the minimum system requirements for vista are hefty (1 GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 28 VRAM). especially since i can run the latest version of OSX on a computer with a 466 MHz CPU, 640 MB RAM, and 16MB VRAM; and OSX is basically what they ripped off to create vista.
and i'm not sold on direct x 10 either, there's really no reason for the upgrade when it comes to gaming. and playing computer games is one of the only reasons i still use windows.
it'll be a while before i upgrade from XP professional.
Windows Vista...What We Know
Moderator: staff
Is that what Leopard will require?Boogie Man wrote:the minimum system requirements for vista are hefty (1 GHz CPU, 1GB RAM, 28 VRAM). especially since i can run the latest version of OSX on a computer with a 466 MHz CPU, 640 MB RAM, and 16MB VRAM; and OSX is basically what they ripped off to create vista.
I mean, the latest OS X has been around during the timeframe that XP has, which is a lot less memory hungry. (Also note that 1GB RAM is the recommended requirement, not the minimum - although admittedly I wouldn't run any Windows machine with less than 1GB these days.)
-
Boogie Man
- one of us
- Posts: 8203
- Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2003 8:51 am
- Location: Australia
well, my point is that os x tiger 10.4.10, running on a shitbox computer, already has a lot of these supposedly "new" features being touted in vista (that os x has a had for years), even if it is a windows xp era os.
features such as...
- lossless PNG icons.
- desktop gadgets - ie. widgets / mac os dashboard.
- side bar with favorite links.
- windows search - ie. spotlight / mac os auto hdd indexing.
- flip 3d - ie. 'f9' on a mac, to sort through windows.
- the bundled programs and the system utility applications, are either as good, or worse than what you get with os x.
- vista still has shite colour management compared to os x, a least its better than xp.
- auto hdd defragging - ie. mac os extended formatting / hot-file-adaptive-clustering.
- microsoft firefox, i mean IE 7.
- IE7 "protected" mode - ie. connecting to a network using proxy server, and disabling plugins.
i can't say that there aren't any unique features in windows vista...
such as...
- individual application volume adjustment.
- built in diagnostics, to help stop programs crashing the operating system (which rarely ever happens in os x).
- funky thumbnail handling.
- the new encryption tools seem cool, but i don't know much about them.
umm, that's all i can think of; and it's certainly not enough to make me want to fork out $400 aud for a copy of the os, or 200-and-something dollars for the upgrade. not to mention the money needed to get a shit hot graphics card that's direct x 10 compatible. add to this that fact that it doesn't run a lot of xp applications, and you'll see why i think vista fails.
features such as...
- lossless PNG icons.
- desktop gadgets - ie. widgets / mac os dashboard.
- side bar with favorite links.
- windows search - ie. spotlight / mac os auto hdd indexing.
- flip 3d - ie. 'f9' on a mac, to sort through windows.
- the bundled programs and the system utility applications, are either as good, or worse than what you get with os x.
- vista still has shite colour management compared to os x, a least its better than xp.
- auto hdd defragging - ie. mac os extended formatting / hot-file-adaptive-clustering.
- microsoft firefox, i mean IE 7.
- IE7 "protected" mode - ie. connecting to a network using proxy server, and disabling plugins.
i can't say that there aren't any unique features in windows vista...
such as...
- individual application volume adjustment.
- built in diagnostics, to help stop programs crashing the operating system (which rarely ever happens in os x).
- funky thumbnail handling.
- the new encryption tools seem cool, but i don't know much about them.
umm, that's all i can think of; and it's certainly not enough to make me want to fork out $400 aud for a copy of the os, or 200-and-something dollars for the upgrade. not to mention the money needed to get a shit hot graphics card that's direct x 10 compatible. add to this that fact that it doesn't run a lot of xp applications, and you'll see why i think vista fails.
Well yeah, people should stick with what works for them. Personally I'm happy sticking with XP and even 2000, it has all the features I need, and won't for now being switching to Vista (or OS X, or anything else).
All operating systems tend to take features off of each other, some come first in Mac OS X, some in Windows, some in others like Linux (e.g., Time Machine, Spaces, Quick Look).
Windows has had search before, I think it's just supposed to be improved on Vista. Windows has had Active Desktop since before OS X even existed, which allows widgets, but it's now been replaced with the sidebar. Firefox has been on Windows just as long as OS X - and it had Opera for years before that.
You don't need a DirectX 10 graphics card to run Vista - rather, it's that DirectX 10 is only available on Vista.
I don't think MS have ever made huge amounts of sales by people upgrading to a new OS - instead they sell new versions with new computers.
All operating systems tend to take features off of each other, some come first in Mac OS X, some in Windows, some in others like Linux (e.g., Time Machine, Spaces, Quick Look).
Windows has had search before, I think it's just supposed to be improved on Vista. Windows has had Active Desktop since before OS X even existed, which allows widgets, but it's now been replaced with the sidebar. Firefox has been on Windows just as long as OS X - and it had Opera for years before that.
You don't need a DirectX 10 graphics card to run Vista - rather, it's that DirectX 10 is only available on Vista.
I don't think MS have ever made huge amounts of sales by people upgrading to a new OS - instead they sell new versions with new computers.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests