When I read this, the first word that came to mind was "bloatware". The definition of this word is: "Software that provides minimal functionality while requiring a disproportionate amount of diskspace and memory"...
I'm old enough to remember my first PC, a 48k ZX Spectrum...these days a typical Word document occupies 48k of memory.
How many of the extra "bells and whistles" do we really need or use? I think we should be able to choose whether we want our OS or application to have all the add-on's or a simple bare-bones version that just gets the job done. Better still, what about intelligent software that runs on bare bones then expands itself if we actually need more functions...? There you go, I've just invented the next version of Windows!!
I'm not a pessimist. I'm just optimistically challenged.
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I mean it's hard to say. I trust Sander and usually do agree with his reviews.. yet do we take it with a grain of salt or let Microsoft work out their bugs? I also have to throw in the fact(or rumour)that Vista was apparently already completed and ready to hit the shelves, but they decided to roll back the date just to go over some potential bug fixes. So, I have say, I'm not all that convinced, yet, but as usual Windows will need time to mature and accomodate us rather than the other way around.
I am what you would call depressingly comfortable...
What I have seen of Vista p**ses me off. It uses 450MB + of memory, and all I get for that is a nicer interface and a whole bunch of headaches when it comes to installing programs or trying to administrate my PC. There is very little that is worthwhile for the experienced user other than the pretty interface and the upgraded security.
It is, however, quite stable for not being completed and should proove to be a soild base from which to build on (or cut away from). There should be some options somewhere to disable all the resource hogging tasks with a click or two.
Well, I too am using Vista as a second OS. When all is said & done, my 1024MB DDR seems to not be enough memory. The more programs you instal the more DDR Ram the OS uses. So, from a fresh instal, with nothing installed but the Vista OS, it uses 390MB of DDR Ram, and when I have other stuff installed it shoots up to around 750MB of DDR Ram. When playing games like F.E.A.R, it goes well over 1GB of DDR Ram, and it starts sinking into my Virtual Memory which is obviously slower then my DDR Ram.
Just like Windows 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, XPx64 - they all had bugs & stuff, it is a matter of time when Microsoft will make the Vista work better then its beta version.
I agree with what Sander said, but not necessarily as strongly as he feels. The new interface is really nice, but I just don't see enough work being put into the usablility of it. I have tested quite a few versions of the beta, and I don't see enough reason to upgrade from XP, especially not for the price that it will be. Unless I see some great strides being made during the last part of Vista's Beta, I'm not going to upgrade to it right away.
Never be afraid to try something new. Remember, amateurs built the ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
AMD Phenom 9850 || DFI Lanparty 790FX-M2RS || 8GB OCZ Platinum || XFX 7900GS XT ||
Check eBay computerman_89
I read another sites article that said they installed F.E.A.R and tried to run it on a high end system with 2 gigs of memory and it was brought to its knee's. They said that before now they thought it was ridiculous that OCZ was releasing a 4 gig kit for Windows Vista, but now are starting to see that it might indeed be necesary to upgrade to 2+ gigs just to play at decent speeds on new games. I think its ridiculous, I personaly will NOT be buying Vista until I see articles and reviews deeming that Microsoft has done a good job of optomizing it. Some games still use Direct X 8 and almost all of them are Direct X 8 compoatable, so saying that Vista will be better for gaming simply ecause it has DX10 will not be a valid reason for an upgrade, as it will take the gaming industry a few years to get full DX10 support, not to mention it will take a while for video cards to be DX10 compatable. Yes ME was the worst OS ever and I really like windows XP so dibs to Microsoft for XP, but Vista is becoming less and less apealing to me as I do not want to spend 300+ dollars on new memory, probably a new processor, and the outrageous 100$+ for the OS just so I can play games slightly WORSE then I play them now!
Why are people surprised that Vista doesn't do much more then XP or Win2K? Microsoft's MO for years has been "Do the same with more". More hardware, same old features.
Let's look at XP vs. Win2K. When XP was released it had only a few differences over Win2K. The major "selling feature" for XP was it's easier to use UI (read dumbed down and shinier). I just "upgraded" to XP last year from Win2K. The only reason I did was for XP's application specific memory options. If you were to look at my desktop you'd be hard pressed to tell which OS I'm using. Once you strip away the Duplo-face (big kids play with Lego, little kids play with Duplo) XP looks the same as Win2K.
I've had my hands on Vista for months, via MSDN. The new interface is different but I'd be hard pressed to say it's better. Mind you I've been starring at the same interface since 95/NT 4.0, so I'm used to a certain look and feel. I expect beta's to have poorer performance since they usually haven't been optimized yet. Opening Outlook on a P4 3.2 shouldn't feel like I'm using a P2 400.
