Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

New CPU for Vista?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 7, 2006 5:04:09 AM

Hey all!
This is my first post, be nice. Keep Poowadd away.

I think Ill be upgrading for Vista (I heard a rumor of a legend with a story where a quote taken out of context indicates that the new OS may ship on time or close (!) Heres a link:
http://gizmodo.com/search/vista)

Question: Will I need a new CPU (current = athlon 64) and therefore new processor, mobo, and whatever else to run this OS? Is it worth it? Should this forum be in the software section of the forum?
Thanx all, info that I could find about the Vista hardware is sparing.
-cm

More about : cpu vista

October 7, 2006 5:53:48 AM

Your current CPU should be fine, although you might want to upgrade to an x2 later on for better results, if you can.
What you will want to do for sure however, is to have at least 2 GB of ram and if you're going to do any heavy gaming, get a new video card when the DX10 games start coming out.
Also, with any luck jackoff Poowad's been banned
October 7, 2006 2:59:09 PM

crap.
Im running on an athlon 64 2800+ (hey it works ok for me..) with a radeon x850xt pe. I know the vid card isnt up to snuff, Ill have to get another.

To be honest, I know Areo will be cool, but Im mostly going for vista in the hopes of better security and networking.

JumpingJack, are you going to be upgrading for it or even getting it for that matter? I figure in 6 months MS will have the bugs mostly out and it should be safe...
-cm
Related resources
October 7, 2006 6:33:54 PM

OK, you do know that historically, a new release from Microsoft will have bugs, issues, problems, odd quirks, etc.?
Upon release, Windows XP was good -- much better than Windows Millenium edition, that's for sure -- but, it had issues. Issues that were (mostly) fixed by Service Pack 2, which is what most of us here are using.
I had a nice, stable install of Windows 98 (with all the fixes installed, and a number of second party add-ons, fixes and modifications) so I waited -- and waited -- and waited until early 2005, when I built my first new rig in about three years.
Hey, if you feel like being a pioneer, go right ahead! When you get a few arrows in your back, come back here and we'll pull them out for you :D 
As for me, I'm not switching to Vista until I absolutely have to ... i.e., it's the only Windows OS I can buy; or the games I want to play require DX10; or there is some compelling reason to change.
For now, I'm worried about some of the things I'm hearing about Vista being a resource hog, and now this:
Gaming performace takes a hit under Vista

Quote:
So if you play Battlefield 2 or FEAR or any other popular game you are likely to get lower frame rates with Vista. That is certainly not a good buying argument but don’t think you and I have much choice as it looks like a take it or leave it deal. I like Vista as the 3D desktop looks sexy but that is probably its key feature.
October 7, 2006 7:33:02 PM

Quote:
For now, I'm worried about some of the things I'm hearing about Vista being a resource hog, and now this:
Gaming performace takes a hit under Vista

So if you play Battlefield 2 or FEAR or any other popular game you are likely to get lower frame rates with Vista. That is certainly not a good buying argument but don’t think you and I have much choice as it looks like a take it or leave it deal. I like Vista as the 3D desktop looks sexy but that is probably its key feature.


Yes, Vista is a resource hog, which is why it will probably require 4 gig of ram to run efficiently, but as for slowing down games, I've heard nothing so far. As for what the Inquirer says, I'll trust that when I hear of confirmed reports of moonsons in the Sahara Desert.
October 7, 2006 7:40:25 PM

Quote:
crap.
Im running on an athlon 64 2800+ (hey it works ok for me..) with a radeon x850xt pe. I know the vid card isnt up to snuff, Ill have to get another.

I figure in 6 months MS will have the bugs mostly out and it should be safe...-cm


Didn't know they made an Athlon 64 2800+. If so, it would probably be way slow using Vista. As long as the video card supposts DX9c, it should work with Aero, but like the cpu that you have, would be slow. Depends on what you're doing. Word and such shouldn't matter, games would drag it way down.
October 7, 2006 7:46:52 PM

Quote:
A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:

A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
512 MB of system memory.
A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.



