Windows vista will leave too many people behind.

F

fuentez

With microsoft vista soon to be thrusted onto the computing public my
thoughts go to the
millions of users soon to be left out in the cold yet again. I wont
pretend to know whether winVista is worth the upgrade since I am not
one of the bloggers that got a new laptop from MS to test and give you
my honest unbiased opinion.

When winXP was released I opted not to upgrade do to the fact that most
software that exsisted at the time also ran on win2000, infact I saw no
real improvment from win2000 to XP.
The problem as I see it is every time M$ upgrades their OS many are
left behind, and with the cost of microsofts closed source OS's they
price many out of the market.

Minimum supported system requirements for windows vista.

PCs that meet the minimum supported system requirements will be able to
run the core features of Windows Vista with the basic user experience.

Windows Vista Minimum Supported System Requirements
Processor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1
System Memory
512 MB
GPU
SVGA (800x600)
Graphics Memory
-
HDD
20 GB
HDD Free Space
15 GB
Optical Drive
CD-ROM drive2
Audio
-
Internet
-
1 Processor speed is specified as the nominal operational processor
frequency for the device. Some processors have power management which
allows the processor to run at a lower rate to save power.
2 The CD-ROM may be external (not integral, not built into the system).

System breakdown

Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on
the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire
display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU
requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy
medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft believes
that you're going to see the amount of video memory being shipped on
cards hurtle up when Vista ships.

CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little of
Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far better
on dual-core and multi-core processors.

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista
32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However, since 64-bit
is handling data chunks that are double the size, you'll need double
the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 - which is a little odd,
since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at least, doesn't really kick
in until 2007.

HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft tells
us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order completions
- that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it can do them in
the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route for the hard drive
head to take over the disk. This leads to far faster completion times.
NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so expect them to start becoming the
standard sooner rather than later. Microsoft thinks that these features
will provide SCSI-level performance.

Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that graphics
cards may have to utilise main system memory for some rendering tasks,
a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI express.

Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor
out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista. You
may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it is. To play
HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible monitor. Why?
Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video signal as it travels
along a digital connection to an output device, to prevent people
copying it. If you have just standard DVI or even an analogue output,
you're going to see HD scaled down to a far-less-than-HD resolution for
viewing - which sucks. This isn't really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is
something that content makers, in their eternal wisdom, have decided is
necessary to stop us all watching pirated movies. Yay.

If you wanna lean and talk about tech visit
http://www.technocracy.co.nr/
 
K

Kerry Brown

It actually costs less to upgrade a XP capable pc to run Vista than it did
to go upgrade a win2k pc to run XP. In both cases most reasonably current
(less than four years old at the time of the new OS release) pc's will need
a memory upgrade to make the minimum specs. Memory is cheaper now than it
was in 2001.

I ran a three month test during the Vista beta testing with a Pentium 1.6
GHz, 1 GB ram, 20 GB hard drive and a ATI Radeon AGP 9550 video card. I had
Vista, Office 2007, and Expression Web Designer installed. I was very
productive with it. Other than 1 GB ram that is certainly not what I would
call a well fit out XP pc.
 
R

Rock

With microsoft vista soon to be thrusted onto the computing public my
thoughts go to the
millions of users soon to be left out in the cold yet again. I wont
pretend to know whether winVista is worth the upgrade since I am not
one of the bloggers that got a new laptop from MS to test and give you
my honest unbiased opinion.

Why are you posting this here and not to a Vista newsgroup? This newsgroup
is for issues with the XP OS? Do you have a question about it?

In any event you didn't have to get a computer for MS to test Vista. Many
people were in the TechBeta with all different system configurations. It
will run on 512MB.

How can you have an honest, unbiased opinion if you haven't even run Vista?
 
B

Bob I

If you bothered to do any research at all of prior operating system
releases, you would see that the minimum hardware requirements roughly
double that of the previous OS. Vista follows that same progression.
Please post your ranting elsewhere.
 
