tpaman1975, you are right on former editions .. but Microsoft has really changed the way they are making Vista compared to former OSes.

Windows Vista has been developped for years, they took the time they need and it will be a better well-ended product when it will be released than were all former OSes from Microsoft. Yes it won't be perfect, but they had changed many things .. and I think that 90% of the issues that will remain at the final release will become from drivers and programs and will not really be Microsoft's fault. We have to wait to see how RC1 will be good or bad, but I have seen that most of the "build 5472" users were very happy compared to what they thought about the Beta 2.

After 5506, Vista is on Build 5520 as of today.

I've read through all these comments ....... memory size, Windows vs. Linux, PC comparisions. UHM Who gives a f***!?!?

Bottom Line: If they rush to put this to market on time it will be buggy like a lot of their former OSes. Any person with decent computer knowledge knows that and knows it won't always perform best until the first service pack. Anyone that says otherwise is just kidding themselves.

If you have a spare system, go download it when the RC comes out, if you like it enough and it is stable enough for you then go buy it when it is released to the market.

Just stop crying people, it's an OS, not something life altering unless your some dorky dweeb that stays glued to their computer for social interaction.

Hey, Is the Customer Experience Program the CPP?

Dunno. CTP stands for Community Technology Preview (program), another name for "public beta"

Well I've been using xp for so long I am eager to try and use something new. It's so sad that Microsoft can sit on a OS release for years and years and years. Generations of computer hardware has come and gone since Microsoft released xp in 2001. Computers are faster, have more ram and hard drive space now then could have ever been imagined in 2001. All this and they have lost zero market share.

That fact alone makes its obvious that Microsoft has somehow completely and utterly shut down the industry in the OS space with lack of competition they really are a true monopoly. Mac is a different platform and Linux has no unity within the entire I.T./computer industry including gaming, hardware support and corporate use especially OEM/new computer builder support. Do people use Linux, sure. is it easy to use and widely supported yes and no. It's getting easier to use, and it is gaining more support.

Point is, Vista could be delayed indefinitely and Microsoft would probably still be selling millions of new pc Os's monthly. I honestly don't see anyone stepping up to fill the void and having mass adaption of something new. But I could be wrong. The release of vista will destroy and put out of business thousands or even millions of software developers. That includes security vendors and other software makers.

But in the end, that is the way the industry works. The most powerful get bigger and gain more money and market share. The small and weak will get mutilated and put on public display to be mocked. Even if the small 1 product companies are better, the industry giants are the one with the support like it or not.

Microsoft likes to use all the money they make on the OS and office to enter new product markets. It is not good enough to put it back into the os and add new features bug fixes and more bug fixes on a regular basis. Their idea of a bug fix is plugging a gaping hole in security. Forget fixing some behavior problem or adding something cool or nice to help freshen up the existing os that gave your company billions upon billions to start with.

Their motto or mission statement should be imitate don't innovate. Stay behind so our "competitors" can innovate we can imitate. We will keep all benefits, support and profits. You expel the effort.

"It's so sad that Microsoft can sit on a OS release for years and years and years"

Are you kidding me?? DO you understand the amount of work a company has to do in order to upgrade their machines to a new version of an OS? If MS was to release a new OS every year then not only would companies give up trying to upgrade, but they would complain (rightly so) about lack of support for a particular version of the OS that they're still on.

Well that's pretty much as far as I got reading your post...that one paragraph (and the first sentence of the second one) pretty much killed any credibility you could of possibly had, and made it obvious that reading the rest of the post is pointless.

Would you prefer if M$ released a new OS every year??? XP’s long standing run is a testament to its success. Personally when I purchase an OS license I’d like to think its going to be relevant for while, and in the case of XP I’d have to say I got my moneys worth.

For 5 years, that MS has been sitting on their a** not release a newer OS to replace XP. And for this giving 5 years, there is still no competitions. Isn't 5 years more than enough time for any competent company to come up with something better? Guess not, since most of their rave just from fan boys in denial.

