Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista

Last response: in Storage
Share
August 31, 2006 4:47:01 PM

Ok, I'm a little clueless so forgive me for this noobishpost . With Vista coming out, everyone is worried about having a video card to run it. It sounds like it's demanding enough to justify having it's own GPU. So in theory, could you do with GPU's what other's have suggested with multicore CPU's----using one to run OS, one to run games, one to run antivirus, etc. Would it be possible to use onboard video memory/processing power to run vista, then have a separate video card to run your games?

I guess a question i should ask that may help clear up my own confusion, if a GPU is running a game, even though you can't 'see' the VISTA(or XP) screen, does it require GPU power to keep the VISTA(Or xp) image 'ready"?

More about : vista

August 31, 2006 5:24:18 PM

It can not work in tandem. GPU's like the CPU is always working in the background to handle queued tasks. Vistas' requirements are not so much the GPU, but the CPU and RAM requirements. However in the new architecture a taxed CPU and offload smaller task to an idle GPU. Atleast that what I read in last PC mag issue.
August 31, 2006 5:57:02 PM

Cow is right, but in a more direct way to answer your question when you run a game, the OS is still running in the background, but does not require or use much if any of your gpu power, not enough to make a significant difference in the game being played!

Best,

3Ball
Related resources
August 31, 2006 6:28:02 PM

thanks, that clears things up.
a b G Storage
August 31, 2006 6:48:20 PM

Trix are for kids 8O
August 31, 2006 7:01:42 PM

I'm currently running two copies of Vista on these computers:
onbd vid
3.0 w/ht
1gb ram
120gb hd
onbd snd

and

2x6800gt
3800+ X2
2gb ram
160gb raptor
audigy (no driver)

It runs fine on both...Until you turn on Aero (basically the biggest change i've seen so far...). Everything else is just a plug-in, or a slight change in a appearence to the casual eye. People will try to point out other things...but the truth is, there isn't a REAL change between xp and vista (minus aero) until dx 10 comes out (which ms isn't putting on xp). dx 10 is the only reason to go to vista as far as i'm concerned.

However...When you turn on aero, everything runs like crap. I've heard that the ati drivers are doing a little better right now though. But then i don't have one to try out, and i'm sure both sides will be equal at some point (if they aren't already). I'm using about a gb on both machines before turning on any programs. 64-bit version uses around 10gb hd space, while the 32-bit uses more like 8gb. I'm running Office 2007 as well, it's ok...it has a nice feature that makes connecting to internet email providers easier, sometimes. So long as you don't have a small isp, or one they don't support.

All in all, i'd say the biggest need (when aero is on) is a semi-powerful gpu with 256-512mb and a lot of ram. For gaming you may need 2gb+, i know there are several games out there now eating more then a gb by themselves, so with the OS eating 1gb as well...something has to give. So 4gb will be getting popular, which then of course will push 64-bit, since alot of people trying to put 4gb in will find themselves with only 3.5gb or 3gb available out of their 4gb once they get in to the OS. Dual core or dual processors are nice, but not any more necessary then they were with XP.
August 31, 2006 7:02:36 PM

Quote:
Ok, I'm a little clueless so forgive me for this noobishpost . With Vista coming out, everyone is worried about having a video card to run it. It sounds like it's demanding enough to justify having it's own GPU. So in theory, could you do with GPU's what other's have suggested with multicore CPU's----using one to run OS, one to run games, one to run antivirus, etc. Would it be possible to use onboard video memory/processing power to run vista, then have a separate video card to run your games?

I guess a question i should ask that may help clear up my own confusion, if a GPU is running a game, even though you can't 'see' the VISTA(or XP) screen, does it require GPU power to keep the VISTA(Or xp) image 'ready"?


Personally, I just cannot see the need for Vista. It is bloated and will require way too much muscle to run. No operating system should require so much power just to run! The sole purpose of the OS is to interface between hardware/software and the user- not to take up 90% of the system resources.

Plus you have to figure that with Vista, M$ is going to add-in a lot of crap to "protect" digital media.

