Vista requirements laughable!
I'm linking an article here on the basic requirements to run the new Microsoft OS, and I must say, I don't think people will be jumping on the Vista bandwagon in droves or anything, considering all you'll have to upgrade to run the damn thing.
http://www.pcmech.com/show/kudos/919/
For those who don't want to read the article (though you should), here's a summary:
7GB footprint- not a huge deal, considering HDs are pretty large now, but that's still honking huge.
800MB Ram - this is just to run the OS. For games you'll probably need 2-4GB.
HDCP Compliant Video Card & Monitor - the article states that no cards or monitors on the market today will work, and you'll get a blank screen with "Monitor Revoked" on it.
Trusted Platform Mode (TPM) - A Vista security feature found on the motherboard. Basically, unless you're one of the few high-tech corporate right now, you don't have it and you'll need a new MB.
Vista Itself - This is going to cost you, but first you have to figure out which of the 20 versions best suits your needs. Yes, including OEMS, there are 20 estimated versions.
I'm not sure where this article gets it's information, or how much is true, but it seems rediculous to upgrade to Vista anytime soon.
Edit: bad spelling :P
http://www.pcmech.com/show/kudos/919/
For those who don't want to read the article (though you should), here's a summary:
7GB footprint- not a huge deal, considering HDs are pretty large now, but that's still honking huge.
800MB Ram - this is just to run the OS. For games you'll probably need 2-4GB.
HDCP Compliant Video Card & Monitor - the article states that no cards or monitors on the market today will work, and you'll get a blank screen with "Monitor Revoked" on it.
Trusted Platform Mode (TPM) - A Vista security feature found on the motherboard. Basically, unless you're one of the few high-tech corporate right now, you don't have it and you'll need a new MB.
Vista Itself - This is going to cost you, but first you have to figure out which of the 20 versions best suits your needs. Yes, including OEMS, there are 20 estimated versions.
I'm not sure where this article gets it's information, or how much is true, but it seems rediculous to upgrade to Vista anytime soon.
Edit: bad spelling :P
0
Comments
Personally I'm not planning on upgrading to Vista there is no point to it. It doesn't bring anything new or good to the table. However it's not going to fail because it'll roll out with Dell's, HP's and every other boxed system down the line. It'll succeed because it's simpley MS's next real OS.
DirectX10
A lot of these articles take me back to 2000-2001 with the whole win 2k to XP thing.
I used XP as soon as it was sent out to OEMs, went out and bought the license. I went through a good 6 months of people telling me how much better win2k was but they all changed soon enough.
Windows ME rolled out OEM on new hardware, doesn't mean it wasn't a pile crap and soon ditched for a rollback to 98 or NT/2000; but yes Vista will be on every new premade computer system out there. I just hope it's worth people having to buy an all new system -- and I hope thier returns department is well staffed for people who buy it and can't run it.
Due to constant bug fixes and feature improvements currently being done on a daily basis, even the senior engineers don't know and won't know what the final specs will be until Vista is finalized as far as features. Then the entire operating system will go through an optimization phase that will tweak and adjust features to maximize performance while still leaving a good feel. When the final Beta is released this summer, then you will start seeing actual specs being released.
Right now, the system is running very slow. They know this and making final assumptions for the basic specs is unrealistic and probably flat wrong. I did a full write up on my take from the Tech Review over at Short-Media. Stop in and see what I gleamed.<o></o>
I bought my monitor like 3 years ago and i paid a lot of money becuase it is an eizo. Not planning of upgrading soon
Well you'd be wrong - partially. You won't need to upgrade your computer to run Vista (unless it just won't handle minimum requirements). However if you want to play High Definition video back on your computer then you do need an HD compliant video card and monitor. Most newer video cards are already HD compliant. So it's really the monitors that will be the big issue for most people.
I keep reading more and more that's a myth. The original article states it is, and here's another article to support that.
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7321.cfm
In a nutshell it says, if you've purchased a new video card lately, you've wasted your money, and you will probably need a new vid-card for HD. You're video card memory also has to have a bandwidth of 1,800MB per second -- whatever that means (see this article).
http://www.networkcomputing.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=185303209
I agree with QCH's premise that it's too soon to tell, but so far it doesn't sound promising, and unless it becomes simplified (which is Apple's forte, not MS's), I think people are just going to get confused into not upgrading.