S

Shenan Stanley

fuentez said:
With microsoft vista soon to be thrusted onto the computing public
my thoughts go to the
millions of users soon to be left out in the cold yet again. I wont
pretend to know whether winVista is worth the upgrade since I am not
one of the bloggers that got a new laptop from MS to test and give
you my honest unbiased opinion.

When winXP was released I opted not to upgrade do to the fact that
most software that exsisted at the time also ran on win2000, infact
I saw no real improvment from win2000 to XP.
The problem as I see it is every time M$ upgrades their OS many are
left behind, and with the cost of microsofts closed source OS's they
price many out of the market.

Minimum supported system requirements for windows vista.

PCs that meet the minimum supported system requirements will be
able to run the core features of Windows Vista with the basic user
experience.

Windows Vista Minimum Supported System Requirements
Processor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1
System Memory
512 MB
GPU
SVGA (800x600)
Graphics Memory
-
HDD
20 GB
HDD Free Space
15 GB
Optical Drive
CD-ROM drive2
Audio
-
Internet
-
1 Processor speed is specified as the nominal operational processor
frequency for the device. Some processors have power management
which allows the processor to run at a lower rate to save power.
2 The CD-ROM may be external (not integral, not built into the
system).

System breakdown

Graphics: Vista has changed from using the CPU to display bitmaps on
the screen to using the GPU to render vectors. This means the entire
display model in Vista has changed. To render the screen in the GPU
requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy
medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more. Microsoft
believes that you're going to see the amount of video memory being
shipped on cards hurtle up when Vista ships.

CPU: Threading is the main target for Vista. Currently, very little
of Windows XP is threaded - the target is to make Vista perform far
better on dual-core and multi-core processors.

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told.
Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512. However,
since 64-bit is handling data chunks that are double the size,
you'll need double the memory, hence the 2GB. Nigel mentions DDR3 -
which is a little odd, since the roadmap for DDR3, on Intel gear at
least, doesn't really kick in until 2007.

HDD: SATA is definitely the way forward for Vista, due, Microsoft
tells us, to Native Command Queueing. NCQ allows for out of order
completions - that is, if Vista needs tasks 1,2,3,4 and 5 done, it
can do them in the order 2,5,3,4,1 if that's a more efficient route
for the hard drive head to take over the disk. This leads to far
faster completion times. NCQ is supported on SATA2 drives, so
expect them to start becoming the standard sooner rather than
later. Microsoft thinks that these features will provide SCSI-level
performance.

Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista. Because of the fact that
graphics cards may have to utilise main system memory for some
rendering tasks, a fast, bi-direction bus is needed - that's PCI
express.

Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT
monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in
Vista. You may already have heard rumblings about this, but here it
is. To play HD-DVD or Blu-Ray content you need a HDCP compatible
monitor. Why? Because these formats use HDCP to encrypt a video
signal as it travels along a digital connection to an output
device, to prevent people copying it. If you have just standard DVI
or even an analogue output, you're going to see HD scaled down to a
far-less-than-HD resolution for viewing - which sucks. This isn't
really Microsoft's fault - HDCP is something that content makers,
in their eternal wisdom, have decided is necessary to stop us all
watching pirated movies. Yay.

If you wanna lean and talk about tech visit
http://www.technocracy.co.nr/


Yeah - it sucks living in the real world, where things change all around
you.

Remember when a nickel was a lot of money? No?

Well, how about when gasoline was under $1/gallon in the U.S.? No?

Hmmm, well, do you remember when US Postage Stamps cost 20¢? How about 29¢?
34¢? No?

The speed limit on U.S. Interstate highways was 55MPH everywhere? No?

Did you know that Operating Systems could - at one time - fit on a 720K
floppy diskette?
Then they moved to 1.44MB.. And multiple 1.4MB... Suddenly they were on
CDs... Now DVDs...