"the industry in the OS space with lack of competition they really are a true monopoly. Mac is a different platform and Linux has no unity"

1. You can install Linux on the same PC where you run Windows... so, there is an option which means there is no monopoly.
2. Linux has no unity: Sorry, pals... this is not Microsoft problem, but Linux...

What you prefer, a new OS each 5 years (which you pay), with monthly patches (free)... or a "new" OS each year that is just minor upgrades (Mac OS X) for which you have to pay every dot release? Just take a look at what Leopard has to offer compared with the previous version. Are you ready to pay for that new release?

I remember when "alpha", "beta" and "release candidate" meant something. They don't mean anything (different) anymore. Just terms to stir media attention. It doesn't matter what they call it, it won't be 100% ready when it's called RTM and on the shelf. But then again, that's why they call it SOFTware.

Yeah... Ok.

What was the point of your comment again?

Spoken like someone who's never done a firmware upgrade in his life.

...or who's never coded a single line of a program.

...or who's never *looked* at a single line of code.

...or who doesn't even have the most basic understanding of programing.

But then again, any excuse will do to throw out a bash against MS....

bashing MS? I'm not bashing MS. I'm bashing software in general. I'm in my late 40's and have coded for about 25 years now. The terms "alpha", "beta", and "RTM" used to have far more rigorous enforcement than they do now. Linux, and the rest are no better in that respect. Sorry to offend you or MS. It was aimed at the state of software in general. Nothing is really "RTM" anymore.

That's because the Internet has made software versions more liquid.

When software was distributed *only* by floppy disks (and later CDs), you couldn't issue a feature upgrade or bug-fix whenever you wanted to. Now people can, and more and more people are eating up this beta-craze because it's free software. Consequently, the stages of software production are much less concrete.

With all the MS bashing over the years I wouldnt be shocked if this went to an RC4 or even 5. Even then some 14 year old will find some security hole in some 3rd party driver , and blame it on MS.

You mean they would actually listen to beta testers? The same way they did with the Go/No go question for Windows ME beta testers? When everyone said NO GO they cared less and released the product. Guess what?! They released the worst Windows to date as considered by most people.

I doubt bugs will delay the release unless they are in big quantity and hit everybody out there. Market opportunities is what drives them (the decision to launch or not a product), when that advanced in the development cycle.

Software Development is a tricky process. The executives promise the manufacturers and distributors a final product on a certain date. Then the company tells the Developers and Quality Engineers to have it finished by that date. So the developers develop, and the Quality Engineers log bugs, and the process goes and goes until they reach the RTM date where they ship no matter what, and then take the existing bugs and fix them in time for the SP1. This is how all software is developed in the corporate environment.

Regardless of what Microsoft says, they have an RTM date set in stone because the executives have promised a product to the OEM’s so that their Second Quarter 07’ is a profitable one. Vista may get a RC2, and RC3. But no matter how bad the OS is, it will ship on the RTM date Microsoft has promised to its partners.

This happened with XP. The original version of XP was bad, it ran like crap, it looked horrible, and for all intents and purposes it was a flop and needed additional beta testing and developement. Several years later were at SP2 with almost all the kinks worked out, and now everyone loves it. The process continues. One thing I can assure you of is that the Beta’s running right now will not resemble the final RTM version in performance and speed. The RTM will not even compare to XP or 2000 in functionality and durability until Vista SP1 or SP2. This is how it works, it’s the continuing process of refining code and logging bugs.

It seems to me that some people think Microsoft Corp cares about quality code, untrue. They care about profits, and more profits. Vista will become a great OS with time, but don’t set your hopes high, and standards higher until patches, updates, and service packs have been developed and installed.

Very true. Vista is feature complete at this stage; it has been for some time now, since the February CTP. It will take some time for Vista to be the OS Microsoft intends it to be. All they can do right now is tune the hell out of it for performance. Well, that, and security. But they're at the point where overhauls and major feature revisions are practically impossible.

Fickleflame, that is such uneducated rubbish.

First, MS has postponed the Vista launch for up to 12-16 months from its original promise date.

Second, everybody dug XP out of the gates (Windows XP, not Office XP) because it was the client retweaked of the Windows 2000 (Workstation) kernel: tried and true in the corporate world.

Third, MS does not need more money: they want more brand and product use/recognition.

Conclusion: you have no clue wtf you're talking about.

One slight error I'd like to point out. Whilst Microsoft doesn't *need* money, it does need to make large profits each quarter in order to keep stockeholders and the market happy.

Examine history for cases of how little it takes to upset a stock market and have large amounts of cash just get wiped out. Even rumours or events of no real significance to a business have sweeping effects on the *perception* of a businesses stability.

Have you used any of the Vista Beta or CTP builds? It seems you have only seen screenshots in a magazine. Do a little research and understand the changes in Vista under the hood... Vista is not only performance and Aero, so learn first, then make comments.

FYI, the movement of the stock has nothing to do with news and product. If everything is that simple in the market, don't you think the one with the best knowledge makes all the money? What the current price of the stock is what someone is welling to pay for it and hope someone will pay a higher price to take it away from him. Stock itself has no value. Want proof? Heard of Enron, Worldcom?

It'll be nice to try this more stable build out, I was using Build 5384.4 and it ran very well. Besides a few bugs and to many security warnings.

Running Vista 64 on an Athlon 64 X2 5000+ AM2 socket,with an Nvidia 7950 card. Hard drive is a WD Raptor 150GB @10K On my desktop.
However, this install is >10GB and, as such is comparatively slow, writing this on a 3 year old Toshiba notebook, albeit tweaked somewhat, but total intall including office & other essential apps has total size of 2.3GB

Install fair for RC1 on August 12 for Microsoft employees and their family & friends.

people just want to ride on using free betas longer, hehe. Don't worry free loaders...they'll RC1, if it needs more work...they'll do another beta...then maybe RC2...then if needs be...cycle goes on, then maybe RC3.

I will get my RC1 before my Conroe probably! Darn you intel and your hot chips! :)

It's not about freeloading.

For me, it's about testing the operating system before I spend money on it. Cause right now I'm weary about buying vista and upgrading. I like XP how it is.

I've never seen a Windows Beta cycle go further than Release Candidate 2 (XP) before going RTM, so I surely doubt that there will be an RC3.

There will surely be milestone betas between RC2 and RTM, but those will only be released to MSDN and Technet subscribers, or in-house.

The majority of people who use the Betas from Microsoft see the importance of testing an operating system. The only people who freeload off of Microsoft's betas are Linux users who, despite what they might say, want to use a REAL operating system, but are too cheap to buy it. And then from that they conclude that Microsoft's OS's are crap and go back to using they're Linux. (That's why linux users think mirosoft's os's are crap. Think about it. It all makes perfect sense)

i have a system with Intel motherboard and 512mb of RAM and processor= 2.66Ghz and with vga = 128. I just wan'na ask u guys is this a fair configuration to run Vista????? basicaly iam a linux guy and i love linux but i just wanna check that what performance upgrades have Uncle Bill made to Vista as compared to XP????

Everything seems alright, not topnotch. I'd buy another 512 of Ram and you should be able to run Aero without much of a hitch.

Your processor should be fine, but I recommend doubling your ram and vram.

Yeah what the other guys said, 512mb memory is the minimum requirement for Vista.

I don't know why they raised the memory requirements so high, compared to Windows XP. If they needed more memory then fine, but I think they should have made 128mb min, with 256mb recommended, and 512mb optimum.

Your combination will do a basic installation of Vista, but might not include the Aero portion (because of the CPU speed).
Basically, it will probably look and run much like XP looks and runs today on similar hardware.

