Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Windows Vista a reason to buy ECC memory?

Last response: in Memory
Share
February 6, 2006 6:41:55 PM

This morning, we have posted an article about Microsoft's decision to gently recommend ECC memory for computers that come preinstalled with Vista. The benefit, according to Microsoft, is to receive a much more stable operating system.

What do you think? Is Windows XP not stable enough today and is it worth to upgrade to ECC for a more stable OS?
February 6, 2006 7:42:38 PM

I thihk it is a continuation of the recent and quite alarming trend with MS.

In essence, they are extending their OS [virtual] monopoly into the hardware realm, thus really reducing consumer choice.

It began with the insanely steep hardware requirements (most notably, graphics) that would most likely cause people that would like to upgrade the OS upgrade their systems at some significant cost, then it affected teh next gen DVD format war, and now it is expanding into other areas of the system.

Plus, the DRMs that they are pushing are quite insane as well. I think I recall at some point they were proposing monitors with DRM?! So now users need to upgrade that, as well.

I think any shifts in the hardware markets should be driven by the hardware market, and not some OS gimmickry. If there is an argument to be made for natural monopoly in the OS segment, it definitely should not extend to hardware.
February 6, 2006 8:01:34 PM

If it's required, yes. But I think it's actually insane that Microsoft expects us to buy special hardware, just because they're too lazy to finish their software properly.
Related resources
February 6, 2006 9:56:27 PM

Are you mad??? In what possible way would M$ benefit by forcing (or recommending) that people use ECC memory? Last I checked M$ doesn't make memory nor do they own an significant shares/interests in memory.

Everyone makes ECC memory. The statement that it somehow benefits M$ (both financially and strategically) to make people use ECC memory is insane.

Quote:
It began with the insanely steep hardware requirements (most notably, graphics) that would most likely cause people that would like to upgrade the OS upgrade their systems at some significant cost, then it affected teh next gen DVD format war, and now it is expanding into other areas of the system.

I think any shifts in the hardware markets should be driven by the hardware market, and not some OS gimmickry. If there is an argument to be made for natural monopoly in the OS segment, it definitely should not extend to hardware.


Hey, last time I checked every single computer sold in the world has some some sort of 3D acceleration. Every computer sold in the past 4 years has 3d acceleration. Explain to me how M$ has made this so! And please show me the "steep hardware requirements" that will be required to run Avalon. Do you even know what the minimum requirements are??? Probably not so I'll post them below.

An AGP or PCI-e video card with 64MB of VRAM. Wow... so steep. And even if some people don't have this, M$ has stated Vista will run in 2D mode w/ a WinXP look just fine. Here is a list of compatible chips/cards from ATI/nVidia/Intel:

http://www.ati.com/technology/windowsvista/index.html
http://www.nvidia.com/page/technology_vista_home.html
http://www.intel.com/business/bss/products/client/vista...

The evolution to a 3D accelerated GUI is a natural one. It's a complete waste of talent NOT to use 3D acceleration.

Quote:
In essence, they are extending their OS [virtual] monopoly into the hardware realm, thus really reducing consumer choice.


Please explain to me how M$ has a vritual monopoly in the hardware realm. Really, I want to know.

-mpjesse
February 6, 2006 10:09:23 PM

I for one see this is a good thing.

Naturally, quality RAM is going to be almost as good as ECC memory. But the problem is the majority of system builders put cheap, crappy memory in the systems they sell. (the exception of course would be Dell, Gateway, and all the big boys- they tend to use name brand stuff)

Since system builders will never voluntarily put good memory in their systems, M$ wants them to use ECC. With ECC you can have it both ways- cheap memory with added stability. The price of ECC will fall as demand and production increases. It appears to me that M$ is trying to make system builders a little more accountable for stability.

Why is that bad?

-mpjesse
February 6, 2006 10:49:29 PM

this make me more...more...hated with Ms/vista. what are they thinking?. forcing people to buy this and that....upgrade this and that. just to load their junk. with all nonsense requirement....is vista worth of upgrade?. can vista run on laptop ?(as they stated "compatible vista laptop"). with the insane requirement, can the laptop run in mobile mode (cpu with 800MHz) while preserving batery?.....I don't think so :evil: 
February 6, 2006 11:06:13 PM

Quote:
This morning, we have posted an article about Microsoft's decision to gently recommend ECC memory for computers that come preinstalled with Vista. The benefit, according to Microsoft, is to receive a much more stable operating system.

