Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Vista Ultimate loves my 4400+

Last response: in CPUs
Share

When will you try Vista?

Total: 194 votes (1 blank vote)

  • I already have it
  • 17 %
  • In a few weeks
  • 13 %
  • After the first DX10 game
  • 16 %
  • When reviewers say compatibilty is good enough
  • 37 %
  • When hell freezes over
  • 21 %
February 2, 2007 4:14:08 AM

COntrary to a lot of reviews, Vista is a great OS and I don't think I could ever go back to XP. You just have to experience it.

I just played DOom3 and I can now use my wireless Logitech KB.

UAC is not a pain but clean installs are not a lot of fun.

WHile you are trying to cruise around after install - which is a million times better than XP - Vista is out searching for updates and such and you may have to reboot before you know it.

It seems snappier though and the UI animations are stellar.

I give Vista a Thumbs up.

D3 which is said to have graphical issues played smooter than ever (whether or not the fps is exactly the same)

I just installed nVidia's Vista driver and was off to the races.

There are a few things I am not liking. Well, actually one big thing. In XP my TaskBar extended across both monitors, in Vista it doesn't. It's a pain because when I'm in the right hand monitor I have to drag all the way to the left hand monitor. Also, D3 doesn't keep the second montior alive when playing.

I did a clean install this time but now that I know it will work well, I may upgrade my C drive this weekend. For my next upgrade I will be going to X64.
a c 471 à CPUs
February 2, 2007 4:23:23 AM

When SP1 is released for it. No need to switch over to it just for games at the moment and I don't really see any programs I need to buy that will only work with Vista.

Window XP Pro will suffice until summer or fall 2008 when I assume SP1 will be released. Or when I decide to upgrade my X1900XT to a DX10 GPU. Whichever comes first.
February 2, 2007 4:28:23 AM

I'll get it when I can get it free through the CS department from school.
Related resources
February 2, 2007 4:30:48 AM

I'll upgrade to vista when 1 or more of these things happens: 1. Halo 2 for the pc comes out, and i want to play it. 2. I get a DX10 gfx card. 3. SP1 comes out and it seems like everything is atleast semi stable. 4. I start smoking crack and somehow become a billionare in the process.
February 2, 2007 4:32:56 AM

Quote:
When SP1 is released for it. No need to switch over to it just for games at the moment and I don't really see any programs I need to buy that will only work with Vista.

Window XP Pro will suffice until summer or fall 2008 when I assume SP1 will be released. Or when I decide to upgrade my X1900XT to a DX10 GPU. Whichever comes first.


SP1 is due out this year. MS has already released app compat patches. Believe me, you will love it. MS is offering a deals where you can get Ultimate and Home Premium for $300 if you buy retail. You can even get X86 and X64 on the CD.
February 2, 2007 4:42:40 AM

I'm going with "I already have it" since I'm picking up a Vista computer in about ten hours or so. E4300, 1 gig of RAM, and integrated graphics... I'm going to have fun upgrading it. :D 
February 2, 2007 4:55:02 AM

Does using RC2 count as having it? Anyways, I deleted that a couple months back and will upgrade to the final version when it comes out at my campus store (hopefully they'll have Ultimate for around $30), which should be in April. I was pretty impressed with the RC and by April driver support should be decent, so I'm making the jump.
February 2, 2007 5:01:01 AM

Already had Ultimate pre-consumer release. And I love it.
a b à CPUs
February 2, 2007 5:13:10 AM

MS love all you early adopters. Right now they are saying chaaaching. Stocks go up and shareholders are happy.

All kidding aside, I'll wait for the first truly revelolutionary DX10 game before jumping to Vista (by that time there should be a choice in DX10 cards), it'll probably be Crysis. The thing about all the incredible Crysis screenshots is that they have all been on DX9.0c, so I don't know how much better it'll be on DX10.
February 2, 2007 5:14:44 AM

So where do I find these great deals on ultimate for 300 USD? 380 USD on amazon... And they won't ship M$ OS to AUS. 750 AUD for Ultimate, even worse in the UK. Rapery.... Begone, M$ fanboi. I'm not giving the Bill and Linda foundation an extra 200 USD for the penalty of living in AUS. BTW, before you get into 'that's an AUS thing', that's a Microsoft AUS rrp. 751 AUD to be precise, GST included.
February 2, 2007 5:15:01 AM

Who says I bought Vista? (^_^) And its still legal man.
February 2, 2007 5:35:12 AM

Mighty sound trivial, but i hate the new folder "looks". The slider to toggle them is kinda neat, but some folders look like a book opened, on it's side. :x I find it snappier(and with only 1GB), as well, but some of that probably has to do with my current XP-Pro installation being 1-1/2 years old(reinstall would liven it up). :oops:  I just can't justify the exorbitant price at this point in time, not to mention driver issues, etc. Maybe after SP1 releases. Maybe.

edit: I'm using RC build 5600, but i doubt that much has changed(i'm sure there are less driver issues, and bugs).
a c 471 à CPUs
February 2, 2007 5:38:45 AM

You could wait for an OEM version. Hopefully they'll be around when I decide to upgrade.

