Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

500 Hour Test of Tomorrow's Windows "Vista"

Last response: in Memory
Share
May 31, 2006 11:19:53 AM

Windows Vista offers more than just a pretty user interface with transparent window effects. You want to know all about Vista, and so did we. Here's what we found.
May 31, 2006 11:48:18 AM

It's looking pretty good. The interface and visual are very nice. Though I hope it wouldn't just give better ergonomics and productivity but performance as well. :wink:
Related resources
May 31, 2006 12:24:40 PM

Quote:

you kiwi's must be desperate people, all them sheep must make any woman look good.


LMFAO! :D 
May 31, 2006 12:43:46 PM

PERFORMANCE!! Show some info on that! No processor speed/ram issue was involved in the review!!
:/ 
May 31, 2006 12:44:34 PM

Nice article but you make no mention of the fact of Windows Vista's major downfall. Its huge systems requirements. Show a screenshot of the task manager showing the commit charge and see how well people react. We just got Beta 2 installed yesterday at work. I like the new sidebar and how they ripped it off from these guys:

http://www.desktopsidebar.com/
May 31, 2006 1:45:17 PM

The OS I am running cost several billion dollars and isn't commercially available either :D  (But I know where you can download a copy of it off of BitTorrent...)
May 31, 2006 2:05:18 PM

Nice review but you failed to mention the hardware requirements.

I have not been able find any reason to upgrade my XP box with free firewall and antivirus to a VISTA system, This review changes nothing.

In my opinion Vista looks like XP with a lot of annoying eye candy, idiot proof desktop and a big load of system requirements.

Christ look at page 33 what person needs the help of an OS to know how to play FreeCell
May 31, 2006 2:20:20 PM

Quote:
The new look of the operating system is good, and lets it outshine its Linux and Mac OS competitors. One notices repeatedly while working with this software that Microsoft scoped out its competition very carefully.


Hmm, this is what they said in the article^^ In the conclusion.... But i really think that 95% of people ould disagree with the statement you made about Vista outshining Mac OS aesthetically speaking....
May 31, 2006 2:36:53 PM

As for a media player, WMP11beta is up at M$ right now.
May 31, 2006 2:44:31 PM

I would agree with you there, i have both the Vista Beta 2 and MacOSX x86 running on pc's at home, OSX is more pleasing to the eye, but honestly.....its not as comfortable after growing up on windows.

Even linux borrows more from the UI organisation of windows than it does from OSX,( although last Ubuntoo distro i sudes had option where u could configure it to look like either)

1 thing i can tell you is that every person (mostly girls/women) that i have shown vista to, have said it was very "pretty" and they love the bubbles sceensaver, as do i. i think the new UI will go a ways to encourage non-techies to migrate.

outside of these forums, there is no fight between OSX and Windows, office workers use XP at work and they'll use it at home. thats just the way it is.

my 2 cents of course
May 31, 2006 2:51:46 PM

The one good things about Vista is that it actually is a multi-user OS. As far as is it better than OS X, I don't really like OS to begin with. Graphically the two are about equal but I hate the interface of OS X. I have a G4 iBook that I use as a DVD player on planes (I paid $75, an 80 series Flowmaster muffler, and some old computer parts for it).

BTW, anyone know how to make your damn desktop icons in OS X stay in the same place and stay aligned? Really annoying that every time I boot it up the Hard drive icon and others are not where I put them last. I right click but theres no align to grid option or anything available. Yet another thing Mac hides away in the depths of menus.
May 31, 2006 2:57:29 PM

As others have asked so far, it would be interesting to see how resource-hungry Vista is.

