What is Digg?95 Comments
- zephc, on 11/28/2007, -8/+56"Vista Capable"? Is that like "Handi-capable"?
- andreusboy, on 11/28/2007, -4/+31The problem is: Vista capable = will barely run at all...
- Godlike, on 11/28/2007, -11/+38VISTA IS TO XP AS ME IS TO 98.
Move along. - inactive, on 11/28/2007, -5/+27whoa, whoa, whoa, do not lower ME to Vistas level
- sundancekid503, on 11/28/2007, -2/+21If there's anyone I trust, it's lawyers.
- carpespasm, on 11/28/2007, -3/+19i thought having "Vista Ready" slapped on every machine after microsoft decided on that name was misleading, doubly so once they released the specs and I realized that only the most crippled versions of vista would work on those machines.
- wabbiteh, on 11/28/2007, -1/+16It still seems kind of silly to effectively piss away computer resources for the sake of the small improvements in Vista. A linux desktop running a compositing WM has more or less the same capabilities as Vista, and is capable of running decently on older machines. Considering that a linux-based OS is something of a mish-mash of different software packages, and doesn't have the advantage that microsoft has of being able to provide a monolithic base for the OS, it's just plain poor that Vista requires a large bump in hardware specs.
Even the swap from 2000 to XP was similar. The higher requirements really don't seem justified by the changes.
(This isn't a LINUX IS THE BEST post by the way, it's just the most apt comparison I could think of.) - chukd, on 11/28/2007, -2/+17I won't get into OSX is better than Windows or Windows is better than OSX. I do think that Steve Jobs has the right idea by only releasing one version of the operating system. It avoids these problems. Microsoft should learn from this and not think about their wallet.
- BossKey, on 11/28/2007, -0/+13It isn't just that Apple sells one version of OS X. It's that OS X is more efficient in general.
The just-released OS X 10.5 Leopard will run very competently on a 5-year-old Mac laptop with 1 GB of RAM. I have seen this. I am running the previous system, 10.4, pretty well on my backup Mac G3 laptop that is over seven years old. How usable would Vista be on a 5-7 year-old PC laptop with 1GB RAM? Yeah, I think you know the answer already. - blastradius, on 11/28/2007, -0/+13Because it's Vista Capable.
- Remmy, on 11/28/2007, -0/+13Wait... I'm seeing a trend here...
95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista. Good, good, bad, good, good, bad. It's a conspiracy! - UNL1M1T3D, on 11/28/2007, -4/+17Yeah try explaining to customers what Vista capable means. Now try and calm down said customers returning their "Vista capable" machine.
- chesscat, on 11/28/2007, -4/+15Ha ha, even high priced suits can't figure it out. Vista sucks.
- MioTheGreat, on 11/28/2007, -5/+15I know quite a few people happily running Vista at 1gig. By no means does it 'fly', but it's not slow.
- Remmy, on 11/28/2007, -0/+10Stop ruining my paranoid conspiracy theories!
- chukd, on 11/28/2007, -1/+11I didn't mention Bill Gates. He isn't in charge of Microsoft currently. I did say Microsoft. This wasn't about any Apple or Microsoft ***** pissing contest. The fact of the matter is I own both Apple and Microsoft (XP) Os's. Please read (reading implies comprehending) a comment before you spout your fanboy comments.
- AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -0/+9Sorta, but it means you're more disabled than normal.
- Vector713, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9No sir, because vista is not handy
- hartley, on 11/28/2007, -0/+9To play devils advocate here, a 233mhz with 64mb of ram is technically "XP Capable/Ready" doesn't mean its going to running well though.
I was still on 2000 WELL after XP came out. As with Vista, XP's graphical increases often left users wondering if its worth upgrading just for some bells and whitsles. Is it worth the decrease in performance? Of course a few years later, no one cared and 2000 was only being used by the most devoted of users, and for those who still had the aging machines.
Doesn't mean I don't agree that Vista seems to be "crappier" than the other releases have been. The hardware is just taking slightly longer to give us the boost to where we're not caring that we're running Vista. - adragontattoo, on 11/28/2007, -5/+13would you rather we go back to IPhone, Mac or Linux articles?