I can't see myself splurging on the Ultimate or the Ultimate Extra version so for the moment it's a toss up between Home Premium and Business. Maybe one of each for my HTPC and primary rig.
February 2, 2007 5:42:13 AM

No thanx baron. I'm quite happy with my Windows XP Black Edition (US Retail one). Got it from my sister's boyfriend just the other day. :twisted:
February 2, 2007 5:43:21 AM

I am still very confused !

Now the reason why I posted this useless statement -at least it is for me - is that I am hoping someone will help me to decide !

I am not impressed by the visuals in Vista .. I saw a video for Mac OSX -or whatever - and this is what I call a 3D desktop .

to me vista looks like a good XP theme .. no more .. and I am still worring about the performance under my 1.0GB of RAM system .. especially gaming performance .
February 2, 2007 5:44:12 AM

Before anyone buys the full version at full price try this courtesy of window secrets : Vista has an undocumented feature, however, that actually allows you to "clean install" Vista to a hard disk that has no prior copy of XP or W2K.

Use Vista's 'upgrade' version to clean-install

The secret is that the setup program in Vista's upgrade version will accept an installed copy of XP, W2K, or an unactivated copy of Vista itself as evidence of a previous installation.

This enables you to "clean install" an upgrade version of Vista to any formatted or unformatted hard drive, which is usually the preferred method when installing any new operating system. You must, in essence, install Vista twice to take advantage of this trick. But Vista installs much faster than XP, so it's quicker than installing XP followed by Vista to get the upgrade price.

Before you install Vista on a machine that you don't know is 100% compatible, you should run Microsoft's free Upgrade Advisor. This program — which operates only on 32-bit versions of XP and Vista (plus Vista Enterprise) — reports to you on any hardware or software it finds that may be incompatible with Vista. See Microsoft's Upgrade Advisor page.

Also, to see which flavors of XP Home, XP Pro, and 2000 officially support in-place installs and clean installs of the different Vista editions, see Microsoft's upgrade paths page.

Here's a simplified overview of the steps that are required to clean-install the upgrade version of Vista:

Step 1. Boot the PC from the Vista DVD.

Step 2. Select "Install Now," but do not enter the Product Key from the Vista packaging. Leave the input box blank. Also, turn off the option Automatically activate Windows when I'm online. In the next dialog box that appears, confirm that you really do want to install Vista without entering a Product Key.

Step 3. Correctly indicate the version of Vista that you're installing: Home Basic, Home Premium, Business, or Ultimate.

Step 4. Select the "Custom (Advanced)" install, not the "Upgrade" install.

Step 5. Vista copies files at length and reboots itself one or more times. Wait for the install to complete. At this point, you might think that you could "activate" Vista, but you can't. That's because you haven't installed the Vista upgrade yet. To do that, run the DVD's setup.exe program again, but this time from the Vista desktop. The easiest way to start setup again is to eject and then reinsert the DVD.

Step 6. Click "Install Now." Select Do not get the latest updates for installation. (You can check for these updates later.)

Step 7. This time, do enter the Product Key from the Vista packaging. Once again, turn off the option Automatically activate Windows when I'm online.

Step 8. On this second install, make sure to select "Upgrade," not "Custom (Advanced)." You're not doing a clean install now, you're upgrading to Vista.

Step 9. Wait while Vista copies files and reboots itself. No user interaction is required. Do not boot from the DVD when asked if you'd like to do so. Instead, wait a few seconds and the setup process will continue on its way. Some DOS-like, character-mode menus will appear, but don't interact with them. After a few seconds, the correct choice will run for you automatically.

Step 10. After you click a button labeled Start in the Thank You dialog box, Vista's login screen will eventually appear. Enter the username and password that you selected during the first install. You're done upgrading to Vista.