To run Windows Aero Interface you'll need at least:
Quote:
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:

1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor1.
1 GB of system memory.
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum)2, Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
DVD-ROM Drive3.
Audio output capability.
Internet access capability


http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx
October 7, 2006 8:00:02 PM

Hi,
Actually , you don't need anything very special to run Vista Aero.

For example , i have a PC :

Celeron 2.4 Ghz
512mb RAM
Radeon9600xt graphics card


Even though the computer's configuration is on a low side , Aero GUI runs fine.

Regards,
Lukas.
October 7, 2006 8:06:15 PM

I believe the x850xt was one of the first ATI cards that Vista was tested on back when it was a Beta. And it ran it fine. Plenty of RAM and a dual-core CPU(or a fast single Core) is more optimal to run Vista "smoothly".
October 7, 2006 8:16:40 PM

First, be aware that the cheap "home" version of Vista which will cost at least $160(US) for the full version $100(US) for the upgrade will not have manyof the features that MS has been touting, including "aero"
The opposite end of the line, the "ultimate" Vista will have all the features but will cost about $400 for the full version, or $260 for the upgrade disc.

http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/08/29/vista_prices_revealed...

Second, as Brainysmurf pointed out, early releases of Vista are likely to be laden with problems. It took MS until 2002 to get 98 reasonably straightened out. Even if MS were to pull a miracle out of the blue and have Vista relatively bug free, it will probably take some time for software vendors to patch their progs to function properly.

My advice to you, wait. Contrary to any propaganda you may have heard, everyone on the planet is not going to rush out to upgrade to Vista when it finally appears. Too many people have been bit on the arse upgrading from 95 to 98, 98 to mill, mill to XP etc. If Vista holds true to MS form, when it does appear, it will (initially) create more problems than it solves.
October 7, 2006 10:49:47 PM

From: Windows IT Pro
Quote:
The internal documentation also notes that Vista still has more than 1400 bugs. Microsoft's internal processes require this bug count to drop to 500 or fewer before the product can go into escrow for RTM. By comparison, Vista had more than 2470 bugs on September 22


So we can expect 500 bugs at launch.
October 8, 2006 2:08:52 AM

Uugghhhhhh.... soooo many bugs...


Good advice all. FYI, My 84 year old grandma is getting vista so she can hardcore game with dx10.
Thanx.
-cm

ps: just kidding bout the grandma thing.
October 8, 2006 2:41:31 AM

I'll talk based on my recent Vista RC1 experience...

First, specs: A64 3200+, NF4 SLI chipset, 2 GB RAM, 6600GT 128 MB

With full graphics enabled, Aero in all it's glory, 1280x960 resolution, it was smooth. Really really smooth, though a real beast on memory: close to 550 MB on startup. That's odd, since startup time is almost the same I have with WinXP.
For some reason, if I set my monitor above 60 Hz, smoothness dissapeared, just like that. Everything was choppy and ugly. I guess it was one of the ~1400 bugs... :wink:

I'm assuming you have a S754 Athlon, since it's a 2800+, so you don't have dual-channel memory. That may be a slight performance hit.
Your X850XT PE is AGP?
SATA or PATA hard drive?
I'm asking this questions because, if you're running everything on older interfaces, you might consider buying a whole new system.

If you'd like to know how WinVista will run in your current system, check the Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor.
October 8, 2006 3:28:27 AM

I am on a 7900GTX, 2GB DDR500, RD580 chipset, X-FI (non operational), realtek sound and RC1

On startup I hit around 650MB on RAM and I hold a constant 15% CPU load with AIM triton loaded up and no conversations. It is a really spiffy looking OS, whether it is worth it or not is another discussion. From a performance standpoint my OC'd Venice pumps out a 4.4 on their performance index (lowest score tested). 7900GTX hits 5.9 on the index, all of this at 1600x1200.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10. It is on its way out and has been acting very funny, so I do not blame VIsta for part of the performance lag. What is nice is being able to click 2 buttons and have a network printer installed without having to download HP drivers.

I would love to test X-FI + BF2 but that isn't possible because the X-FI drivers were build specific and Creative hasn't kept up with M$ so we probably won't see a real X-FI driver until Vista goes live.

As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).
October 8, 2006 3:04:48 PM

yeah its single channel memory.
x850xt pe... its an older version machine.

im in college tho, and poor. :D 
i dont want to upgrade until I have too.
-cm
October 8, 2006 3:32:02 PM

Quote:
im in college tho, and poor. :D 
i dont want to upgrade until I have too.
-cm


Join the club... 8O
October 8, 2006 3:39:37 PM

That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.
Anyway, try the Upgrade Advisor. With a score of 3 or above you should be fine. You wouldn't run Vista with Aero smoothly, but you can run Vista, if you like.

Quote:
About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10.
...
As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).


I installed Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. (to check OpenGL and DX 9.0 performance). I didn't do any benchmarking, but both seemed to run as smooth as always (at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF... my 6600GT can't do much higher than that... :oops:  )
And yes, Vista is designed to take advantage from a Dual-Core processor. Maybe M$ doesn't officially state that, but you can tell after using Vista for a day or two. Not that it runs awfully with a Single-Core processor, but you can "feel" it, someway. It's hard to explain.
For the OP to upgrade to an X2 or C2D, he would have to buy a whole new system, and, like he said, he's poor. :wink:
October 8, 2006 3:59:54 PM

Quote:
That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.
Anyway, try the Upgrade Advisor. With a score of 3 or above you should be fine. You wouldn't run Vista with Aero smoothly, but you can run Vista, if you like.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10.
...
As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).


I installed Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. (to check OpenGL and DX 9.0 performance). I didn't do any benchmarking, but both seemed to run as smooth as always (at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF... my 6600GT can't do much higher than that... :oops:  )
And yes, Vista is designed to take advantage from a Dual-Core processor. Maybe M$ doesn't officially state that, but you can tell after using Vista for a day or two. Not that it runs awfully with a Single-Core processor, but you can "feel" it, someway. It's hard to explain.
For the OP to upgrade to an X2 or C2D, he would have to buy a whole new system, and, like he said, he's poor. :wink:

>> That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.

Why do people keep saying this paranoid crap? nVidia's DX10 cards are due out in about 4 weeks. Its a hard release because suppilers already have the chips.
October 8, 2006 4:07:53 PM

Yeah, good point. My trusty little Venice is handling it OK, I will say sometimes it just throws its hands up and says "F*$# this!," but that isn't that often. We have to give M$ a little credit within the context of XP. XP was envisioned sometime around 1999 and released in 2002 (as far as I remember) and back then a good processor was a P3.... we were still in the 180nm process (again, if I remember correctly). P4C hit in mid 2003, and A64 sometime that year (honestly don't know, sheer guess). Then dual cores weren't thrown into the mix until 2005 or so, depending if you want Intels version of dual core or AMD's hehe. So XP was never designed with even the stray thought of a possible dual core environment in mind.

I am glad to hear that Vista performs much better on a dual core platform. I have been itching to get a dualcore CPU since X2, but I couldn't afford it at the time of my build. Now with C2D and C2Q coming out, I am quite thrilled at the prospect of rebuilding and setting myself up for Vista. Of course the 7900GTX will have to go sometime in the 1H of 2007 because I am getting Halo 2 PC... no question.
October 8, 2006 4:11:44 PM

Quote:
That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.
Anyway, try the Upgrade Advisor. With a score of 3 or above you should be fine. You wouldn't run Vista with Aero smoothly, but you can run Vista, if you like.

About gaming performance: I have played Lineage II on RC1 (only game so far) and it worked out well, but it was choppy but I can attribute that to my hard drive, a Maxtor Diamondmax 10.
...
As for the OP's issue, I would probably say if you want to run Vista Ultimate in all its glory you will need an upgrade, all be it moderate. Throw down for a low end X2 or a E6300, some 4-4-4-12 DDR2 533, and your good to go (ok I left out the vid card, but thats a judgment call).


I installed Quake 4 and F.E.A.R. (to check OpenGL and DX 9.0 performance). I didn't do any benchmarking, but both seemed to run as smooth as always (at 1024x768 with 2xAA and 4xAF... my 6600GT can't do much higher than that... :oops:  )
And yes, Vista is designed to take advantage from a Dual-Core processor. Maybe M$ doesn't officially state that, but you can tell after using Vista for a day or two. Not that it runs awfully with a Single-Core processor, but you can "feel" it, someway. It's hard to explain.
For the OP to upgrade to an X2 or C2D, he would have to buy a whole new system, and, like he said, he's poor. :wink:

>> That's fine, I would advise you to wait until DX10 cards fill the market. Let's say... Q2 2007.

Why do people keep saying this paranoid crap? nVidia's DX10 cards are due out in about 4 weeks. Its a hard release because suppilers already have the chips.

They say it because Vista isn't due out until Jan 07, R600 isn't due out until that time frame as well, so the 8 series has no benefit other than speed, ok that is a reason to buy in and of itself. However, it is likely Nvidia will be able to crank out a second revision by Q2 2007 while ATi is on thier first card, and with just the 8 series out now, Nvidia can charge a ridiculous premium and promote themselves as the only Vista ready or compliant video card, or whatever BS M$ says they can use.
October 8, 2006 4:24:42 PM

Please re-read what I said.
"...until DX10 fill the market..."

Did I say specifically "nVidia"?
At launch the all-new GeForce 8800GTX will be hugely overpriced, so I advised to wait until nVidia and ATI fill the market with DX10 cards. That way he'd have more choices, and at more affordable prices.
October 8, 2006 4:34:13 PM

Quote:
So XP was never designed with even the stray thought of a possible dual core environment in mind.


Even Windows 2000 had support for a Dual-Processor system. For the OS, a Dual-Processor system works almost the same as a Dual-Core system.
Remember that M$ has to make the OS as future-proof as possible. Maybe Vista already has support for an 8-Core system, which is mostly certain.
October 8, 2006 4:44:58 PM

Point taken. Now that dual core is becomeing incredibly mainstream, let's hope that software guys get on the ball and really get some optmized code out, there is some but we still have a long ways to go.


Side note: they finally uploaded RC2 64 bit so I am d/ling that now. check back in 3 hours (includes install and program installation).
October 8, 2006 5:05:00 PM

Maybe you should upgrade your motherboard to a socket 939 w/ AGP port, get an AMD +4x00, get 1Gb of RAM and you should be ok. You would be only upgrading your mobo and cpu.
October 8, 2006 5:12:41 PM

hell, Intel already let toms have a quad core chip.
-cm
October 8, 2006 5:15:47 PM

that sounds good... i think my vid card is ok. ppl rip on the x850 cause its second gen now, but i can play every game i own, fear, bf2142demo, all the source games, quake 4, you name it on high/med textures and res of 1440x900... thats pretty good.
i would love to keep my precious x850
-cm
October 8, 2006 5:40:50 PM

Or you can sell that videocard on eBay since its price goes over $200 :) 
October 8, 2006 5:47:34 PM

Quote:
hell, Intel already let toms have a quad core chip.
-cm


Don't even get me started on that... I want one of those guys badly, just don't have 1k to burn on a CPU at this point when I am going to spend $650 on cooling hehe.
October 8, 2006 5:48:14 PM

I have RC1 running on my Athlon XP rig with no problems at all, everything is running perfectly smooth.

Here's my specs:
Athlon XP 2700+
Asus A7N8X
1GB DDR400 dual channel ram
Seagate 320GB HDD
Geforce 6600GT
October 8, 2006 6:01:54 PM

I have RC1 on an athlon xp 2600, 512MB ram, Radeon 9700 pro and it flies. Not noticably faster than my 64 3700+ with 2GB ram and x1800xt until I run high end apps or more than 5 or 6 IE windows. Memory usage is always very high, just like linux, not extrordinarly bizarre if you think about it. It uses what it's got, the more stuff in ram the quicker things work. Why do you think M$ is going to allow flash drives to speed things up?
October 8, 2006 6:04:17 PM

I'll be waiting! :D 
Anyway... it's sunday, I don't have pretty much anything to do...
October 8, 2006 6:05:47 PM

I have an x550 and can run Aero on Vista so Im sure you will be able to run Aero. An Athlon 64 2800+ will run fine, I have a Sempron 2800+ with 1gb of ram running Vista smoothly.
October 8, 2006 6:07:44 PM

Yeah but be careful it is only certain flash drives. I have an OCZ Rally 1GB USB2 flash drive and apparenlty to Vista it isn't capable of ReadyBoost (the flash drive performance enchancer). I think it is going to require a minimum of 2GB and most likely some speed requirement, but I am not sure on the 2nd one. My flash drive is fash as hell (for a flash drive of course) hence why I think that it is my drives size that is restricting it. I've heard good things about ReadyBoost, especially that it works well. According to M$ its plug and play and doesn't require restarting, therefore you can plug it in and take it out whenever you want.

