was really all about encouraging
manufacturers to make better drivers available and then taking advantage of
the better drivers. Ditto for Win32 applications and DirectX games. That
gradual and successful evolution to Win98SE made the transition to
Win2K/WinXP much easier and smoother; by the time most people confronted
WinXP, there were Win98SE/WinME/Win2K drivers and applications all around.
I don't think there were many WinME machines, which could not be upgraded to
WinXP without a hitch, and (WinME being so crappy on so much hardware)
usually with a modest improvement in stability and performance.
Vista is really not a promising upgrade; it is way too demanding on the
hardware. There are a lot of WinXP machines out there, doing just fine,
thank you very much, which should not be upgraded to Vista. It disables too
much valuable software, and demands too much hardware power.
Personally, I am not one to whine about making hardware obsolete. Vista's
duty in life is to sell hardware, in part by making old hardware obsolete in
comparison. And, that's a good thing: an OS with lots of harddisk and lots
of processor cycles and RAM, and great 3-D video hardware, to work with, can
do some nice things. Go for it, I say.
But, I've told most of my friends to wait until they are ready to buy a new
machine, whenever that is. And, don't rush into it, I say, the experience
will only get less risky and frustrating as manufacturers and publishers
catch up.
That said, Vista married to worthy hardware is a great experience.
Tony said:
There heads are so stuck in the past, they are still complaining how
unstable win95 is.
Ron K. said:
Whats funny is that a year ago people were moaning about how UNstable
XP
was!
:
Windows Vista problem solving (not)
,----[ Quote ]
| While I wait to find out, it's back into Windows XP which is
| problem-free and completely stable on this particular system.
`----
http://www.geekzone.co.nz/juha/2347
