I don't know why Microsoft doesn't just put Vista on the market right now, using beta 1 as the main version. Mac OS x is comming out with lepard (10.5) possibly before vista. Microsoft has waited too long for this upgrade.

Think LINUX!

Another year on the upgrade treadmill... Keep running, you will get there. How do you keep hordes of programmers fed and happy. You keep them coding bloated crapware.

I have yet to hear a concise value proposition for upgrading to Vista. It seems most of the reasons floating around are eye candy and toys. There initially was talk of some useful inclusions on the datbase aware filesystem front but didn't they yank that out?

I am sure that some MS parter will put out software that simply must be run on Vista in order to keep their hardware and software channel partners happy and keep that treadmill turning and churning. Cha Ching!

As for me, I will stay with my xp for now I think.

From a user's view who works and fuddles around with computers since 20 years, all this seems a clear deal:

either you upgrade and meet the requirements
or you just leave everything as it is

All depends - in my eyes - on what you really need. From that point of view nobody ever needed any upgrade - except for communications.

Find out what you need and you know if this new OS is for you.

Though . . . there is this slipsteam from the underground of human nature and this suction from the neighbours flying by. You GOTTA have the new stuff. I admit that. Curiosity and enjoyment of play go a long way back in human history.

So, again, there is the call to open the purses and give in to - what?

Very Good. Been trying to get this point across for weeks now. Its not necessary to upgrade, and this product won't be out for another year, and EVEN if it does come out, there isn't a rush to use it.

Microsoft need to add features so we can recovery from the worst situations, including when we cannot go into the windows, we still can recovery to the best conditions before that happend, or any date which we already have the point of recovery.

This is a must

You mean like to press F8 when windows starts, so you can get a console to go into safe mode? Or you can use the disk to boot from, so you can repair Windows?

Just what are you saying? because both of these features, and recovery have been there since Windows 2000.

I love Microsoft. Vista will be excellent.

You know I just don't get it.... Why would I bother with this upgrade? It offers nothing to me that I would want to spend money on. From what little I've heard of vista... I can add-on shareware programs that do essentially the same type of things (I.E. Yahoo widgets, GUI via Window blinds ect..) The list of shareware/freeware apps goes on and on...

The thought of buying a new OS and having most of my beloved programs not work with it for 6 months or longer isn’t that appealing. As for stability... well I'm just fine with XP... Frankly if it has taken them years to finally roll out a OS with a bunch of "borrowed" ideas from freeware products I'll pass... But that’s just me.

Maybe I'm missing something in vista that I really need... Does it save me gas money??? :)

Everyone says this about every OS version, I remember those that wouldn't go to 95, 98, 98SE, Millenium (I skipped and went to 2k myself), NT, 2K, and even XP. Fact is, you may not right away, but I give 1 years time, you'll be there (either on your computer or some new laptop).

I am excited by Vista actually. The security updates seem valid and realistic, and I think this will be a great release (on par with win 2k).

Actually, the companies will push everyone to change the OS, soner or later. Microsoft will break many things on XP on their next Service pack, so you'll PRAY to upgrade to the "new" Windows vista.
Software companies will start programming for Vista, and let XP versions fade out.
That's called market strategy, now we (users) could follow the xmas color lights or think for ourselves and wait for a good product to show up. I guess that, as happenned before, everyone will will get excited by the marketing tricks and follow the nice colored cool crap.

Way toomany people have been saying this, clearly in ignorance. If you can't getthe beta, at least read about the changes. It's WAY more than eye candy.

Compaq Presario Notebook, P4 2.8, 1156MB RAM, ATI Mobility Radeon 9100 (no Vista WDDM drivers) 128MB VRAM, installed Vista beta2 build 5308 (Feb CTP) on a 10GB partition. *Maybe* half the hardware is supported directly, the rest is legacy XP drivers or doesn't work at all.

In approximate order of imprtance (to me):

1) User Account Protection is the best thing to happen to Windows since 95 at least. SO much better not to run around with Admin rights all the time; Linux taught me that, but I've had to learn tons of song-and-dance to have full capability on a non-admin XP account.

2) Security! Far better firewall, Security Center now checks for anti-malware status (Defender comes included in package), UAP, IE7 Protected Mode... kind of a meta-category, but it had to be mentioned all together.

3) Desktop search is incredibly handy, more so because it's integrated into all of Vista's major programs, but somewhat specialized to each. For example, it will search your e-mail from the Start menu, but in categories with programs coming before e-mail or documents

4) IE7 is fantastic; 5308 has an actually older version than I use in XP (on the rare occasion I boot XP anymore) but it's still very very well done. Protected mode (IE7 and all it's children run with super-low permissions that basically limit it to Temp. Internet Files unless you explicitly give access to the rest of your drive), Phishing filter, QuickTabs, Favorites Center, superior use of screen real-estate, and a pop-up blocker that outperforms Firefox's on at least a few sites are all major improvements, and more come in every release.

5) Speaking of software... About time Windows had its own calendar software, and they did a great job on it. Windows Mail is much nicer to use and has a better interface (and search, of course) than OE. Windows Media Player 11 is incredible; I love its features, its intuitiveness, even its look (and I'm not an eye-candy guy). Yes, i know it's available for XP. Windows Defender built in, and integrated with Microsoft Update (also built in, i.e. not a brower ActiveX anymore) is a great move on MS's part. Sidebar is very handy, especially on a widescreen. Aside from the games (lots of eye-candy, slightly improved capabilities, and they have 3D Chess now!) I haven't tried many other builtins, but there are a LOT. (This will pobably cause lawsuits... *sigh* every other OS is allowed to bundle all they want, but not Windows.)