84% done downloading RC2, I won't have it all installed until around 5pm CST (homework to do first). I'll keep you posted on the differences/performance.
October 8, 2006 6:35:06 PM

Quote:
Second, as Brainysmurf pointed out, early releases of Vista are likely to be laden with problems. It took MS until 2002 to get 98 reasonably straightened out. Even if MS were to pull a miracle out of the blue and have Vista relatively bug free, it will probably take some time for software vendors to patch their progs to function properly.

My advice to you, wait. Contrary to any propaganda you may have heard, everyone on the planet is not going to rush out to upgrade to Vista when it finally appears. Too many people have been bit on the arse upgrading from 95 to 98, 98 to mill, mill to XP etc. If Vista holds true to MS form, when it does appear, it will (initially) create more problems than it solves.

I agree, but some of us actually enjoy beta testing, not to mention how that testing will benefit the community. I'm also hoping (dreaming?) that I might get some discount from MS for the final version. :)  And you can have it both ways by running both XP and Vista. That's what I did with the earlier betas but now I'm running it full time. I'm also running Firefox 2 RC2 so as you can see I like living dangerously. :) 

O/T: I've been meaning to perform the temp tests you suggested for your project but I though using Vista might disqualify me because it adds another variable that might affect your data and the conclusions from your analysis of that data.
October 8, 2006 6:40:45 PM

Quote:
84% done downloading RC2, I won't have it all installed until around 5pm CST (homework to do first). I'll keep you posted on the differences/performance.


Interesting, first person I hear that is gonna try RC2, please tell us (specially me) if there is any perfomance tune because my friend tried RC1 with a Pentium D 930 2gb ram 7600gt 300gb hd and he said it became kinda slow after some days, too many things were useless etc. also he went back to xp because there were many incompatible drivers
October 8, 2006 7:09:01 PM

I started testing xp in '99 and I've gotten free versions of xp, xpsp1, xpsp2 all pro, server 2k advanced, serverk 2k3 ent (2 copies with 25 licenses each). All ya gotta do is go to M$ roadshows, pre-release events, etc. And have some form of M$ certification. I'll pay $200 to go down to Denver and get a free enterprise copy of server any day :) 
October 8, 2006 7:25:36 PM

Ok I am burning the DVD, got doen with my homework alot faster than I expected. Revised time estimate: 15min to burn, 30 min to format and install, 1 hour to install programs, and 30min-1hr to evaluate and post conclusions.

Side note: I've been using Rc1 for about 2 weeks and I haven't notcied a slow down. I really need to consolidate my hard drives because I have 2 OS's spanning 3 drives with replica copies of crap backed up god knows where. Oh well, FYI I am using 64 bit so if you are expecting to buy the 32 bit version take my evaluation with a grain of salt (as you always should when I write). My Vista hard drive is flaky and on its way out, but it's the only drive i can stand to reformat at this point so I have a good impression of how it will perform as a primary OS not as a dual boot OS. I also use a Logitech G5 and G15 mouse and keyboard, as a result I will be a little caustic about how they interact due to lack of drivers, which is more a shot at Logitech than M$. Also currently there are absolutely no X-Fi drivers other than the ones for a 53XX build, and so I can not test how well RC2 interacts with X-Fi unless M$ hid a gem in there and built in drivers. I will be using onboard audio from Realtek.
October 8, 2006 7:25:57 PM

Quote:
Interesting, first person I hear that is gonna try RC2, please tell us (specially me) if there is any perfomance tune because my friend tried RC1 with a Pentium D 930 2gb ram 7600gt 300gb hd and he said it became kinda slow after some days, too many things were useless etc. also he went back to xp because there were many incompatible drivers

I used Beta 2 on a Pentium D 830 it and it ran a bit sluggishly with one gig but very smoothly with two. I'm currently running RC2 on an E6600 with two gigs and it's smooth as silk.
October 8, 2006 7:34:01 PM

Starting install process. Will return with evaluation next time.
October 8, 2006 7:34:44 PM

...waiting...
October 8, 2006 9:47:41 PM

Alright let me start off saying one thing: RC2 is almost the same damned thing as RC1, just slightly more responsive.