Performance upgrades will be highly hardware-and-memory dependent. The better hardware and more memory in the box, the better its performance will be. Last 2 years' hardware will be sufficient to get XP-level performance (or higher), but not much better. Load up on memory is the best advice I can give.

To use Vista to its fullest,
MORE MEMORY (minimum of 2GB) [512MB is the VERY LEAST, and will result in an XP-level OS],
MONDO-GONZO VIDEO card (minimum of 128MB Graphics memory, 256MB would be better, DirectX9-capable or better -- With more system memory, this will get you a decent, "snappy" Aero desktop)
FASTER CPU (preferrably dual-core or 64bit)
Very recent MOTHERBOARD
PCI-X
SATA HD (at least 250GB)
DUAL-LAYER DVD (8x),
BROADBAND connection (minimum of 1 mip, better with 6mips -- might as well say goodbye to analog modems, just not sufficient to the task anymore).

Example: The Beta 2 iso was 2+GB. This is simply not manageable on a 44k connection, and will more than probably result in a bad iso because of the many starts and stops necessary to complete the download.

If your IP is handled via DHCP, you will have to pause the download every 24hrs to renew your IP. I really advise a 1.5mips (at minimum) broadband connection very highly, as does Microsoft.

Burn the iso at very low speed (1x-4x), whether you download via 44k or Broadband.

Just to install you MUST have at least 25GB free disk space. Once Vista is installed, 12GB are necessary just for the OS to live (not counting space necessary for applications and data). SATA HDs are very cheap. Go for at least 250GB, if you can swing it.

Hope this helps.

Don

That’s very funny.

Windows XP requires 64mb of ram just to function, 128mb of ram if you want to run Winamp and Firefox at the same time. 256mb of ram will set you up to run Office, Firefox, and Winamp at the same time, maybe.

What you’re forgetting is that each application you run requires some amount of ram. The more ram you have the less each application has to fight for it, thus better performance. You can run Windows XP with 128mb of ram, but you'll spend a lot of time waiting for things to happen, take Dell customers for example who skimp on their ram and have slow computers and wonder why. Same goes for Vista. You can run Vista on 256mb of ram, but don't expect anything to work very fast, or properly. I suppose if you like the “In sufficient amount of system memory” error message, then you’ll be very happy with 256mb of ram.

The days of Pentium 3 and 128mb of ram are over my friend. If you want to keep your old hardware, then do, but don't expect to be able to keep up with software advancements like Vista and Office 12. Remember, you can have the latest processor, HD, and Motherboard on the market, but none of it is worth anything unless it is backed by a sufficient amount of ram to get things going.

"Performance enhancements"?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Stick with linux. Vista is, beyond a doubt, the "Windows ME" of the 21st Century.

please keep your comment else where. you are taking two different species here. windows is a true desktop that anyone understock how to use. and linux, what is a linux? is it a server, or a self-proclaim desktop? will linux detect my card if i plug into the computer? if there is no driver exist, should i just ignore the problem and blame it on the hardware, or write my own driver?

Well you wouldn't get an out of memory error, that's why you have a swap file. Slow as it maybe, your able to run all programs etc.
I was just talking about Microsoft track record, from Windows XP of 64 min, to 512 min, is a really big jump. I know they want to make a better OS, just it'd be better to make memory requirements lower if possible. The average user keeps there computer for awhile, so an upgrade isn't a regular thing, more like once every 5 or 6 years.

I don't think PIII days are over yet, but close. I know alot of people are still running systems of those specs, but you'd think Microsoft would want to make memory requirements lower to include these people, if possible. Requiring 512mb just for the OS, I think is alot, you'll still need more on top of this for whatever programs your planning to run.
Then again, memory is getting so cheap these days.

Give me a break.

*no one* can make that kind of judgement when it hasn't even been released yet.

We won't know whether you're right or not until at least 2 years after Vista's release.

Another one that doesn't know what is he talking about...