Also, how is this pagefile / RAM-unloading working IRL?
May 31, 2006 3:05:15 PM

It usually takes a commit charge of 600MB when doing normal stuff like using office and IE7,

but i must say it it running rather smooth on my test pc

Celeron 3.03Ghz @ 3.7Ghz
512MB DDR333, single channel
80GB HDD
ATI 9600 256MB

Inspiron 9300
2.0Ghz Dothan
512MB DDR2 533, dual channel
60GB 5400rpm HDD
Nvidia 6800 Go 256MB
May 31, 2006 3:22:21 PM

Well at least it looks better than Fisher Price Windows (XP). I doubt I'll get it just because of the system requirements and all that crap that I don't need or want. And if games stop supporting DX9 or DX10 isn't available on XP then I'll just move to linux entirely and be done with it. But I guess it takes some advantage of all the processing power people with midrange dell PCs who use them to check their email.
May 31, 2006 3:32:46 PM

Quote:
Oh it's more than hot.
The $4000 OS I'm using now isn't even commercially avaliable yet. :) 


8O 8O 8O 8O $4000!?
May 31, 2006 3:36:05 PM

Quote:
Oh it's more than hot.
The $4000 OS I'm using now isn't even commercially avaliable yet. :) 


You lost your mind! How the hell does a CD cost $4000, you must be joking. I got my XP Home Edition for about $180. What the hell is in that OS that would cost so much? Damn you Bill Gates! You're ripping people as having a $1Million per hour business for you in not enough!!!! Yes, Bill Gates is earning about $1M per hour ever since he founded the Microsoft company. Im only getting $12.50 in my part time job. Jezz I wonder how much would the Windows Vista Home Edition costs. Anyone has a guess?
May 31, 2006 3:37:43 PM

I agree that the look and feel of OS X is awfull. Usability is so far below windows that it should be an embarassment to anyone that owns one. And before anyone decides to tell me to try it before I talk about it ... I have used every type of Mac from the Apple IIe on. They were all awfull and I did use most of them on a daily basis until fairly recently. I still help family members with them and work with them from time to time. The less the better. I also used Macs before I used windows.
May 31, 2006 3:52:51 PM

OSX = great, IMO.

For 'power users' it's probably a bit too helpful - I know lots of people prefer to just have a couple of ugly menus but more options in total rather than some nice pretty buttons.

I prefer OSX, after years of being forced into power-usery by Windows it's a breath of fresh, easy to breathe air.

I just hope that Vista isn't too much like OSX in that respect, as I still like getting my 'power-user' fix on my PC from time to time, and it'd be a shame to get rid of that.
May 31, 2006 3:56:37 PM

Quote:
It usually takes a commit charge of 600MB when doing normal stuff like using office and IE7,

but i must say it it running rather smooth on my test pc

Celeron 3.03Ghz @ 3.7Ghz
512MB DDR333, single channel
80GB HDD
ATI 9600 256MB

Inspiron 9300
2.0Ghz Dothan
512MB DDR2 533, dual channel
60GB 5400rpm HDD
Nvidia 6800 Go 256MB


8O 600 MB pagefile on a 512 meg system 8O sounds very wastefull, I thought M$ had figured out using a pagefile by now.
May 31, 2006 3:58:47 PM

Quote:
...an interesting extension in IE 7. It's possible to specify a local domain suffix, such as .net or .de. This means that users need only enter "tomshardware" then press Alt+Shift+Enter to open www.tomshardware.de.


quick question about that, why dont they keep it the same as IE6. all I ever type in is, tomshardware, then hold Ctrl and hit enter and IE6 puts in http://www.tomshardware.com. Ctrl and enter are so easy to hit compaired to Alt+Shift+Enter. I hope thet I can still use Ctrl+Enter to add on the http://www. ... .com stuff
May 31, 2006 4:02:58 PM

I'm sure it will run on a dual or even quad proc system, but will it efficiently make use of those multi processors even when your apps are not written to utilize multi processors - like today’s games? This seems like the most important aspect of any new operating system but none of the reviews have mentioned this. Am I missing something here?
May 31, 2006 4:15:37 PM

OSX has a bigger memory footprint than Vista, and much more than XP, if i remember correctly OSX was using about 1.5GB in swap, i'm not certain so dont hold me to it, but it was large enough to raise both eyebrows, yet OSx was running relatively smooth.