My guess is that M$ just fixed alot of little things that crashed the OS or programs. It took me 30 minutes from booting to the DVD to first glance at the desktop. It took 8.5 minutes to expand the files off the DVD on the HDD. The setup is the exact same, same unattended setup until the configuration screen on first boot. The configuration is the same, except I don't remember having to specify that I was connecting to a home network twice, which I did this time through. All in all Vista installed all my hardware correctly except for onboard audio and X-Fi and mouse and keyboard, but all of that was expected due to a lack of drivers. There are Vista specific drivers for Realtek HD Audio, and the Vista X-Fi drivers are build specific and I really didn't want to deal with the hassle of trying them again, given the small time frame I am working on.

As for overall performance, the Vista system assessment took about 3 minutes and was done before I logged in the first time. The system became partially unrepsonsive (sort of expected during a performance analysis). The system analyzer spit back the same performance numbers as I got under RC1, and are as follows:

CPU (AMD 3800+ @ 2.7GHz): 4.4
RAM (Mushkin 3-3-2-8 @ DDR490, 2x1GB): 5.3
Geforce 7900GTX (Included drivers, more on that later): 5.9
Gaming Graphics: 5.9
Hard Drive (Freshly formatted Diamond Max 10 300GB): 5.3

I had to leave my other 2 hard drives unplugged during installation in order to facilitate unattended installation, so I decided to try something: plug in the 2 SATA drives with Windows booted, just to see how it handles it compared to XP.

The result: Vista did not intially recognize them, so I went into device manager and hit search for hardware changes and Vista picked them up perfectly. Contrary to XP, Vista did not stall or lag or freeze momentarily when the hard drives were attached. Take it as you well, but just a FYI lol.

I tested my OCZ Rally 1GB USB flash drive and again it wasn't ReadyBoost qualified (no surprise there). Again the folder view options are hidden under in windows explorer under Organize... I still don't understand why, but hey its still the same as RC1 (didn't expect a change).

On load, which was definately smoother than XP boot, I idled at 4-5% CPU and 31% RAM which equates to 635MB of RAM consumed just for Vista to sit around... which is on par with, possibly 1-2% less, RC1. I have AeroGlass and every other feature possile activated. So worst case scenario you can expect Vista to consume 600-650MB RAM with all features enabled.

Oh, I did download nVidia's RC1 specific graphics driver, just to see how it interacted with RC2, and it wasn't very nice. It disabled Aero Glass. I never installed it when I ran RC1, so I can't tell whether it was just due to the driver, or whether the driver really did hate RC2. So I tested the roll back driver feature, and it worked beautifuly no restart necessary.

I still don't like where M$ burried the audio configuration. It is not that they burried it, but its in a strange place. You have to click on your speakers and then click configure. To me that's kind of strange, although I see their logic. I am just not used to configuring speakers inside an OS, I usually do it with the Creative installation process. I haven't had a chance to test the optical out feature, so I don't yet know if somehow we can get surround sound through optical out instead of PCM stereo sound we get under XP. I will get there at some point tonight.

Whether you care about any of this is none of my business, these are just the things I have run into in my 45 min on RC2. Like I said I am not a qualified reviewer, and I will be delving deeper into RC2 once I get the time, but I am writing an accounting test at the moment so I took a break to write this skin and bones review.