- spammishking, on 11/28/2007, -0/+8It's not the same as Windows XP Capable. Vista has several different versions (Home Basic, Premium, Pro, and Ultimate) And the different versions require different minimum hardware to run well enough to use. XP basically has 2 editions home and pro, and if you can run one version you can run the other
- hartley, on 11/28/2007, -0/+7@wabbiteh
Of course it seems silly, but it's just as silly to think that Microsoft and the major manufacturers don't have a planned obsolescence deal in place. This is part of the progress the "industry" wants to instill just to get you to buy new hardware every 2-3 years.
Again, doesn't mean I agree, just stating how I see it. - MortalynFlux, on 11/28/2007, -2/+9In general, the public does not benefit from class action lawsuits. The lawyers do, however, and sometimes the companies being sued. I once signed up for a class action lawsuit against Creative Labs for buying an external sound interface advertised as 96khz 21 bit when it was only 44.1 khz 16 bit. What did I get? A measly coupon for a discount for more expensive sound interfaces from Creative Labs. I'm sure the lawyers made a killing, though.
- badassninja, on 11/28/2007, -2/+8When you look at the LCD's at new egg some of them say "Vista Capable" ( or Vista Ready, I can't remember. ) And every time I see that I always say to myself, What the ***** is wrong with Vista that only some LCD's work with it?
- blackmage439, on 11/28/2007, -0/+6"Vista Capable" is about as ridiculous as "Minimum System Requirements," and even some "Recommended" ones. "Minimum" requirements are such a freaking joke. Anyone who runs anything on those specs will have a severely gimped product, and Vista is certainly no exception.
Give me ONE, NON-GIMPED, REASONABLY PRICED version of Vista, and I may adopt it. Until then, I'm perfectly happy "upgrading to a more familiar version" through XP. - ggoyal, on 11/28/2007, -1/+7Problem is my HP Laptop was pasted with a Vista capable sticker when I bought it in June 2006 and there are still no official supported Vista drivers for some components, such as sound card.
- Daggity, on 11/28/2007, -1/+6The site is terribly slow, http://duggmirror.com/microsoft/Lawyers_Even_Micro ...
- mrBitch, on 11/28/2007, -0/+5@sexybobo :
" ... Yes it requires more resources but every new operating system Microsoft or apple has ever released requires more resources then the previous version. "
That's not correct. I upgraded my 12 month old MacBook Pro to Leopard and OSX is running FASTER.
This is new to me, since I switched a year ago - I also thought each new OS upgrade should run SLOWER.
The new OSX upgrade runs FASTER on my MacBook - and that is a very pleasant surprise. - markstory, on 11/28/2007, -2/+7Even better is the USB keyboard with 'Vista ready'. Honestly is vista driver support so shoddy that they need special keyboards. Its a bloody USB keyboard for goodness sakes.
- lazyrussian, on 11/28/2007, -3/+7Linux please, especially with all the bells and whistles (compiz) that you have to pay for in Macs and Windows (though I like Apple Hardware).
My P.O.S. Toshiba, 1.83GHz, 512mb ram, on board graphics and sound, can run with compiz at full blast and with Wine I can still use all the programs I want.
So yes, please enough of these Vista articles - more linux please :)
/fanboyism - LeRenard, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4It's HDCP. Vista will degrade high-def content on non approved monitors to prevent 'theft'. It's to prevent the "analog hole" by having content protection right up to the display, and if you display doesn't handle that, Vista won't send it full resolution output. Hence, "Vista Capable" vs. non-capable.
- DrStephanHeimer, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4@Resiroth
"Apple is well known for marking up prices beyond reason."
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Upgrade - Retail $249
Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate Full Version - Retai $319.99
Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard $129
Mac OS X v10.5 Leopard (5 user familty pack) $199
Whose prices are marked up beyond reason?
As far as the Nano goes, although i'm sure you got the $80 cost figure from someone high up at apple, you didn't bother to find out how much it costs other manufacturers to make MP3 players. I'm sure that apple, creative, sony and others are all pretty much on the same page as far as markup goes.
And FYI many companies charge too much for RAM and other upgrades. Go configure a computer at Dell.com and you'll see $400 RAM upgrades and other ridiculous pricing. - mrBitch, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Problems ? I am running the new OSX for a month now and I am not experiencing any problems. One BIG thing about the Leopard upgrade is that OSX is now running FASTER than before ( on my 12 month old MacBook ). Leopard looks like an OS upgrade that actually improves performance. And THAT is a pleasant surprise, as I was always led to believe that an OS upgrade would ALWAYS run slower on existing hardware.