And Vista, larga swap file and all, does run smooth on 512 so i would say - Yes Microsoft does know how to use a swap file, i for one use vista everyday since may 22nd, and it hasnt crashed at all, and i havent turned it off except to restart when i was installing a driver.....and its a beta!

when i get home i'll restart and see what Vista uses in memory on boot up
May 31, 2006 4:18:50 PM

The lowest I've seen on two machines is 650MB commit charge. Up to 800MB. Thats not doing anything. Just the OS running. Around 650-700MB without Aeroglass and around 750-800MB with. Each instance of IE adds about 35-45MB.

Machines have been:

1.66GHz Merom dual core
2GB DDR2-533 (we only had 256MB and needed to upgrade but DDR2-667 wasn't available)
160GB hard drive
ATI x600 (also ran this with the onboard)

3.0GHz P4 w/ HT
512MB and 2GB (ran at first with 512MB and then upgraded)
80GB hard drive
Integrated Intel 945 graphics

Took forever to boot up with only 512MB of RAM but once running was fine doing nothing. Aeroglass worked though even on the integrated graphics.

With 512MB of RAM Task Manager stated only 80MB was free with nothing running and the commit charge was as I said 650-800MB (depends if running 32-bit or 64-bit). With 2GB of RAM 1.4GB was free with same commit charge.

I don't even want to imagine trying to run real apps like Office though. Can easily see over 1GB commit charge with something like Power Point open.
May 31, 2006 4:26:21 PM

i dont know what differences exist between our systems, but i have used office 2003 pro and IE7 while browsing windows explorer, and it ran smoothly on 512. i particularly found browing network files to be smoother than i expected, but its all subjective i suppose.

i takes longer to boot than XP but still not windows 98 style go fix a meal and come back boot times.
May 31, 2006 4:44:09 PM

[Christ look at page 33 what person needs the help of an OS to know how to play FreeCell[/quote]

Help with Freecell? Does this indicate the lack of mental ability the Microsoft thinks its users have? Maybe it does.

I got notified of a "Critical Update" the other day that is supposed to allow me to verify whether or not I have a valid version of Windows XP. I know I have a valid version. It came on the computer when I bought it and I have all the documentation. So what makes this a "Critical Update"? The only reason I can think of is that it allows Microsoft to implant their own version of Spyware, which they may think is critical, but I don't. So I didn't install it, and used the box that said to ignore the update in the future. Then I got a bunch of warnings about how dangerous it is to use the computer without the "Critical Update" installed, and that I should let them install their spyware so that they can watch me and warn me if I have an invalid version, so that I could then buy a valid version. So not installing this spyware was dangerous. Dangerous to whom, and why? Nothing that I see is dangerous to me or my computer to not having their spyware installed, unless they have a secret way of making my copy of XP not work anymore.

So sure, I guess. If Microsoft thinks people are dumb enough to install their spyware in the form of critical updates, maybe it does also think they're so dumb that they need help to play Freecell.
May 31, 2006 4:46:52 PM

Quote:
i dont know what differences exist between our systems, but i have used office 2003 pro and IE7 while browsing windows explorer, and it ran smoothly on 512. i particularly found browing network files to be smoother than i expected, but its all subjective i suppose.

i takes longer to boot than XP but still not windows 98 style go fix a meal and come back boot times.


My Windows 98 machine booted faster before I put Windows 2000 on it. I think it booted faster than most XP machines as well. Of course, it is an Athlon64 2.4GHZ with 768MB of DDR400 CL2.5 RAM. I think you're probably remembering Windows 98 booting on older hard ware. Try booting Windows XP on a PII 300MHz with 64MB of RAM if you even can, and see if 98 or XP boots faster.