Yes, Apple runs at a much higher pricepoint, then most run-of-the-mill systems.
No bones about it, I'm eager to see Vista in action though.
Seriously though Vista I just don't get it. I've seen the demo's I've even played with a recent build and I haven't seen that shiny, polished apple that should make me want to buy it. Personally I'm not a fan of the new Glass Gui at all. It kinda looks neat but doesn't add any actual functionality that alt-tab doesn't already do. Imac's Expose feature is better by far. All the new networking features that come enabled and then have to be disabled just to make it really worth while is a huge annoyance. I'm also no supporter of having the OS dictate what drivers I can and can't install. I'm ok with a prompt asking me if I'm sure I want to do it. I'm certainly not happy with an OS that says sorry you can't because they haven't paid us yet.
DRM yes well it could be annoying but it'll only be annoying initially until it's cracked. Then it'll just be one of those things you have to do to get things to work.
Which really only leaves Directx 10. So yeah it's supposed to be fantastic. But it'll be a year at least until it's useful or even mandatory. I also have a feeling that MS will break down and release Directx 10 for XP. I mean game developers aren't idiots. They know people in a year will still be running XP. As far as Windows OS's go XP is the best they have. I still prefer it's gui to that of Vista's bloated mess. So if in a year they want to put out Directx 10 games and Vista hasn't taken off yet then directx 10 won't be a requirement or they'll pressure MS to make Directx 10 available to XP.
But what does all this then mean? The only thing Windows holds dominance over is the video game world? And if then doesn't that mean that Vista with it's Directx push is really only an Xbox - PC?
Seriously, I mean ok I've always been an alternative to windows guy. I love Linux and I really love OSx. Before using linux or OSX used to have limits when it came to business software and certainly games. While the game front is still a hurdle that's not coming down anytime soon, the business front is no longer the same. I mean Office regardless if it's OpenOffice or MS Office is now fully functional on Linux and OSX. Then you have business ERP style software which is more and more becoming OS independent as most are switching to JAVA/Web apps.
Then if you really need a business app we have programs like VMWARE, Parallels and Xen that allow us to run a virtual machine in our prefered OS. So I can be working blissfully in whatever OS and just have a virtual machine of XP running for the 1 or 2 apps I may need. Dual booting of course is another option.
There are plenty of people who hate luna but prefer to use XP over win 2k, UI shouldnt be the main reason for using an operating system.
As for the system requirement I'm not all that shocked. 2gb of memory isnt exactly overkill and the 20+ versions business turned out to be FUD anyway.
What makes you say that?
I don't know about that. I think the UI should be a pretty substantial reason for the use of an OS. It is after all one of the things you'll be interacting with the most. You can have the best engine in the world but if the drive sucks why bother.
Now while I understand there is a lot more to it then that a UI I like is up on the list. Now in vista's case I don't like the UI and I'm not a fan of what the engine is packing.
re linux and business software.
Quite simply there is a lot of business software that in the past wouldn't run on linux. I'm not talking Office here. I mean front ends to ERP software, versioning software programing software etc...etc...etc.. All the things beyond making Word and Spread sheet documents. Fortunately that is all changing and fast.
Guess I just don't understand your argument. It's great if you've had some sort of Mac epiphany but your reasons for switching seem quite trivial. It would take a lot more than not liking the default interface to get me to pay over the odds for what’s basically a cleaned up Dell with a TPM.
I'm very biased though, I just don't like Apple in general. Gets worse when the people who obviously do like them tend to defend Apple so strongly.
That is my point. Previously most business software was closed and only worked on windows so business have grown up with windows infrastructures and continue to move in that direction. Most companies with Macs delegate them to their graphics/advertising dept. So as business continue to grow they buy what they have, replacing windows machines with more windows machines etc... Now as the world is changing and software companies realize that businesses want to save costs and one easy way to do that is by ditching windows licenses and going to Linux platforms they have started designing platform independent front ends. But not all business software does. So that is why windows is still strong in the work place. A simple fact of it's been there the longest and by some companies is still required.
