Windows Vista

What a joke Windows Vista beta needs at least 512meg of RAM I will stick with XP pro even when vista Is out

 

Oleg,
That's why I'm not interested in Windows Vista.
I was an early user of the final version of Windows 2000 Pro and in those days many softwares didn't even work (properly) with win2000pro. Very annoying.
I skipped winXP also. The longer you wait, the better.

When I buy a new computer, then I will use Windows Vista.
At that time WSF will be talking about the NEXT Windows.

 

I don't like the new 3D graphic card requirements. I work with high speed systems that require a lean operating system.

We have a lot of high speed data systems that collect and display data in 2D. We learned, after a battery of tests, that we get higher sample rates with leaner systems that have fast graphics cards (faster graphics cards free up clock cycles which gets us better sample rates for the data acquisition). We will still run Windows NT and 2000 on those systems. I see no need right now to move to a new OS.

I run my home XP system the same way. The interface looks like 2000 on my computer. It's crisp, and snappy compared to systems running the fluffy GUI. Kinda boring to look at, but who do I have to be vain to, me?

 

I think Microsoft looking for the way to make more money

 

It's all relative if you ask me. Look at how Microsoft's operating systems have evolved over time. Each one needing more disk space, memory, etc just to keep them running lean and mean.

For me personally, I am not concerned about the HW requirements. That is merely due to the fact that I am a PC gamer as well, so having lots of RAM, a good 3D card etc does not bother me. It's just like how games have evolved to. Look at Quake and then take a look at Doom3 or Half Life 2. In no way can you expect the the older hw/technology to run todays games.

There is a sad point to all of this. In that some peeps are not gamers and don't care about graphics unless they are editing in a graphic arts department somewhere. Another downside to me would be cost related, esp for corporate users (which is where this hits me personally with my job). I know it is not my money, however having to shell out the extra bucks for upgrading mem/vid cards is a bit harsh if you ask me. But that is the way it goes and even tho a lot of us may not like it, there is not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it.

Now what does bother me is this here. Call to Action: Ensure that OpenGL remains a first class API under Windows Vista So to me, if OpenGL performance drops, that just plain sux. Unless something is done about it, I am sure there will be a lot of unhappy gamers etc who will not purchase and/or upgrade to Vista.

But most importantly, do you think Vista will be any more secure?

 

I was trying to play some great classic games,but my CPU Is too fast for it

 

I think that Vista will be more secure. But as a gamer, you should be concerned the same way that I am about data acquisition systems. Both games and data systems need as much clock cycles as possible.

 

Well, everyone should do as they please, of course, but I don't quite understand all of the angst that every new Windows release seems to engender. I mean, look at it from Microsoft's point of view, it basically becomes a no win situation no matter what changes they make... not enough security / too many restrictions and confusing security settings... not enough eyecandy / system requirements that are too high... not enough compliance with open standards / "they're breakin' my legacy apps". Seriously, I don't know if anyone can honestly say that Microsoft isn't a responsive company. They do respond to the demands of the marketplace, sooner or later; and so, IMHO, one has no further to go than to the 'collective' consumer mirror to judge their actions.

Security wasn't a high priority for Microsoft for years and years because in the personal computer and small business computer marketplace in which Microsoft was born there was virtually no demand for security. For the first 15 years, or so, after the birth of the PC no one strongly demanded security. On the other hand, Unix (and by extension Linux) was birthed out of the academic and large enterprise, timesharing, multi-user mainframe marketplace. Security was always of at least some concern in that market. And, yet, even today people want to complain about Microsoft's poor security record and yet the vast majority of consumers (albeit largely excluding my fellow knowledgeable Wilders readers here) are not willing to take the time to learn information security threats and countermeasures, not willing to utilize prinicples such least privileged user rights, not willing to change their behavior or upgrade insecurely programmed legacy apps.

In regards to the 512MB of system RAM. I understand that this is considered a high amount, but on the other hand I suspect that one will be extremely hard pressed to find a new system sold in the United States at the end of 2006 that has less than that. As for those with legacy systems that they plan on keeping, you have to remember that Microsoft is saying that 512MB will apparently be the minimum for a Vista "Ready" system, whereas a lesser RAM should be sufficient for a Vista "Capable"system. The distinction here is that a "Ready" system will support every single bell-and-whistle and the latest and greatest Aero Glass interface features; whereas a "Capable" system will support basic Vista functionality without, perhaps, much of the graphical eyecandy. It's perhaps somewhat similar, although in much more extreme way, as to how Windows XP can be made to look and function almost exactly like Windows 2000 (I never can quite understand those that complain about user-interface issues between these two).

