It seems to be the most major upgrade windows has ever seen. It has a very different look/feel than XP.
It seems to be the most major upgrade windows has ever seen. It has a very different look/feel than XP.
Looks a lot like the Apple OS X
I have used the RC1 version of Windows Vista which I had downloaded from Microsoft. Then I installed it as a second OS alongside my current XP installation. The look of the OS blew me away, I was quite impressed with it. They did a major overhaul to the look of Windows, and I agree with the previous post that it does look a lot like MAC OS. At first I felt a bit lost until I knew where everything was.
To get all the bells and whistles of the new visual style you need a good 3D graphics card. My 128Mb ATI Radeon 9800 Pro managed just fine and it's a few years old now. I am using a Socket 478 Pentium IV 3.0 GHz processor and 2Gb of RAM with an SATA HD. I think the large amount of RAM helps alot since it's an older PC. I do think it's worth upgrading to, hopefully it won't be too expensive!
Dont forget to search for things using the built in search, especially in the control panel, there are a ton of options. The help system is pretty good to, they have these nice guided help things that show you on screen how to change settings and stuff, its rather neat.At first I felt a bit lost until I knew where everything was.
It seems like a lot of bloat or "feature creep" to me.
so u need a fast computer, with an expensive 3d card do u to run vista?
Well T-Rexx has summed up perfectly my views on MS. My main feeling is that their systems are now out of control. No properly written OS should need constant security updates and tweaks. It has got top heavy, consuming more and more resources just to keep the OS running, leaving less and less for the actual software you wish to run. When I was writing programs the object was to reduce and optimise the code as resources were limited at the time. I feel that software should still be written with those values to avoid the obsolescence of hardware because it can't cope with the OS. An example with my current laptop is that I downloaded a fix to make the mute light flash correctly, it was 64K, twice as much memory as my BBC computer had in total and that used to run a robot with six degrees of freedom and still had space to spare! I've now started playing with linux and am very impressed, the speed is phenomenal as it is small enough to all reside in Ram with no lengthy disk access and use of swap files. Any way not trying to hijack this thread just making a few observations about the way things seem to be going with MS.
Anti-Spyware is not ment to fix flaws in the system's security, but flaws in the people who use it. A system can only do so much to prevent a user from trying to install something they shouldnt.It bothers me that MS has decided belatedly to incorporate the Microsoft Anti-Spyware Program into the Vista OS.
Allow me:It bothers me that Vista contains more than 50 million lines of code. No human being can comprehend anywhere near that amount of complexity. And no group of people has ever proven adept at managing such a monster.
"The sixth release was the Intel version of Tiger, which as Jobs pointed out, was a port of 86 million lines of source code to an entirely different architecture."
And the hardware requirements with vista a perfectly inline with pratically every new computer on the market today. But really, XP came out 5 years ago, were you expecting the requirements to stay the same?
Knoppix and Windows are two very different operating systems. Your so worried about the amount of memory windows vista takes up, but it takes up alot of memory to improve performance. Perhaps you have heard of SuperFetch? Were commonly used applications are preloaded into ram to speed up how quickly they start? Does it have an file indexer running in the background? Vista's requirements are perfectly inline with that of Mac OSX.Knoppix 5.0 requires 96 MB to execute in full graphics mode.
It is also important to note Microsoft is making the shift to managed code. Now a days people have alot more ram then they use to. Thus programs are getting bigger, but at the same time much more secure.
Not really. Obviously the faster the computer the better, but I have found Vista to run smoothly on most systems once you give it a few days to speed itself up. and you only need a semi-decent graphics card if you want the special visual stuff to run. It just needs to be a DirectX 9 card.so u need a fast computer, with an expensive 3d card do u to run vista?
If you want to know how vista will run on your computer, you can always try this:
Lol so this one time linux crashed. Is this it way of telling people you shouldnt use it?
- feature patches/updates
- patches for certain linux programs
unlike in windows, linux is in a constant development. microsoft makes it release, and after that it gets a feature freeze and all they do is security fixes.
Well many of the changes made in XP SP2 were new features, it just so happened that they were security related.microsoft makes it release, and after that it gets a feature freeze and all they do is security fixes.
I'm posting from it and it looks and feels really slick for a non-finished product. I also think the only thing about its look that resembles Mac OS X is the drop shadows for the windows.
The sidebar feels pretty useless to me but some people are going to like it, I guess.