6) Background things: SuperFetch cuts program startup to the bone once it learns your habits, and helps streamline booting (instead of XP's invisible message saying wait 3 minutes after booting while your other programs load before trying to run anything). Automatic background defrag is brilliant; a great way to use idle cycles and almost nobody runs it as often as they should. File indexing is very important for their quick search tools. Improved networking stack has noticably decreased download times.

7) Interface, especially Start menu and Windows Explorer. The new Explorer is a touch buggy in this beta, but shows all kinds of promise; better viewing and preview options, superior filesysem navigation, integrated search (of course), and the ability to hide the menubar (and bring it back at the touch of a button). Start Menu is faster/easier to use most of the time, never worse than XP (a few things in XP I thought were worse than 2K). Finally, even without Aero Glass, they look better.

This is only a beginning, and I've only been using Vista heavily for ~2 weeks. Try it out before judging.

Well I don't know about ignorance... but you still failed to sell me on it. Frankly if that’s all of the wonderful features I'll pass.

Still didn't save me a dime on gas!

But you did have a nice presentation. Cookies were a little stale... but the nice presentation. :)

You should try and use it before you give an opinion. One of the main complains with Windows XP is security, and this is something Vista is addressing directly. You give a perfect example with "GUI with WindowsBlinds". I did try it and found it makes my system slower and from time to time, I lose the UI skin and goes back to classic mode. This is something I don't expect for a software I paid for. In Vista, this works very nicely. Also, the fact that even a user with admin priviledges run in a restricted mode unles you purposely agree to run something in admin mode, will cover you from spyware and virus -and this is build-in in the OS- it's part of its architecture, making it more secure.

not really, I read it, I still see nothing earth shattering. You give me a feature that will excite me to upgrade, and maybe I will change my mind. I agree with that other guy, there is NOTHING with this new OS that is going to justify why I should upgrade.

Windows XP is that the point, in the last year, that games, apps, and utilities are finally stable and everything runs good. Now we have to start all over with service packs, patches, updates, compatibility.. I don't want to do that again for something that offers very little in the way of improvement or revolutionary features.

The GUI with Windows blinds is dependent on the Video settings. I have Windows blinds, and mine NEVER slows my system. In fact, they changed it, to where windows blinds integrates with Windows, its not even a separate service (you won't see a process that is running) its part of themes, so the OS handles this, which is why you need to make sure your video card is comparable.. 256 ram. I have 128 meg ram and mine is good.

Dude you are reading too many urban legend sites. Ms doesn't intentionally break anything for you to upgrade. Products themselves may include features which are supported by the current OS, and that may compell you to switch, but don't go spreading bad info about this MS breaks stuff crap, its just not true.

Companies take a LONG time to convert the OS, the typical switch takes 2-3 years. Its only been the last year that games have finally adopted XP and the Direct X fully, some games, STILL are 98/2000 compliant, and they still have not upgrade ALL features to be fully XP ready.

Big Businesses won't switch to a new OS either for 2 years, it takes a lot of money and time to switch people, so companies won't want to be affected by the upgrade.

That's not market strategy what you are talking about, that's paranoia, don't get them confused. Maket Strategy includes making a product appealing to the public, but they don't need to break a previous product to FORCE you to upgrade, that's just stupid. And you are spreading lies to even imply they do that.

And its not merely enhanced graphics that people will notice. Vista will run faster and ultimately be more stable, and optimized for 64-bit. As far as new features, I don't see any myself, but to say Vista will replace XP just to force you to upgrade, is totally incorrect.

hahaha..

Free Food, that didn't impress you?

I see your point and I didn't attend the presentation, so I am glad I didn't waste my time..

I don't see anything I need. For things that I would like to have, I would have to spend 500 bucks to improve my system enough to use it.

I can't believe a product like this is going to come out. I remember hearing about it back in the day and the features that were originally suppose to be in Vista sounded too good to be true. After checking out the link to the "Get Ready" site I'm just disappointed with the end result. FIVE versions of Vista?? I can understand Home, Pro and Media Center editions but FIVE??? Personally it seems like such a rip off.

As for the requirements, I guess that's cool if you want to run the basic features of Vista on an older 800Mhz and use it as a file server or web browser. Or you can just stick with 2k or XP for those purposes.

Why is 5 so hard to understand?

You just mentioned 3. 2 more, a 64-bit version and a server, what's so difficult about that?

You can use Windows 98 for fileserver if you want to go that far and keep the 800 mhz... But the point is its the next upgrade, if you DON'T need it, don't worry about it. They aren't holding a gun to your head to switch.

The specs are no prolbem for us gamers but alot of average pc wont comply. Thats prety steep!!!!!!!

Dude, its NOT a required upgrade! Average PC people won't care or need to upgrade.

The minimum specs are pretty steep, I imagine there are a whole lot of computers out there that won't be vista capable. So I guess that just leaves the computers dorks and OEM's huh, who else would want this bloated thing, I seriously doubt corporate or government will adopt it anytime in the near future, say 5 years. I mean most haven't even touched XP yet. Who really wants to give MS millions of dollars for all new os's when the hardware won't even be able to run it. I mean how many computers do you know of that have 512mb's ram? 256 is the average im sure. Maybe not for peole posting here, but certainly in the world of corporate/mom and pop users.

Hey I agree that some companys are just getting XP just the other day a top 500 company just did a data migration to XP, now as for the hardware upgrades this is kind of high for your jo,blow home computer user, my two computers have two,three hard drives I got plans to go to 512mbs of memory and get a high end video card anyway!

*October 25, 2001: Microsoft releases Windows XP (AKA Windows NT 5.1)*

WOW time really flies. Its been THAT long, amazing!

This is probably the longest sustained version of a MS OS, that hasn't been forced into retirement... I think it will last until 2008..

