This is kinda comical, in a very pathetic way. eWeek says that many of the PC's in use for business really aren't Vista ready. Uh, Redmond, we have a problem. Williams attributes the poor state of hardware readiness among North American companies to the sharp increase in the hardware resources required to run Vista; the fact that many organizations are maintaining longer hardware refresh cycles where they support PCs for more than five years; and a lack of easy access to the PC inventory information needed to implement an effective life cycle management process. To be fair, there's been other experts stating that Vista would be the fastest adopted version of Windows. Still, I can't shake the feeling Vista is going to be the biggest flop since Windows ME.
I was thinking about this subject today actually.. I was thinking.. i really do wonder if part of the reason that Windows worked on something with such high system reqs. I mean - Linux and mac both provide better graphical environments than vista with less specs... so why the high reqs? I wonder if they're trying to help hardware companies for some reason. I know its doubtful since they dont give a care about other companies, but what do you guys think? Any possible truth in what I'm speculating?
Baring in mind Intel only stopped making the Pentium 3 (the 600e and 800eb were new designs) three months before Windows XP came out.... plus all the driver problems that went with it Id say Vista is more suited to the market than XP was when that was released. It usable on many systems just not practicle. Isnt Vista about 3 years late too? Maybe its better to be late than to be useless. Theres no way it would have a place on the market 3 years ago!
The problem is, the two main reasons for Vista, namely Aero and DirectX 10, only add bloat. I'm not opposed to a flashy interface, the NT code isn't terrible, and Direct X 10 is a drastic change. Still, what Vista feels like is a way for Microsoft to draw the line in the sand for gamers. Vista has had a lot of things dropped that would've made it a worthwhile OS. The thing is, it feels like they've taken XP and wrapped it around DX10 and tossed Aero in it. The only reason to upgrade to Vista is if you're a gamer and you want to run DX10. No doubt DX10 is going to be a major change, but the way it's integrated into the OS feels like blackmail for gamers. I like the NT code, but Microsoft is stretching it and crapifying a decent code. What they need to do is start with a new code, which they were originally going to do with Vista. Had they done that, they probably would've had a better shot at making Vista a lot less system heavy. I can run Linux with KDE on a dual Celeron 466, 256MB of RAM and a 32MB AGP GeForce 2 MX. I don't think that system meets the minimum requirements for Vista. I'm not ready to jump on the Linux bandwagon as I'm not familiar enough with Linux for it to be comfortable for my uses, but I look at Vista and have flashbacks of Windows ME. While the stability probably won't be a real issue like ME had, Vista adds a lot of crap without adding value. The only reason to upgrade to Vista is if you need to have DX10 right away.
I would actually like to know what advantages there are for businesses to use Vista. Would an office worker really become more productive if he had Aero? I think the only advantage over NT5 is that it has a better limited user account group, which isn't going to be as robust as Unix, but it's better than nothing.
I forgot about the DX10 thing. They really do have you by the balls there. Seeing as they started on Vista in 2001 they dont have any excuse not to have started fresh and stopped using nt code. We tried to install it on a computer with 640mb of RAM and it simply wouldn't do it. It demanded 1gb. Can you imagine the cost it would upgrade office computers to that! I think id whack windows 2000 on them instead! A 7 year old operating system! Ive only just read the article! Im surprised 71% of business computers net the requirements of xp, its so much more demanding than 2000, nt and 98.
I will be upgrading to Vista eventually, and i will be building a new rig for it too, as i will need direct x 10 eventually to play the latest games, to play games at a good level on vista, you not only need a rig thats awsome for gaming in xp, but thats overkill for gaming in xp lol, vista uses so much memory, battlefield 2 benefits from 2gb of memory in windows?, well it benefits from 4gb of memory in vista then, its just crazy. If i could have dx10 in windows xp, i would never move to vista, all the effects and looks of vista can be done in windows xp, and still not use as much memory as vista. I like all the looks and stuff of vista, it would be easier getting vista, means i dont need to mess about on windows xp installing window blinds, because there is a nice skin allready, at the moment i have 512mb of ram, 1gb will be a benefit for me with windows xp, when if i upgraded to vista, it would just be going backwards and would be worse than windows xp with 512mb, at the moment, its not worth me using vista actually, just to run vista on my current machine, it would cost me more upgrading than it would to actually buy vista.
From what I can see, DX10 won't be required for the first set of DX10 games like Crysis, but I would guess that DX10 will be required after a few years. That, of course depends on the adoption rate.
DX9.0L or something, it will be used in Vista for DX9 cards. I dunno about XP though, i rekon they will be an updated DX9 for xp.
well, back when they starting telling the public about vista, they were all saying of well Vista will have better security through this and this, and a new file system. That would have been real cool, but obviously non of that has happened. just my two cents
I am surprised they did not make a new filesystem, NTFS is abit old now, maybe they could of made some performance improvements if they used a new filesystem, but in the end they might of though that making a new file system would mean that all the data someone has would become incompatible with the new file system.
The WinFS file system was one of the things that was dropped. I forget all the details, but Vista was going to be a major overhaul for Windows originally. I thought they were going to still use the NT code, but start from there and go up. I'm not sure if it was still going to be the NT5 code or if there would've been enough changes to call it the NT6 code...anyway, the Vista they're putting out is a shadow compared to what Microsoft started to do initially.
I think that sums up Vista in the best way so far I personally see no need for the average home user to upgrade - to do so would require them to either: a) Upgrade their entire computer to get the full effect of Vista (basically the new skin) b) Stick with less effects and what is essentially XP with a different skin. Obviously if the 'average user' knew what was really going on they'd avoid it but people will be duped (sp?) into buying it as they believe it'll be worthwhile. They'll think it's totally new, a more secure, reliable OS etc etc. While it may be slightly more secure, it's not really new, and it's so much more bloated that it's hard to see what all the extra system resources it's hogging are going on - the only major new thing is the interface. If people were to wise up to what's really going on then they'd see no point in moving to Vista - unfortunately most computer users are naiive and as such will believe anything a sales person tells them. That's another downside - sales people in most computer shops *cough* PC World*cough* know absolutely jack schnitt. They'll be told how good Vista is, maybe say "ooooooh" and "aaaaaah" for a bit then they'll try and go and sell it to as many people as possible, and like stated previously, most users will believe anything the sales person tells them as "they know best" in the mind of the customer.
Window Blinds cost me $20. Vista would cost me $150-250. Don't get me wrong, I don't hate Windows, but unless I end up with a free copy of Vista, I think I'm just going to pass and wait for Vista successor.
I don't think so. 5-6 years is really a long time for Microsoft to wait for an OS upgrade. Typically, it's been about 2-3 years. For business reasons alone, I can't see them wanting a repeat of taking this long to put out what's arguably their main product.