Nope, I am going to stick with XP until M$ gets it's act together.
a b G Storage
August 31, 2006 7:05:56 PM

But when will Hasta La for Vista be availible? and will it be dx10 only?
August 31, 2006 7:14:54 PM

Vista will ship w/DirectX 10, and will have a 3D eye-candy interface that will require more Horse Power then the current 2D interface of XP. Most video cards made in the last few years should not have a problem with Vista, but systems that use OnBoard video chips might have to turn off/down the eye-candy. When you see posts about “DirectX 10 video cards” that refers to cards that will meet whatever new bells and whistles DX10 adds, exp – DX8 used SM (Shader Model) 2.0 and DX9 uses SM 3.0 that added HDR (high dynamic range) lighting support.
a b G Storage
August 31, 2006 7:21:34 PM

Quote:

Personally, I just cannot see the need for Vista. It is bloated and will require way too much muscle to run. No operating system should require so much power just to run! The sole purpose of the OS is to interface between hardware/software and the user- not to take up 90% of the system resources.

Plus you have to figure that with Vista, M$ is going to add-in a lot of crap to "protect" digital media.

Nope, I am going to stick with XP until M$ gets it's act together.


LOL your comments are exactly what everyone said about XP when they were still using 98/2000. I think you will change your mind like all the other people who use computers.
August 31, 2006 8:34:09 PM

Quote:
Vista will ship w/DirectX 10, and will have a 3D eye-candy interface that will require more Horse Power then the current 2D interface of XP. Most video cards made in the last few years should not have a problem with Vista, but systems that use OnBoard video chips might have to turn off/down the eye-candy. When you see posts about “DirectX 10 video cards” that refers to cards that will meet whatever new bells and whistles DX10 adds, exp – DX8 used SM (Shader Model) 2.0 and DX9 uses SM 3.0 that added HDR (high dynamic range) lighting support.


Thats great and all, but what games are going developed that will use the engine? NONE. Vista will be a nice upgrade from XP, but it just seems like large push to push the end of life on w2k sooner and put a dead end date on XP at some point too. I was really look forward to the new filing system too, I never did catch why they dumped it from Vista?

Also everyone by now knows never to pop into an new MS OS without seeing a SP rolled out first.
a b G Storage
August 31, 2006 8:39:02 PM

You mean to tell me crisis isnt dx10?
August 31, 2006 8:53:53 PM

The SDK for DX10 has been available to developers for a while now, but because of Vista's hiccups along the way, the SDKs are slow to be updated. The first DX10 games were to be ready by XMAS, but now they are looking like late Q1 or early Q2.
August 31, 2006 9:20:34 PM

Quote:

Personally, I just cannot see the need for Vista. It is bloated and will require way too much muscle to run. No operating system should require so much power just to run! The sole purpose of the OS is to interface between hardware/software and the user- not to take up 90% of the system resources.

Plus you have to figure that with Vista, M$ is going to add-in a lot of crap to "protect" digital media.

Nope, I am going to stick with XP until M$ gets it's act together.


LOL your comments are exactly what everyone said about XP when they were still using 98/2000. I think you will change your mind like all the other people who use computers.


Uhmm, not quite, young Jedi. I believe you're mistaking XP for Me in that case. I remember that period of time, when I "upgraded" from 98 RC2 to Me and what a disaster that was! Remember the old TechTV? Leo and company installed Me on all of their machines and within a couple of weeks, they were lamblasting Me and telling their viewers how shitty Me was (is).

XP, on the other hand, was seen as a true upgrade, with better everything. Techies were thrilled that the stability of NT and NTFS were being brought to home users.

XP has its flaws, but it works and works pretty damned good. Vista is just going to suck-up resources- ESPECIALLY if you go all the way to get Vista Ultimate.

I've been playing with Vista, and so far the only thing I have really liked is the ability to dynamically extend/shrink partition sizes from within Windows. Of course, I am pretty sure there are already 3rd party products that can do that already. I also like the fact that one can utilize the unused space on a thumbdrive as system RAM.
a b G Storage
August 31, 2006 9:36:24 PM

Actualy Younger Jedi,
I was going to include ME, but since it was a joke by microsoft and not a real OS (although some people didnt get the joke and actualy used it as one), i didnt say 98se -> Me.

Windows XP SP0 had issues. And like your complaint now, XP appeared to have just a few Visual updates over 98. The real changes of course, is in the code.
August 31, 2006 9:55:33 PM

Currently i'm running Vista Pre-Release RC-1 with a Pentium D 820, 1 gig of pc4300, XFX6800XT vid card with 256 mb Creative X-Fi platinum on a Asus PL5D2 motherboard, and for now everything is running smooth as glass. The first beta was a hog but they smoothed it out since then.

R COllins
August 31, 2006 10:20:11 PM

Quote:
Currently i'm running Vista Pre-Release RC-1 with a Pentium D 820, 1 gig of pc4300, XFX6800XT vid card with 256 mb Creative X-Fi platinum on a Asus PL5D2 motherboard, and for now everything is running smooth as glass. The first beta was a hog but they smoothed it out since then.

R COllins


Yeah, I downloaded the new release the other day but haven't bothered installing it yet. Beta 2 was such a mess, and if you knew what system I am running, it barely runs on it.
August 31, 2006 10:22:06 PM

Windows ME was more of an escape than a release. lol
August 31, 2006 10:49:29 PM

Quote:
Actualy Younger Jedi,
I was going to include ME, but since it was a joke by microsoft and not a real OS (although some people didnt get the joke and actualy used it as one), i didnt say 98se -> Me.

Windows XP SP0 had issues. And like your complaint now, XP appeared to have just a few Visual updates over 98. The real changes of course, is in the code.


Yeah, I wish I were young again!

I never thought that the update of 98 to XP was eye-candy at all. Yes, it had better visuals, but the engine that ran it was clearly better.

Vista's eye candy is better yet, but I don't see how the engine is that much better over XP. Besides, as I've said, the OS SHOULD NOT hog system resources like Vista does/will.
August 31, 2006 10:56:06 PM

Quote:
Windows XP SP0 had issues. And like your complaint now, XP appeared to have just a few Visual updates over 98.


umm... nobody I knew would have ever even pretended to say that the changes between 98 and XP were purely cosmetic.

Now if you were to compare 2000 to XP, then yeah. 2000 was the OS of choice for me and my friends back when XP came out. 98 was used for legacy gaming more than anything else. Me was a dirty little secret that we only whispered or ranted about but never used.

If you were to compare 2000 to XP SP0 then the changes WERE largely cosmetic. XP booted faster but used more resources once loaded. Also the default user interface looked like it was designed by fisher price.

XP SP2 did make some significant changes however.

I don't think people are saying that the only changes in Vista are cosmetic however. Vista is a MAJOR CHANGE. I think what most people are saying is that they are not interested in those changes. Many of them are designed to facilitate DRM which almost always comes at the cost of the legitimate consumer.

The ONLY change in Vista that I consider worthwhile is that it fixed the problems when a large file transfer bugged out. (well that and DX10).
September 1, 2006 12:08:11 AM

Whats up with the bashing on Vista? There are a ton of nice subtle changes that takes time to notice. Such as maintaining highlights on files woth multiple windows.

The eye candy finally beats the looks of MAC OS IMO.

Its exactly the same as when XP came out.

Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.
September 1, 2006 1:29:52 AM

Quote:
Whats up with the bashing on Vista? There are a ton of nice subtle changes that takes time to notice. Such as maintaining highlights on files woth multiple windows.

The eye candy finally beats the looks of MAC OS IMO.

Its exactly the same as when XP came out.

Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.



Once again, my system specs:

AMD Athlon Thunderbird 1.2GHZ (OC'd to 1.33)
ABIT KG7 MB
512MB PC2100 RAM (4 DIMMS available, but DIMM 3 is out!)
ATI AIW RADEON 8500DV (AGP 4x, 64MB RAM)
SoundBlaster Live! 5.1 with Live! Drive IR
Maxtor 120GB HDD (ATA 133, though the MB interface is ATA 100!)
Belkin USB 2.0 PCI Card
DLink 10/100 NIC
Lite-On DVD+RW
Antec LanBoy Case
Antec 350W PS

Vista runs like shit on it. Granted, my video card ain't really up to snuff, but oh well.

As to XP, I turn off almost all of the special effects. I mean, why the hell do I need them? I only need the OS to be secure, stable, and have a cool name. Vista is not a cool tech name.

Oh yeah, it was Fisher-Price who was described as making the GUI for something (XP or Vista?).
September 1, 2006 2:33:13 AM

Quote:
Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.


I've run XP fine on a 700 mhz computer.
Note, XP required only a x2 or pessimistically a x3 increase in processor capability, can run on practically any video card and despite your trashy assesment it runs fine on 256 megs of ram as long as you don't intend to do any heavy gaming on it.

Quote:

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.


And probably at least a gig of memory if not 2. notice that your processor increase was 5 times the processing power of the previous. Also note that you suddenly need at least a decent DX9 video card in order to even move in it. The MINIMUM system reccomendations from microsoft skyrocketed compared to previous Windows versions.

By the way, hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory.

Vista is a hog. Plain and simple. It is also laden down with more DRM garbage than I can personally stomach. If you can accept paying that much money for an OS that consumes that much power and makes you jump through hurdles to be allowed to run it while it monitors you like big brother... go for it.

Me I'm staying the hell away for now.
September 1, 2006 3:41:33 AM

Quote:
Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.


I've run XP fine on a 700 mhz computer.
Note, XP required only a x2 or pessimistically a x3 increase in processor capability, can run on practically any video card and despite your trashy assesment it runs fine on 256 megs of ram as long as you don't intend to do any heavy gaming on it.

Quote:

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.


And probably at least a gig of memory if not 2. notice that your processor increase was 5 times the processing power of the previous. Also note that you suddenly need at least a decent DX9 video card in order to even move in it. The MINIMUM system reccomendations from microsoft skyrocketed compared to previous Windows versions.

By the way, hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory.

Vista is a hog. Plain and simple. It is also laden down with more DRM garbage than I can personally stomach. If you can accept paying that much money for an OS that consumes that much power and makes you jump through hurdles to be allowed to run it while it monitors you like big brother... go for it.

Me I'm staying the hell away for now.


Amen. Oh and I forgot: When I was running Beta 2, Vista would not recognize my external USB HDD! I just finished burning the iso for RC1, so we'll see if they fixed that.
September 1, 2006 6:03:33 PM

Eh...i'd edit that post if i were you...Or delete it entirely. Anyone who reads that will never take you seriously again...or anybody who knows anything about operating systems anyway. I think you meant to specify 2000 not 98. Can you say memory management, or hell, ntfs ftw! ;) 

But on the up side...I need your car...can you send it to me plz? I'll take the oil blasting through the seals on the heads for the rx-7 rev 2-3, if you have one, too. =)
a b G Storage
September 1, 2006 6:23:36 PM

What phrase were you refering to apesoccer?
Since the average person using windows 98 viewed windows 2000 as a networking OS, much like windowsNT was, many people upgraded directly to ME or XP and skipped windows 2000. I dont consider ME as a real OS, just a windows98 pretend makeovere. If you dont know what your doing and just use the computer as a basic machine, then windows XP realy just looked like a visual upgrade to 98se. Since the previous poster was complaining that VISTA looks like a visual upgrade, it was clear he didnt know about many of the underlining changes that makes a big difference, like XP was for the people who knew how to use it.
September 1, 2006 9:01:28 PM

I'm pretty sure i was talking about the Trix r for Kids comment...But in case i wasn't, heh...

The average, above average user, you mean. ;) 

The average user puts their floppy disk in their zip drive, then bitches that it doesn't work. Honestly i'm not laughing about that one... Sometimes i h8 my users...=(


But what i was referring to was your comment, saying that most users consider xp to be a visual extension on 98. And i don't think that's true. Being someone that actually works with these people on a daily basis. When 98/98se ruled the roost, we had all sorts of problems with memory management. When we went to 2000 on the same machines, gateway PII 350s or PIII 450s, 128-256mb ram, i got nothing but praise. "I don't know what you did, but it runs alot better now." That kind of thing. I got bitching about the start-up times too (edit oh and bitching about their card games not working anymore heh), but that was pretty much it. We had a little trouble initially with our version of anti-virus when we moved to 2000, but that was quickly resolved by the anti-virus company. That said, I'm NOT saying anything about that other guys abilities.

