What is Digg?Sponsored by Activision
Band Hero view!
guitarhero.com - The biggest event music event of the year is now in your living room.
136 Comments
- hchaudh1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+50From the article: "In addition, computers will need at least 1GB of RAM to run Vista"
1 GB RAM for shiny buttons. BRILLIANT!!!
Just couldn't resist. - VulnoX, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21Yeah not to beat it further, but roosh4 and "youareretarded" hit it right on.
When XP came out people said the same thing. 98 wont run on most of the PC's used in business from the Windows 3.1/95 days.
This is like saying that Doom 3 sucked (personal opinion aside) because you could not run it on your 3 year old system. Or Half Life 2, or Fear, take your pick.
Its progress, and Vista offers a lot more than shiny buttons, people that say that might as well hold up a big sign saying "I AM IGNORANT AND HATE THINGS FOR MY OWN SHALLOW REASONS!"
Vista may not revolutionize much, but their ideas for DX10 and many of the new ways they plan on working with applications are beyond anything else out there, including the almighty OSX.
Read up or dont say anything. - phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20DON'T FORGET ABOUT INTERWEB 2.0!!!
- pjh3000, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Shut up. Shut up! SHUT THE FECK UP!!! I am so sick and tired of having to hear just how wonderful and amazing Linux is. It'll install on any machine, even your can opener. It's 117% free. It's gaping open sourced!
I know, I know, I run Linux too. But if Linux is so great, then why do you have to go on and on about it? In my teen years I learned that whenever someone had to tell me something was going to be "fun", it sure wasn't. So why do other Linux geeks have to spend their waking hours preaching to other Linux geeks about how great Linux is. I ALREADY KNOW. Go tell your parents, your (non-tech) friends, your CEO, your Grandma. Just stop tell me!
$rant -off - roosh4, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I'm not a huge microsoft fan, but i do remember this type of "the earth is exploding" news when XP was going to come out.
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15A lot of companies still run windows 2000. Shiny glass aero gui doesn't raise productivity.
- Agret, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15I thought M$ could survive for 20 years generating no income at all just with their cash reserves. I doubt they will fall.
- prot0col, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Most companies will wait a few years to upgrade anyway. A LARGE company I just left was in the middle of rolling out XP. One more reason why I left.
- jermm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Now, is the 1gB ram absolute minimum, or something that you will get good performance. OSX can boot with 256mB, but its painful with less then 512mB, and you really need 1gB for doing anything other then email. Is 1gB enough, like OSX, or do you really need 2 or 4gB in vista?
- VulnoX, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Why would they need to run Aero Glass? You dont have to run Aero to run Vista. That is not all of what Vista offers! Hell if it was, why upgrade at all. A lot of Vista's enterprise upgrades come in security and functionality. I am running XP at work right now, and this is not a new thing for us. We just recently had a computer refresh, but the computers we had before these had XP on them too.
There is a reason companies run XP. Our IT reports a less than 1% downtime on any of our work computers. XP is solid, the only way it isnt is when stupid people get ahold of it, the kind of people that could bring down a Unix system in 5 minutes of web surfing. If Vista improves security, then its worth the upgrade, because security, not just attractiveness, is what gets IT people to upgrade. - biker44442005, on 10/12/2007, -2/+101 GB of RAM for blinkenlights!
- youareretarded, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9They said the same thing about XP. Businesses don't go out and upgrade to the latest OS just for the hell of it. MS is in no danger with regards to the article.
- VulnoX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6That is funny because even with XP I run Windows Classic theme. I dont mess around with extra themes and all that garbage. Its just more resources. If there is something function to the new interface, I would want it, but bubble buttons dont do it for me. That is also a turnoff to OSX for me, they seem to be all bubble buttons.
If Vista does not have Windows Classic (which seems to really be Windows 2000), then I would be upset. - p9s50W5k4GUD2c6, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17This represents a death knell for product as is. M$ will have a major problem selling the corporate clients on why they need to upgrade.
And as for the 'do it because we will no longer support our previous OS': that card-play won't continue to work much longer as long as M$ continues to give birth to sucky product lines.
This represents another 'window' for Linux to extend itself further into the corporate market. - ToadX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Nothing wrong with Windows 2000. Actually, Windows XP is almost the same as Windows 2000, except for some different graphics. At least you don't have to use Windows 98.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6That's the way digg goes. Your reputation on the site has a lot to do with whether your submissions get dug by others. Digital gopher is #10. So his stories are more readily seen than ours. He also has friends in the top ten, and I'm pretty sure the cloud view lets you see what your friends submit. Make thoughtful comments and keep submitting to build up a rep. Complaining will just get your buried.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6This is news? Microsoft only releases new operating systems every 5 or 6 years so of course old XP machines won't run Vista. Corporate desktops won't see Vista until late 07 or early 08 and by that point they'll just junk their old PC's and buy new ones with Vista preinstalled. This is how Microsoft does business.. there's a reason that upgrade copies of Windows cost so much.. Microsoft doesn't want you to upgrade -- they prefer you buy a new PC instead.
