I won't use Vista until I have no other choice. Windows XP rocks; why would I want to run something that uses more base system resources than what I currently use? How can it perform better by requiring more RAM and CPU speed and disk space? It's illogical.
"How much will Vista slow down before final release?"Vista will be "feature complete" as of the next release and by then we'll know for sure."Better get your WDDM ready graphics cards and motherboards ready boys."Only if you're interested in running Aero Glass and the other extra eye candy...my 32mb on-board GeForce 2 from 4 years ago works perfectly with the eye candy turned off."Want to see most of vista today, it's first 2 service packs? OSX 10.4.3... Enjoy..."This is the single most idiotic and misinformed post in this entire thread. Vista is 'nothing' like OS X. Do some research instead of spewing lame Apple-centric bulls**t all over this thread.
maverick -you are in no position to know what i get or don't get. you assume that just because i'm not blowing linus torvalds in every post that i'm some ingrate microsoft fanboy without a clue. i'm an avid linux enthusiast as well as a windows developer. i use both daily and i enjoy them both very much, and i'm also frustrated by them both. i use whatever is best for a situation. i'm willing to try any approach (windows, linux, or otherwise) to enrich my knowledge and my experience. maybe some day i'll finally use that piece of software that gets everything right, maybe not. i do know that i definitely never will if i get pointlessly emotional and closeminded about a goddamned software company.bloat, yeah, probably. you'll have that when you're trying to integrate 20 years worth of various features from different products into a single software initiative (while providing as much backwards compatibility as possible, of course). is it perfect? hell no. GOD no. However, i'm pretty sure you're pulling that 2000% figure out of your ass which is just rediculous. no reason to get that riled up.as for the rest of your comment, i don't understand what you're trying to say.
"btw, I wouldn't even put together an XP system with < 512MB Ram."For a very long time I was running XP with 256MB. That much is fine for web browsing/word processing. I didn't even notice much of a difference for basic usage when I upgraded to 512MB.
It's a little unfair to hammer Vista at this point. Except for being so late to the party. If you keep an eye on Channel9 videos you can really see Vista is coming together to be a very interesting successor to XP. Using beta's now and all the misinformation floating around just gives a very bad skew on what Vista is shaping up to be.It is far far more than SP3.
It's funny reading through all the comments, for starters I'm a person who researches before posting any opinion on anything. I use a mac for work (design work) a pc for games and what not and 'used' linux when I went to university and you know what, it's all about the ease of use for the general public so that said every OS is pretty much the same.To those who didn't bother reading, these are GUIDELINES and not requirements, start doing some research and see what kind of rigs people are running the vista at. It doesn't mean you have to upgrade whatsoever it just means you will miss out on the new eye-candy. Unless you really have an ancient computer, which even then I don't think you would have the right to bag vista out, then you should consider an upgrade for your own sake.Vista is nothing like XP it's not an amped up version (maybe in some ways) so it's going to function differently. I'm not saying it'll work better but comparing XP to Vista is like comparing Tiger OSX to windows XP.Bottom line is to the windows lovers: Windows isn't good, it's just mainstream and easy to use. To the Linux lovers: Some people just don't have the time or the knowledge to make linux run. To the Mac lovers, some people just don't like the whole mac feel.Who ever or whatever you're using I'm sure is fine so why bashing each other, I use all of them and they're all great in their own ways it just comes down to the USER who uses it and believe it or not every OS out there is as unstable as windows (to some people) when it comes to a user who doesn't know how to use it.That being said, I think the fundamental thing to answer is that (for recap) NO You don't have to upgrade unless your computer is ancient, if it holds up well running XP it's enough to run Vista imbo :)
So I'm guessing, by the complete anti-microsoft posts from some of the linux crews I'm the only linux user who has tried vista to think that Windows actually feels ALOT closer to linux than any previous version of windows? I sit down at this Vista computer and I don't feel like I'm running windows, I feel like I'm running Linux. and that's a good thing in my eyes.
shockingbirdJan 6, 2006
I can't wait to get the Intel M0d3rn processor.
supergeekJan 6, 2006
I won't use Vista until I have no other choice. Windows XP rocks; why would I want to run something that uses more base system resources than what I currently use? How can it perform better by requiring more RAM and CPU speed and disk space? It's illogical.