As to underlying abilities...It has much better security, if you're willing to actually let those programs block you everytime you want to install a program, or blink. Problem with that, is that it's so invasive to your ability to use your machine (even though it's better then it was originally), that people are just going to shut it off. What i championed Vista for originally, was it's new file management system...Sigh. Now the biggest thing i can get excited about, is dx 10. Since most of the other features now irritate me (i'm not bitter...). I like the idea of dx 10 making better use out of current gpu designs out there...once they redesign the gpu to work with it...meh. Meh, it's 5pm here, i'm head'n home. Have a good weekend ya'll.
a b G Storage
September 1, 2006 9:14:57 PM

Well since your saying your customers liked the upgrade to windows 2000, i assume your numbers are low. (not as an inuslt). I was 12 when 98 released, so i was not working at such a large gov corp as I am now... but dont mistake my age as lack of knowledge. I worked alot on building machines, upgrading machines to 98, upgrading them to 2000 (suggested to do so at the time), laughing at ME users later on. When XP released I worked daily with average consumers fixing their machines or w/e.

So I agree then that difference enviroments changed peoples views on just exactly what XP had to offer over windows 98.

In the enviroment I was in, people just wanted to use the computer. Windows XP was a nice visual touch, but they were still just browsing the internet, and playing solitare just the same. In the enviroment now, I can say most users acknowledge Vista as being much more then a visual boost. However, supporting 12,000 people, it will be unlikly the OS will be used anytime before 2008.
September 2, 2006 1:59:21 AM

I've never had customers. I worked for West Point Stevens Inc., you can look them up on the DOW if you'd like, if they're still there, i heard they went bankrupt a while back, forking bastards deserved it. They didn't exactly have a small amount of people working for them. While i was working for them they were the 2nd in textiles...whatever that means. I took care of the corporate office of the Basic Bedding Division (which had maybe 45 people in it at any one time, i'm not sure how many people actually worked there though, since many worked out on the road::not more then 60 at one time), and when needed fielded calls from 8 plants from our division, although i wasn't the primary on that. I very occasionally did field work, i took care of 1 sun box, 4 nt boxes, 1 rh box, 1 os/2 box...(which served exchange, routed traffic from our plants, rh had our internal and external web page on it...till it died, then the main corporate office took it over...the sun box took care of all of our orders from the plants as well as keeping track of our shipping labels...os/2 was our phone box [which i was by no way specialized in::sun box i mean::thank god for manuals]) and all the internal users. I took care of the phone system as well unfortunately...god i hate phones, forking punch down blocks, and useless phone tech's which just tell you the problem is inside <ie past the dmark> when the line is laying on the ground outside (i'm telling you Mr. So n So, we at SBC are good to the D-Mark i can trace it there...well Mr. SBC Tech, i'm standing in front of the line laying on the ground outside the building...and our t-1, ptp is down between here and the local plant, and our phone system can't get a line out...).

Sorry...kinda got off on a tangent there...god i hate sbc/at&t...phone vendors are just as bad though (and yes at&t is a phone vendor as well...but they weren't ours at wps).

Ok, there's more background on me then most people here know...=/ That was years ago now though. I worked around 60 a week to get my work done...And you have 12000 users? You're phone support with a work group (or several other phone support people?)? Or one of the tech guys that put their hands on the machines and do the real work, or?

Yea we skipped Me as well, we got it on two laptops (if i remember right), and found we didn't need to go with Me...

But overall, amongst the people in the my office, and the guys/gals down at the plants, they'd rather have a computer that works all the time(2000) then 98. 2000 was a godsend in most areas for me, it saved me alot of time, which let me get back to what i needed to get fixed up around the server room...like dropping all the monitors on the cement! =) And getting a massive belkin (i think it was belkin) switch. Even back then, we had gigabit over fiber in our crisco switches...for the plants anyway. I'm surprised it made such a difference, i wasn't the primary contact on that, but it destroyed the bottlenecking at the plants from the machines on the docks to the in plant nt servers. Noo that wasn't it, it was from the front switch to the back switch...So we got rid of copper between the two and replaced with 1gb fiber, and that fixed it. We had an occasional problem where the fiber card had to be reset, but overall it did pretty damn well. Eventually Crisco came out with a new revision and replaced them all...(thk god under warrenty...).