On to gaming performance. The only game I have time to really test is Lineage II because I have the install on my hard drive and I don't have to go through 20 different updates and 4 CD's like BF2 ( I don't have alot of games, too cheap lol). Well the actual performance is much better. The same place I logged off last time right outside near Devastated Castle (for those of you who may play). It was lagging horribly, I was constantly skipping frames, having issues switching between game logs (I overlay 3 diffrent characters and play them all at the same time on the same computer) it was just a wreck. This time when I logged in, it was much smoother. The load was faster, there was no white screen (when the window became unresponsive Vista turned it white), and overall game play was very good. There was the occasional lag step but that happens. When I get time I will put BF2 through the paces, but again, without X-FI I can't know exactly how well it will perform because the onboard audio will be sucking up CPU cycles, but such is life.

There it is, my first impressions in a very very fast review.

Inconclusion, RC2 = RC1 + performance boost.

Edit: I forgot my complaints against Windows Explorer. They are the same as RC1, but why on earth do all of my folders open with the stupid tiling of folder icons? That is just damned annoying, I mean really annoying. When I switch to details view (the preferred view for me) I get raiting, tags, date taken, for a folder full of downlods (apps, folders mainly). That doesn't make alot of sense to me. The only useful thing that comes up already as a column is size. So everytime I have to go delete unnecssary columns and add useful ones that I like (date created, type). On the bright side, there is an endless choice for column headers.
October 8, 2006 10:31:00 PM

Good, cause I was feeling too lazy to download it... 2.5 GB it's too much for my (lack of) patience. :) 
October 8, 2006 10:56:46 PM

Quote:
From: Windows IT Pro
The internal documentation also notes that Vista still has more than 1400 bugs. Microsoft's internal processes require this bug count to drop to 500 or fewer before the product can go into escrow for RTM. By comparison, Vista had more than 2470 bugs on September 22


So we can expect 500 bugs at launch.


Im not contradicting you, I just want to point out that they re speaking of documented flaws.

For some comparison of unknown flaws, you might want to look to see how many "bugs" XP SP1 fixed, then compare it to the initial "official" bug count of XP at release.

in the case of 98, I stopped watching once the number toped 10000.

Known flaws dont bother me too much. If MS hasnt bothered to fix them, odds are they might not be that bad. Its the unkown flaws that always scare me. Many of these turn into exploits used by the less desiarable elements of our society
October 8, 2006 11:35:04 PM

Asking for bug free software is like asking Bill Gates to stop making money, it just isn't going to happen. Now, I do agree there is a certain level of bugginess that a software program needs to be rid of before it can be shipped, but don't forget as much as scurity experts try and twist OS's before they ship, there is always a hacker that is one step ahead of them. It is the nature of the world, it is sad but true. Unless your computer is physicaly disconnected from the web you will always be vulnerable. Give M$ a little credit, they have every hacker in the world (give or take) after their OS's. Ok, I am ignoring UNIX and LINUX, but you get the point.

Ah it sounds like I am putting you down, and I mearely was trying to point how how many people are after M$.
October 8, 2006 11:54:14 PM

Quote:
Asking for bug free software is like asking Bill Gates to stop making money, it just isn't going to happen. Now, I do agree there is a certain level of bugginess that a software program needs to be rid of before it can be shipped, but don't forget as much as scurity experts try and twist OS's before they ship, there is always a hacker that is one step ahead of them. It is the nature of the world, it is sad but true. Unless your computer is physicaly disconnected from the web you will always be vulnerable. Give M$ a little credit, they have every hacker in the world (give or take) after their OS's. Ok, I am ignoring UNIX and LINUX, but you get the point.

Ah it sounds like I am putting you down, and I mearely was trying to point how how many people are after M$.


I didnt see it as you putting me down at all, and I agree with everything you wrote.

I will add that M$ is often in such a rush to get a new product on the shelves and genrating cash that they will not take as much time as they should de-bugging it.
I will also add that many of the "features" MS tries to put into its various products are frivilous, waste valuable space, add to the products complexity and in doing so reduce its reliability by creating potential conflicts and well as adding errors for hackers to exploit.
October 9, 2006 12:11:25 AM

True. I would have really really really liked to have seen WinFS ship with Vista. M$ does a good job overall, as much as we would love to hate them, but sometimes they can't decide on what is helpful to the consumer and what is "because we can." For example, the new windows explorer overall has a really good feel but they hid some options and added these damn default columns of rating, tags, and other crap that aren't necessary. Ok, that example sucks but the point is almost valid, and in agreement with what you said. I mean honestly, why add rating to a document when you can reduce the minimum size of icons? What the hell is it doing stuck at a minimum of 16 points? Even on a 1600x1200 screen thats freaking huge. I like 4-6 point icons max!