My reasons for going mac happy are beyond the UI, same as the reasons for not liking MS. The OS is more stable, it's faster it takes full advantage of SMP and actually allows the graphics card to run the GUI. All applications are isolated from the system so installing/removing an app is as simple as dragging it to your programs file or deleting it. There is no registry that gets mauled there are no files dropped sporadically around your system. Backing up your computer and restoring can be done with simple drag and drop.
Upgrading to a different version or hardware is simple. I mean ever get a new PC and want to easily get your data/programs off of the old and onto the new? Windows offers their joke of System Transfer wizard that does indeed move docs and settings. But it also means you'll have to reinstall all the software first or sometimes later depending on the order it dictates. So most sane people view it as a clean up time and have been lulled into this acceptance. New machine means clean install. No need on a mack hook both up together and it will pull in everything.
But more then that. Most programs talk together in a way that Windows software doesn't. I mean I loved Nero for working with DVD's, CD's, Pictures, Music etc... But it's utter crap when compared to the tools that come bundled with OSX.
The network stack is faster and I don't mean on a level where it's technically faster but you won't see it. You can tell it's faster. But then again it's BSD and so it should be.
On the subject of BSD - well it's a BSD back-end which means when I go into a terminal I can actually work with system settings that really have an effect. Unlike windows where even if you are a DOS Master there are extreme limits on what you can actually do to effect windows. Now how bout simple things as file sharing it uses SMB and it does it a hell of a lot faster then windows, I'd say my other systems find the mac almost twice as fast as they do my other windows shares and once connecting the transfers are faster too.
On the hardware side, your right they are PC's that have gotten away from Bios. Oddly Vista is still trapped with bios. But the big advantage is that they are a controlled platform. It means that when developing OSX they don't have to worry about the compatibility of a nigh infinite variety of hardware or level of hardware. This used to keep Mac's being more expensive. But now that they are shipping in more volumes prices are dropping and features are becoming enhanced. They are right now 3 in the world for overall hardware quality. 1st and 2nd are HP and IBM (forget which is which) 3rd is Apple. Dell doesn't even blip on the radar. But again it is at it's heart now just a normal computer so for those few windows apps I do want I can use boot camp flip to XP and I'm up and going.
If you don't like Apple - then don't like apple I don't care. But I always get a chuckle out of people who see the defense of Mac's as zealotry. It's no difference then the defense of Linux, windows or the zealots who go after opposing systems. The simple fact is OSX works better then Windows XP and nothing that I've seen in Vista so far provides anything that really improves the functionality of XP. So far they claim it's more secure and stable but that's just a boast until it's actually really field tested.
What do they mean by this?
On a site note is it true with windows vista all the hardware and software information has to be sent to Microsoft or you will be lock out of Windows?
Read this.
Windows Vista records the license data, along with the generalized hardware profile, That's what that Vista Experience crap is all about, I wager. The OEM license says you cannot move the installation to another computer, but you can change some hardware here and there. Add things, but I doubt if your board croaks, they'll give you that window of reprieve. Retail, they say you can move it all you want. They don't care. But I bet they'll find some way to bitch about it.
Man I ___ing hate corporate America, and their greed!
I think Windows 2000 and XP does this.So they send the license data and hardware profile to Microsoft.And if you add new hardware you will not be able to long into windows?
And so is same with Windows 2000 and XP and what is OEM license ?
OEM means Original Equipment Manufacturer. Usually, OEM is used to describe the component without anything else. Such as a hard drive without cables, or a retail box. OEM software isn't meant to be transferred in any way other than once. Like Compaq and their bloatware they install on PC's. That's basically OEM software. You get it, and that's all. You can't move it if you wanted to unless they provided Retail discs. Microsoft uses OEM's to say 'You cannot transfer this at all.' and Retail for 'This is yours. Keep it with you.' and Corporate for 'This is the copy your company can use so many times, then you have to buy another'. Microsoft just likes money.
XP sent basically a hardware hash, think it's 64-bit, 512 characters when you "Genuine"-ize your XP. 2000 didn't.