Windows Vista

[#juan]

In Depth

Technology

Windows Vista

What's in the new consumer versions

Jan. 26, 2007

By Saleem Khan, CBC News

Vista's windows are partly transparent to let people see what's behind them. (Microsoft handout)​

What should I buy?
That's the burning question that faces people in the market for a computer at the best of times as they wend their way through row upon row of gleaming hardware at PC and electronics retailers.
For those who buy a new Windows PC on or after Jan. 30, that decision will be made for them. Unless they request otherwise, the computer will almost certainly come bundled with a version of Vista, the latest incarnation of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows operating system (OS) software, which will be pre-installed on the machine in most cases.
For the rest of the people out there --

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/tech/windows-vista2.html

 

[#juan]

As someone who started with Windows 3.1, and waited breathlessly for win 95, and win 98, and then Windows XP, I'm not getting too excited just yet...

 

[DurkaDurka]

I have both Vista and XP on my home machine. I still use XP for day to day use. Vista doesn't offer me much at this point other then a shiny interface. Vista is also a resource pig, to run it with all the fancy eye candy and no system slow downs, expect to have 1gb of RAM and at least a 2.5ghz cpu + a DirectX-9 video card in order to render the "Aero" interface.

I am going to wait about 6 months before I make Vista my primary operating system. I am holding off until Microsoft rolls out DirectX-10 . That's the only real reason I will upgrade to Vista.

 

[DurkaDurka]

XP is still a good Operating System in my opinion. It maybe 6 years old, but it is stable and reliable. Microsoft is already talking about releasing Service Pack 1 for Vista in the first quarter of 2007... that's scary.

 

[#juan]

Vista is also a resource pig,

Funny. That's what I thought about XP......

 

[DurkaDurka]

Funny. That's what I thought about XP......

Vista takes it to a whole new level. Vista uses about 300-400mb of RAM on my system... without any programs running.

 

[#juan]

I gave my wife XP as a gift at Christmas. At the time, she had only 374 megs of RAM(256 + 128)and XP, along with a few of the programs she was running , made her computer freeze on a regular basis. I've since bought her a gig of new RAM.............all better now.:|

 

[hermanntrude]

When i bought my last computer, people told me it was worth getting the then new AMD 64bit processor. They said sooner or later software would turn up that needed it. is windows vista like that? i'd still need extra RAM (that usage is shocking), but it might be worth my while, especially if i get a cheap (free) copy... although i have grown to like XP.

swap or stick? what's your advice?

 

[DurkaDurka]

RAM can really make a difference in how a computer operates, even in older pc's which may seem to be past their prime. Most computers sold now come with 2gb of RAM, which is the ideal ammount for running Vista in my opinion.

 

[DurkaDurka]

When i bought my last computer, people told me it was worth getting the then new AMD 64bit processor. They said sooner or later software would turn up that needed it. is windows vista like that? i'd still need extra RAM (that usage is shocking), but it might be worth my while, especially if i get a cheap (free) copy... although i have grown to like XP.

swap or stick? what's your advice?

64 bit processors were a marketing gimmick more or less when they were released. The main benefit of 64 bit processors, is their ability to use more then 4gb of RAM, when Athlor 64's were released no one used anywhere near that ammount. The Athlon 64's are a very fast CPU though. With Vista, you can choose between an X86 (32 bit) or a 64 bit version.

 

[MikeyDB]

Sure but isn't it interesting how lousy programming has become. The consumer has to go out and buy more ram and faster processors to what... have the Microsoft Engine of Greed further isolate the end-user from control of the equipment he's purchased?

Microsoft sucks has always sucked and hardware manufacturers reap the rewards.

 

[DurkaDurka]

Sure but isn't it interesting how lousy programming has become. The consumer has to go out and buy more ram and faster processors to what... have the Microsoft Engine of Greed further isolate the end-user from control of the equipment he's purchased?