I don't think that 512mb is a lot for a computer these days. Ram is really cheap and super easy to install. What I don't like is having to upgrade my video card. I have a pretty decent laptop, but I won't be able to run Aero because my graphics card won't support it.

Try running KDE on less than 512mb. It's not fun (I'd go with XFCE anyway ;-)

As I mentioned earlier, you need to check out your graphics card.

Run the Vista upgrade advisor...

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

I really hate people who think that all of Microsoft's OS's are unstable and buggy, especially when the aren't even out yet. I mean, if all of Microsoft's OS's were crap, then why do 95% of people use them? Yes, that's right all you linux lovers, 95%. You can say all you want about MS and how bad their OS's are but at least they're not a couple of teenagers in their basement writing the next Linux. And if Windows was free, all of you linux people would use it because you know that it's better, as much as you hate to admit it. I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just speaking reality. I too think that Windows is overpriced, but that alone doesn't make it a bad OS.

Vista is a lead balloon!
it will never fly.......
I will stick with XP

Refresh my memory....how many people said the same thing of XP?

Please man, do not ever use it!!!
Go to Win98 instead!
HAhahaha

Before Windows XP, everyone except businesses and technology enthusiasts were using Windows 98, ME or 95. Who in their right mind would want to have kept using an operating system that crashes all the time?

I'm just saying that everytime there is a new release of Windows there is always this group of people screaming that they will never upgrade. Then they are usually some of the first to snap it up.

It's usually cause we object to some of the changes. Like I objected to the Luna theme of Windows XP. Now I realize I can change it to whatrever I want. I now have a black theme, reflecting my love of dark colors. Firefox, Opera, etc have black themes... NOW my shell.

I'm curious about Aero, but it'll probably be some time till I adapt to it. Others will be the same.

"Vista is a lead balloon!
it will never fly......."

Funny that you say that. Thats what someone said about the band Led Zeppelin. "I think you will take off like a led zeppelin", and he was right too, they went nowhere(Sarcasm).

Throughout this whole "Vista cycle" as i'd like to call it, I've actually been impressed with Microsoft. People love to acknowledge that Apple is ahead on features, but I mean features in Windows are as good as you make it. After all, it's where a majority of great software is being developed. Just because something isn't built into XP doesn't mean you can't get it.

Everyone says 'out of the box' this and 'out of the box' that...but who actually uses all the features you get with a first install of OSX, or Vista? Most of us here go ahead and customize it, axe features and replace them with third parties that do them better.

I'm just impressed that Microsoft made the right decision with Vista. It took some of the things that made other OS's great (MAC) and implemented them for Windows users. Add that with a strong security model (never perfect) and I think Vista will be the best operating system Windows ever released. Just make sure you have a pimped out PC. :-P

Will you please stop it, with that 'making perfect sense' thing.

You'll start a trend or something ....

the sooner the better

...

Does this mean Bill Gate's confidence level in
an on-time release of WinVista has increased
to 82% ?

...

The Computer Rodent

...

LMAO, finally, a comment from the computer rodent that I fully understand and appreciate!

I'm jazzed, I just go a brand new core duo t2600 with 2 gig of ram and a 256 meg geforce 7600. I think it will likely run Vista quite nicely.

why is this relevant to the article ??

first, the duo t2600 is a bit slow compared to the others in the line ...
2 gigs ?? do you even know what "type" it is ?? or did they just told you how to read the manual ??
256 meg 7600 ?? PFFFF thats an embarrasment ...
unless you have a 7950gx2 i wouldnt even bother mentioning it ....

so how much did you over pay for this system ??? and was a jar of vaseline included ???

easy there tiger. we all think your pc is great as well.

i have a pentium 2 with 32mb of ram and some integrated sIIg 512k card ... :P

is all about oldschool dude

d3wd uR riG suXx0rZ r0fl lolLeRbl4d3s

Children, can't we all just love one another, regardless of the colour of our motherboards "???"