What do you think? Is Windows XP not stable enough today and is it worth to upgrade to ECC for a more stable OS?


Interesting how some speculate and act as if the speculation was pure gospel (refering to some of the uninformed replies). Anyways, I am speculating here, but it is my professional opinion that MS is doing this not because Vista needs ECC memory, but because ALL modern memory needs to be ECC. Back when memory modules where 256MB and less, non-ECC memory was fine. Fact is anything 512MB or larger *NEEDS* to be ECC to run stable. Chances are you are getting dozens of memory errors a day but they just go unnoticed as they rarely affect vital data. Memory needs to be ECC because it is getting larger. Even XP is less stable with my two 1GB RAM sticks than it was with a single 512MB stick. Faster, but less reliable. Just my opinion though.
February 6, 2006 11:19:40 PM

I have built about 20 systems with the AMD Athlong 64/Opteron platform and I never found the required ECC on the Opterons to provide any better stability than Corsair Non ECC memory. I have not noticed a difference between buffered and non buffered. NUMA is freaking cool, but programs crash or ignore avalible memory. Getting good code, stil seems like a harder proposition than getting good software. It is as such that I think MS has other reasons for the memory soft requirement.

I think this requirement is for other reasons:
1.)encryption keys stored only in ram
if windows vista is all about security and stability, it would make sense that some of these hardware keys are stored in ram, and they are accessed alot. It is just a guess, but I also think MS might be thinking about storing programs in an encrypted memory space making it really hard to hook code from another application. Things like these are already being done on MS's xbox consoles. It wouldn't suprise me if some of that will filter its way into Vista.

2.)non execute bits
i still kinda wonder how the NX bit works, but from what i know, the NX bit must be stored in memory before being sent to the processor for execution, if an NX bit was set in error or intentionally on a buffer overflow section of memory, I could be used to hook other processes. This could be another step in securing the software of an OS from easy hardware hacking.

3.)quick boots on laptops
it is another guess, but a likely one that as Intel and AMD make the push for INSTANT ON computing, a feature in Vista, they have found that to skip the step of reloading memory from the hard drive requires better memory for maintaining a system state. I still have not gotten a gaming box to work correctly with a suspend mode(its like a ram only hibernate) vs hibernate that writes to the hard drive and then shuts down.

4.)this could be a prerequirement for flash ram
agian, INSTANT ON computing, is a big movement right now and as flash memory merges with other memory types and serves as a cross gap between ram and hard drives, this ECC requirement might be a puch now for the XP version of Vista.

I don't plan on getting Vista at this point, DirectX 10 cards are not yet avalible and all of the new features will take some time to sort out. I will continue to evaluate it as a MSDN developer, but Mac OS X seems like a more usefull OS to learn, as it can bridge the gap between a working gui and linux/bsd platform with suported software on it.
February 6, 2006 11:54:15 PM

I'm sorry, were we reading the same article? Where does it say M$ is forcing anyone to do anything?

They are merely suggesting system builders use ECC.

Sheesh... chill out.

-mpjesse
February 6, 2006 11:56:19 PM

Quote:
I have built about 20 systems with the AMD Athlong 64/Opteron platform and I never found the required ECC on the Opterons to provide any better stability than Corsair Non ECC memory.


Yes, you are right. Corsair memory (even the cheap stuff) is probably just as good as ECC.

The problem is this: the majority of the computers sold with Windows XP use CRAP, GENERIC, CHEAP memory. Nearly no system builder ships their system with corsair! The only builders who do that are builders like Alienware who make up .001% of the market.

-mpjesse
February 6, 2006 11:59:15 PM

I would REALLY like to see MS make it so I can tell what components are responsible for some random crashes. Granted, crash frequency is infrequent, but diagnosing the cause (Memory, video card mem, other hardware, etc) is still near impossible for some those odd crashes that leave absolutely nothing in the event logs or information that is otherwise useless for me the "user". I can't help but wonder if memory is getting a bad rap here. Its would seem much more likely the more complex components would be more prone to failure than the (relatively) simple memory sticks. (History of failures seem to point to this, too as, generally speaking, complexity fails and simplicity succeeds)

(just a scan through my event log pulled these 2 prime examples)

Event Type: Error
Event Source:
Event Category: None
Event ID: 0
Date: 11/1/2005
Time: 6:27:03 PM
User: N/A
Computer: G
Description:
The description for Event ID ( 0 ) in Source ( ) cannot be found. The local computer may not have the necessary registry information or message DLL files to display messages from a remote computer. You may be able to use the /AUXSOURCE= flag to retrieve this description; see Help and Support for details. The following information is part of the event: 6.
Data:
0000: 3f 3f d1 2a e3 ee 92 2d ??Ñ*ãî’-
0008: ae 39 d9 22 ee e9 9a e5 ®9Ù"îéšå
0010: 2e 2f c1 3a f3 f1 82 3d ./Á:óñ‚=
0018: e9 22 8d 32 f9 f9 8a 35 é"?2ùùŠ5
0020: 1f 1f f1 0a af bf f6 0a ..ñ.¯¿ö.
0028: 82 e0 eb 02 d7 c9 ba 05 ‚àë.×ɺ.
0030: 6a 22 b8 f7 63 26 b0 1d j"¸÷c&°.
0038: 06 07 e9 12 cb f4 f3 f8 ..é.Ëôóø
0040: 41 7f 90 6a a3 a1 d2 6d A?j£¡Òm
0048: 76 77 99 62 ab a9 da 65 vw™b«©Úe
0050: 6e 6f 81 7a b3 b1 c2 7d no?z³±Â}
0058: 66 67 89 72 bb b9 ca 75 fg‰r»¹Êu


Ohhhhhh here's another one of my favorites...

Event Type: Error
Event Source: System Error
Event Category: (102)
Event ID: 1003
Date: 2/5/2006
Time: 12:44:38 PM
User: N/A
Computer: G
Description:
Error code 1000007f, parameter1 00000008, parameter2 f788ed70, parameter3 00000000, parameter4 00000000.

For more information, see Help and Support Center at http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/events.asp.
Data:
0000: 53 79 73 74 65 6d 20 45 System E
0008: 72 72 6f 72 20 20 45 72 rror Er
0010: 72 6f 72 20 63 6f 64 65 ror code
0018: 20 31 30 30 30 30 30 37 1000007
0020: 66 20 20 50 61 72 61 6d f Param
0028: 65 74 65 72 73 20 30 30 eters 00
0030: 30 30 30 30 30 38 2c 20 000008,
0038: 66 37 38 38 65 64 37 30 f788ed70
0040: 2c 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 , 000000
0048: 30 30 2c 20 30 30 30 30 00, 0000
0050: 30 30 30 30 0000


Gotta love this:
http://www.anetforums.com/posts.aspx?ThreadIndex=29710

So I should replace my memory AND my video card and if that doesn't fix it AND my sound card and if that doesn't fix it AND my motherboard... jeeze. gimme a break. I prefer MS helping me determine what part is failing. Increase my ability to make educated CHOICES as opposed to baby proofing (aka nerfing) my system.

side note: memtest86 had seven flawless passes (non ECC) and i'm not about to go about buying random parts to replace what may or may not be failing... see my point?
February 7, 2006 12:26:07 AM

Last time I checked you'll aslo need 2 gigs of RAM too, and those graphics will require at least 256mb card. Sounds like a new motherboard and some nice expensive RAM. After service pack 12 though I think I'll look into getting it.
February 7, 2006 12:34:45 AM

Quote:
I would REALLY like to see MS make it so I can tell what components are responsible for some random crashes. Granted, crash frequency is infrequent, but diagnosing the cause (Memory, video card mem, other hardware, etc) is still near impossible for some those odd crashes that leave absolutely nothing in the event logs or information that is otherwise useless for me the "user". I can't help but wonder if memory is getting a bad rap here. Its would seem much more likely the more complex components would be more prone to failure than the (relatively) simple memory sticks. (History of failures seem to point to this, too as, generally speaking, complexity fails and simplicity succeeds)