Step 11. Within 30 days, you must "activate" your copy of Vista or it'll lose functionality. To activate Vista, click Show more details in the Welcome Center that automatically displays upon each boot-up, then click Activate Windows now. If you've dismissed the Welcome Center, access the correct dialog box by clicking Start, Control Panel, System & Maintenance, System. If you purchased a legitimate copy of Vista, it should quickly activate over the Internet. (You can instead activate by calling Microsoft on the phone, which avoids your PC exchanging information with Microsoft's server.)

Hope enuff people read this without having to put the $ in M$
a c 471 à CPUs
February 2, 2007 5:47:57 AM

If gaming is your top priority then skip Windows Vista for the moment since the performance will be a little worse than on Windows XP.

The only reason you should upgrade to Windows Vista in the short term is if you have a DX10 card and you absolutely want to see what DX10 graphics have to offer.

Other than that sit on the sideline and save your money.
February 2, 2007 5:52:50 AM

OEM versions are tied to the original MB that its installed on... So if you change your MB for whatever reason, plan on getting a new OS. Upgrade versions are almost as restrictive. Even retail will have issues. But much less draconian. Read the EULA's...

Fortunately, I had already planned a holiday in Hawai'i, and my RC2 license doesn't expire until after I get back (390 now in Compusa, Honolulu).

Now if I can just get drivers for my Option Fusion 3G card, and my Nortel conntivity client gets a vista refresh, I'll be all set.

The Bill and Linda foundation needs SERIOUS MONEY folks.... Please help them.
February 2, 2007 5:56:54 AM

Old news.... And still the same EULA's. Try an upgrade of your MB with that oem key. WGA will keep the virii out... Right.... YOU are the virus that M$ wants to keep out.
February 2, 2007 6:13:57 AM

I'll wait for SP1 and full drivers and software (games :wink:)  compatibility before switching to Vista, also I expect by that time hackers will find the way to disable/work arround very lame new Vista DRM. Seriously, why switch to Vista now and have inferior performance (even with USB flash assigned) and all other compatibility troubles? If neat interface would be my driving force, I would be using Mac for 10 years now :wink:
a c 471 à CPUs
February 2, 2007 6:17:03 AM

Quote:
OEM versions are tied to the original MB that its installed on... So if you change your MB for whatever reason, plan on getting a new OS. Upgrade versions are almost as restrictive. Even retail will have issues. But much less draconian. Read the EULA's...



Not exactly true since OEM versions of Windows XP can be purchased seperately at the moment. Of course, that could be different with Windows Vista.
February 2, 2007 6:23:24 AM

I feel like a broken record... Read the EULA's.
February 2, 2007 6:32:01 AM

quote: "Vista Ultimate loves my 4400+"

Do you think she can love my c2d E6400 at the same time? I hope you don't mind a trio?! :twisted:

I changed "it" to "she". seemed more appropriate.

Ah! voted for option "When reviewers say compatibilty is good enough". If by some miracle a hacked version of DX10 is ported to XP, I see no reason to make a switch. Only reason that I would switch after that would be that all applications+games are 64bit natively written with multicore and complete driver support. And that would take some time....
February 2, 2007 6:41:51 AM

Patiently waiting for an answer to my question...

"So where do I find these great deals on ultimate for 300 USD?"

Put up or shut up. US MSRP is 399 for ultimate. I'll take as many copies of ultimate retail as you can afford to ship for usd 300 per copy plus appropriate shipping.
February 2, 2007 7:10:29 AM

I'll run Vista in about a years time.Well after the sp1 comes out.Only then will I consider it adequit enough.

Dahak

AMD X2-4400+@2.6 S-939
EVGA NF4 SLI MB
2X EVGA 7800GT IN SLI
2X1GIG DDR IN DC MODE (soon 2b crucial balistix ddr500)
WD300GIG HD
EXTREME 19IN.MONITOR 1280X1024
THERMALTAKE TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
COOLERMASTER MINI R120
February 2, 2007 10:09:20 AM

Vista is worthless besides DX10. Sure. It looks more polished. It also sucks in many MANY ways.
Im sticking with XP and after that Im going Linux.
February 2, 2007 10:28:38 AM

Quote:
Vista is worthless besides DX10. Sure. It looks more polished. It also sucks in many MANY ways.
Im sticking with XP and after that Im going Linux.

Is Linux getting DX10? :o  :wink: IMO if XP will get DX10, there wont be any reason for gamers to switch to Vista at all for 5 years or so :p 
February 2, 2007 11:49:02 AM

If your system is simple and generic and don't have any grand expectations Vista will seem like a wonderful upgrade..., otherwise its a big steaming piece of sh**. It did nothing amazing for my top of the line 680iSLI, 8800GTX, water cooled C2D machine but slow it down.

