Is Vista Any Good?

[flashdiamond 0]

i hear that you need like 1GB of ram min for vista and other upgrads, just so you can run vista. it is probaly better to buy a new pc with vista on it.is it worth it?

[twitch 0]

You don't need 1GB at all.Look at the specifications given by Microsoft before asking.Personally, I'm not into the whole Vista thing, then again I am not a big fan of Windows. I'm looking forward to being able to buy an Apple Mac.You'll need a good amount of memory, processing power and graphics capabilities if you want to run Aero as well and all other capabilities of Vista.

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Windows Vista is just a copy of MacOS X. I rather get myself a Mac or stick to Linux.xboxrulz

[Aka_Bar 0]

So, More Recomandations stopping on next Config:

-512MB RAM (1GB for Premium)
-A 'modern processor (at least 800MHz)", which later becomes more specific -or "Vista Premium" as 1GHz x86 or x64 processor
-A graphics processor that can run DirectX 9 with support for WDDM, Pixel Shader 2 and 32-bits per pixel as well with 64MB of video RAM to support a basic desktop monitor resolution 1024x1280
-A 40GB hard disk with 15GB of free space
-DVD-ROM drive

Look Overhere:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/


and if you are interested lookhere:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[borlafu 0]

So, More Recomandations stopping on next Config:
-512MB RAM (1GB for Premium)
-A 'modern processor (at least 800MHz)", which later becomes more specific -or "Vista Premium" as 1GHz x86 or x64 processor
-A graphics processor that can run DirectX 9 with support for WDDM, Pixel Shader 2 and 32-bits per pixel as well with 64MB of video RAM to support a basic desktop monitor resolution 1024x1280
-A 40GB hard disk with 15GB of free space
-DVD-ROM drive

Look Overhere:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/
and if you are interested lookhere:

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

I supose that vista can disable some features so it can run in a "minimal recommended machine" but anyway every simple PC with Vista running on it that I've seen was using at least 700MB of RAM.

On a presentation of Vista they were running it on an Athlon64 x2 3600+ w/1GB RAM and it worked fine.... but thats not the recommended PC at all!!

[dhanesh1405241511 0]

Windows Vista is just a copy of MacOS X. I rather get myself a Mac or stick to Linux.
xboxrulz

Dude .. thats just mean .. LOL ... mean shleen .. M$ really needs to get lessons in customer satisfaction. I mean y make 6-7 versions of vista in the first place with all having different specs. and even if they did that, y the heck make them so damn graphic intense that a good ol NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 has no choice but to go blank on installation of the RC2 ..

Ohh well .. as far as specs are concerned .. i think my laptop with 1GB RAM and 30GB HDD space .. with a 128 shared intel GFX handles vista pretty well .. but then again .. most of the drivers dont really work ..

Vista is actually XP on steroids ..

Regards
Dhanesh.

[jimmy89 0]

I installed RC1 on a test computer at home a few months ago and so far it seems to be running reasonably well. Specs below..Processor: AMD Sempron 2800+Memory: 1gbHD: 80gbGraphics: 256mb ATI Radeon 9250the computer seems to run well but does lag now and again when trying to open a few programs at once (maybe 5 or 6 at a time). when i load the computer and have just my background tasks running, im normally using around 256mb of ram. so, for everyone out there that wanted to run vista on 512mb i would recommend them to upgrade - its not going to be goodon 512, even 1gb runs slow now and again!the 80gb hard drive is heaps to install vista (from memory it only needs 15gb to install (thats vista ultimate!)). so it leaves heaps of room for everything else. if your planning to do some serious video editing or audio recording i would suggest a bigger hard drive (or even better, an upgrade to mac! much better choice )then comes aero. as much as i would like to see it run on my computer it is just not going to be possible (without having to upgrade). Vista will not run on the ATI Radeon 9250!! apparently, according to ATI vista needs pixel shader 2.0 to run aero effects. This graphics card only support 1.3 (from memory i think) which is a real shame! i have read articles where people have tried to 'hack' vista to get aero to work, and even if you have enough graphics memory you will not get it to go without the hardware!my advice, if you wanted vista just for the 'aero' effect, just use xp and download window blinds (great program) and get an aero/vista skin for xp, much easier and you dont have to worry about buying a new pc (or the new parts for your old one)!hardware and driver support so far is excellent. my pc installed without a hitch and none of my hardware had problems installing. other devices (like my phone, printer etc etc) installed perfectly, vista actually had drivers for them whereas xp did not. the actual OS install is quick (quicker then the betas!) and is very simple for anyone to understand. Setting up new feature like the account control is done behind the scenes and does not require input from the user at anytime!in the coming months new pcs are going to start coming out with vista pre-installed, if you want windows you may aswell just get one of those pcs, they will be equipped with everything ready for vista and you wont have to upgrade anything! (yet anyway)my advice again, bide your time, wait for a while. wait untill vista has emerged into the market and everyone has gotten used to it (and maybe the price may have fallen a bit ) still, vista is a stable system and so far from what ive seen it should be good! (for those who use windows anyway)

[kgd2006 0]

I wonder how long before most computers be running with windows vista. I mean XP was just introduced not to long ago I believe like at least 3 years ago? I guess thats a long time. But I'm not ready to migrate to another operating system. But I guess change is good. Ill just wait on it, and give it a couple of years before I move on to the next level of the windows user interface.

[nightfox1405241487 0]

I mean XP was just introduced not to long ago I believe like at least 3 years ago?