I'll wait till the thing is out to upgrade my laptop, right now it could probably run Vista on minimum, but why bother. I want the whole shi-bang with sliding graphics and everything. :p

You can have the whole visual shi-bang with sliding graphics, just get Windows blinds..

true...

Remember, Microsoft has lied about the "minimum" requirements for every new operating system. Show me a system running XP with even minimal (and bearable) wait time on only 256 MB of RAM, but that's all Microsoft says you need. (Might it even have stated only 128 MB for XP at one point?)

Whatever Microsoft recommends, remember to double it if you want the performance promised--and will not have you sitting there drumming your fingers while swapping.

Umm.. I really don't remember MS EVER lying about their minimum specs. I distinctly remember people adding a bunch of crap on their machines, and having background services and programs that ADD to the load of the OS, which makes the additional overhead of the OS greater, and that makes the memory requirements more, and THAT is what bloats the MS OS, not the OS itself.

You can take ANY OS, install it, with minimum requirements, and DON'T install ANY additional software, THOSE are the requirements for the OS, you cannot expect the OS to take on additional burden and still keep the memory load at a minimum.

This would be like expecting a jeep to pull 5000 pouds. Which it can do, but if you have people in the car, the towing capacity of a vehicle INCLUDES the weight and load of the vehicle, not JUST the tow weight.

That's what people forget. you can't realistically expect to pull 5000 pounds or load up your OS with a bunch of crap and still expect to keep the load minimal, that's rediculous.

Very nicely put. And yes XP WILL run on 256MB of RAM. Not very well, but it will run.

I have run XP on a system with 350Mhz CPU and 128 MB RAM. While not the faster thing in the world it could handle Office 2000 and browsing the web just fine. This was with themes enabled but all the extra stuff turned off.

Very well put rijp. You are sooo right on with that. With you discription one thing came to my mind though SPYWARE. I used to do tech support for dell for an out source company and OMG people would call in saying that their computer is slow, and so on. When I would walk them through opening up task manager and looking in the process tab they had too many process running. I remember this one fellow he actually had 344 process running in the back round and he was complaining that his computer took forever to start up and it would take it 5 mins to respond when he would click on something. I was like no wonder your computer is slow. I did a google search on those process and they were all little porn programs that he installed on his computer lol....anyways what you said is absoluty correct.

yeah same here, i had XP on a P2-350 with 128 SDRAM at work. And used it for at least a year too. not too slow actually, unless i was working on excel stuff.

You guys should nLite those systems if you still have them - get at-boot memory usage down to 40mb so you can actually do stuff!

344!? That's crazy! I can only wonder how many Threads/Handles he had. His system memory requirements must have been through the roof, leaving nothing for actual programs.

Hmmm...I should have been more specific about stated requirements as required in the *real* world. You know, that world where Real [Bad] Player adds its start-up junk, as does Quick[some]time, as does Office [Bloated] 2003, ad nauseam. And after that, mom or sister then purposefully adds ten or twelve other apps they find neat-sounding when reading the descriptions, but then never use. Also in that real world, hardly one newly purchased computer these days is delivered to the consumer without the 5000 pounds of bloat about which we certainly agree.

And once again, I remind 99% of those reading these postings that they [actually, "we"] live far from that real world. In that real world, mom, dad, sister, brother, etc. has a zillion useless start-up items running and are entirely clueless about them and their origins, or other running processes.

As everyday proof of what I contend, and because I very often work with others looking over my shoulder, those onlookers **invariably** comment on how much faster or better my computer seems to run than theirs (with no malware or other cooties), and mine even has a slower processor, smaller L2 cache, slower bus speed, etc. And well they should notice a difference when every XP-OS computer I own and use contains no less than 1 GB of RAM--far in excess of Microsoft's "minimum" stated requirements for XP, but what everyone wants when they finally see how well an XP-computer runs when "minimum" or even "recommended" requirements are exceeded. (Seriously, it is mind-boggling how many millions of people have never seen even a mediocre PC running with a full one gig of RAM.)

Minimum OS requirements = automobile's expected gas mileage. That is, it always seems to vary, and not ever in the consumer's favor! Has anyone here ever said, "Jeesh, this OS/application/service/etc. runs great on just half of what Microsoft said it would need!"? Nah, didn't think so. {smile}

Well... it says "mininum" specs, which is the minimum hardware in which the OS will work... now, if you are adding apps, that's another story.

What you need is not the "minimun" hardware but the "recommended" one. :)

Well this is a primary area, where EDUCATION plays a vital part now doesn't it? If people don't ASK for help, there isn't much we can do, but if someone NEEDS some assistance, that is the time you let them know, they don't need every damn program in the startup group.. or every downloadable program under the sun.

And they need to quit allowing their machines to get infested with spyware and virus. They need to keep up with virus signatures, check it daily, degrag.. all those usual maintenance items.. Its just like a car, there are things that need to be done from time to time, its part of the deal.. If you don't maintain it, I dont' care how much hardware you have, you can bring down a machine with poor maintenance.

guess nobody noticed that they mean a 64-bit 800 mhz cpu.... cause unless something changed they were only going to make vista in 64-bit versions.

And your point would be?

I don't recall Vista requiring 64-bit, they will have Vista rated components. If its not "designed" for Vista on the package, then it won't work.

Running the beta rght now on a good old 32-bit p4

There is a 32-bit and 64-bit version

The business versions of Vista will come in both 32 and 64 bit. I am not sure if Home is. I see no reason for Home not to come in 64 bit though and as I have heard nothing to say it won't come in 64 bit I would assume it is.

So pretty much any PC bought in the past three years will run Vista, albeit possibly without the really fancy graphics. Seems fine to me after all its been 5 years since XP came out you had to expect it to require a pretty big jump power wise.