Looked like an overdone version of OSX. It decided all my firewall, burning, disk management system monitoring tools, burning tools were no good along with 80 percent of my drivers. Even with Vista drivers half my functions were gone and the built in firewall and disk management tools where so noobed out it was ridiculous.

It was a waste of time. Fortunately I ghosted my system before doing the upgrade. So I got tired of the Vista F'up mess and reghosted back. Microsoft has decided that people want to be treated like mac users who don't ever want to do any upgrades and treat thier computers like an appliance.

It was the people that tinker and upgrade and write their own stuff that made the PC platform as successful as it is today. Why make it a stagnant locked up box built for idiots I don't understand...., I'm ranting now.
February 2, 2007 11:57:03 AM

Quote:
Vista is worthless besides DX10. Sure. It looks more polished. It also sucks in many MANY ways.
Im sticking with XP and after that Im going Linux.

Is Linux getting DX10? :o  :wink: IMO if XP will get DX10, there wont be any reason for gamers to switch to Vista at all for 5 years or so :p 
XP will not be getting Linux. Period. The guys at WINEHQ are working on an implementation of DX10 for Linux though. Its still not out, but I want to see what the performance drop will look like.
February 2, 2007 11:59:58 AM

Well to be honest, most people have been complaining about the "plainness" of the Windows OS and its "user-unfriendliness". The majority complained, and MS acted. They dumbed it down and candied it up. But if you look at the actual kernel, its better written than XP and is a vast improvement stability wise over XP. The problems with crashing usually stem from people using bad drivers or incompatible driver and software with Vista.
February 2, 2007 12:10:19 PM

Wrong Section! Vista is software\OS.

But I'll still chime in. I don't plan on getting Vista until there is a benefit. However, I might get a job with a company that's on top of technology, if that's the case, I'd upgrade pretty soon for the Vista experience.
February 2, 2007 12:38:45 PM

Vista's running great on my gaming rig (see sig).

I have the full retail version of ultimate and have the 64 installed. I found 1 compatability issue with a dvd ripping program, but it's probably because it is 3 years old and crappy anyway, all my games and all my other programs work fine - including games like WOW, SWG, C&C etc and all my not-so-legal apps like dvd rippers (excluding the old one i mentioned above).

Vista is a little snappied UI wise, and i do find it more responsive, as winows do open instantly.

Anyway, i upgraded to vista now as i can have it all set up before the dx 10 games hit, so when they do hit i'll be playing while people sort out any issues they get installing vista (no upgrades from 32 bit windows to 64 bit vista for example)...took me a couple days to install all my 800gb of games and software again :|
February 2, 2007 12:59:54 PM

Quote:
So where do I find these great deals on ultimate for 300 USD? 380 USD on amazon... And they won't ship M$ OS to AUS. 750 AUD for Ultimate, even worse in the UK. Rapery.... Begone, M$ fanboi. I'm not giving the Bill and Linda foundation an extra 200 USD for the penalty of living in AUS. BTW, before you get into 'that's an AUS thing', that's a Microsoft AUS rrp. 751 AUD to be precise, GST included.


The deal is from MS. If you buy the retail version of Ultimate you can buy up to 4 copies of Home Premium.
February 2, 2007 1:49:26 PM

Quote:
Since I am a MSDN subscriber, I have been able to run Vista RTM since early December.

I did, however, switch back to XP. Too many broken stuff. Even with my current rig (see sig), XP still runs faster.

Sure Vista is prettier... but then again, so what?

Like it's been said, XP will suffice for at least 1 1/2 years or so. Games-wise, I still haven't played all the DX9 games out there, and many appealing titles are being released for DX9. When I run out of options in the DX9 arena, then I might consider going back to Vista, but keeping in mind that I'll have to spend a lotta bucks upgrading my entire rig.


I did the same thing. I would say 50% of the applications I use on a daily basis either wouldn't install (normally or with any type of compatibility mode) or exhibited terrible behavior afterwards. One install got hung when trying to do a regedit.

Thank goodness process explorer still works though. Eventually I took Vista off and put 2003 back on (it's my mini workstation). I'll let other people get all the bugs worked out. *Eagerly awaits SP1*.

Number one gripe - having to right click CMD to have an "Administrator Command Prompt". I'm logged on as an admin, DEFAULT RUN ALL PROGRAMS AS AN ADMIN!
February 2, 2007 2:08:48 PM

I put Vista on for a day, then switched back to XP SP2. As nearly every other post has said so far, for gaming there is no immediate need to switch - infact you'll likely lose performance.