Wow - well - let me tell you - that all happened, it was all a reality for
someone, someplace, sometime.

Things change.
They just do.
Nothing you can do about the overall picture.
Sure - you can complain.
Sure - you can say that you 'saw no improvement' for a lot of things that
got pushed aside.
(BetaMax/VHS? CDs/DVDs? 400MB/400GB hard disk drives? etc...)

The fact is that if no one wants a product - it will stop being produced...
If someone wants a product and someone else can make money off it - it will
continue being produced.
What you or I may not see as an improvement in the product - others may see
as an unbelievable and fantastic thing.
A lot of it is perception. Some of it is others trying to catch up.

Do you really need a Dual Core 3.6GHz machine with 2+GB memory, dual 320GB
hard disk drives in a RAID, 256MB video card with a DVD+/-RW DL drive and a
1000watt power supply - connected to your 24" widescreen LCD monitor?

- If you are an accountant for a small 'mom & pop' store?
- If you are a novel writer?
- If you edit family photos (still only) and get your email from AOL?

Probably not - but it's available to you - and that is *not* top-of the
line.
The cost of that would have gotten me an 800MB hard disk drive and
32MB(maybe 64?) of memory in the early 1990's.
 
F

fuentez

Actually on my old AMD k-6 I upgraded 3 times before i had to update
my computer win95, win98 and winME
it was not until XP that I had to upgrade to my athlon 500 mhrz
I currently use my old computer as a server using linux redhat.
My point being that Micro$oft makes a habbit of forcing you to have to
get a new computer with every update in their applications but until xp
the os itself was usually backward compatible.


Bob said:
If you bothered to do any research at all of prior operating system
releases, you would see that the minimum hardware requirements roughly
double that of the previous OS. Vista follows that same progression.
Please post your ranting elsewhere.


If you wanna lean and talk about tech visit
http://www.technocracy.co.nr/
 
F

fuentez

Shenan said:
Yeah - it sucks living in the real world, where things change all around
you.

Remember when a nickel was a lot of money? No?

Well, how about when gasoline was under $1/gallon in the U.S.? No?
yes i do and boy do I miss clinton.

The speed limit on U.S. Interstate highways was 55MPH everywhere? No?
yes but raising the speed limet was a good thing and we did not have to
buy new cars when the raised it.
Did you know that Operating Systems could - at one time - fit on a 720K
floppy diskette?
Then they moved to 1.44MB.. And multiple 1.4MB... Suddenly they were on
CDs... Now DVDs...

And those changes were at slower intervals.
Wow - well - let me tell you - that all happened, it was all a reality for
someone, someplace, sometime.

Things change.
They just do.
Nothing you can do about the overall picture.
Sure - you can complain.
Sure - you can say that you 'saw no improvement' for a lot of things that
got pushed aside.
(BetaMax/VHS? CDs/DVDs? 400MB/400GB hard disk drives? etc...)

That was a good thing also because betamax was close source vhs was
open source.
The fact is that if no one wants a product - it will stop being produced...
If someone wants a product and someone else can make money off it - it will
continue being produced.
What you or I may not see as an improvement in the product - others may see
as an unbelievable and fantastic thing.
A lot of it is perception. Some of it is others trying to catch up.

Do you really need a Dual Core 3.6GHz machine with 2+GB memory, dual 320GB
hard disk drives in a RAID, 256MB video card with a DVD+/-RW DL drive and a
1000watt power supply - connected to your 24" widescreen LCD monitor?

- If you are an accountant for a small 'mom & pop' store?
- If you are a novel writer?
- If you edit family photos (still only) and get your email from AOL?

