Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Damn VISTA revolution!!!

Last response: in Windows XP
Share

Will u stick with XP for the next couple of months or get vista?

Total: 7 votes

  • XP for the next couple of month(s) after vista comes out
  • 86 %
  • vista right away
  • 15 %
April 5, 2006 2:21:38 AM

got some info on vista the beta uses 820 mb of ram in idle!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!, it needs 7 gigs on hd for instalation, and only s-ata drives and only on NTFS partitions not FAT32 will be supported(installable), and only non integrated graphic cards will be needed, and it will not support old dvd drives.....BASTARDS....Im thinking of not geting VIsta at all anymore, like IBM (the broke their contract with msoft, and will be using linux red hat on their pc's), and older dvd drives will be unsupported, and i guess 2 gigs wont be anything special :(  with vista

"As it was, the software enforcement of regional codes was a pain in the butt. The code was complex and not exactly reliable. The Vista team said that only people who have an old drive will notice any difference and since the average life of a player is three years, it is unlikely that there are any about to cause trouble. According to a Volish developer's blog, most of the pre-2000 DVD players that Microsoft could find were either dying or already dead"


"A CHAP who managed to sneak a peek at the Vole's internal beta version 2 of Windows 53xx informed us that, even while idling, Vista eats as much as 800Mb of system memory.
Yeah, we were shocked too, but you have to believe the screenshot below.

Memory manufacturers couldn't be happier about that, as it will make people to go out and buy more memory. Our source reported that Vista runs ok with 1024Mb of system memory but no-doubt 2048Mb would be much better.

Vista won't install on FAT32 partitions, it only likes NTFS partitions. We also know that the system performs quite well on an Athlon 4000+ and a Geforce 7800 GTX 512 works just fine in the mix. Aero glass looks good, we liked it when we first clapped eyes on Beta 1 version.

Vista occupies roughly three times more space than Windows XP. In fact, it'll require up to a whopping seven gigabytes of drive space.
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=30128
"

more info here:
under vista search:

http://www.theinquirer.net/Default.aspx?page=2



damn vista , lol and i was planning to set up a new rig during summer, now ill have to wait:(  ....and wait...and c ....:( 

More about : damn vista revolution

April 5, 2006 2:13:32 PM

I don't know why people keep bitching about FAT support. Does anyone with any ounce of computer knowledge actually use FAT anymore? (Well, those using 2K / XP anyway). NTFS is more stable and more secure... why would anyone want to install Vista on a FAT partition?
April 5, 2006 6:38:07 PM

Quote:
Will u stick with XP for the next couple of months or get vista?
XP for the next couple of month(s) after vista comes out
vista right away


of course I stick with xp for a while!

VISTA COMES OUT IN JANUARY! :wink:
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 6, 2006 1:21:06 AM

Quote:
damn vista , lol and i was planning to set up a new rig during summer, now ill have to wait:(  ....and wait...and c ....


Maybe you should read more....vista's original start date was not in the summer, it was months after that!
April 6, 2006 1:47:44 AM

i know it dosnt com ou tin summer lol but even a nice system built in sumer will be "crappy" in january 2007 ...i know hardware looses its value over time, but with vista itll be ...faster :( 
April 6, 2006 5:34:27 AM

Honestly... things are at the point there 2gigs of memory is probably better for users. Especially those that play certain games, multitask heavily, or leave their machines running until they crash and burn.

Even if Vista ends up being that bad of a memory hog, I'd expect good performance with the 2gigs I already planned to build in my next system, whenever that may be.

And as far as drivespace goes... if a person is going to be plunking down the hard cash for Vista, I am fairly sure their desktops are likely going to have 80gig drives or larger regardless. Maybe in the 250gig and higher range...
April 6, 2006 7:35:47 PM

im not complaining about space on hd to be honest i think 820mb's of memory for an operating systemis a bit (way) to much, .....what was windows doing then using videos as a wallpaper, with all 3d animated icons, leters changing colors????or what??? com on, honestly 800 mb for the operating system alone in idle is 2 mutch whatever way one would look at it....500 would be more resonable, 800 is just unthinkable to me , ( i know it is a new technology)i know that 2 gigs are becoming a standard, i was planning to get a 2 gigs in my new rig anyway (with a maximum botherboard limit of 16 gigs) but i honestly dont understand why would i need to waste almost 1 gig on the operating system?, rather than on other aplication...with vista out 2 gigs would be thought of anything special (not that its unusual now) anymore, and then with vista 4 gigs would be like 2 gigs right now with xp. to be honest i think that aero gloss or whatever ths called might have been on and was draining so mutch memory ...logicallly how whe ...blip...can an os use up 820mb in idle, and only haveing the os on a pc?
April 7, 2006 6:58:58 AM

wait a couple months? LOL.....more like wait a few years! :lol: 
April 7, 2006 5:01:15 PM

Quote:
I don't know why people keep bitching about FAT support. Does anyone with any ounce of computer knowledge actually use FAT anymore? (Well, those using 2K / XP anyway). NTFS is more stable and more secure... why would anyone want to install Vista on a FAT partition?


Well, someone running Win98 on another PC on their home network might find it useful...

Once upon a time, this was me, but the problem was easily summounted by:
a) Only moving files whilst sat at the Win2k machine
b) Having a separate drive for the shared files, and running Win2k from a NTFS partition.
April 7, 2006 10:21:48 PM

Doesn't matter... if you're doing it over a network, you can copy from / to FAT / NTFS partitions at will. If Win98 can read NTFS partitions over a network, then Vista should be able to do FAT.
April 8, 2006 12:28:13 AM

hmm...my 98SE could access the network shared folders on my wife's Dell, and those folders were on NTFS partitions. Is this not the same thing?
!