I can live with that

512 mb of Vram might not be much to the average person that posts in these topics but you have to remember that the average person with a computer generally has an OEM type computer with integrated crap. It's really going to hit the OEM manufacturers hard, the ones that have integrated intel graphics cards. This means that most OEMs will be sticking with XP for a bit because as it will be cost effecient for them. Most people don't have a reason to change from XP anyway. I don't see the average computer user upgrading their system to buy another OS when XP does things just fine for them. I definitely think that Vista won't sell well in the beginning but will pick up well in a couple of years when everyone has a capable system. It just seems kind've before it's time to me.

How did you come up with 512 MB of Vram? 256 MB of Vram should be enough for most people and surely for those who buy -as you say- OEM types with integrated crap.
Didn't it ever occur to you that prices of the hardware will drop. My experience by the way is that OEM manufacturers will change immediately after a new Windows OS is released because this is the biggest reason why sales will rise.

I dont think I'm going upgrade. I put x64 on here and I have no problems at all. Vista needing all this extra memory is going make my system slow down because I need the memory for encoding/decoding and games.. unless memory goes down to atleast 1/2 the current price I won't buy memory to get vista.. I think the whole reason for vista is because a LOT of people have no reason to buy a computer at all. Vista is like an expensive over bloated peice of art work or something to admire because it looks cool to use it.. I don't know how to explain it but maybe some rich a** will buy a new system so their desktop looks l33t.. although l33t to others would be linux commands..

If someone is going to buy a new machine, are they going to buy one with XP, or are they going to buy one with the shiny new OS that looks good? My guess is that eye candy wins almost every time to the average user.

If Joe's Computer Warehouse won't sell them a Vista machine, Dell will.

Fine.

The main purpose here is that Vista is the next OS. If you WANT it, then there it is. If you don't, well you don't NEED to run out and buy it.

i agree
my point too
waste of memory

that's mainly what vista is eye candy. Just a bunch on glits and glamer.

this isn't new...it's just new from microsoft

...

So...who cares? I love these people that come here and post their computer specs to feel good about themselves. :)

...

thats a funny one but really no one cares about the specs of your computer. We are talking about the specs that Vista requires to run on a computer.

I have a 286, 4 meg of RAM, 20 meg hard drive, 512k EGA card, I don't have any problems.

awwww :-(
don't post if you can't take it!

OK..here's a question. All it's going to do is attract scum like you and Niro. So why should I leave it there if all you 2 are going to do is do what you do best .....and that's being a waste of space.

scum?
i don't recall insulting you, A$$hole

Ok maybe I was a little harsh. I just get tired of people on here getting an attitude.

40 GB hard drive?
why?
1 gig ram?
how much ram can xp address right now? around 3 gigs.
now, if Vista needs 1 gig to run smooth, i'll take that to 1.5 - 2 once its loaded with resident programs.
add another gig or 2 to run future games...
that's a little too cramped for my comfort.
does anyone know if they have worked around this deficiency?
i know i'm overestimating a little, but windows IS a memory hog. the computer i use to mess around with uses around 400 - 600 MB of memory idle.
makes me wonder if they're going to take advantage of the 64bit extentions in the newer chips to add memory addressing space.
CRAP! i should patent that idea before they do.

Vista's memory management has been revamped. You won't need as much RAM as you say, but 2GB is already a good idea for the latest games, and will stay that way with Vista.

And yes, they have a way to work around the 32-bit deficiency of a 4GB maximum - it's called 64-bit Windows. There will be 64-bit versions of Vista.

As for XP's memory usage - what you see in the task manager isn't an accurate representation of what Windows XP needs. Try running XP on a 256MB system, and see how little RAM it uses. XP just uses what you've got to the greatest advantage: if you have a 1GB system, it will 'reserve' (not use) more system RAM. Vista will work in a similar way, but go further to pre-load commonly used programs into RAM, so they can start quicker. However, when a game is started, all other applications switch to low priority mode, and system resources are maximised for the game.

My theory regarding the 40GB HDD is the Vista install will probably be around 4-5GB, and they want you to have enough space to install a few programs.

More than that, however, is HDD speed. Older HDDs are quite slow - and for a Premium Vista configuration, a slow HDD would be the weakest link.

thx, i know how windows memory management works
it's not windows that's the memory hog (although, some of windows' processes...), it's the 20 programs i have running "that make my life so much better", that eat up all the memory
add that to an even more bloated OS, and i see issues when running newer games

but...time will tell ;-)

you can address much higher than that, I can put about 8 gig in a machine, and XP will recognize it..

20 programs running, and if you DON'T tweak the registry to remove unneccessary processes.. yeah that will eat up the memory.

I probably have more crap than you do running in the background, I have 1 gig, but I still manage to keep 550 meg free RAM. I know how to tweak the system to maximize efficiency..

And I do play games.. I have many games I play, I also have things like download managers, yahoo widgets, windows blinds, task clocks, walpaper screen savers, all kinds of stuff constantly running, but 1 gig is PLENTY.

that's theoretically impossible
a 32bit kernel can only address 4gb of memory
maybe you can explain to me how you got past this limitation

oh, and here's the proof
http://support.microsoft...px?scid=kb;en-us;294418

or, are you referring to xp64?
it can address 16TB, but has many driver limitations

Well theorhetical and what a board will support and is recognized by the OS is 2 different things.

We have server with 16 gig of ram, Windows 2000. I am not the maker of the software, but we have many servers configured this way.. so I don't know you tell me.

"but 1 gig is PLENTY. "

yah
OK
maybe for you... :-p
but this is supposed to be a next gen. OS, it needs to be ready for next gen. requirements in programs. winxp has trouble managing programs with large memory requirements or that access many files at once. i think they should fix this issue with Vista, not make it worse with a bloated OS that needs more memory itself.