Anyway, just my $.02

Regards,
May 31, 2006 4:55:53 PM

I have! we had some penitum 3 celerons dell optilex machines in the students lab, xp did run on it actually, but we eventually went back to windows 2000

Yes it was doggggg slow on xp, but thats to be expected, i hope when vista makes retail, performance will be equal with xp on same hardware.
May 31, 2006 5:11:19 PM

Did anyone else notice the really bad aliasing in this screenshot:



It looks like s*hit. I hope the rest of the effects don't have aliasing this bad...
May 31, 2006 5:16:22 PM

Quote:
Did anyone else notice the really bad aliasing in this screenshot:



It looks like s*hit. I hope the rest of the effects don't have aliasing this bad...


Nah its only the flip 3d view that looks like that, everything else is very clean cut, dont worry when we get proper drivers we can run Vista with 4xAA 16xAF!!!

i wonder if they will benchmark Vista framerates?
May 31, 2006 7:04:56 PM

Do you mean that Microsoft wants us to pay money to get poor performance? That screen shot reminds me of screens back in the days of my Commodore 64. 26 years later and now its back to the past.
May 31, 2006 8:25:56 PM

I've been beta testing vista/longhorn for over 2 years now, and it's gone through a huge change. When I beta tested xp, I started when it first went to beta almost 3 years before it's launch, it didn't go through nearly the changes vista has. Since they still have half a year to tidy up I think it will come even further. Take into account that XP was the best consumer windows ever and Vista is built on it, it will be very good when done, relative to MS standards of course :) 

I still prefer my Mac's interface, but it's easier to do more complicated stuff with windows. And KDE is better than both but takes way too much time to setup and get running as smoothly, and I don't have that much time.
May 31, 2006 9:01:23 PM

Quote:
[Christ look at page 33 what person needs the help of an OS to know how to play FreeCell


Help with Freecell? Does this indicate the lack of mental ability the Microsoft thinks its users have? Maybe it does.

I got notified of a "Critical Update" the other day that is supposed to allow me to verify whether or not I have a valid version of Windows XP. I know I have a valid version. It came on the computer when I bought it and I have all the documentation. So what makes this a "Critical Update"? The only reason I can think of is that it allows Microsoft to implant their own version of Spyware, which they may think is critical, but I don't. So I didn't install it, and used the box that said to ignore the update in the future. Then I got a bunch of warnings about how dangerous it is to use the computer without the "Critical Update" installed, and that I should let them install their spyware so that they can watch me and warn me if I have an invalid version, so that I could then buy a valid version. So not installing this spyware was dangerous. Dangerous to whom, and why? Nothing that I see is dangerous to me or my computer to not having their spyware installed, unless they have a secret way of making my copy of XP not work anymore.

So sure, I guess. If Microsoft thinks people are dumb enough to install their spyware in the form of critical updates, maybe it does also think they're so dumb that they need help to play Freecell.[/quote]

You just need to think about it for a minute is all. NO it is not spyware, but rather adware. (In a sense) The reason why it would be filed as critical is so that it is automatically downloaded via windows updates. If you had on automatic updating, and a pirated version, that would automatically cause the program to do its job of annoying the person to buy XP.
May 31, 2006 9:05:36 PM

About system requirements, Win Vista has its own performance rating tool. My PC got a FOUR, in a scale from 1 to... 10?? I don't know for sure, but I think so.
Anyway, the OS should run FLAWLESSLY on a A64 or P4 with 1 GB of RAM, and a decent 9.0c video card with 128 MB of VRAM. Anything below that should run the OS pretty good (like a P3 with WinXP).
My machine (in my sig) lagged a little bit when moving different windows at a 1280x960 resolution. I was using the February CTP Beta drivers from Nvidia for my 6600GT, and got LAG when moving the windows... Speechless...
The OS alone, with no applications, no windows, no NOTHING, fresh boot, eats about 600 MB af RAM! WTF! WinXP is about 100-120 MB! Not even close to 600!
Whatever, we all should wait for the final release of this monster, and see if the Microsoft guys can THINK once in a while, and do a decent job...
So, I'll sit here, at my desk, and wait... 8)
May 31, 2006 9:05:49 PM