5 years ago... going to be 6 soon. Anyways, I work a lot with the IT industry and my school's IT department had a goal to get every computer running WinXP. Nope, never happened. We still have 9X machines still being used in the classrooms (high school is completely running XP, exception is our thin client lab which is running stripped down version of 98 which is used to connect to the Windows terminal server, middle/junior high school is 20% 9X with newer machines replacing the older ones, intermediate school is 80% 9X with the exception of teacher computers which are new/refurb Dells with XP, and our lower grade level buildings are 98% 9X with 1 Dell per classroom with XP). We do not have any 2K machines, ME machines, or NT machines. The sad thing is, we still have 11 year-old operating systems and 11 year-old computers still in production use and still being maintained. However, each summer we might get a good deal from Dell and order a few hundred machines.

Point being, most places will continue running a mixed environment of 9X, XP and Vista, like my school. Some places will experience XP/Vista environments only. It really depends on how often the place upgrades equipment.

Oh, and in case anyone here doesn't belive xboxrulz, please watch this video on Google: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

[N]F

[Quatrux 4]

As I usually say, I don't even want to try Vista until I don't see at least Service Pack 1, because it will really be unstable and the main thing for me I think is a Stable Operating System. I have managed to make my XP installation quite stable and don't really have problems with it.. To use Vista normally I would need to upgrade my Hardware which I don't want to because it is really enough for me, Internet, webdesign, studies...If you really want to have something better than XP, just install some Linux distribution or MacOS and learn how to use it, you won't want to get back to Windows unless you are a gamer and want to play games, on Vista Games will be even more slower, I remember when people didn't really liked XP, because it was resource hungry.. they still used win98 and said Games run better on that system, for two years now I don't really hear thins kind of stuff or they stopped playing old games or something like that, so I don't think that you won't have problems using Vista for the first year, I don't like problems - I won't use it.

[jimmy89 0]

going back to nightfox's post about using older OS's. most places (companies, schools etc etc) do not want to be upgrading to brand new operating system as soon as they come out. most places are going to be using older operating systems until it is not possible for them to run it anymore (i.e due to software upgrades etc etc). my school is still running of windows 2k. almost all the computers are running 2k with a few running xp. it is a huge ask to make a company upgrade their system to a new OS. imagine the costs!! still it is only a matter of time before we are going to ahve to upgrade to new OS's.

[Aka_Bar 0]

Quatrux, I agree with you, there are already so many bugs huuh i dont know what Micrasoft thought about Vista but i think is not that good, my impressions was poor when i saw Vista it was some ugly, you know, i thought it have to be a revalution in Operation System and i though there wll be some HELPFUL tools or features, and it will have some Cordinal changes in code and in design that will be UNIQE... but its not ....borlafu, u didnt understand me i meant about Minimal recomendation config!! for run stable and minimal uses

Edited December 17, 2006 by Aka_Bar (see edit history)

[xboxrulz1405241485 0]

Right now I'm running Windows Vista RC1 (yes, it's legit) on VMWare and it works like UNIX, like the folder structure is almost a direct copy.

 

Instead of doing / system, it uses the C:\ D:\ system but everyone still has their own home directory and stuff like that.

 

I seriously think Microsoft finally learn that UNIX is the superior system and they are trying to transition their NT system to work more like the UNIX system.

 

However, it's still quite slow, esp. on VMWare, so I don't know if it's going to be as laggy on native system.

 

Windows Vista RC 1 (Build 5600)

VMWare 5.5.3 for Linux

20 GB HDD

512 MB RAM

 

Update December 23, 2006: Here's the screenshot of my Vista desktop:

https://g'>https://g https://g'>https://g' alt='Posted Image' class='bbc_img' />

 

xboxrulz

[flashdiamond 0]

I herd that vista will be virus proof, but there probably just saying that to get more sells. Viruses advance all the time. But I do think it will be more secure than xp. Also the setup will be better to. I don’t have any problems with my xp so I don’t really need vista right now, I will wait about 4 years, vista will be cheaper then to and more advanced.

[Grafitti 0]

Dude .. thats just mean .. LOL ... mean shleen .. M$ really needs to get lessons in customer satisfaction. I mean y make 6-7 versions of vista in the first place with all having different specs. and even if they did that, y the heck make them so damn graphic intense that a good ol NVidia GeForce4 MX 440 has no choice but to go blank on installation of the RC2 ..
Ohh well .. as far as specs are concerned .. i think my laptop with 1GB RAM and 30GB HDD space .. with a 128 shared intel GFX handles vista pretty well .. but then again .. most of the drivers dont really work ..

Vista is actually XP on steroids ..

Regards
Dhanesh.

OK. Vista cannot be totally virus-proof. Just like any other system can't be 100% foolproof. It's definitely hardened against viruses as compared to XP or god forbid win98, but that's not a complete protection scheme. plus 3rd party software, including Microsoft's own hotmail, accessed through the browser windows can serve as a conduit for the viruses. There's already been three that have gotten through like this. It's like building a big fortified castle, but leaving the sewer drain open. The whole attacking army can't fit through there, but a few men can, and if the guards are sleeping (no 3rd party antivirus, trusting only to vista to catch them) then they can open the gate from the inside, and all your hard work was useless.
That said, Vista is not really XP on steroids. It's not quite the shift in core programming that would have been nice, but it is fundamentally different than XP. Of course it's an improvement. There are bugs, and like XP, probably after 6 months or so we'll see the first service pack for vista, after which it will become a viable OS. It would be nice to have a cleaner, faster, and more powerful Windows, but because of their ties to big business and software vendors, we're stuck with the same core. Realistically, switching the entire codebase would require patches or upgrades for almost every 3rd party piece of software. While people may gripe about Vista being resource hungry and bloated, they would gripe a lot louder if they all of a sudden had to upgrade every program on their computer. Or they wouldn't because they would choose not to buy it, and that's not good business sense for Microsoft. A slimmed-down version of Vista would be nice, at a much cheaper price, because that's the one thing that makes Vista a stupid choice. Who wants to shell out $500 just to use an OS?