" I know how to tweak the system to maximize efficiency.."

i do too, but i'm talking about the average joe's computer.

i hope they fix the out-dated registry, that's something apple definitly does better

do the servers have more than one proc.?
that's one way to by-pass the limitation, each 32-bit proc. can adress its own 4GB of memory.
also pagefiles can expand on the physical limits

Oh. Well ok fine! Get overly technical on me then, gawd!

lol :-)

*winxp has trouble managing programs with large memory requirements*

Its not the memory management that's the problem, its the processes running on a single CPU that's where the system gets bogged down...

WinXP has good memory management. I tweak mine using Tweak UI, Fresh UI, and I use a cache manager, plus I remove all the extra stuff from the registry, and turn off certain services, like background indexing and system restore, to keep the system from being taxed. 1 gig works great for me..

Some of the those processes also may be 16-bit, which when they run in a 32-bit thread, that can cause problems. Degrag, keep memory management fine tuned, turn off the paging file, and everything is good.

*i hope they fix the out-dated registry, that's something apple definitly does better*

Better, or there just aren't any apps to expose the weakness? I see people with MACs in the office, they have trouble.. I just can't help them..

The Apple machines have their share of problems, so does Linux, so does Sun. About the only machine I can say that DOESN'T have issues is the AS/400. maybe we should all be running on that.. go back to the "mainframe" evironment, and yes I know the AS/400 isn't a mainframe, but that central processing green screen is very similar.

"I see people with MACs in the office, they have trouble.. I just can't help them.."

lol
i couldn't help them either, i hate Macs, but they do have their good points.

Actually, all versions of windows until Vista had issues when performing large memory allocations(Ex: a 2048x2048x32 single array map grid, which would be 128mb in memory).

My system eats up 80mb at boot with all background programs running. After starting Trillian, Firefox, Thunderbird, Speedfan, etc. then I can hit up to 150/1024mb used.

I mostly use my memory for zipping huge files under insane settings with 7-Zip. I wouldn't mind windowblinds, but the Win2k version eats too much CPU for me to warrant getting it.

I hope flash drives come out soon. I'm fed up with I/o speed. Programs keep getting bigger and require more to load and the I/o sucks! I just went to stripping 10,000rpm raptures and it is finally bearable.. I can imagine it slowing down like it was when vista loads on.

What everyone's waiting on is not so much the hardware requirements but the price. $99 new and $50 upgrade has been touted. Most folks other than the Windows junkies will stick with XP at least until Vista SP1 and probably beyond that until their next PC upgrade. Last time I stuck with Win 98SE until upgrading to XP. I don't think the upgrade to Vista will bring the same step-change in user experience, looks more like eye candy and bells & whistles which most of us can live without. However if the upgrade was $30 or $40 then it may be worth it.

Wow that's significantly lower than 2000 and XP, they were both 179 for new, and 109 to upgrade, depending on where you buy them...

I have said it before, and I will say it again..

XP is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had. That's right, I said it, I defend it, go ahead bash me.. It's stable, has plenty of support, doesn't crash, easy to configure (or contorture depending on your rig) and its user friendly.

...

"XP is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had"

...

Absolutely.
...

The Computer Rodent
...

I agree except I would add "Pro" to that statement. I hate XP Home Edition. =/

I'd upgrade in a heartbeat for those prices, wouldn't give Linux another look on the desktop either.

That would be very reasonable ($99/$50).

XP Home is OK if you don't need MS networking or remote desktop.

wow
i agree
until i see something special, other than the eye candy, i see no reason to upgrade from xp either

(although, i think 2000 was the most stable, just not as user friendly)

Yeah, best OS for sure. But it ain't stable. :P

I'm d/l the new SuSE 10.1 right now ;)

"XP / XP PRO is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had"

/me agreed, I have no idea who would argue with that one.

Definitely. I love XP (I've only used Pro)...It's user-friendly, stable, and functional.

I won't upgrade to Vista soon...I'm gonna wait 'till early '08 once I graduate. I hope they get some more stability with the fixes and I can get a good deal on a computer with a optimal hardware to run the OS.

OK, not to start a war.. but I am glad you agree...

Pro vs Home, there are basically only 2 differences.

Pro will allow you to connect to a AD for a network, and you can have file/folder permissions on NTFS. Other than that , Home is essentially the same as Pro.

XP is the *BEST* OS MS has ever had.

---What about BOB?

*---What about BOB?*

That was a movie...

but seriously, BOB : 1995 Microsoft released a software program called "Bob" designed to replace the desktop of Windows 3.1 and 95 with an interface designed mainly for novice users.

It wasn't an OS, per se, a mere program manager enhancement..

A few possible reasons that Bob flopped:

* Bob required a minimum of a 486 with 8 megs of ram, 30 megs of free disk space, and 256 color VGA. Many computers of the day did not meet these minimum requirements.
* It was too "cute" for the average PC users of the day.
* Most people at the time who wanted ease of use would just get a Macintosh.
* Bob was not useful enough to justify its initial sale price of almost $100.
* Windows 95, which was released later that year, had the new Windows Explorer user interface which wiped the floor with Bob.

PC Tools (the software by Central Point, not the moose caffeneinated gear head we revere) also had a desktop replacement, that could have been an OS Replacment.

HP had a product called "New Wave", something like that.. another replacment.

I loved OS/2 Warp 4.0. Now THAT was an OS. Very stable, could run on very meager system specs. You want to start talking about OS with a good future, but IBM lacked the cojones to risk on a product, they wussed out.

Bleh, KDE eww.

wait wait, the new SUSE rips out KDE and bolts GNOME on the OS doesn't it?

Hmm, maybe it won't be so bad.

heh

Hmm

or: Bob was just a stupid idea. LOL

It was as bad as Packard Bell "navigator".