The problem with linking between programs is it is sometimes hard to determine what the error is, and what caused it. At the kernel/process/embedded level of programming, program opperations perform executions related to memory addresses and the data that is directly in them. Hardware typically writes to and from memory using a DMA channel and is prompted from another software thread running on another asyncronous hardware element, and so if one piece of hardware or a driver missinforms the hardware, it will write to the wrong memory location without leaving a trail. The memory does not know who wrote the data, and so an exception is thrown. DLLs have the same problem, and as far as the OS is concerned they are asyncronous(event driven). Windows used a shared system memory space for OS and for program execution until windows NT.

In the switch to NT and later to XP(the latest version of the NT kernal) programs are virtualized by the operating system to run in a logical rather than a physical memory structure, meaning that when a program calls for a memory address, it is not a real one, it is one that has been replaced at run time with the actual memory address. All of these moving addresses makes it hard to determine who made an async call that wrote to the wrong memory. The error might have been made along time ago by a program, only to be executed by a program that does not run that often.

Moving to a registerd hardware enviroment(where hardware has encryption certs) will allow MS to restrict memory to legal actions based on hardware that has been certified by MS to work, the only problem being that if your key is transcoded wrong, the hardware will not be allowed to access system memory.

Agian I think this is just an assertion from MS that good memory is critical for windows to not break, I agree, but I don't think ECC is the answer, GOOD memory is. I bought value ram once, and my systems started crashing, I replaced it with Corsair and what do ya know, the computer work flawlessly. These days I would rather skimp on CPU power than on RAM.

Its also a way for MS to pass the buck on to the system builders, by asking "did you use ECC mem?" "oh, no, oh, it must be your problem we will not support it"

In one instance I built a computer with some stability issues and the MB company blamed the PS company, and then the PS company blamed the MB company only to find out that the Memory was the issue.
February 7, 2006 12:34:50 AM

Hey I have a brilliant idea, why not just keep windows XP and not bother with Vista at all? It's not like you really need it, come on now. Why spend all that money when windows XP can do most everything you want it to.

-Mark
February 7, 2006 12:36:28 AM

Another thing to think about is that as memory goes from an average system size of 2GB to 32GB durring the life time of Windows Vista, and a production size of 65nm to 22nm the expected error rate of even good RAM may be an issue.
February 7, 2006 2:49:21 AM

Quote:
Last time I checked you'll aslo need 2 gigs of RAM too, and those graphics will require at least 256mb card. Sounds like a new motherboard and some nice expensive RAM.


Holy crap are you WAY off base. M$ says this directly from their Vista hardware requirements page:

Quote:
Memory
To take better advantage of Windows Vista functionality, you should have at least 512 MB of RAM, on your PC. This provides enough memory for both the operating system and a typical application workload. And while 512 MB is great for many scenarios, more advanced users will want 1 GB of memory or more. If your typical workload is heavy, you do a lot of image editing or development, or you run multiple applications all the time, then more memory is good. In general, an investment in additional memory is wise, and you should certainly make sure that the computer you buy has room to add additional memory later.


Quote:
If you are building or buying PC today, you probably want to avoid the low end of the current GPU range and make sure you get a GPU that supports DirectX 9 and has at least 64 MB of graphics memory.


Why don't actually try READING or googling before making such reckless statements. People in here actually believe what other people say in these forums.

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/...

-mpjesse
February 7, 2006 3:19:33 AM

Dear all...

Oh man, 2 sticks of 512 non-ECC PC3200 are already way off lots of people's budget, and if ECC is gonna be more expensive and slower than non-ECC i think i'm gonna stick to XP until everything drops in price.
February 7, 2006 3:44:39 AM

In my humble opinion, Vista is going to be a bit of a disappointment to M$, mainly becuase there isn't a lot of reasons to upgrade until they force you. From what I have seen (And I admit, I haven't been paying much attention, cause I don't plan on buying it), there are only minor improvements that aren't worth the hassle of changing OSes.
February 7, 2006 4:01:00 AM

I know, I always get like this before a M$ OS release, cause I know half of what they say will turn out to be completely inaccurate once the OS is released and the real enthusiasts get their hands on it.