By the way, you shouldn't have to upgrade to run Vista, it only feels a tad slower than XP in some ways (scrolling in browser windows, for example) with all the bells and whistles on.
well what new features did windows xp get with sp1?
and do you understand the differences between "linux" as the buzzword, "linux" the os and do you know the difference between "linux" and a linux distribution?
oh and you started the whole patch/fix thing, so don't tell me i am turning this in a win vs something else discussion
however, the no1 reason for windows still is office. and interesting enough - if you have a look at the new office version, there they really threw over some of the old stuff and brought in a fresh wind.
they also had great ideas and plans for vista. but almost everything interesting was cutted, and now you merely get a fancy new windows more graphics
No, it has to do with the fact that enterprises dont want to have to upgrade every year. Could you imagine pushing out a new OS every single year to 50,000 computers?That's an interesting point! Do you suppose MS does it that way because, with their market share, they figure they don't have to offer on-going improvements?
Well, instand desktop searching was in longhorn before apple er..."innovated" it. But yes, some good stuff was cut, however its not just a pretty new face. Much of the core of Windows was completely re-written from the ground up. Like the network stack, and audio stack. They arnt surface changes, but will make a large difference to everyone that uses windows.but almost everything interesting was cutted, and now you merely get a fancy new windows more graphics
My opinion about Vista is that it requires an expensive PC (outside the US and Japan, computers fast enough to run it are really expensive) to do the same that Linux or Mac OS accomplish in less powerful configurations.
You see, it requires 15 GB of free hard disk space only for the operating system... compare that to the 4 GB of Ubuntu Linux with the most-commonly used applications (OpenOffice.org, GIMP, etc), the compositing engine, Xgl, the programs to manage a recording studio, and some other programs. And you can make Linux look as good (if not better) than Windows Vista, without any performance loss.
Vista looks intersting, but it's going to be expensive in it's most feature filled version. I probably won't upgrade my existing computer. More likely, I'll just buy a new one this Spring with Vista already on it.
Vista ultimate only takes up ~5 gigs on the disk, the actual install file is 2.52 gigs.You see, it requires 15 GB of free hard disk space only for the operating system...
The 15 GB figure is from Wikipedia's article on Windows Vista, check it out:
However, I still consider 5 GB far too big for an operating system. As I've said before, a Linux distro capable of doing the same as Vista, and with many applications installed (including two completely different desktop environments), only requires 4 GB. The standard installation of Ubuntu Linux needs 2 GB.
I got a Microsoft Windows E-Newsletter recently touting the benefits of VISTA. It included an opportunity to download a Beta version from MS, along with their "Vista Update Manager" or some such thing. Sooooo...I got the Update manager loaded and ran it and guess what??? the list of installed programs that "May not perform as expected" was a mile long. Vista suggested that I remove these programs (about sixteen in all), download Vista and then reload the programs...all this for a BETA version of an OS that I don't even think I want!!!!
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- Theodore Roosevelt
From MS's web site: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/win.../vistarpc.mspx
Minimum Supported Hardware Requirements for running Windows Vista
Minimum Supported RequirementsProcessor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2
HDD 20 GB
HDD Free Space 15 GB
it would appear Vista takes up considerably more than just 5 GB.
No, not it wouldnt. Thats the minimum you need to run the system reasonably. Ie, acutally have space to save things, and so on, which is different fromt eh amount of space it takes up on the disk. When you first install vista, you will see it only takes up around ~5 gigs. Trust me, i have it installed.it would appear Vista takes up considerably more than just 5 GB.
And so what? Any OS that supports that technology will be able to use tha to speed up their system. Vista runs just fine on a normal hard drive.They are encouraging PC manufacturers to switch to hard disk drives with integrated flash memory to try to speed up Vista's read/write access to the disk.
No. Readyboost doest not load the swap file, but Superfetch files. This improves the speed of loading programs, and is not endemic of a performance issue with the system. It is simply using the resources available to it to make it perform as fast as it can.This is an attempt to boost the OS's performance a bit by encouraging users to stick usb flash drives into the usb ports, so that Vista can use the flash memory as more swap space.
I tried RC1. I couldn't keep it long because the network I'm using to connect to the internet doesn't recognize Vista. I definentely liked how it looked. Looked a lot smoother and, futuristic if you will. lol. But I also didn't like how many things aren't compatible with Vista (hardware and software alike). Although I'm sure (and hope) that will change as we get closer to the official release.
I call bullshit. Ive been running vista for more then 6 months and havent had one bit of spyware/adware/viruses get installed.I have not attempted to test Vista's security measures in any formal way. It does let an awful lot of adware through when surfing the internet, however, something which doesn't happen, of course, with Mac and Linux.
That is only for the ultimate edition and such. Normal consumer versions will be in line with that of Windows XP.It is expected that individual copies of Vista will cost up to $400.
