How Many Of You Are Going To Upgrade To Vista?

[lalaland 10]

How can you possibly say Vista is more stable and more secure OS when it hasn't been out 'in the real' world yet? Because MS says it is?

It's been available to corporate users since last year, the release version, not the Beta.

[lalaland 10]

infact given it's insane minimum spec demands I'm almost certainly better off sticking with what I've got.

People seem to think that Vista requires a beast of a machine to run it, this is not true. If you check out the minimum spec on Microsoft's site you'll see it's nothing special.

[plekhanov 10]

People seem to think that Vista requires a beast of a machine to run it, this is not true. If you check out the minimum spec on Microsoft's site you'll see it's nothing special.

When the minimum specs are 1gb ram, 128mb vram, 1GHz, and 15gb free just for the OS you will need a 'special' machine to run Vista smoothly and in terms of vram even the minimum specs are more than I have on any of my machines.

[lalaland 10]

The Ultimate version of Vista and the premium Home Version have become available to me if I wanted them - and my PC would be fine to run them both - the problem being.

 

I dont really want to have to use 15gb to put Vista onto my PC.

 

That to me is very excessive - unless its amazingly better than Win XP which I would doubt.

I have Windows Vista Ultimate installed on my PC right now and a quick check of the Windows files show them to be using 7.43gb of space, not 15gb.

[lalaland 10]

When the minimum specs are 1gb ram, 128mb vram, 1GHz, and 15gb free just for the OS you will need a 'special' machine to run Vista smoothly and in terms of vram even the minimum specs are more than I have on any of my machines.

The minimum specs are actually

A modern processor (at least 800MHz¹).

 

512 MB of system memory.

 

A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

 

Which isn't actually that high a spec compared to today's PCs.

[plekhanov 10]

The minimum specs are actually

A modern processor (at least 800MHz¹).

 

512 MB of system memory.

 

A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.

 

Which isn't actually that high a spec compared to today's PCs.

And if you want to use the fancy 3d windows which is apparently one of the great new things about vista?

 

Besides you haven't addressed the point which is that for a pc to run well and for you to be able to multitask effectively you need to have significantly more than the minimum specs.

[lalaland 10]

And if you want to use the fancy 3d windows which is apparently one of the great new things about vista?

Then you would need more than the minimum specs, however my post was replying to where you said "When the minimum specs are 1gb ram, 128mb vram, 1GHz, and 15gb free just for the OS".

 

Besides you haven't addressed the point which is that for a pc to run well and for you to be able to multitask effectively you need to have significantly more than the minimum specs.

As stated above, I was correcting your incorrect minimum spec post. On the subject of this, we have a minimum spec test machine at work and while it doesn't perform anywhere near as well as the higher spec'd machines it does perform. Like any OS or piece of software, give it the minimum requirements and it will run, give it more and you'll get more out of it.

 

Vista isn't all about the Aero theme. Yes it's a nice touch, but it's not the whole package and I am sure there'll be many people that run Vista without it either through choice or through machine spec.

[plekhanov 10]

So you concede that my point about Vista's ridiculous specs stands? Both my machines currently run well with their existing OS's why on earth would I want to spend lots of money to have them run vista badly?

[lalaland 10]

So you concede that my point about Vista's ridiculous specs stands? Both my machines currently run well with their existing OS's why on earth would I want to spend lots of money to have them run vista badly?

 

No I wouldn't. If you wanted to use the basic features of Vista and had the minimum spec then you'd be fine. The minimum spec isn't actually that high and most people that use their PCs often will be above that these days. Those that hardly use their PCs won't have an interest in their OS anyway so the odd lower than minimum spec'd PC won't matter.

 

The minimum spec isn't high at all.

 

The one thing this does show is that we are progressing with development. I am sure my older PCs that I used to use to run Window 3.1 and ealier wouldn't even run Windows 95 (in fact I know they wouldn't) and I am sure my old Windows 95 PC wouldn't run XP. This isn't anything new.

 

The jump from XP to Vista isn't massive in terms of requirements. If you want to do more with your PC you normally need a higher spec PC. Vista offers basic features and it also comes with nice extras that you can use if you wish.

[sccsux 10]

I have Windows Vista Ultimate installed on my PC right now and a quick check of the Windows files show them to be using 7.43gb of space, not 15gb.

 

Whereas I have Win 98 on this box (though it easily meets the Pista specs), which is using 837M of HD space.

 

Even the kids PC (XP) OS takes less than 2G (including all docs & settings).

[lalaland 10]

Whereas I have Win 98 on this box (though it easily meets the Pista specs), which is using 837M of HD space.

 

Even the kids PC (XP) OS takes less than 2G (including all docs & settings).

 

And compare them to MSDos installations of even the pre x86 PCs that we used to use where the OS was loaded from 5/14" floppy disks without a hard drive being present.

 

This still isn't anything new.

[esme 10]

It's been available to corporate users since last year, the release version, not the Beta.

 

Is this your own company ?