I will probably find a way to evaluate it anyway.
February 7, 2006 4:13:41 AM

oh my gawsh ...MS made me upgrade my 8086 computer.

how i miss that godly device.

*sniffle*

:) 
February 7, 2006 4:24:56 AM

LOL

Thank god the world isn't controlled by visionless people.

-mpjesse
February 7, 2006 4:55:10 AM

Thats not what I was getting at at all. I would have no problem running Vista with what I've got. I am saying that with XP (at least after SP1) we got the best of 98 and 2000 combined. With Vista, I see no reason to upgrade and deal with everything they are dictating, nor the whole new batch of bugs, driver troubles, and general issues associated with it. I am sure I will test it out when its released as my second os, since I will probably be completely on XP x64 by then, I am just not going to spend any additional money on hardware to get it.

Maybe I'll make them get me a new laptop at work when it comes out :wink:
February 7, 2006 7:00:49 AM

"ECC is recommended"
"64/128 MB GPU recommended"
"1GB Ram recommended"
"20 GB HDD recommended"

I wonder what will happen to the "simple PC" you can build today ?
200 250€ Computers sold like Candy in france around christmass.
(60GB / 512 Ram / Sempron or Celeron)

Hell even Dell makes these :
http://www1.euro.dell.com/content/products/features.aspx/dimen_1100?c=fr&cs=frdhs1&l=fr&s=dhs

Why ?
1) Surf / Download
2) DVD / Audio
3) Word / Excel

The only reason for M$ for this arms race is :
- Special deals with hardware manufacturers (very plausible)
(We all know how mass distribution and reverse discout works)
- DRM Management
(No comment needed there)


There have been ZERO improvement from 95 to XP SP2.

ECC ? Gimme a break
February 7, 2006 8:02:31 AM

I don't see this affecting the overcost as much as the basic requirements of vista.

I think that an OS that you can use in a "full bells and whistles" mode is good as a lot of poeple have very powerful computers these days and I see no reason why the OS should not give something to these users.

The fact that Microsoft have included a WinXP style for lower spec systems is a great idea and should help people transition.

Microsoft are in no way forcing people to use ECC but they're saying if you do you can expect a more stable experience. Sounds fair enough to me.

BTW my current main Rig has 2GB ECC corsair RAM :) 
February 7, 2006 9:17:57 AM

Quote:
LOL

Thank god the world isn't controlled by visionless people.

-mpjesse


mpjesse is completely right. I've been reading this forum for a while now and find it quite funny how people post absolute rubbish and try to pass it off as fact.

The company I work for build their own clone machines and sells these alongside the corporate versions of HP/Compaq's. Our machines use cheap crappy RAM whereas the HP's use good quality RAM. Our clones are a fair bit cheaper but use cheap shoddy RAM and break down a lot more....

Guess what most of the problems with our units are.... you guessed it... failed RAM :roll: Personally I wouldn't put anything other than Kingston ValueRam or Corsiar Value Select in a system.

P.S mpjesse I salute you for putting up with people like this and staying civil :wink: At least you recognise that jumping on the M$ bashing bandwagon is not cool unless it's justified.
February 7, 2006 10:26:58 AM

My understanding is that, from a business' point of view, it is in Microsofts best interest to bring the price of required hardware down. I think that they raised the recommended specifications to enhance the user experience in general. It has always been an advantage for Apple to be able to know exactly what kind of hardware OSX will be running on and people really liked OSX.

And when did overclockers start caring about the "Vista Ready" logo or the recommended specifications, let alone "soft requirements". Vistall will still run on non-ECC.