I recently switched all my computers from win95/winXP pro to OpenSUSE 10.1 linux. Works great on all of my computers (even performs nicely on a P2 w/128megs of ram and a 5gig HD :D  ). On my faster computers, I can use XGL....which easily makes linux as pretty as vista.
May 31, 2006 9:12:36 PM

I've been running on an athlon 2600 with 512ram and a radeon 9700pro 128meg. I've only been running in 1024x768 but I've had absolutely no performance issues with it, I've got a bunch of apps installed and they all seem about the same as my various xp systems. Vista's not the resource hog people say it is. Memory usage of a large chunck is no concer, it means it's actually USING it. Linux will do that also, it's GOOD that it's using the ram, it means it's not paging to disk. the scale is currently up to 5, it will grow as hardware grows, my system scores a 3.
May 31, 2006 9:50:13 PM

Great! Then I won't feel bad with the money I've spent on my current PC... :D 
4 of 5 isn't bad! Cool! 8)
May 31, 2006 9:53:50 PM

Yeah, don't quote me on the 5 thing though, I just recall hearing that somewhere, and it makes sense, I installed vista temporarily on my athlon 64 3700, 2gig ram, radeon x1800xt 512meg and it said 5, I don't have a dual core to test on though.
May 31, 2006 10:29:35 PM

Quote:
I got notified of a "Critical Update" the other day that is supposed to allow me to verify whether or not I have a valid version of Windows XP. I know I have a valid version. It came on the computer when I bought it and I have all the documentation. So what makes this a "Critical Update"? The only reason I can think of is that it allows Microsoft to implant their own version of Spyware, which they may think is critical, but I don't. So I didn't install it, and used the box that said to ignore the update in the future. Then I got a bunch of warnings about how dangerous it is to use the computer without the "Critical Update" installed, and that I should let them install their spyware so that they can watch me and warn me if I have an invalid version, so that I could then buy a valid version. So not installing this spyware was dangerous. Dangerous to whom, and why? Nothing that I see is dangerous to me or my computer to not having their spyware installed, unless they have a secret way of making my copy of XP not work anymore.


I too got this same update notification and was reluctant to downoad for the same reasons you suggest. I know my version of XP is legal, I have a HP laptop with the windows COA hologram sticker on the bottom, but it still bugs me to think that after I install some popup will scream at me to buy a full retail version, since my laptop, and millions of others, didn't come with the regular Windows XP install CD. However, after going ahead with the install, I am happy to report that I have yet to encounter any issues.

As to the Vista system requirements, I too am curious to see how it will run on current and recent hardware - the article did not mention, as far as I could tell, the system that was used, or the minimum/recommended set-up. The vista upgrade advisor tells me that I need to upgrade, yet the specs on the vista webpage says otherwise!

Finally, and a real pain in the A$$ for me, I hope that they have improved the color schemes. After 5 years of daily use, I have become so totally sick of seeing just blue, olive green and silver in the Luna UI. I don't understand why MS didn't pay any attention to this at the time, and include some additional colors when they introduced the Plus! packages or offer a download through windows update. Heck, even in win 95 you could change the color of the taskbar and was offered a palette! Style XP is not the answer for changing just the color!
May 31, 2006 10:42:15 PM

This is a 'technical' site, so why is it that even though you do an exhausting review of the OS, you fail to dig into or detail any of the technical aspects and changes in Vista?

Especially all the stuff that is publically available and not even protected under a NDA?