Ack again i go way afield...Anyway...so that's way too much unneeded info...=) I bet i can go on for hours on completely useless history...woot. By the way, i'm not as old as you might think...Or maybe i am...=/

I've always said XP is built off of 2000 to people...as it is. And i think XP is just better visually then 2000, it works better with games (to an extent...), ie runs faster then 2000, if you have enough ram... The original firewall that came with xp was a joke, and the most recent one isn't much better (but it is better...). In a corporate environment most people have it disabled anyway, due to issues created between the user and different internal servers. Testing requirements, like places where you can get certifications, are required to have it off, because of the poor support on the end of the certification software teams. Even so, I prefer XP...It will boot faster then 2000, in almost all situations, and does just as good a job (and frankly i don't mind having extra ram in there to make it run smoothly).

I don't see Vista as anything more then going from 2000 to XP, minus the good parts. No speed ups in anything... But more and better hardware required... Better security initally (which will probably just be shut off as soon as people get tired of it...obviously a guess at what the average somewhat technical user would do...[those are the most dangerous...the ones that know just enough to completely fud up their system])...then what? Nothing i've seen so far... Soon we'll see dx 10, and thats where i stand. Dx 10 is whats pulling us in to Vista, and not much else. And primarily thats (dx10) the gaming community... We've (gaming community) helped set standards before...(cough 98se cough xp) by pushing for better hardware and software support for games (which in turn pushed for newer dx's, which then pushed newer OS's to better support those dx's...obviously it didn't happen exactly that way...but we made our mark i think), but not nearly as hard as they're (MS) trying to make us set in this OS.
September 2, 2006 2:27:02 AM

Sorry if i came of as an old crotchity bastage...but you young wipper snappers with your sex and your mtv can all go to hell...


LOL you have no idea how funny this is to me. =)

I've never considered myself as old before. ;) 
September 2, 2006 2:46:00 AM

IMPORTANT.

I am running Vista RC1.
before I did a HD format and a fresh install. Then RC1 ran like crap. Can not connect to the Internet or WiFi no matter what.
I thought I was going to wait until January.
But after going BACK to XP Pro SP2, installed all the drivers and got back on the WiFi Internet. I gave Vista another try. This time just did an upgrade with the activation code. Guess what. Eveything works well the first time. Never had a problem since!
Even running Aero on my x700 64meg card!

I think I'll stick with Vista. It's bloated and people hate it. But I think it will be around for many years to come. So I should get familar with it.
September 2, 2006 2:54:52 AM

dont u need a 64bit CPU to run Vista correctly?

:(  i got a P4 Northwood and my laptop has a yohan

all 32bit but there are rumors saying yohans are actually 64bit and Intel is lieing or something not sure though

Link about yohan mabey being 64
September 2, 2006 2:56:28 AM

I think the RC1 is 32bit only.
Mainstream is still a long way from from 64bit.
September 2, 2006 3:09:03 AM

Q: Will Windows Vista be a 32-bit or 64-bit operating system?

A: Virtually every Windows Vista edition (with the exception of Starter) will ship with both 32-bit (x86) and 64-bit (x64) versions on the same DVD. Microsoft expects the computer buying public to switch to x64 during Vista's lifetime. There will not be an Itanium version of Windows Vista.


Im a happy panda now :) 
September 2, 2006 3:25:10 AM

I think it's a good thing to get used to...I've said earlier that vista is like xp without the good things...(from what i've seen so far). However to expand on that, i think it's closer, in terms of stages, to 2000 or nt4 (ie not the final stage...XPspx). When MS releases the next OS in 2-4 years (or whatever the time period is), it should have all/most of the things that Vista left out, that they originally wanted in there. Whether they call that Vista 2, or Windows 2012, it'll be the OS i wanted when they initially talked about Longhorn er Vista's features.

But then we're still in a prerelease stage, perhaps they'll surprise me. Being in the IT industry, I WILL have to use it, but it doesn't mean i won't bitch about it every step of the way heh.
September 3, 2006 8:10:27 AM

Quote:
Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.


I've run XP fine on a 700 mhz computer.
Note, XP required only a x2 or pessimistically a x3 increase in processor capability, can run on practically any video card and despite your trashy assesment it runs fine on 256 megs of ram as long as you don't intend to do any heavy gaming on it.

Quote:

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.