Even cheap machines with crappy on baord everything will probably still run Vista as good as they could run XP.
February 7, 2006 10:55:54 AM

I'd love to know how many of you Microsoft lambasters actually have legal copies of Windows. You steal then complain about it, or in this case, complain about it before you even steal it. No one holds a gun to your head to use anything from Microsoft. Go use Linux, then post your complaints to the open source community who will fix everything and make all of your dreams come true. My apologies to all who have legal copies of Windows, but that doesn't give you the right to go bashing without the facts, or even more, without even seeing the finished product. We're custom system builders and always use good, name-brand RAM with our systems, and actually recommend ECC to certain clients based on their usage. We will have no qualms about following Microsoft's recommendation. Let me know when you find anything that is perfect.
February 7, 2006 11:38:49 AM

So you want to pay 200-300 dollars for an operating system that is very much like what you can get today? That is your vision? I say come out with a revolutionary operating system that would make me WANT to upgrade, not because I have to or are supposed to. Give me a break with this vision stuff.

If windows XP does everything I want it to do, what reason is there for me to upgrade, tell me that? What is so damn compelling about Vista?

And I didn't go run out and buy Windows XP either, I just got it when I bought a cheapo Emachines for like 350 dollars after rebates, so why do I care about Vista. Hardware upgrades are moving at a much slower pace nowadays, then it was back then. And there isn't much need to upgrade, unless it is just a hobby or yours.

-Mark
February 7, 2006 11:40:43 AM

ec would be a pain in my ass. it is slower and more expensive
February 7, 2006 12:19:27 PM

he was correct stranger. vista is going to be much like XP, visually and otherwise. it's main implement will be to look nicer and be more secure, things i can already do with a theme pack and anti virus or anything linux. the idea that windows wants us to use more stable ram because they are too stupid and lazy to program anything that doesn't require a directx 9 graphics card, a gig of ram, a powerful processor and registered memory is insane. nobody is going to tell me that the memory i payed top dollar for is "low quality" and needs to be registered for the screw-offs over at microsoft to go ahead and get lazier with programming
February 7, 2006 12:29:16 PM

Why an idiot ?

Because i see many people new to computers who try and get the best they can for 200€ ?
You know the type that make 800-950€ a Month working hard ?
And just want to Surf / DVD / Word ? Beginners

I had 95, The only reason i went to 98 was for the PnP & USB
The only reason i went to XP was to have an easy time our Lan Parties.
All my OS were either OEM or original (95-98-NT4-ME-XP).

Whats WinXP SP2 ?
A Win95 with PnP USB2 & LAN.

Does that Explain the 200MB -) 2GB Install or 32MB -) 256MB Ram ??
Or the Stress on the CPU ?

Take XP, Copy & Paste, add a nifty 3D interface, DRM and VOILA : VISTA !
(And double all the hardware requirements of course)



Please explain to me why i had to do 95-98-ME-XP just for that ?
(As an ex Gamer i did upgrade often, but what about the average joe ?)

New fuctionalities in OS are awesome.
But they should not come at the expense of hardware.

I am against the "Arms Race" Microsoft has decided to make with its OS.
February 7, 2006 12:33:11 PM

that and its possible they will make us buy a new monitor! how retarded is that? in addition to possibly buying a server motherboard with ecc ram, i have to get a new monitor too possibly. and then theres the new format wars between dvd high def...its just pissing me off more and more...there won't be any new functions either, everything you need is already there, it will just be less screwy unlike XP without a bug every 20 lines of code. i might just switch to linux altogther, i am sick of this crap.
February 7, 2006 12:34:52 PM

Quote:
he was correct stranger. vista is going to be much like XP, visually and otherwise. it's main implement will be to look nicer and be more secure, things i can already do with a theme pack and anti virus or anything linux. the idea that windows wants us to use more stable ram because they are too stupid and lazy to program anything that doesn't require a directx 9 graphics card, a gig of ram, a powerful processor and registered memory is insane. nobody is going to tell me that the memory i payed top dollar for is "low quality" and needs to be registered for the screw-offs over at microsoft to go ahead and get lazier with programming


You obviously don't understand what the difference between a DX8 and a DX9 card. It's not a matter of horsepower as such.... DX9 cards have features which DX8 cards don't have. That's why for the full "Vista experience" you will need a DX9 card.

For all those mums and dads out there who just want to browse the web and send email..... They will be fine with a fairly low spec machine becuse Vista will still do all those things but just won't be as pretty.

The main thrust of Vista will be the interface. If you don't understand how important an interface is to the productivity of a user why don't you install windows 3.0 on your PC and see how easy it is to use when compared to XP.

