Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-05 03:13:03

This is going to MS's doom, I say. A desktop OS that needs a heavy-duty gaming box just to give you good performance? Ye gods, how much bloat have they introduced?! I mean even if you're going for eyecandy, you can get all Vista's crap on X with a low-end box and a cheap AGP card, if you have the right software.

Absolutely incredible... I don't even want to know what happens when MS pulls support for Windows 2003. :shock:

ozar · 2005-09-05 03:20:04

Yeah, I'm thinking the heavy-duty hardware requirements will prompt lots of users to go ahead and give Linux a go.

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-05 03:56:15

Good point - a lot of desktop machines might start shipping with Linspire. Linspire is really, really sucky though...

Euphoric Nightmare · 2005-09-05 04:29:33

..especially since you have to pay for the repos...

soloport · 2005-09-05 06:26:08

Euphoric Nightmare wrote:

..especially since you have to pay for the repos...

...and everything runs as root (AFAIK)...

jftaylor21 · 2005-09-05 06:31:36

soloport wrote:

Euphoric Nightmare wrote:
..especially since you have to pay for the repos...
...and everything runs as root (AFAIK)...

Wow, I didn't realize that they were so much like windows...

stavrosg · 2005-09-05 06:50:37

Vista will probably start shipping about in a year from now, (and thats an optimistic assumption ) and I expect that it will last three years in the market at least.
Most new computers sold (with vista preinstalled, of course )will probably have the necesary computing power by then, and it will of course grow higher as time passes.
[/quote]

Gullible Jones · 2005-09-05 11:16:57

Low-end home computers won't have that sort of power. Especially not Dells... You know how Dell loves to skimp on hardware, even on "current" lines. :shock:

soloport wrote:

...and everything runs as root (AFAIK)...

Well, sort of. When you first boot into Linspire, you get a full graphical environment, running as root. If you don't know UNIX, you use that, and you're very vulnerable. If you know anything about UNIX, you're disgusted.

(It is possible to create other users, but not worth it - better to just wipe the HDD and install something less stupid.)

omgpro · 2005-09-10 02:31:38

They need to sell computers loaded with Ubuntu.

Or better yet, Arch!

MrCoul · 2005-09-10 14:21:51

Since most Windows copies are probably sold preinstalled, then most machines at the time of Vista release will probably run it "okay" ( for a given definition of ok ).

This is normal for windows ever since Win95.

On the otherhand - when you next buy a budget DELL PC that runs slow-vista, rip the drive and install Arch --- it'll knock your socks off with it's speed!

stavrosg · 2005-09-10 14:44:31

MrCoul wrote:

On the otherhand - when you next buy a budget DELL PC that runs slow-vista, rip the drive and install Arch --- it'll knock your socks off with it's speed!

Well... most Dell buyers wouldn't know how to do that. ;-)

Vince · 2005-09-10 16:51:38

You guys totally miss the point!
The start menu opens faster, so we should all go buy Vista

jftaylor21 · 2005-09-10 16:58:37

Vince wrote:

You guys totally miss the point!
The start menu opens faster, so we should all go buy Vista

I doubt that. I remember when xp came out, the start menu slowed down considerably. With all the new "eye candy" features in vista, I cringe at the thought of the start menu speed.

ozar · 2005-09-10 17:43:44

Microsoft says "it's faster" with every new release but I've never found that to be the case, although the new hardware that's needed usually is faster.

Vince · 2005-09-10 18:23:46

Nobody appreciates my satire

Anyway, i thought that XP actually added a crappy 'fade-in' effect on the start menu, hence its slowness

Dusty · 2005-09-10 18:25:57

Vince wrote:

Nobody appreciates my satire

Lol... the problem is, a lot of us here haven't used Windows in a long time, so we don't know that start menu speed has gotten slower. :-D

Dusty

longhornxtreme · 2005-10-07 04:12:55

Now I'm not trying to stick up for MS here... I only use XP for games... don't give me that Cedega crap... gaming on Linux is just NOT an option at this point. Not to mention I work alot with Silo and Zbrush and Reason3.0 all windows native.

I have all the eyecandy turned off in XP... its remarkably fast. The start menu is instantaneous. Granted I have a 'decent' comp (barton 3000 with a gig or ram) ... its still pretty nice. Not as fast as Arch and XFCE on the same box... but still lightning fast

Now Vista... that looks like ABSOLUTE dog droppings.

Danny · 2005-10-07 04:50:21

Someone rename the dude above me to Vistaxtreme?

Anyway windows CAN be very fast if you turn off all the eye candy crap. Even if you dont, there are tweaks that simply remove the delays with everything, its not that its slow.. its built in to be slow.

Now Vista.. I've checked the alpha's of Vista.. i am not to impressed. :x

longhornxtreme · 2005-10-07 05:47:43

Hehe... I didn't think about that... my nick comes from UT Austin Longhorns... heheh

iBertus · 2005-10-07 09:50:54

I'm not sure graphics are going to be the killer for MS here. It's getting to the point already where eye-candy really doesn't affect performance that much. Considering Vista will be totally HW accelerated it should run fine with 'decent' video hardware. Remember, most of the processing will take place at the GPU level - taking little or no CPU cycles away from other tasks. The real kicker performance killer for MS is likely going to be WinFS, as every filesystem transaction is going to require a database query. I can see the CPU/IO ratio for WinFS being really bad.

[edit]

Christ, I just read the part about DRM in the linked article. How long do you really thing that will last? Why do these companies not realize that their multi-million dollar investment in DRM technology is a waste of money. I already think we should have someones ass for letting this go as far as it has.

Arch Linux

#1 2005-09-05 03:13:03

Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#2 2005-09-05 03:20:04

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#3 2005-09-05 03:56:15

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#4 2005-09-05 04:29:33

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#5 2005-09-05 06:26:08

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#6 2005-09-05 06:31:36

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#7 2005-09-05 06:50:37

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#8 2005-09-05 11:16:57

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#9 2005-09-10 02:31:38

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#10 2005-09-10 14:21:51

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#11 2005-09-10 14:44:31

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#12 2005-09-10 16:51:38

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#13 2005-09-10 16:58:37

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#14 2005-09-10 17:43:44

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#15 2005-09-10 18:23:46

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#16 2005-09-10 18:25:57

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#17 2005-10-07 04:12:55

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#18 2005-10-07 04:50:21

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#19 2005-10-07 05:47:43

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

#20 2005-10-07 09:50:54

Re: Vista will need some really powerful hardware...

Board footer