- kodek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9His comment was 90% *s, 10% articles and nouns.
- frem001, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Isn't that the sole reason for Vista's existance?
- mbiesz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4True: half of corporate PCs will not be able to support the full-featured Aero, 3D-accelerated, transparent, etc. media experience. However, any reasonably modern systems that can comfortably run Windows 2000 or XP should have no problem running the low-tier, but still fast, Vista desktop.
Honestly, can people please stop with these anti-Microsoft FUD stories? It really does not make open source or Linux look any better -- the way to win against to corporations is working on improvements and informing others of the benefits of FOSS... not lies and exaggerations like this. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Agreed.
Consider this: the news media have been reporting the coming demise of security and anti-virus/anti-spyware services on account of Vista, but I think that keeping the third party anti-virus/anti-spyware and third party security solutions would be cheaper than upgrading to Vista. As it stands Vista doesn't offer any compelling reason to upgrade, even if security is your main concern; you can get the security for less by either paying for third party security solutions, or by switching to Linux. Cool interface tricks are nice, but not enough to justify the enormous cost of buying a whole new fleet of computers and re-installing everything you need on them. - sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Why is this a big deal. Vista wont even be out for quite some time, and are you people forgetting how fast hardware moves in this day and age. These same things were said when Windows 3.1, 95, 2000, XP came out. People will upgrade, businesses will upgrade, it wont be a big deal.
I don't see how keeping machine specs at some low level equates to progress. What's so terrible about pushing the hardware envelope a bit? 2 Gigs of ram isn't that much people!
If you want an OS you can run on a low end machine forever, you've already got one... LINUX! - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If your company's computer fleet is dominated by computers that are used for nothing more that word processing, spread sheet preparation, web browsing, e-mail, and the occasional power-point presentation, then there is no compelling reason to buy new computers nor to upgrade to Vista.
If your company's fleet is all of the above but choked with mal-ware, considering the cost of switching to Vista just to do your basic computer tasks, you may as well switch to Linux. Really. Or just pay for some third-party security solutions. Nobody should have to use 1 GB or RAM to do word processing or web browsing. And as far as I understand, most corporate computers, unless used for publishing and graphics/design/engineering/CAD work, are dominated by mundane tasks that could, in theory, be done just as well on a 486 if they weren't choked on malware due to Microsoft's incompetence (fostered by the lack of competition.)
This entire Vista fiasco, along with IE 7, vindicates the anti-trust trial. Without real competition, Microsoft just sat on its fat ass and made money off of software licenses, not because people choose to use their OS, but because there really isn't much choice in terms of installed OSes in PCs.
And as for all the old computers, imagine the wave of pollution that this will kick-start as everyone is forced to get rid of their PCs by this artificial tide of obsolescence.. Only so much of the old hardware can be recycled: the rest will be shipped to some third world country where they'll end up as trash anyhow. - isleshocky77, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I'm with you. I've always ran the Windows Classic Theme and probably always will. The extra animations and graphics waste precious screen space and RAM.
However, for those who say all Vista will be is some eye candy are the same people who said and say the same thing about Windows XP. But I run it with as minimal eye candy as possible and the Windows XP is as solid of an OS as ever. I've had Windows XP Pro crash maybe 3 times in all my years of using it on the 10 different computers I have.
Vista will be an improvement as OS and will come with eye candy so that the people who notice nothing but looks (ie the OSx people who love the shiny interface) will want to switch. - phoenixp3k, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I doubt Vista will be ready for January. If it is you'll have to be patch ready for bugs across the board. Besides even with all the improvements Windows finally thought would be great to add why would office need to upgrade to Windows Vista? I just don't see the real purpose.
- Lobster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Because for most people it is not true.
The want an OS on their computer. Linux ain't.
People want Plug-and-play - plug something in and it works - something XP and I assume Vista will do. Linux you have to fiddle with. An OS should be pre-fiddled.
Linux is not familiar. The people using it are geeks.
I use Puppy Linux 99% of the time. I have no need for any of the above things.
Linux is not great. It is just about adequate. Just like MS but in a different way. MS products are more than adequate for most people. Why is Firefox so successful. Marketing.
Oh look a penguin . . .