It's called progression and evolution. Get over it!
February 7, 2006 12:39:06 PM

i am well aware of that, as an intel extreme edition with directx9.0c is developed specifically for vista. however, i am more than certain you could do the same things on a directx7 chipset, and i think it is a bit accessive. you don't think the recommendation of ram is insane? what about the minimum requirement of a gigabyte, when xp only requires 128mb?
February 7, 2006 12:40:22 PM

Quote:
that and its possible they will make us buy a new monitor! how retarded is that? in addition to possibly buying a server motherboard with ecc ram, i have to get a new monitor too possibly. and then theres the new format wars between dvd high def...its just pissing me off more and more...there won't be any new functions either, everything you need is already there, it will just be less screwy unlike XP without a bug every 20 lines of code. i might just switch to linux altogther, i am sick of this crap.


What are you smoking? HDCP compliance isn't something that Microsoft is forcing on anyone. You just won't be able to get proper HD res without having a HDCP compliant display. Blame the movie makers for this......

It's uninformed dribble like yours that makes forums displeasurable to use :roll:
February 7, 2006 12:41:57 PM

windows is still going along with it, rather than defending its current users. moving the blame to somebody else doesn't mean that microsoft isn't partly responsible.
February 7, 2006 12:51:27 PM

Quote:
i am well aware of that, as an intel extreme edition with directx9.0c is developed specifically for vista. however, i am more than certain you could do the same things on a directx7 chipset, and i think it is a bit accessive. you don't think the recommendation of ram is insane? what about the minimum requirement of a gigabyte, when xp only requires 128mb?


Direct X is not a chipset at all either....... perhaps you need to Google the topic a little and understand what you're talking about.

Read the page below and tell me that as Direct X has progressed it hasn't transformed the way things are rendered on your screen......

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/01/13/new_3d_graphics_...

I don't see why the minimum requirements of operating systems should seemingly stand still for people who don't upgrade. If the hardware can handle it then someone is going to write software to exploit those capabilities. Sadly this is going to make older machines chug.... it's the nature of the PC

When we first got a PC in '92it has 2 megs of RAM, when we got another one in 98 it had 64, when I build my mum a PC in 2002 it had 256 megs, I built my PC in 2004 and it had 512 megs ... now it has 1 gig. It's progression. As hardware becomes faster, programs start to require more memory and use up more of your CPU's power if you're running an older machine.

Progression.... evolution... whatever you want to call it. It's good and you should get used to it instead of bashing it.
February 7, 2006 12:54:54 PM

Quote:
windows is still going along with it, rather than defending its current users. moving the blame to somebody else doesn't mean that microsoft isn't partly responsible.


You don't understand do you :lol: 

Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter. It's built into the discs themselves that they must be displaying their image on a HDCP compliant screen to display at full HD resolution. If anything else is plugged in it's not going to display at full HD resolution.

Stop bashing Microsoft for something that's in no way their fault.
February 7, 2006 12:57:03 PM

I am runing Windows Vista Beta 1 on my computer without any problems...

I have got:
Pentium 4 530 @ 3,82GHz
2x 512Mb Corsair DDR-400 @ 510MHz
GeForce FX5950Ultra 256Mb

It works great...
February 7, 2006 12:57:19 PM

when i said "chipset", i meant the type of chip on the graphics card. but anyway, i think a recommended 2 gigs is quite a lot of money, even for today...
February 7, 2006 12:59:42 PM

StrangeStranger,

I wasn't replying to your post at all, I was replying to mpjesse's post about how people who don't care about upgrading to Vista are Visionless.

Are any of you going to actually go out and buy Vista? I have never even bought a stand alone operating system, never had a need to. Why buy a windows stand alone OS for 80-200 dollars when you can get it in a manufactures PC for about 10-15 dollars? Maybe two or three years from now when I see a need to get Vista, I will probably just buy another computer. Fair enough? I'll say it again, Vista doesn't have anything compelling enough at this time to make me run out and buy a copy. When Microsoft does provide me something worth buying over windows XP I will buy it.