And probably at least a gig of memory if not 2. notice that your processor increase was 5 times the processing power of the previous. Also note that you suddenly need at least a decent DX9 video card in order to even move in it. The MINIMUM system reccomendations from microsoft skyrocketed compared to previous Windows versions.

By the way, hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory.

Vista is a hog. Plain and simple. It is also laden down with more DRM garbage than I can personally stomach. If you can accept paying that much money for an OS that consumes that much power and makes you jump through hurdles to be allowed to run it while it monitors you like big brother... go for it.

Me I'm staying the hell away for now.


"hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory"

That is about the most stupid statement I've ever heard. All lot of the perceived non-gaming performance on machines comes from the hard drive. Don't believe me?

Take an old P3 or similar era machine and load it full of RAM and see how well it runs.

Then try installing a RAID 0 stripe with brand new hard drives see how fast it boots, surfs the net, loads programs, scans for viruses, copies files, loads programs and playlists etc. etc. etc. etc.

Then take an old 20GB hard drive or brand new laptop 5400rpm drive and install XP on it in a brand new machine and see how fast it does everything.

Ever owned a Raptor? Its sick how much faster EVERYTHING loads when running those drives. Every time I've put one in a machine, the owner was blown away at how responsive their machine became. The benchmarks you read on their performance doesn't do any justice to actually using one.

Same goes for RAID 0. Way too many people here shoot down how good it is because they looked at some stupid graph which said it was only 20-30% or whatever. Just try it and see what its like.

I just removed an old Quantum Fireball lct today from an old 700MHz Win2K Celeron machine and ghosted it to a new 7200.9 Seagate. The owner swears I replaced his whole machine. That was after doubling the RAM (from 256 to 512MB) did almost nothing for performance.
September 5, 2006 1:18:51 PM

I've upgraded hard drives in my systems before and never really noticed a difference, but those were more incremental upgrades than the major ones you are talking about here.

Raid 0 doubles the throughput of your hard drives, which would have a significant effect. Going from an old DMA-33 drive to a DMA 100 drive would similarly have a significant difference, and jumping from a 5400 RPM drive to a WD Raptor at 10,000 RPM would be a huge jump.

However if you look at what I quoted, we were talking about upgrading a 7200 RPM drive to a "modern" (assumedly 7200 RPM) drive. This would not result in that noticable an upgrade.

I would however note that my main objection to RAID 0 is not that it is slow, but that it is risky. If either drive dies ALL of your data is gone. That is simply not worth the extra speed to me. If I were that interested in improving drive performance I would go RAID 5 or 6 with a hardware solution, but ultimately, I don't consider it worth the price.
a b G Storage
September 5, 2006 1:44:28 PM

As for what I do for support for 12,000. There is a call center that takes the easy questions, and the rest gets forwarded to a team. We do phone, desktop connect, and on-foot support(ewe walking).
September 5, 2006 1:55:27 PM

I think I need to download Vista to try it out on my new conroe rig...Hm. But here's a question. In XP when you go into Advanced tab (in Properties of My Computer) you can shut off/select certain eye candy aspects of XP. I shut of ALL of them except for the one that leaves the bubbly blue color, etc. The rest are like pointer shadows, etc...stuff that I don't ever notice. Does Vista allow you to do that? Can you shut off 95% of the eye candy and still have it look purty? Would that save some of the gpu/memory power it takes. On my new rig I'm sure it won't make my comp even flinch, but, I'm kind of a performance freak.
a b G Storage
September 5, 2006 2:12:53 PM

You can turn off aero glass, but that is what makes it look nice, while stealing performance.
September 5, 2006 2:25:03 PM

Is Vista still available to download?...I'm not seeing it on the site.
September 5, 2006 3:01:22 PM

RC1 was available to the first 100k people or 200k people, I forget which, for download. It's been unavailable since 6hrs after it hit the streets or so. I wasn't one of the 'lucky' few to get one. The older versions are also unavailable now. Each key is good for 10 licenses however, so if you have a buddy that has it, he can give you his key if he loans you a copy of his disk's. I have availability to a couple of keys, but mine are loaned out within the office here.
September 5, 2006 3:05:24 PM

Quote:
Currently i'm running Vista Pre-Release RC-1 with a Pentium D 820, 1 gig of pc4300, XFX6800XT vid card with 256 mb Creative X-Fi platinum on a Asus PL5D2 motherboard, and for now everything is running smooth as glass. The first beta was a hog but they smoothed it out since then.