hotwaterhamJan 6, 2006
"How much will Vista slow down before final release?"Vista will be "feature complete" as of the next release and by then we'll know for sure."Better get your WDDM ready graphics cards and motherboards ready boys."Only if you're interested in running Aero Glass and the other extra eye candy...my 32mb on-board GeForce 2 from 4 years ago works perfectly with the eye candy turned off."Want to see most of vista today, it's first 2 service packs? OSX 10.4.3... Enjoy..."This is the single most idiotic and misinformed post in this entire thread. Vista is 'nothing' like OS X. Do some research instead of spewing lame Apple-centric bulls**t all over this thread.
whisperedlieJan 6, 2006
maverick -you are in no position to know what i get or don't get. you assume that just because i'm not blowing linus torvalds in every post that i'm some ingrate microsoft fanboy without a clue. i'm an avid linux enthusiast as well as a windows developer. i use both daily and i enjoy them both very much, and i'm also frustrated by them both. i use whatever is best for a situation. i'm willing to try any approach (windows, linux, or otherwise) to enrich my knowledge and my experience. maybe some day i'll finally use that piece of software that gets everything right, maybe not. i do know that i definitely never will if i get pointlessly emotional and closeminded about a goddamned software company.bloat, yeah, probably. you'll have that when you're trying to integrate 20 years worth of various features from different products into a single software initiative (while providing as much backwards compatibility as possible, of course). is it perfect? hell no. GOD no. However, i'm pretty sure you're pulling that 2000% figure out of your ass which is just rediculous. no reason to get that riled up.as for the rest of your comment, i don't understand what you're trying to say.
peerkJan 6, 2006
"btw, I wouldn't even put together an XP system with < 512MB Ram."For a very long time I was running XP with 256MB. That much is fine for web browsing/word processing. I didn't even notice much of a difference for basic usage when I upgraded to 512MB.
riddickromJan 7, 2006
It's a little unfair to hammer Vista at this point. Except for being so late to the party. If you keep an eye on Channel9 videos you can really see Vista is coming together to be a very interesting successor to XP. Using beta's now and all the misinformation floating around just gives a very bad skew on what Vista is shaping up to be.It is far far more than SP3.
drunkmonkJan 8, 2006
I'm supprised that vista will run on some of the lower end GPU's, anyone have news on how much HDD space it will take up?
bosleyMar 19, 2006
It's funny reading through all the comments, for starters I'm a person who researches before posting any opinion on anything. I use a mac for work (design work) a pc for games and what not and 'used' linux when I went to university and you know what, it's all about the ease of use for the general public so that said every OS is pretty much the same.To those who didn't bother reading, these are GUIDELINES and not requirements, start doing some research and see what kind of rigs people are running the vista at. It doesn't mean you have to upgrade whatsoever it just means you will miss out on the new eye-candy. Unless you really have an ancient computer, which even then I don't think you would have the right to bag vista out, then you should consider an upgrade for your own sake.Vista is nothing like XP it's not an amped up version (maybe in some ways) so it's going to function differently. I'm not saying it'll work better but comparing XP to Vista is like comparing Tiger OSX to windows XP.Bottom line is to the windows lovers: Windows isn't good, it's just mainstream and easy to use. To the Linux lovers: Some people just don't have the time or the knowledge to make linux run. To the Mac lovers, some people just don't like the whole mac feel.Who ever or whatever you're using I'm sure is fine so why bashing each other, I use all of them and they're all great in their own ways it just comes down to the USER who uses it and believe it or not every OS out there is as unstable as windows (to some people) when it comes to a user who doesn't know how to use it.That being said, I think the fundamental thing to answer is that (for recap) NO You don't have to upgrade unless your computer is ancient, if it holds up well running XP it's enough to run Vista imbo :)
fritzelJan 4, 2007
So I'm guessing, by the complete anti-microsoft posts from some of the linux crews I'm the only linux user who has tried vista to think that Windows actually feels ALOT closer to linux than any previous version of windows? I sit down at this Vista computer and I don't feel like I'm running windows, I feel like I'm running Linux. and that's a good thing in my eyes.