. . . maybe I should try an Apple . . . isn't that how it all began . . . wait that is another story . . . or maybe it is part of the same story? - nnonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3On a similar note, those same Corporate PCs wouldn't be capable of running the current releases of OSX, Gnome or KDE worth a ***** either. ALL would require a RAM upgrade in order to run "well". A good article would have done some research and included this little gem, which kinda puts things into perspective.
- KiwiRed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Another article with a vague grasp of reality. The claim I've heard is that Vista is capable of running on any pc that can run XP. You just need a high-end pc (or fascimile thereof) for the extra bells and whistles.
Now, if the pc can't run XP odds are it'd cost more to upgrade than it would to replace anyway, which makes the whole thing silly, as the new pc would have XP (most likely) or Vista (for the adventurous, which usually doesn't include corporate IT departments). - spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Oh, it may not be common, but there are definitely companies out there running 95 still. NT 4 has still got a home as well.
- sundancekid503, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Apparently neither of you read anything except for the last line of my comment. I'm no Linux fanboy, dont even have it installed.
- Guspaz, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Hmm, see, here's where I have a problem with the article, and it's the same thing you pointed out.
The cheap version of Vista? Windows Vista Home Basic? It doesn't have Aero Glass. That's right, no 3D interface, no shiny buttons. That would seem to invalidate this entire study.
And, $100 to $200 to upgrade machines to 1GB of RAM? Umm, NewEgg sells 1GB of DDR333 for under $60. Where does the $100 to $200 figure come from?
Gartner calls this research? How can they get their key facts wrong and call it research? This is laughable at best. - cliffzdude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Does nobody here work for a corporation in the IT department?
Its like this:
Widgets Inc has say 25,000 PCs, its time to upgrade 5,000 of said PC fleet. I'm basically ready to make the upgrade right now. But... Vista is coming out. Hmmm, seems it may behoove my company to wait a bit and get our same low end Dell/HP/Insert-Here PCs with Vista on 'em. So.... I wait a few quarters, Vista drops, my vendor of choice starts shipping in force their PCs with vista. I get a few dozen units in, test 'em... Make sure we understand the new OS, how it integrates into my remote management scheme, A/V scheme, Active Directory, etc. Once I'm happy I email my purchase order to my vendor and they show up with the PCs, already imaged how I wish them to be ready to deploy.
This is how the first big deployments of Vista will take place. Note well, said corporations won't go out of their way to upgrade their PCs or the OS on their PCs due to vista. Almost NO COMPANIES upgrade their PCs or said OS's just due to a new OS. Period. That's not how it works in the corporate enterprise.
Comment after comment as to how it "won't be worth it" for a company to upgrade to Vista. All the while no IT manager is sitting around deciding whether or not to upgrade to Vista. It just happens when it happens. It seems like a LOT because there is pent up demand, enterprises that have put off purchases that they would make today.
No big freaking deal people. - Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If by "bloatware" you mean it requires 1 GB of RAM as its base requirements (to run the OS, let alone anything you intend to run on top of it that might be memory intensive), yes, I agree. Vista is bloatware.
But considering Vista was dumping features like a sinking ship dumps cargo just to make its deadlines (not even having WinFS), it might not be as feature-bloated as you think. It depends on what you call bloatware. - mcbean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Sounds to me like the same sort of hoopla people made over hardware requirements when most businesses were still running 3.1. They caught up eventually! Man, I feel old.
- chadu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5what an antique. ;-)
- r3zonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2At least 90% of corporations won't touch Vista for at least 3 years anyway, if the usual "stability" cycle holds.
- Magadass, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8What a stupid argument, its typical in an organization to have around 40%-60% of your workstations to be inundated. Why? Well because the workstations are typical purchased using a 5 year block due to funding, and 5 years just happens to be a time period where technology somewhat inundates itself. The organizaton I work at cant even update to XP let alone Vista, its called funding issues, and no Linux wont solve this problem to all you open source fanatics out there, in fact Open Source is strictly banned since the code isnt certifiably secure, with the exception of Linux SE (Secure Linux, NSA version). But we are primarily using Windows 2000 still, so to say an organization cant update to vista, OLD NEWS! Nothing has changed, and the new hardware specs are on par with the cost of hardware in todays market so I dont see what all the hype is about. You get beefier hardware but no one wants to use the hardware, its like everyone wants to have the cheepest piece of crap computer but they want to the coolest best operating system to run on it! Good luck with that!
- tsupersonic, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Well I would assume most companies could just disable the Aero effects (improves productivity) if they were in desperate need of a new OS. Hell I would disable them on my home computer (that is, if it could run Vista...). I like a clean interface, no eye-candy, just takes up some precious screen space and a little RAM. Guess I am a sucker for the Windows classic theme.
- deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Can you please provide some specific examples? You're basically just repeating PR fluff. Saying something is better doesn't make it better. Examples, please.
- Nanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3MASSIVE CONSPIRACY THEORY--Apple and M$ in massive joint venture--because everybody will need to upgrade their hardware and since Macs now can run XP through the new drivers, major corporations will buy Macs whilst buying Vista for compatibility issues. Holy shizznat, Gates and Jobs have made some quasi-evil, quasi-awesome partnership...
- jrbrewin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3guspaz:
"The cheap version of Vista? Windows Vista Home Basic? It doesn't have Aero Glass. That's right, no 3D interface, no shiny buttons. "
would an enterprise run Vista Home Basic? I doubt it, if only because it wont be able to join a domain, in the same way XP Home Edition can't - take away other features like encryption and MUI abilities, and it's a definite no no. That's not to say aero wont be turn-offable in other versions tho.
"And, $100 to $200 to upgrade machines to 1GB of RAM? Umm, NewEgg sells 1GB of DDR333 for under $60. Where does the $100 to $200 figure come from?"
two reasons for this.
- most corporations steer away from the cheap '*****' in favour of branded, certified memory which they know isn't going to die in 6 months. In the short term stable reliable components is more expensive, but in the long term it saves on hardware maintenance costs, productivity costs, personell costs etc.
- Secondly, most current corporate pc's are small form factor, and have very little room for manouver when it comes to memory configurations. At worst a pc might not be able to bumped up to 1GB if it's a couple of years old, or all the memory might need replacing. At best it would be a case of slipping in some extra. Remember, companies tend to have a 3-4 (or more) year lifecycle for desktop PC's.
"Gartner calls this research? How can they get their key facts wrong and call it research? This is laughable at best."
i guess you've never worked in the 'real world' - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Most people who upgrade are going to be doing the same thing with their computer. In a business environment, they will be running the same spread sheets, word docs, tax software, whatever. Requiring both a new OS and Computer to do the same thing, well, just doesn't make sense. I'm sure most IT departments realize this, and will try to put it off. But they will be forced in eventually, because the fixes and support for XP will come to an end sooner or later.
Vista better do some cool stuff that XP can't do, either stock or with 3rd party, to make such a drastic upgrade warranted. - starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2all i'm going to say is... i run tiger on my 300 mhz wallstreet powerbook... with 190 megs ram. it runs great. in fact, i think every rev. since jaguar has run faster... not slower.
- spectre_25gt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4That really depends on the GUI and the user. As an example, drop shadows are a quicker way to figure out the z order of windows. For those that navigate quickly and have a lot of windows open at once, that can increase productivity. Expose is another example of a GUI truly increasing productivity. I'm much faster at navigating on a Mac than I am on a PC just because of Expose.
- kevnaca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The fact is that businesses don't need the eye candy. Go to any corporate office or business and you can see they scaled back XP to classic mode, even on brand new computers. What matters is professionalism without the complexity. Performance is the major reason and most businesses will option for the straight clean desktop without any resource hogging eye candy. Most of the resources should go into the actual service apps of the business.
- falloutsyndrome, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Its like any system designed for a heavy 3d workload, you can have all the shiny buttons you want, its the real time vectorform, its everything about the core os, not to mention scalable indexing services, and a totally new os. Vista will either change computing as we know it, or just be another MSOS
- SsbFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As much as I'd rather everyone switch to linux, I'll have to add what I know from my personal experience. I ran Vista (build 5308) on my laptop, a Dell 600M 512Mb RAM, P-M 2.0GHz/600MHz and an ATI Mobility Radeon 9000 and was able to run in what I'll call XP mode perfectly fine.. Vista at the moment could not detect any of my video RAM, and installing the drivers required me actually picking the ATI 9000 family drivers from Vista's driver list.
Vista does have Windows Classic Mode in it, classic start menu and all, so I doubt performance is an issue if you can deal with the lack of eye candy.
Random thought: I still did not see any reason to upgrade other than the nice GUI enhancements, even in "XP mode" - carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2no, there are still win95 workhorses out there. hell, even the DHS was documented as using win95 machines a while back. if it's still doing an adequate job, why mess with it? i've seen several department stores that still run monocrome text dumb terminals from some old 486 in the back of the store somewhere.
- archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Vista only requires 512mb of ram to run. Not 1gb.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Not many companies need the zooty 3d desktop graphics. Sure it will be standard in time, but there are companies that are still using windows 95.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 136 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is