I prefer Windows 2000. With a few nuts and bolts, you can manually strap the important "XP" features onto it. It's also more efficient at doing single tasks, which makes it nice for gaming. :D

32bit only though... :-(

For $50 I'd have it instantly. For $150, I'll get it when I need to learn about all the new systemfiles. :)

I used to prefer 2000, but in the end it sucks. It sucks because I'm a software developer and 2000 crashes a lot more than XP when you have memory leaks and bugs in your code which makes it much harder to debug when the OS just dies

Good thing I Just upgraded.
Yet, I don't want vista !

Oh do tell, you can't give us all that pop corn, and then tell us there is no butter!

what did you upgrade?

funny thing is, I dont want vista even if its free. I don't want bloatedness, XP's eye candy is bad enough it actually slows a lot of richedit windows down significantly

Actual Helpful Info:

Specs direct from MS's own webservers:

http://www.microsoft.com.../hardware/vistarpc.mspx

Microsoft's Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor:

http://www.microsoft.com...adeadvisor/default.mspx

The second link will grade your PC and give you suggestions on what you need to do to have a VistaReady PC.

*DISCLAIMER: Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor is in Beta and does *not* like firewalls, corporate networks, or proxies.

Ya'll've™ been warned.

*Ya'll've been warned.* - invalid TM removed- :)

Yeah, like we adhere to warnings ... you may as well just give us the keys to the car right now, because we are going to set new speed records! We don't need no stinkin' warnings!

...

"The second link will grade your PC
and give you suggestions on what you
need to do to have a VistaReady PC"

...

The PC Rat scanned his computer, and the Upgrade
Advisor says that WinVista won't run on machines
powered by hand-cranks !
...

The Computer Rodent
...

lol

Didn't the Upgrade Advisor also say to stop referring to yourself in third-person?

Oh come on, I even laughed out loud at that one. Rodent 1...spef 0 :)

Remember the most important thing here people. Microsoft always gives low-ball system requirments for there OS's. So expect the min. for vista to be alot higher. Anyone remember running XP with 256mb ram. Yeah it was a slow joke.

Meh...

Configured properly, it can run on 256 just fine.

It's when you connect it to the net, thus requiring the use of spyware removes, adblockers, and anti-virus programs that things begin to seriously slow down.

Our laptops came with 256. Our sales-monkeys used them for 2 years before we broke down and upp'd 'em to 512.

It's so much fun when you give them new toys. Their cute little eyes light up, they get all giddy and jumpy.

Cute little sales-monkeys...

Hahaha.. we just bit the monkey in the ass, all our machines are 1Gig, desktops and laptops ...er notebooks. They aren't laptops anymore, moose boy.

I just saw a P-233 laptop with 256MB of RAM and a 3GB HDD running XP. The age of the laptop was scary... but more scary was that it was coping with XP fairly well. :/

Under the correct config, XP runs fine on 256MB (my file server runs 256MB). When you load it up with AV crap and what-not though, you need more RAM. I think Symantec should bundle a 512MB stick of RAM with their POS internet security suite. :P

memory is cheap nowaday. When Vista come up, I will add 2 more gigs to run it. I have 1 gigs to run XP now, and it's more than enough.

It will be more than enough for Vista, as well.

Fine! I will say it!

2 gig should be more than enough for anyone!

Just like 640KB was. :)

*Adds rijp's post to funny quotes list for 2010*

Quotes list! Post it on your blog when you get one years down the road! :D

memory is not THAT cheaper. 3 gigs of ram is still going cost about $200 and thats what you're going need to run Vista and the latest games.

Some of you fail to understand that the graphics requirement is to satisfy the desire to use the full Aero Glass interface... instead of just Classic or Default.

Windows Blinds. Already covered. I have the up to date theme replacement that will be in the next Vista, and I won't be needing that.

But thanks for the update.

I have a 128 meg video card, FYI.

Yeah that is true...graphics is the big change. Vista is just XP with transparency effects.

Do you really think they rewrote the OS...I don't, this just changed the packaging...

A 1GHz processor, 40GB hard drive and 1GB of RAM are required at the base level, as well as a modern DirectX 9 graphics card with at least 128MB of video RAM. 256MB of video memory is required for higher resolutions.

Hell, I've had a VistaReady system for almost 3 years now.

Cool.

PS: Anyone can grab a 256MB DirectX 9.0 Video card nowadays for as little as $50 (includes shipping).

..ain't nuthin.

256 of video RAM? WTF?!!!!!

I have that for running Half-Life but most people don't...
That sounds like a rediculous amount of VRAM!

Its not that far out of whack, by the time you get around to upgrading to Vista, 256 will be small by comparison.

It seems high now, but most GOOD video cards out now, have 256 as the norm.

Yes, and even most sucking ones. I've seen some GeForce 6200's(with no "Turbo-Cache" listed) that apparently have 512mb onboard. Run like crap for games though. :P

I haven't seen one of those. 512MB 6200s are always the turbo-cache versions, from what I've seen in Aus.

Believe it or not, I found one that wasn't here in Canada. I've only seen one though, and I can't find it online anymore. :/

There's 256mb ones in the US though, no turbocache listed....Newegg has about a dozen 6200's.

http://www.newegg.com/Pr...sp?Item=N82E16814150107

Those specs that they specify in the article are pretty interesting. Before I did an upgrade on a few things in my beta machine I was on an AMD Athlon XP 2800+ which runs at 2.0GHZ as well as 1gig of PC 3200 DDR RAM with an Nvidia FX 5200 128MB of ram. When I installed Vista Build 5381 it was extreamly slow. The processor was alway being used by a process called searchindexer.exe which I could not find to end and keep from starting up. anyways a couple of weeks later I upgraded my Video card to an Nvidia 7800GS with 256MB RAM as well as put in another 1gig of ram for a total of 2 gigs and booted up into Vista 5381 and it worked like a charm. The OS was not slow or anything.
SO in conclusion the system specs in this article are a minimum requirement but if you want the best preformance of vista your going to need alot more power than what they are saying here. Its just like XP they say it can run just fine with 128MB of ram but the more you load crap on your computer and slower it will get. But in this case before you load any other software on Vista its slow when it boots up if your computer is not powerful enough.