Hmm I downloaded Firefox RC2 and there is a built in spell check, I AM SO DAMN IMPRESSED, I no longer have to dictionary.com certain words I type here lol.
October 9, 2006 12:52:59 AM

RC2 just makes more hardware and software incompatible. It actually struggled more in 3Dmax then RC1 which was dog slow. This is from a system that on 3dmark 2001 can post over 50,000. So who ever said that it was flying on their POS system, lay off the drugs. It may run smooth but even the interface is slow. It also doesn't multitask very well.

I really would like to use Vista but until they work out the performance issues with the apps that I use it isn't going to happen. In addition the business version is supposed to be available in November. I for one will not be installing on our office PC for quite some time, for that matter I not sure I will be doing any serious on testing it for awhile either. I think that it will be a slow moving OS. It may even give Me a run for the money.
October 9, 2006 2:14:32 AM

Quote:
So who ever said that it was flying on their POS system, lay off the drugs


If you are refering to me, back off. I haven't played games (benchies) on it yet, that's stupid while it's still unreleased and drivers aren't fully optimized. I enjoyed watching kids do that with XP beta's, once the drivers were in place everyone realized it was better than 98/me. I have it running fine on two machines both with 512MB ram and athlon xp's. The system is very responsive for any office applications except autocad 2005 has been less than stellar but it won't work well on that little of ram anyway. And that's with Areo. If you really think it's going to take 600mb ram just "when idle" (I know it's not your quote) they you really should research how windows is handling memory now. It's not like XP where it paged everything to the hd until you actually used it. It keeps everything it feels necessary to in ram so the system is more responsive. And even with just 512MB I have to say it works since the lag is dam near the same as my athlon 64 3700 with 2GB ram with xp pro. And I've had no issues having word, excel, ie, firefox, and some utilities open at the same time. No slowdown when burning cd's even.

Huh, maybe my drugs are just really good :) 

I just finished the download of RC2 (started this morning) and will install on both my test machines tomorrow.
October 9, 2006 2:38:28 AM

Quote:
From: Windows IT Pro
The internal documentation also notes that Vista still has more than 1400 bugs. Microsoft's internal processes require this bug count to drop to 500 or fewer before the product can go into escrow for RTM. By comparison, Vista had more than 2470 bugs on September 22


So we can expect 500 bugs at launch.


Im not contradicting you, I just want to point out that they re speaking of documented flaws.

For some comparison of unknown flaws, you might want to look to see how many "bugs" XP SP1 fixed, then compare it to the initial "official" bug count of XP at release.

in the case of 98, I stopped watching once the number toped 10000.

Known flaws dont bother me too much. If MS hasnt bothered to fix them, odds are they might not be that bad. Its the unkown flaws that always scare me. Many of these turn into exploits used by the less desiarable elements of our society

Well your right then the article shoudve said less than 500 KNOWN Bugs in order to RTM.

But of course its once its released to the public then I guess well find alot more, but thats what updates are for, its never gonna be bug free but its never gonna be an unusable OS either I guess, comes with the territory.
We'll have to wait and see, its time to be pioneers again. :D 

IN response to Michaelahess' post:

I never had any lag with the 2 RC's of Vista either, or at least any slower to respond than in XP, the Framework code is a hog, but I was doing fine with my A64 1GB,7600GT rig, but its not like I ran any apps, just surf.
October 9, 2006 2:41:52 AM



Well thats how much RAM that takes up. You are probably right, it only keeps what is necessary in the memory and adjusts to fit the system it's running on. So, a system with 2GB RAM may idle at 31%, like mine which was a fresh install, but your install may idle at the same 30-35% RAM utilization but on 512MB, it would take more testing than I have time for. I only reported the utilization under my system, given it did sound like I meant all system, but that was not my intent. We would have to do a mm by mm inspection to see where Vista tightens its RAM utilization belt to fit 512MB of RAM, and at this point I can't do that, but I would definitely be interested in seeing the results.
!