As for the performance concerns, in general, I must confess that I share them. I always worry that additional features will entail more idle consumption of processing power and fewer cycles for those tasks that are of importance. I was especially concerned when Microsoft was originally claiming the addition of all sorts of new functionality: from a new user interface (Avalon), to a new database-centric filesystem (WinFS), to an expansive dependancy upon and intertwining of the .NET Framework, etc. However, much of that has been toned down or even eliminated from the initial Vista release (WinFS, for example, is gone; .NET is no longer necessarily so prominent; etc.) Moreover, I was heartened to read the following in Paul Thurrott's latest Vista Beta review:

As for the OpenGL debate I have mixed feelings. I don't think it's necessarily as simple as either side makes it out to be. OpenGL.org wants you to believe that it would be a simple technical matter to continue to promote OpenGL as a first-class citizen alongside DirectX (aka WGF) with Microsoft simply making a poorly motivated business policy decision. On the other hand, Microsoft likely wants you to believe it is purely a technical decision and that policy and business self-interests have nothing to do with it. I suspect the truth is in the middle. I suspect it actually would be somewhat technically difficult to continue to have OpenGL be a "separate but equal" underlying graphics API that integrates smoothly and seemlessly with the rest of Aero Glass compositing user interface. Not impossible, by any means, but certainly of non-trivial additional expense and development manpower. The other point that I feel must be made, is that in the Windows marketplace, at any rate, relatively few games utilize OpenGL... as I recall, almost all outside of the id Software titles utilize DirectX. You can't really fault Microsoft too much for not wanting to spend millions on developer time to support an alternative API that is utilized by perhaps only 5-10% of the commercial Windows marketplace. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong about that; but that's the way I see it anyway.

 

That is an opinion, it is hardly a benchmark. When Tom's Hardware publishes the benchmarks, I will believe that it is faster.

 

You are correct about Direct X and newer technology gaming for sure. But you have to remember the ppl that still play the older "legacy" type games and so forth. I am not one of them, but I know ppl who do, and to them, it is a big deal.

You can't be happy all the time with M$'s OS. But until another rival (or Linux) can run the things I need and want it to, I will still use Windows.

 

The whole thing about OpenGL really needs to be solved fast because of these reasons:

1)OpenGL makes the porting of game graphics from one platform to another easier
2)As John Carmack stated, OpenGL allows developers to more effectively utilise the features of new hardware
3)OpenGL games generally have better compatibility with graphics hardware

 

Vista system requirements. Oh my!

Australian Microsoft strategist raises eyebrows with Vista hardware requirements:



http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050908_100000.html

 

Re: Vista system requirements. Oh my!

WoW

 

Re: Vista system requirements. Oh my!

As for system RAM, Page reportedly said, 512 MByte is "heaps" for a 32-bit system. For a 64-bit system, however, "you're going to want 2 gigs of DDR3 RAM."

Most of us have 32-bit systems.

 

Re: Vista system requirements. Oh my!

I heard that the Windows Vista interface will use various graphical 3D features (including Pixel Shaders) for animating the interface. That means some resources of graphics cards. which could easily be used for gaming and 3D Apps, are wasted......

As for OpenGL, if this article is right, nothings wrong.....I do suggest you read the link, it is very informative.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/longhorn.html

 

Microsoft to aim for "tiered" hardware requirements for Vista

Some consideration for built in graphics cards is being made by Microsoft:

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050916_022428.html

Which is a bit of a relief for those who don't want to spend the money on a mid, or high end graphics card. For most people, 64 megs of video RAM is all they need.

 

Michael Dell chimes in.

Dell extends XPS series, confirms 256 MByte memory requirement for Vista PCs:

http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050928_160055.html

He also makes an interesting comment about Blue-Ray DVDs at the end of the article.

Personally, I see the hardware manufacturers pushing for this high end requirement as a way to increase profits. For years we have been seeing computing costs come way down, and that has to hurt the bottom line. End users will have to be really careful when specifying a computer for home use. Specifying a system that is too powerful, or not scalable, will be too easy to do.