Microsoft sucks has always sucked and hardware manufacturers reap the rewards.

High end hardware from 3 years ago is more then powerful enough to run Vista today.

Vista is not revolutionary in any way, it still carries a lot of legacy code which is found in Windows 2000/XP/server 2003. NT code base with a 3D accelerated desktop...

What bothers me most about Vista is the DRM (digital rights management) built into it. If windows determines that you lack copy protection compliant hardware, it will degrade and or shut down the data pipe from certain types of media. (Blu-Ray/HD-DVD). This what happens when Microsoft gets too cozy with the RIAA, MPAA etc.

 

[hermanntrude]

What bothers me most about Vista is the DRM (digital rights management) built into it. If windows determines that you lack copy protection compliant hardware, it will degrade and or shut down the data pipe from certain types of media. (Blu-Ray/HD-DVD). This what happens when Microsoft gets too cozy with the RIAA, MPAA etc.

OK that answers my question. Not getting it.

 

[MikeyDB]

I purchased a Windows XP OEM version to find out later of course that Microsoft won't support OEM packages ...unless...unless...unlesss....

What's yer take on Linux Durka....?

 

[DurkaDurka]

OK that answers my question. Not getting it.

A lot of people share your sentiment in regards to the Vista DRM.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I purchased a Windows XP OEM version to find out later of course that Microsoft won't support OEM packages ...unless...unless...unlesss....

What's yer take on Linux Durka....?

I posted this earlier in a different thread

"Linux just isn't practical as a desktop OS for most computer users. Linux users are usually highly technical people, not the average Joe who uses his computer to browse the web and check e-mails etc.

I have run a few distributions of Linux (slackware, red hat, Suse) and I am of the opinion that Linux is not ready for prime time OS. Reasons being:

1. Hardware drivers.
2. Software dependencies. Can you imagine a regular home user having to install GTK in order to run GIMP?
3. Desktop compliance. Applications that are coded for GNOME do not necessarily work for KDE.
4. Games. 3D accelerated game for linux are non-existent more or less. Also, the drivers ATI and NVIDIA supply are crap. Without native support for DirectX, Linux will never be a serious gaming platform.
5. File sharing, I can setup network share folders in seconds, on Linux you have to configure Samba, which can be a pain in the ass.

Linux is great for servers due to reliability and a great wealth of open srouce software (MySQL, Apache, PHP etc) for a home user though, the benefits are noticably lacking."

 

[hermanntrude]

i'd probably be a notorious criminal if it wasnt for the fact that a hundred million others across the world do the exact same things

 

[MikeyDB]

Thanks Durka

I use my PC for only yer basic stuff...chatting with all the nice folk here at CC and Microsoft Word to send unsolicited commentary to the a$$holes in Ottawa and Toronto...

I've installed and used every Microsoft product from DOS 3 onward. If you've ever done a Novel install (old days when you had to generate the kernel) copy forty some odd five-and a quarter floppies etc. etc. Windows networking has spawned a timely revolution thank you know who...

 

[DurkaDurka]

i'd probably be a notorious criminal if it wasnt for the fact that a hundred million others across the world do the exact same things

Check this link out, it explains all the in's and out's of the tarifs you play on blank media and the rights it accords you.

http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml

 

[DurkaDurka]

Thanks Durka

I use my PC for only yer basic stuff...chatting with all the nice folk here at CC and Microsoft Word to send unsolicited commentary to the a$$holes in Ottawa and Toronto...

I've installed and used every Microsoft product from DOS 3 onward. If you've ever done a Novel install (old days when you had to generate the kernel) copy forty some odd five-and a quarter floppies etc. etc. Windows networking has spawned a timely revolution thank you know who...

I have never done a Novell Install, it was on it's way out when I started college, everything switched to Linux/Windows servers at that point. Windows networking is great... when it works. Microsoft's own firewall has a tendancy to block the ports it needs to operate.