And where is this 5 nines figure coming from? Or do we just like making up numbers? And they did restart it. It was being built using the Windows XP codebase, however they switched midway through to use the Windows 2003 codebase.Microsoft has tried to tweak the kernel a bit, but it's still more than 99.999% Windows 2003. That is why the delays have made so much news. They suggest MS is having significant problems internally.
Vista does NOT take up 15 gigs. That is the minimum for it to run properly. The actual code itself its under 5 gigs. There is a difference.I have tried Vista RC1 and I actually like it. I think it will be more secure than Win XP. But the code is astonishingly bloated (Win XP requires 1.5 GB of hard drive space to install; Vista needs 15 GB - 10X as much!
The DRM in vista, mainly the protected video path stuff was added so Vista would be complient with HDDVD and BluRay, and had to be added if they wanted to say it was compatable with next-gen formats. Everyone else will have to add the EXACT same technology, including Apple and Linux, if they want to be fully complient with next gen standards.Having said that...i'm very afraid of all the whispers and what not about a lot of DRM in Vista. I don't like the idea of DRM and i wont buy or run Vista if it implements a lot of DRM.
Perhaps you should read this then:So I'm trying to figure out why we "need" Vista. It looks exactly like Win XP, to my eyes.
/\ I wish soooo bad that i could recall where i had heard that...i never believe rumors, i just help spread them around.
The upgrade from any semi-recent Windows os to Xp home is sub $99.If prices are "in line" with XP, then I would expect to have to pay $400. Every copy of XP I ever bought cost me $300, and that was a few years ago. I have bought a few copies of SuSE at $70 to $100 each, but almost all of the Linux I have used has been free.
Perhaps you should check out:Microsoft refuses to release any figures in this regard. Everything at MS is top secret, so everyone who comments on this takes a guess at the numbers. Many sources are saying there has been no change, but I don't believe that. It's always been curious to me why MS never wants to discuss stuff like this
Could it be your not looking for their information?
Well for those of us who dont run our OS from a RAM Disk, I should think the amount of space vista takes up is not an issue.I'm not sure who you think said Vista "takes up 15 gigs", but it wasn't me! As I said, you need 15 GB of free hard drive space to install Vista. Because Win XP executes so slowly, I have always run it from a RAM disk, when I have used XP. My RAM disk is only 4 GB, of which XP uses about 1.5 GB. I wouldn't be able to install Vista to my primary system if I wanted to. That's an important consideration to me.
Not really. There is a difference between look and feel, and the interface.English translation: “It looks exactly like Win XP”!
Sigh, once again the DRM is for BluRay and HDDVD support. Second aside from crappy youtube videos, the voice recognition works pretty well.There's not one thing in that article that I need, except better security. In fact, a lot of it really turned me off. More DRM? Voice recognition that doesn't work? Can someone please explain to me why we need Vista?
Well I cant tell you why you'd want vista, but I know why I do. Im a big fan of media center, especially having an Xbox 360. It is more stable then XP from what i have seen, the performance is also better, World of Warcraft runs much more smoothly on Vista. Previous Versions/Shadow copy is amazing, and I like the idea of Bitlocker, which I currently have running on my Vista partition. And tha changes they have made to Audio/Video playback are very nice, they work much better if your system is under stress then they did in Xp.
Security is also very nice in vista, especially if your running the 64 bit version. And so on, there are alot of nice things if you take the time to learn about them.
Just found out about cablecard support--you can't even copy or view files recorded by Media Center to another PC. *claps*
Seems like MS is beholden to too many content providers these days. That's what, HD-DVD, Bluray, WMV , WMA, Protected Video, Protected Audio Paths? Nt just one or two things here. Nevermind that I doubt these things that exist on XP will be cracked as easily as on vista (Patchguard etc). CableLabs is notorious about their encryption (which is why you couldn't use Cablecard in a Windows Media Center prior to vista) and if it's cracked we'll probably see an automatic update similar to the Windows Media Player "critical update" when Janis was cracked a few months ago.
So, these don't benefit the user in any way unless you prefer DRM over a file that (Gasp) can actually be copied to another computer. The security benefits are more for content distributors than the user, because when Joe 6pack things "security", they don't want spyware, adware, etc.
With my new ThinkPad, I am receiving an "ExpressUpgrade" to Vista Business. I will be installing it, simply because I am so not fond of XP at this point. Hopefully everything will go well, but the Vista Upgrade Advisor so far says that basically nothing I have (track pad, printers, sound card, etc) is known to be compatible or not. Not very promising.