PS my p**** is bigger than your's. Irrelevant, perhaps, but no less true.

why is this relevant to the article ??

first, the pentium 2 is a bit slow compared to the others in the line ...
32 megs ?? do you even know what "type" it is ?? or did they just told you how to read the manual ??
512k card ?? PFFFF thats an embarrasment ...
unless you have a meg i wouldnt even bother mentioning it ....

so how much did you over pay for this system ??? and was a jar of vaseline included ???

is relevant because im ridiculizing someone for being irrelevant to begin with ....

the pentium 2 cant be slow since there's no others in the line ??? what line are you even talking about .. ???
the 32 megs are pc100 with very strange cas latencies .... but, it didnt come with a manual no biggie, donwloaded it off the net ....... the video card runs solitaire just fine ... why in the heck would i need a meg ?? porn looks fine in 16bit color glory ...
and lastly, i didnt pay a dime for it .... i built it myself .... regarding the baseline, that one came separately but i finished it all up with a very well known person of yours ... :) .... nice try tho, just for next time come up with your own material, .... it really hurts me to see you go back to 2nd grade insults .... lol

now, be a nice boy and go clean those vein marks off your forehead :)

hey???? what????? are???? you???? saying??? dumba**????

ok, so you're saying an irrelevant comment to an irrelevant comment makes the latter of the two relevant. Brilliant logic their

exactly ..... negative x negative = positive
or negative x positive = positive
:) .... is not logic, is math ....

whoa .... so many question marks ...... stop trying to type with your buttchicks ....

haha, nice

Excellent, Beta 2 is a bit on the slow side, and I'm hearing all good things with regards to the speed of newer builds.

"Brushing off feedback from testers and pundits to push back the first release candidate of Windows Vista and issue a third beta instead..."

Hmmm... baiting the commenters here, perhaps?

You're excited, I'm excited.

What can anyone at the moment possibly add to an O/S other than more useless gizmos and crud to get in the way of what you are trying to achieve?

Less is more, but I don't expect anyone here is subscribing to that.

Well, they seem to be listening.

List of removed stuff:

WinFS
PC-PC Sync
etc. etc.

/wit

WinFS was removed as it was, but the same level of functionality is currently present in Vista... so, what you have is just an excuse for whining :)

I have heard some very positive news since beta 2. RC1 is the first release I am looking forward to.

Tease.

ok mr. Nick White ..... less blogg posting ... more beta releasing please

atleast you know the guy and project is still alive, they could just release the final version without giving any sort of progress.

yeah, very true ...
but look at the blog ....
all those lines of text could've been lines of improved code applied to vista ...
all that time spent talking about instead of codding .... :P ....

(insert sense of humor here)

I'm just going to roll my eyes and god back to work :P

If they codded XP does that make it smell like a fishy OS??

beta 2 sucked i am eager to try rc1 2 c if they
actually fixed any thing. if not they will have a lot of super ANGRY customers when its finally released

Do you really think there won't be difference between Beta 2 and RC1 and that there won't be lots of bugs fixed between one and the another?

Common, think!

There is no relation as Vista is based on Windows Server 2003 SP1 code, and not in Windows XP code.

I think we've got another guy who found ONE bug (which could result from many different bugs) in B2 and until they have fixed that ONE bug he will immediately think that nothing has changed. Some people will never figure out that there are other things you can do in an OS than run Media Player and play in Paint.

True...however...the one bug might cause the ENTIRE os to run s-l-o-w as molases on a cold day. I was having flashbacks when I installed beta 2 back to when I had a p133 and trying to run win98 w/ 32 mb ram. Even with my 3G cpu and 2G ram. (I know not the latest but still should meet half of the requirements for it to run semi descent.) I'm all behind MS and appreciate all the unemployed who play around on beta versions to send feedback to MS. Thx-yall I believe Vista will be the "cat's pajamas"! (name that movie)