Microsoft's OS division needs to take a look at what the Office division is doing for 2007. They've scraped the old interface and a big piece of the code base for 2007. It's fresh and it's light. Something they might want to try over in the OS part of the campus.
Does anyone at MS know how to write and OS from the ground up anymore? Stop piling more "features" on top of the NT 4.0 kernel and just start again. They can spew all the propaganda stating that Vista is all new but it's painfully obvious it's not.
Did you all miss this? I have personally seen A_Pickle's machine running Vista, and there was no slowdown. The only thing was that Half-Life 2 was a touch jerky, but other than that, it seems like a zippy little system. I, however, have yet to try out Vista on my computer.
Microsoft's last iteration of DirectX is version 9.0c. They have a new developing platform, called 'XNA,' which will install separate from DX9.
i think what you are all forgetting is that this is just beta at the moment. as in not even release candidate!
so keep that in mind before judging it!
i installed the beta on my laptop, enjoyed the chess game then switched back to xp! i liked the driver support because you can load xp drivers onto it so i got everything on my laptop working properly. i'll agree that programs took ages to load but remember that its only a beta.
I certainly wonít be bothering with Vista if I can help it,
I tried it recently and as far as I'm concerned the majority of it is a big waste of space..for my needs anyway.
It seemed to use more than double the resources XP does and XP as far as Iím concerned is bad enough. I donít believe any OS I install I should have to spend half an hour turning off useless bells and whistles..not to mention all the little default settings in xp that slow things up.
I donít believe ive ever seen an MS program that doesnít grow in size by major proportions every time they release it ..again lol.
As far as Iím concerned (call me old if you will lol) but I think upgrading should be a choice and not compulsory just because MS decides to release a decorative OS
well yes i hear its beta and all that bulldozer but then shouldnt of been realesed already?
besides all i would say is stick around with winxp before you make the change over and if vista is the resource hog which i believe is then i cant believe this can be the nexts best O/S, anyone thats like me would would know that speed and stability i would say are the 2 most things you want out of a O/S as for the rest later rather than sooner.
Now, also, I want all of you, yes, ALL OF YOU, to think about something for a minute...
Vista's still in Beta. BETA. As in TESTING. And plus, as with any piece of software, OS, Game, Photo Editor or the like, the initial release is still going to have some bugs, it's inevitable. The fact that you're all bitching about it before it comes out is appauling. Again, they are still testing it. If you have a suggestion, you could probably send it in to Microsoft, and they may take it into consideration.
A_Pickle (I know I mention him a lot, but he is both a. a friend, and b. quite plausible) in one thread mentioned that the common trend for Windows OS's is that the requirements essentially double. All of these articles of crap people keep referencing are testing Betas. When a program is in beta (programmers help me out here) usually the code is still written through the environment in debug mode, meaning is keeps the code exactly the same as it was typed. The way we humans code programs is honestly not that efficient. Once the program is ready for release, it is sent into the mode of the same name, "Release." This optimizes the code for maximum efficiency, but ironically, nothing can beat hand tweaking for efficiency. In this manner it is a double-edged sword of sorts.
So, yeah, for now, all of the betas that everyone recieves are going to be a might bit slow, but once the release, everything should be optimized. Don't expect Microsoft to release an exceptionally slow version of their flagship software.
________ "None of you understand. I'm not locked up in here with you. YOU'RE locked up in here with ME." - Walter Kovacs, A.K.A. Rorschach.
ok Bobby Phillipps i will speak true with you, your right its all about waiting, seeing if MS make it or break it, lets really see what comes of it, maybe for one thing later on it will come to point that an O/S maybe take more resources but i dont feel that time is due yet. as i said lets wait and see .
Great points guys, but never the less Windows Vista "IS" a resource hog when you compare it to XP. That is already "FACT".
Let's just see what Micro$oft has in store for there final release. But right now as it stands, if you are a gamer, then 1GB is not enough, and 2GB should be fine, for games out today, but tomorrow's games looks like you will need @ least 4GB of DDR, just to completely prevent any possible slow downs.
Games like BF-2, Oblivion & F.E.A.R with HDR on or off are a taste of what to expect in the near future and all sure would love that extra RAM.
I won't be surprised if Vista Ultimate would run much slower than XP on FX-62 CPU / 4 GB PC2-1000 ram, and nobody will use it. So MS will decide to screw everybody by making DX10 vista exclusive. Basically hardcore forcing people into using vista. Man, if that will be the case, f that. I'll say I am done with MS BS and just go play tetris in linux