Programs mostly dont work so ditch the idea of using that old version of Nero or whatever. It did install every single driver possible for me, and although i updated the forceware to 100.54 the installation was an absolutel doddle, and very very quick...makes me wonder why!!

It look REALLY nice, but for those of us that have XP already setup for optimum performance, and just the way we like it power user wise there's no point to Vista until dx10 comes out.
February 2, 2007 2:22:38 PM

I voted the 'When hell freezes, because a resource consuming OS just does not make sense for 3D modeling and photo editing.
February 2, 2007 2:25:35 PM

I voted "when hell freezes over" because there was no "when I build my next rig" option.
February 2, 2007 2:26:38 PM

Quote:
I voted the 'When hell freezes, because a resource consuming OS just does not make sense for 3D modeling and photo editing.


By your logic, we should be 3D modeling and photo editing on Windows 98 or 2000, as they use significantly less resources than XP. Yes, Vista uses more resources, because its a NEW OS. You don't really expect it to use less resources, do you? Wait for decent drivers and software optimization, and Vista will outperform XP.
February 2, 2007 2:37:10 PM

Quote:
I voted the 'When hell freezes, because a resource consuming OS just does not make sense for 3D modeling and photo editing.


By your logic, we should be 3D modeling and photo editing on Windows 98 or 2000, as they use significantly less resources than XP. Yes, Vista uses more resources, because its a NEW OS. You don't really expect it to use less resources, do you? Wait for decent drivers and software optimization, and Vista will outperform XP.
Of course, but the major factor for me is the software I use, and they all run perfectly on Windows 2000 too.
February 2, 2007 2:53:46 PM

I will move to Vista for my next build. That might be March or April 2008 after tax refund season. (This year's tax refund pays for a wedding and honeymoon trip! So no new computer this year!)

My socket 939 X2 3800+ will last me another year or so just fine for what I'm using it for. Mostly some Photoshop work, a few older games and I learned to be happy with Oblivion at medium settings (my 7600 GT could do better but I prefer the faster framerates over eye candy).

By this time next year AMD should have their new architecture out, Intel may have Penryn available, DX10 cards should be lower priced, DDR2 prices should be lower for fast memory (let's hope), and Vista SP1 should be available.
At that point it would make sense to me. Not before.
February 2, 2007 3:02:05 PM

You need an option like after service pack 2, somewhere in 2010.
February 2, 2007 3:16:03 PM

Good to see there are other people out there that give Vista the thumbs up. Yes there is a learning curve but it has yet to piss me off.

~Cheers
February 2, 2007 3:20:43 PM

Quote:
You need an option like after service pack 2, somewhere in 2010.

Not a flame just a rewording....
Instead why not just add: "I love my 80386 with windows 3.1 thank you" hahaha

~Cheers
February 2, 2007 3:27:03 PM

Quote:
Good to see there are other people out there that give Vista the thumbs up. Yes there is a learning curve but it has yet to piss me off.

~Cheers


I like it. My games play. My devices work. My apps work. Like I said the clean install went well so I may upgrade XP.
February 2, 2007 3:32:05 PM

Quote:
Yes, Vista uses more resources, because its a NEW OS. You don't really expect it to use less resources, do you? Wait for decent drivers and software optimization, and Vista will outperform XP.


I totally disagree.

Being a developer, I know that it is possible to add new features and looks and still keep resource usage at the same levels as before. How?

ALGORITHM OPTIMIZATION

If the MS developers focus on really optimizing their algorithms, in the development process, maybe windows could be much, MUCH more efficient. There are several ways of doing the same thing, and, usually, the easiest way is seldom the most efficient. Since the MS developers are on a tight schedule, I suppose they invest very little time on writing optimized code.

Examples (and proof) of this are the bugs that are frequent on commercial apps and the need for frequent patches.

I wonder if it would be like this if the developers spent a little more time debugging and optimizing their code.


So, a new OS doesn't necessarily have to be more "resource-hungry". If the code is better written than before, it is possible to have more features and not use more resources.

When I tried Vista Business, the machine took 3% of a P4 2.8 HT CPU and 400 Mb of RAM just sitting there. No programs, no nothing. That is simply unacceptable.

I think you're oversimplifying Windows. There is a new speech engine, more in-depth Backup, DRM( :twisted: ), BitLocker, more dianostic tools, etc.