Probably not - but it's available to you - and that is *not* top-of the
line.
The cost of that would have gotten me an 800MB hard disk drive and
32MB(maybe 64?) of memory in the early 1990's.
Ok my point is that you can have improvment without locking those who
cant afford a new computer out of the market, its call backward
compatability,
The telivision industry is a good example there have been many
improvments over the years first being the introduction of colour, but
those who still had a black and white tv could still watch the same
shows as those with colour sets, now you have HD-TV but you can still
watch the same shows on a standerd set you just dont get all the bells
and whistels. so if you have an HD plasma screen the size of a buick or
a 70's model zenith with foil on the rabbit ears you can still watch
the same shows because TV is backward compatible.
The problem is that micro$oft does not support their own products after
a new one is released (so much for a company standing behind their
work).


If you wanna lean and talk about tech visit
http://www.technocracy.co.nr/
 
G

Gary

The biggest problem in the computer industry is backward compatibility. I
don't want to run DOS 1.0 programs. I don't want technology to be held back
do to compatibility with something that is 20 years old. And if you can't
afford the new technology then stay with what you have no one is forcing you
to buy Vista.
 
B

Bob I

Consider this. Win95 was released in 1995 and ME was 1999. 4 years?
Windows XP was released late in 2001 and Vista is being released in 2007
this year or nearly 6 years later. Sooner or later the detritus has to
be left by the wayside.
 
F

fuentez

The biggest problem in the computer industry is backward compatibility. I
don't want to run DOS 1.0 programs.

and you speak correctly YOU dont want to run your old programs.
like my father who's old computer finally bit the dust spent a week
loading his old software"that he used often" to his new computer {dick
by disk) only to find that half of it did not work.
I don't want technology to be held back
do to compatibility with something that is 20 years old. And if you can't
afford the new technology then stay with what you have no one is forcing you
to buy Vista.
Actually micro$oft forces all to upgrade because they stop support on
older software.


If you wanna lean and talk about tech visit
http://www.technocracy.co.nr/
 
G

Gary

And WHY didn't your father load the original OS?
The he would not have had any problems would he.
 
F

fuentez

And WHY didn't your father load the original OS?
The he would not have had any problems would he.

actually I did {he is not that tech savy} and it did not recognize most
of the internal hardware (it was a laptop)
and microsofts website was no help since win95 is nolonger supported.
 
B

Bob I

fuentez said:
and you speak correctly YOU dont want to run your old programs.
like my father who's old computer finally bit the dust spent a week
loading his old software"that he used often" to his new computer {dick
by disk) only to find that half of it did not work.


Actually micro$oft forces all to upgrade because they stop support on
older software.

THAT'S THE REASON THEY MAKE EMULATORS!!!!!!!!!!!! (shouting intended)

Now stop the infernal whining!
 
F

fuentez

Not whining just stating fact, and one should not have to go through
such trouble to use software they paid for.
 
F

fuentez

Well since I was not one of those bloggers that got a free computer
with vista loaded it would be hard to do a good review.
but be it as it may I did go to THEIR website for all the info I could
find and found the system requierments to be in the resource hog
catagory.
But I now have access to a copy of vista and I will run it head to head
with other high end OS's that also run on older machines.
and see who come out ahead.
the test includes running on the net for up to 2 weeks without firewall
to test for stability.
and when I do find security leaks I will post them.
Since I do like to keep an informed readership.

If you wanna lean and talk about tech visit
http://www.technocracy.co.nr/
 
E

Eric

fuentez said:
actually I did {he is not that tech savy} and it did not recognize most
of the internal hardware (it was a laptop)
and microsofts website was no help since win95 is nolonger supported.

Specs on the laptop?
What software did you try to load on it that was incompatible?
If you want to use an old OS that does not work with new hardware, get old
hardware.
If you want to use a new OS that does not work with old hardware, get new
hardware.
It's like cars. They changed the antifreeze in cars from green to red. You
can't put red antifreeze in an old car, and you can't put green antifreeze
in a new car. This doesn't force anyone with an old car to buy a new car or
stop driving. You just have to use hardware with matching software.
 
B

Bob I

The fact is YOU chose the operating system to install the software on.
You're still whining. Go install Linux and then whine about it not
supporting Windows applications.
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top