1) Major Kernel changes (Memory Management, Caching technologies)
2) Display Driver Changes (WDDM, GPU RAM Virtualization - Video Moved to non crashing User Ring, etc) (OpenGL and DirectX improvement using these technologies besides just mentioning DirectX)
3) Changes in HD and Network performance and access methods
4) Scheduling and process changes in both the kernel and Win32/Win65 subsystems.
5) API and Architecture changes, GDI+, WPF replacing GDI, Underlying features that create a whole new platform for developers, including 3D programming using a simple XML file?
6) The new *nix subsystem running a BSD variant that co-exists with the Win32/64 subsystem.
7) Or about 50 other things that have changed 'under the hood' even though the UI is not a VAST change. (i.e. Managed code, new compiler techniques used on the OS code, etc etc. )

I also find it strange that you being a technical site that has 'dealt' with Video and Video performance would have a major mistake when you talk about DirectX 10 in Vista. If you follow DirectX 10, is not just a new version, but also a different version that DirectX 9. Most of the binaries are different, etc.

The DirectX 9 components in a way are still on the Vista OS for application compatibility, and unlike previous versions DirectX 10 is not an upgrade in perspective that previous versions of DirectX have been. DirectX 10 is part of the XNA movement, also stems from XBox 360 development. Also if your game (which most do) is using DirectX9 DLLs then, it is not touching the DirectX10 DLLs in Vista, as they are 'added' on to the existing DirectX9 technology, not an upgrade.

And even with mentioning DirectX10, you fail to mention any of the features, like the new network support that ties in XBox Live, some of the physics add-on, let alone any of the new Video related changes that will be available for DirectX 10 games.

With the entire UI change in Vista, you also fail to mention the ramifications of the Composer that is roundtrip Vector based and uses the 3D GPU for vector acceleration, something that even OSX doesn't even pretend to do. (OSX is a Bitmap only composer with only 2D vector acceleration - a lot like WindowsXP with GDI+, except Windows XP doesn't use GPU textures for textures and drawing windows like OSX does.)

However, not only does Vista meet OSX head on, they go a step further by having a full 3D Vector composer that is fully roundtrip.

This also Gives Vista a truly scalable UI, which I also see is missed on this subject. (You know how Vista will even scale older applications instead of just making the fonts larger, lots of stuff here that should have been covered.)

Oh, also for the person with the link to sidebar.com and stating that MS ripped off this company, MS actually had a sidebar preview a LONG time before this company existed, but when MS talked about pulling the sidebar from Vista, this company pushed out their sidebar, but they nor even MS could be given the credit for Gadget concepts. (Although MS appears to one of the first to have a form of Web Gadgets with support for 'square' Web Gadgets on the desktop with Win98 and Win95/wIE4.)

And even after a 'technical site review' with very little technical issues of Vista addressed that are MAJOR changes, it is no wonder most people unfortunately only see Vista as XP with some cute graphics.
May 31, 2006 10:51:42 PM

<i>As to the Vista system requirements, I too am curious to see how it will run on current and recent hardware - the article did not mention, as far as I could tell, the system that was used, or the minimum/recommended set-up. The vista upgrade advisor tells me that I need to upgrade, yet the specs on the vista webpage says otherwise!
</i>

Here is a good way to look at the performance requirements for Vista.

If you are using it for business desktop applications and you only have 256mb of RAM, you are going see little difference between it and XP, and that is even with the Glass features enabled.

As most people that already have 512mb of RAM (RAM is Cheap), then Vista is going to run right in line with your XP system, whether you are using AERO or not.

Obviously turning off Aero will allow you to run Vista on older hardware and give you a smaller memory footprint.

(Aero is just the Glass effects, the rest of Vista will still do all the 3D stuff in the API for other applications even with Aero off, you just lose Flip 3D, and the Glass.)

People are too worried about the system requirements for Vista, especially when it runs fine on a 1ghz machines and even 128mb of RAM, truly.

Vista is still full of debug code at this point, but even with that said, we have already found performance increases in many applications on the same hardware over XP, and this even includes some high performance 3D gaming titles.