R COllins


Vista Ultimate Build 5552 runs like a dream on my hardware. It runs stable enough for a production system but Adobe Audition 2.0 won't install (for me, anyhow) so it's back to XP for a while longer.

I liked the Vista experience enough to install the free "Vista Transformation Pack" on XP, followed by IE 7.0 RC-1 and WMP 11. Too bad that it can't duplicate the 3D Alt+Tab effect. It's very slick!
September 5, 2006 3:25:40 PM

I Have PRE-RC1 Build 5536 installed on a athlon 64x2 3800+ with 2x512 OCZ DDR400 and a x1600xt as a test system. The OS is smooth as silk to me.

A Full format in the beginning starts wtih 34 processes without drivers.
Ram Usage (with 1gb installed) is 400mb physical + 430 Pagefile. CPU Usage is between 0-3% at idle. Startup Time is approx 1 a minute from cold boot and almost 15 seconds from the new window hibernation mode.

Any Other Statistic you ppl are interested?
September 5, 2006 3:38:11 PM

Quote:
Win9X ran fine on 350MHz machines with 128MB ram with 5400rpm drives.

XP runs like trash on anything under a P3/Athlon 1GHz with 512MB and 7200rpm drives.


I've run XP fine on a 700 mhz computer.
Note, XP required only a x2 or pessimistically a x3 increase in processor capability, can run on practically any video card and despite your trashy assesment it runs fine on 256 megs of ram as long as you don't intend to do any heavy gaming on it.

Quote:

I'm ran Vista Beta 2 with Aero on an XP 2500+, 1gig, single old 7200rpm maxtor/quantum drive and 9800pro. It ran very well. With a decent up to date hard drive, it should fly.


And probably at least a gig of memory if not 2. notice that your processor increase was 5 times the processing power of the previous. Also note that you suddenly need at least a decent DX9 video card in order to even move in it. The MINIMUM system reccomendations from microsoft skyrocketed compared to previous Windows versions.

By the way, hard drive speed does not have that significant an effect on overall system performance unless you are really short on memory.

Vista is a hog. Plain and simple. It is also laden down with more DRM garbage than I can personally stomach. If you can accept paying that much money for an OS that consumes that much power and makes you jump through hurdles to be allowed to run it while it monitors you like big brother... go for it.

Me I'm staying the hell away for now.

When XP came out 700Mhz-1Ghz systems were the norm. These days off the shelves the slowest system performance is equiv to a 2.8P4 - asking for 1.5Ghz CPUs which came out back in 2002 almost 5 years ago is not a big deal. Yes memory reqs have jumped tho with XP's 96min 128mb recommended and now 512min 1gb recc. Thats a little much. But with 1Gb this D930 system I have at work is running fine. RC1 is much much faster over other builds. Also if you have 512mb ram buy a cheap 1gb USB mem stick and activate ready boost...it makes a huge difference. Eventually people are gonna have to get new hardware - and now there hasn't been a better time to get a computer as price/performance is so much better than 5 years ago.
September 5, 2006 3:58:34 PM

So Readyboost uses space on a USB key/drive as system memory? That's odd. So basically...one could put in 4 gigs in all of the mobo slots (or whatever), then add additional memory by plugging in a few USB sticks? Strange....strange...But good I guess....?
a b G Storage
September 5, 2006 4:07:07 PM

Ya that was one of the big things Vista anounced early on.

Lets see here. 16gb max on my mobo. 6 4gb mem sticks. thats only 40gb worth of memory. Not bad. not bad. Now where are all those old windows 98 memory leaks people called programs?
September 5, 2006 4:22:14 PM

Seems like somehow it wouldn't be nearly as fast as DDR ram? Like it'd just be like Pagefile memory.
a b G Storage
September 5, 2006 4:25:11 PM

Much faster then pagefiling, slower then DDR. The new memory management will utilize USB memory when it needs too, and not all time time for anything it wants. (we hope).
September 5, 2006 6:20:18 PM

Readyboost only supports one USB stick at a time. So any ideas of Loading each open USB port on your system with a USB stick for lightning fast performance are out the window.
!