- AnarkeIncarnate, on 11/28/2007, -0/+4Yeah, and I am sure if you got a faster hard drive, and a DVD burner and perhaps a better graphics card it would run better too... Show me a 7yr old laptop that can handle 2GB+ RAM.........
Lets not take apart the argument. He said WITH 1GB of RAM. What you did was remove his clause for no other reason than to not have to support his argument. - Thre3e, on 11/28/2007, -1/+5Most people just don't know much about computers. It's like minimum specs in games, just because you have the minimum to specs to run it doesn't mean you will be able to play it on the highest graphics.
- inquebiss, on 11/28/2007, -4/+8I thought ME was awesome! No I didn't.
- Herostratus, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3I am tech. I work in computers. A repair shop more precisely. I've sold a few vista machines and I've worked on a few. Now I tell everyone inquiring about Vista to stay with XP or to find a computer with it. We will happily downgrade you for only 99$. Must've saved a few hundred people already. Must be what a missionary feels like.
- LeRenard, on 11/28/2007, -1/+495 decent, 95 OSR 2 a bit better, NT 4 eh, NT 4 SP3 very good, 98 ok, 98 SE good but not perfect, 2000 good, 2000 /w SP much better, ME BAD, XP eh, XP SP1 pretty good, XP SP2 really good, Vista, not good, Vista SP 1 ??, XP SP 3 ??
- Myztry, on 11/28/2007, -3/+6Capable is a misunderstood term. Take the acceleration and top speed of 1970's small car.
People would assume it's not capable of reaching say 150 km/h, and in under 15 seconds.
You've just got to find a high enough cliff... Have they tried dropping Vista off a cliff yet? - LeRenard, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3The problem is Vista requires substantially more resources to do things just about as well as XP, and it's new features are either useless (eye candy), not appealing to the average user, or hidden 'under the hood'. The net result is that appears to take a lot more machine to do the exact same things people were doing in XP (which for the majority of users is office, email, and web browsing)
- MacParrot, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3I also have found that newer versions of OSX runs faster than the previous one. I have a 933Mhz G4 QuickSilver tower that started life on 10.2 and I found that it was faster and more responsive when I installed 10.3 and then 10.4. I haven't installed Leopard on it yet (and may not since it has been replaced with an Intel iMac), but I have installed it on my 933 G4 iBook. I think I'm hitting the point of diminishing returns on the hardware as it isn't any faster under 10.5 as it was under 10.4. However considering it's over 4 years old and a PPC, I should be delighted it runs it at all.
My Intel iMac on the other hand feels much snappier with 10.5 - jayvisaria, on 11/28/2007, -4/+7Vista = Windows Me 2.0 Premium Professional Turkey Edition
- inactive, on 11/28/2007, -2/+5err what? Windows 2000 came before windows ME
- winmywii, on 11/28/2007, -0/+3The real features that Microsoft boasted about never even made release. Maybe the new file system (and whatever else they promised) would have made a difference. Instead they scrap useful feature for bling.
- cleanideas, on 11/28/2007, -6/+9"Hasta la Vista, baby!"
- computerfreedom, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Vista makes the Federal government look efficient.
- smek2, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3No wonder Billy-Boy is about to quit.
- Truzseeker, on 11/28/2007, -0/+2Damn digg, was in the middle of adding more to comments. At one time I also was involved in programming, and you never release a program until it was completely debugged or tested in order to avoid costs associated with costs associated with poor quality. Also end users should never rush into downloading any new program.
- Truzseeker, on 11/28/2007, -1/+3Vista users = SUCKERS
- Resiroth, on 02/05/2008, -0/+1MAC OSX can only be used ( until recently ) on mac computers which is a fairly small market which already pays for these updates in the price. Yes, many other companies have similar prices on mp3 players but other companies ( including Microsoft ) have sails or price drops. Zune 8 dropped 20 dollars recently and can be found with 15 dollar gift certificates to the store etc. No other company (excluding small volume custom computers like NW ) charges 800 dollars for 3gb of ram. Apple is the only one.
-
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is