Vista also offers a lot of kernel and memory management changes in the NT core, so what knowledge MS has picked up over the past few years with Windows 2003 server development and other new scheduling and process tasking technologies are also added to Vista, and this on many things should help to offset the chunk of new features in Vista. (HDs are faster, Network is faster, both use less CPU, GPU and Memory schedule different, GPU can use System RAM, etc etc.)

If Vista is slow by the time it releases, they would have to do something major to it now to slow it down, and I just do not see this.
May 31, 2006 11:15:35 PM

I will probably buy 2 copies of Vista when it comes out. Unless I can install from one copy on 2 machines (Windows 9X was sooo much nicer in this respect.....)
May 31, 2006 11:20:12 PM

Unless I can buy Vista and put it on more than one machine and it greatly improves my gaming experience I am gonna stick with my windows XP pro until they no loger support it! ;-) Then maybe I will consider Vista.
May 31, 2006 11:50:26 PM

Like this :) 

I actually own two fully legal copies with 25 users each, got them straight from microsoft for free no less :D 

June 1, 2006 12:08:25 AM

Quote:
got them straight from microsoft for free no less

wow how did you pull that off?!
June 1, 2006 12:24:36 AM

Excellent Article.
June 1, 2006 12:44:45 AM

Quote:
PERFORMANCE!! Show some info on that! No processor speed/ram issue was involved in the review!!
:/ 


It's a review of the OS. No one will really know what it's going to need until they start shipping retail versions and the article is long enough as it it.

I was running the Febuary CTP at home and loved it :)  To me it feels more "organic" and is easier to work with than XP once you get used to it :) 

Runs fine on a
Northwood 2.8Ghz P4
1G of DDR
6600GT 256

So basically any PC built in the last two years will probably run it just fine :) 
June 1, 2006 12:52:18 AM

I am too poor to use Windows Vista.
June 1, 2006 1:15:07 AM

MS has various pre release roadshows before releases and if you attend the right ones you can almost always get NFR versions of the software, just get more than one person to go and get yourself a few copies.

NFR has some restrictions, you can't sell it, but you can put it into production systems, not sure if they'll let vista do that but w2k3 and xp did :) 

The CD is actually from one of the companies I work for, they are non-profit and I get w2k3 ent for just over $200 and user licenses are only a couple bucks each. I've got a couple licenses for standard, ent and w2k advanced server. Plus terminal services and Office 2k3 (among other non-ms software). I do all my prep work at home for migrations and stuff so I get to keep a copy at home in addition to my own servers :) 
June 1, 2006 3:46:18 AM

Quote:
Over a year ago, when I read an article about "Longhorn", it made it sound as if Vista's real major change was going to be a 64 bit environment for all versions and much better support (unlike the problems with xp pro 64). Now I read articles and they don't even mention what the 64 bit capabilities are. WHAT HAPPENED? It's still gonna be 64 bit isn't it? I couldnt care less about anything else, other than maybe dx10, if new games are really improved by it (although non-compatibitly with all previous versions of dx is a Beech). If somebody is excited by an upgrade in the way the windows look and the changes in the games that come with windowz, gimme a break. I want everything to start really supporting 64 bit. THen when things are tuned to take advantage of 64 bit AND dual-cores, computer power could really start to fly.

I heard (rumor) that when you install Vista, you can choose either 32 or 64 bit version. If this is true, that's good because there are lots out there with computers that are 32 bit yet. BUt this almost makes me feel the 64 bit wasn't payed enough attention to. THen again the need for a good computer for Vista means most people are going to have a 64 bit proc anyways, so I sure hope they put a lot of work into it.

So in summary, what's the inside scoop on 64 bit for Vista?


The GUI is a major part of an OS and you can never just sit back and say "it's perfect" and leave it at that. So don't think that GUI overhaul isn't a major thing. It's like comparing DOS to windows 3.1 to Windows 95 and so on.....
!