Here is a screen shot of my computers preformance after the Video card and RAM upgrade

http://www.matrix3000k.o...cat=10001&pos=-4515

Im adding this in to make my point clear since people on here didn't understand what I was saying. I am not dogging Vista down. I like the OS actually. I was just sayin with every build that I have tested ever since 5231 microsoft have added more and more services to the OS which is requiring you to have a more powerful pc (that is with out configuring anything). I KNOW its still BETA people thats why im testing it. I will make my final remarks about the OS when it is a FINAL release to the public. Im sure its going to be a good OS hopefully cause so far I'm pretty impressed with the beta versions. I hope this makes it more clear to you guys.

If you had let the friggin process do its thing, it would have disappeared shortly. Instead, you kept ending it thereby forcing it to begin "Indexing" the drive all over again! Is a processor driver glitch possible perhaps?

My point is you cannot judge the performance of every computer based on your experience of a few. I'm not being ugly--I'm only saying that because I know of a few folks that it runs pretty well on an AMD T-Bird 1.2GHz with 512MB PC133 and a GeForce 2 video card...of course this is with "Aero" disabled...

...and of course... he forgot the ever neglected fact that:

IT"S A FRIGGING BETA!!!!!

The Debug code is still turned ON you absolute, brain-dead, dumber than a box of rocks, to stupid to be allowed within 10 feet of a computer, inbred, crack-smokin', retarded, fat, dill-hole!!!!!

...was that too much?

***The preceeding comment is a test of the Betanews posting guidelines.

128 meg of RAM? What planet is this? 128 wasn't even enough for Windows 2000. 256 at MIN. More like 512 to run it reliably.

I agree with bourgeoisdude assessment, you should have let the process finish, evidently you don't know enough to disable the process altogether.

At any rate, these specs are ONLY recommendations, and let's not forget its STILL beta! Don't take these for FINAL specs.

Dill hole? I think that carribou was mixed with Dew.. that was sugar and a boat load of caffeine. That's the most euphimisms I have every seen in a single sentence!

****The preceeding comment is a test of the Betanews posting guidelines.*

I think the test is in beta also....

I told you I moosed it.

Ya'll've been warned.

(Ya'll've? Is it legal to use 2 apostrophes?)

forget the apostrophe, I think you just made up a word!

that was slang, infinitive, and conjuntion all wrapped into one.. it was a slfinitionive.. infangunction? slnitiveconjucang.. coninfangtive....

128 wasn't even enough for Windows 2000.

Worked just fine when I ran it as my router / gateway system.

This was before XP was around to do that all for me. The windows 98 ICS bit the big one....and I wouldn't touch WinME with a 10' pole.

You
all
have

Sure, three words combined...throw in an apostrophe for each word added beyond one...

Yeah, sounds about right....

(may the moose be with you...)

To quote someone famous..

I think you have had enough moose for ALL of us.

Please keep in mind, it's still a beta product. Performance tweaking *will* happen.

Gunzip

No such thing, thou Blasphemer of the Holy Bean.

sorry incorrect place in thread

he was referring to video ram, i beleive

No regular RAM. Video RAM however, is on the rise, some 512 RAM video cards are already out..

I like my setup for now.. I see no reason for Vista..

Do some hacking and you can run Windows 2000 on 32mb. :P

Oh, and you can run programs on it with 64mb. :D

gafaw! 32 -choke- Wow my calculator has more ram than that.. hahaah..

I pitty da fool who has less ram than me!

wow, that is a beautiful site.. realistic common sense..

-sigh-

At least for some of us, its not forgotten..

"AMD Athlon XP 2800+ which runs at 2.0GHZ as well as 1gig of PC 3200 DDR RAM with an Nvidia FX 5200 128MB of ram."

I beleive that he had 1 gig of regular RAM there and 128mb of video RAM.

I had a 10Mb firewall / router running FreeBSD with only 12MB of memory and a 100MHz 486 CPU, it ran for YEARS.

I can s***o my stinksys and see how much memory it has but I'm too lazy right now (hint: it's not the default firmware anymore heh)

Heh, where's the "ECC RAM" requirement? Ahh, another over-emphasised exaggeration by the MS naysayers methinks :)

eh? Servers still need ECC RAM, if you are smart anyway..

What a transparent collusion between the software barons and the hardware barons to keep the money coming in - only usually, we get something 'sexy' out of it; all I see about Vista is a platform dedicated to taking power away from the end-user. Pass.....

First its MS is bloat ware. Then its collusion between Intel and MS.

How about GAMERS! are pushing the envelope. How about that? How about that the overclockers out there, want more power, how about that? How about they need to keep up with the hardware, otherwise, there would be no reason to upgrade?

Its not collusion, you ingrate, its just progression.

Nice try, rijp, damn you were CLOSE with making a non-abusive post there! I'm proud of you....

lmao...

You follow him through multiple threads to grade just about every one of his posts.

Who's pathetic?

No need to raise your hand, we're all well aware of the answer.

True Gamers would use OpenGL if they had the choice. They're gamers though, not programmers...so they're not going to be rewriting any engines. :P

It slipped out, I swear!

That moose is pushing me over the edge..

Ah, Open GL. That would initiate another whole discussion...

I like Open GL, directX has some.. umm..limits.

Its good, most of the time.. I think the hardware makers are actually trying to work with MS instead of reinventing the wheel with every new hardware update..

Until XP, DirectX also had lots of "issues" ontop of the limits. Based on how well it works on my Windows 2000 desktop, I actually feel like OpenGL is more integrated than DirectX.

For example, many DirectX games freeze my system when alt+tabbing, or suffer graphical glitches; OpenGL works fine.

Many DirectX games freeze my system while minimizing(for a half second), and also don't work well with multiple DX-using programs at once.

For OpenGL, multiple programs and minimizing works fine...

For Blizzard games, my computer actually freezes for 10-12 seconds when alt+tabbing under DirectX. Compare this to XP's instant alt+tab, and it's extremely annoying.

Yeah well I'm sick of his bullying, abuse and windy boastfulness (when he's in that mood, which is most of the time), been ignoring it for a year now, so shoot me if I take him up on it at last. I know for a fact I'm not the only one who feels he needs it.

+ he is apparently at least hesitating to behave like an a***hole tonight, which is a good sign. He's got interesting things to say, even when I don't agree with him, but the world hates a braggart bad-tempered bully who can't control himself, and I agree with the world on this one, so I'll continue to keep an eye on him through the threads; sorry if you don't like it, I know he's your friend, I've also got a friend or two I wish would behave better.

we like our rjip just the way he is thank you

LOL.

I am taking a desktop snapshot of this!

My fan club. you gotta love 'em.

You know, like the old saying goes, there is no such thing as bad publicity...

*+ he is apparently at least hesitating to behave like an a***hole tonight, which is a good sign. He's got interesting things to say, even when I don't agree with him, but the world hates a braggart bad-tempered bully who can't control himself, and I agree with the world on this one,*

I only feel the need to put people in their place, when its apparent they are not thinking before they write. I may be bad tempered (but only in writing) and I may *appear* to be out of control (I enjoy getting people in an argument) but I don't think I have *EVER* been considered a braggart.

In person (not that you care) I actually get all kinds of compliments, and I am regarded as one of the most respected people in my area. I have many people that consider me their "savior" as it were, and I go out of my way to help people.

In this forum, maybe I do lash out and attack people, but I try to play devil's advocate, and sometimes you really can't tell when I am joking (this I have been accused of) because I use the same tone for either.

So brash, yes, rough, yes, brutal, yes.. but I don't think I have ever bragged. If you can find a post where I bragged about something, I would like to see it.

And BTW, can we agree to a truce? I will tone it down.. and keep my comments to a more civilized tone and try to be more mindful of people and not be so overbearing.

Many people in here, have grown to be respected, so maybe when I see more and more postings from people, and as we get to be more comfortable with our view points, I tend to let people speak their minds and appreciate what they have to say, rather than simply bashing them for my amusement.

Evidently, you value some of my comments, which is a good trait, even when I am abusive. So, I apologize for anything that I may have said and I hope that you won't have ill feelings.

heh

holy crap!
this is a post about Vista, not your feelings on fellow betnews fans.
lets keep it on topic eh

lol
just kidding :-p

oh, and by the way (your words):

"If you can find a post where I bragged about something, I would like to see it."

here it is in the same post:

"In person I actually get all kinds of compliments, and I am regarded as one of the most respected people in my area. I have many people that consider me their "savior" as it were, and I go out of my way to help people."

now, if that ain't bragging...
lol, sorry, i had to

I'd hardly put myself in your fan-club, but as you say I do marvel at your ubiquity at Betanews and I do respect the breadth of your knowledge on PC issues. I hear what you say about familiarity & humor but I FREQUENTLY see you lash out at posters who clearly do not know you, and see you resort to abusive and infantile invective and I just think it's a f***ing shame, since you are clearly not the ignoramus your worst posts paint you as.

And I am sorry to have been posting so much off-topic stuff about you, but rijp you have started SO MANY flame wars with your poor temper and I am SICK of reading them, I swear to God, I'm here to enjoy the debate and maybe learn something new, not hear about whose mother was in a wh*rehouse, etc.

So I do look forward to violently disagreeing with you in future in a more entertaining and civilised way, I think we'd all like it.

You're welcome to like him as he is (or as he's been)but you're not 'we'.

wasn't as bad as i though at least they kept the CPU below 1gHz. who know if it will run thought. I mean i seen before MS requirement didn't work. I remember the minimum requirments for NT Server 4 and they said a minimum of 12MB of ram. apparently it would install but would not go any further without 16MB of ram installed

"remember the minimum requirments for NT Server 4 and they said a minimum of 12MB of ram. apparently it would install but would not go any further without 16MB of ram installed"

You would remember wrong. Windows NT 4.0 Workstation requires 12MB of RAM on x86 systems, while RISC CPU systems required the full 16MB even for the Workstation version. Windows NT 4.0 Server requires the full 16MB and recommends 32MB for x86 and RISC systems alike.

Just FYI--I ran Windows NT 4.0 on a 33MHz 80486 with only 12MB of those 30-pin SIMMs back in the day (you remember those itsy-bitzy thinggies you had to install in groups of FOUR?)...it was a little sluggish, but still faster than most Windows XP installs that I see around here!

-cracks whip-

Get 'em!

I ran Win 95 on 4MB w/ a 386 CPU and Win 98 on a 486/33 w/ 16MB (using whatever that low CPU or memory thing-a-ma-bob doo-hicky win switch)

boy was that SLOOOOOW heh

we are dooommeeeedddd

Nah, just switch to GoogleOS.

You mean Ubuntu?

I hear they're using an internally modified version of that.

Don't know if the modifications really merit having their name on it, though...

nah, just thought one good troll deserved another. ;o)

so when has google done anything themselves? lets see google earth.... oh right keyhole...
and im pretty sure that google toobar is a modded version of hotbar...

I seem to recall them building a search engine themselves.

LOL

Hey, you're right - I recall that too!