I went to Task Mgr and only Task Mgr was showing CPU usage. I don't mind if it uses more RAM if my apps get enough.

My CPU is loving it.
February 2, 2007 3:34:07 PM

I'm trying it for the first time now.

It's a bit of a pain to tri-boot XP, Vista, and Ubuntu (GRUB) at the same time, since I had installed Vista after I had a working Ubuntu installation. I don't know if I can even get into Linux anymore, because my setup is a little complicated, but it makes sure that if a bootloader fails, it doesn't take everything with it.

WoW + Burning Crusade is installing fine, will test it out during the day. Gaim is working fine, still have to try file transfers though. Drivers for my X1900XT and X-Fi XtremeMusic installed fine, both are working smashingly.

The interface is a little strange. An XP power-user like most of us on THG might have a bit of a learning curve, but once I get used to it it should be just as intuitive. Seems stable enough, haven't had it crash or BSoD on me yet, but it's only a few hours old.

Seems to love my X2 3800+ and 2GB of RAM, runs just as smooth as a clean XP Pro installation. And Vista isn't on the Raptor! Boots fast, and even with the Aero eye-candy turned on still runs smooth.

One cool thing was that when it booted into the OS for the first time after the installation, it detected my 1680x1050 screen perfectly, even without ATI's driver installed. It even knew my card's name. When MS said they were working closely with video card manufacturers, they weren't kidding!

I was worried that it would change the drive letters of all my partitions across my drives (two Windows drives, 3 partitions + Vista's; the Linux partitions are a non-sequitor), but it left everything the same. In Vista, my XP's C: drive shows up as D:, and in XP my Vista drive shows up as H:. Not bad, I can live with that.

I was initially pessimistic about Vista. But after actually using it, I don't think it's all that bad. At this point, I'd still use XP as my main OS, but Vista isn't far behind.

Oh, and DX10 under Linux would roxor my soxors.
February 2, 2007 7:09:42 PM

Quote:
Yes, Vista uses more resources, because its a NEW OS. You don't really expect it to use less resources, do you? Wait for decent drivers and software optimization, and Vista will outperform XP.


I totally disagree.

Being a developer, I know that it is possible to add new features and looks and still keep resource usage at the same levels as before. How?

ALGORITHM OPTIMIZATION

If the MS developers focus on really optimizing their algorithms, in the development process, maybe windows could be much, MUCH more efficient. There are several ways of doing the same thing, and, usually, the easiest way is seldom the most efficient. Since the MS developers are on a tight schedule, I suppose they invest very little time on writing optimized code.

Examples (and proof) of this are the bugs that are frequent on commercial apps and the need for frequent patches.

I wonder if it would be like this if the developers spent a little more time debugging and optimizing their code.


So, a new OS doesn't necessarily have to be more "resource-hungry". If the code is better written than before, it is possible to have more features and not use more resources.

When I tried Vista Business, the machine took 3% of a P4 2.8 HT CPU and 400 Mb of RAM just sitting there. No programs, no nothing. That is simply unacceptable.

I get your point, and I guess I should have made myself clearer. When has an MS OS ever used less resources than an older version?

Another point I forgot to mention is the hardware that most people use. When XP was released back in '01, 256MB RAM was the norm and 512MB was enthusiast-level. 256MB ran XP much as 1GB runs Vista. As bigger and badder programs came out, RAM size increased to its present day norm of 1GB (2GB for enthusiasts). Hardware will evolve the same way for Vista.
February 2, 2007 7:49:55 PM

That's why a debuting Windows version is not a good idea; it took XP a good 2 years to be fully acceptable and 100% within hardware specs, because when it was released, 700-1000MHz CPUs and 128-256MB RAM were totally below the norm for a satisfying experience.
The same will happen with Vista; Not when hell freezes, but it will take quite a bit till everyone can afford to build a PC to really enjoy it; Simonetti mentioned 400MB of RAM used just by the system 8O , I have 1G of it and feel ripped by the ~170M of XP... Maybe I get Vista when I can afford at least a K8L quad and 16G of RAM...
February 3, 2007 4:32:51 AM

Windows Vista Home Premium will fit snuggly on my new build which i'll be starting in a few weeks! ;) 
February 3, 2007 4:42:30 AM

I know... I got 'sort of' an answer, seemed that it was a Microsoft deal, buy one retail version of something and get 4 oem versions of something else for cheap... Back on page 2 or 3... Can't be bothered to go look.

I never really expected a real answer.

But I'm really burned up over the difference between US and OS prices....

End of rant.
!