Whoever thinks Vista is so compelling, can you please tell me why? And please include specific features, don't just say, "because it is the next best thing is OS!!!!" Don't just upgrade for the sake of upgrading, that is kind of ignorant is it not? Have a reason at least.

-Mark
February 7, 2006 1:03:17 PM

yeah, im with you on that note. what makes vista worth 50 bucks more than xp pro?
February 7, 2006 1:09:52 PM

OMG....after you buy Vista, Aliens will land and suck your brains out from your ears!!!!!...
February 7, 2006 1:13:08 PM

Quote:
I am runing Windows Vista Beta 1 on my computer without any problems...

I have got:
Pentium 4 530 @ 3,82GHz
2x 512Mb Corsair DDR-400 @ 510MHz
GeForce FX5950Ultra 256Mb

It works great...


I am running it on a
P4 2.8C
2x 512mb Kingston ValueRam
XFX 6600GT 256 AGP

Runs fine. This is hardly stupidly powerful hardware the last time I checked and handles the Beta version of Vista just fine.

I wouldn't upgrade for the sake of it but considering I'm allowed to use my work's volume licence at home I'd be silly not to...... IF the operating system offers substantial improvements over it's predecessor.

Anyway I have three hard drives in my PC and I can use two of them for OS's so I'm silly not to at least have a play around with Vista even if it is only in beta form.

I think upgrading to Vista for most people who consider themselves fairly savvy in the computer department will seem a little pointless at first but you'll wonder how you ever did without things in the first place. Just like you'll wonder how you ever did without a GUI in the DOS days ;) 

BTW AK47..... you said that Vista will need a gig of ram. This is not true. You will only need 512mb to be Vista ready but older machines with 128mb of ram or 256 mb should still run. But you're silly if you ever buy in with the minimum specs because when it comes to being 2 years down the track your PC will be abysmally slow! Best to spend a little more and get something that will actally be Vista ready IMHO
February 7, 2006 1:14:20 PM

Quote:
yeah, im with you on that note. what makes vista worth 50 bucks more than xp pro?

Exactly.

The natural progression everyone is talking about is fine, but don't tell people who don't care about upgrading that they are wrong. They are just being an informed consumer and not some happy go lucky upgrader.

If you don't vote with your money, then Microsoft will keep coming out with a subpar product.

-Mark
February 7, 2006 1:19:38 PM

Most of you are forgeting that Vista will not storm the market from PC gurus like the ones on this forum, but the average Joe User who buys his/her next Dell, HP, or whatever. Once the "home users" begin to buy new computers, the rest of us will not be far behind. Why? Because us guru's will want to be superior to mere mortals that buy $400 and $800 PCs. We want to rule the gaming universe. It won't happen immediately--I HATED XP, it "forced" you to run at 800X600 instead of 640X480 which for me was a big todo since I had no $$$ and my 14" CRT monitor was all I needed.

This sounds stupid, but trust me, in one year from now, all these stupid ridiculous claims will sound stupid as well. 64MB video card too much? Spend the $30 for the GeForce MX4000 or ATI X300 'n shut up. 512MB ECC RAM a frikin hardship? Buy Corsair non-ECC and shout in MS's face that it works fine. Shut up now until you know. You can buy a Vista-ready PC TODAY for only $500 easy. In two years you guys will have or want Vista for one reason or another, whether for DirectX10 or whatever else.

I'm not buying Vista right away either, I'll likely wait until at least SP1 (usually 6 months to a year after initial release). My point is you guys are throwing fits over nonsense you know little about. I'm not speaking of everyone who's posted--in fact mpjesse has the most sense of anyone posting here. Finally, remember we arent the only people who use computers--ignorant consumers will get Vista before you do, and most (not all) of us will ENVY them for it, mark my words.
February 7, 2006 1:40:13 PM

Who said anything about buying it?

:D 
February 7, 2006 1:43:08 PM

Quote:
Who said anything about buying it?

:D 


Would yo go into a shop and steal a new graphics card?
February 7, 2006 1:45:14 PM

yeah, i would.
February 7, 2006 1:47:48 PM

No I wouldn´t do that.

I am just telling you that there are other ways of getting software...
!