windows vista

[Matt1809]

You see, it requires 15 GB of free hard disk space only for the operating system...

Vista ultimate only takes up ~5 gigs on the disk, the actual install file is 2.52 gigs.

 

[miaplacidus]

The 15 GB figure is from Wikipedia's article on Windows Vista, check it out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Hardware_requirements

However, I still consider 5 GB far too big for an operating system. As I've said before, a Linux distro capable of doing the same as Vista, and with many applications installed (including two completely different desktop environments), only requires 4 GB. The standard installation of Ubuntu Linux needs 2 GB.

 

[ComNavFdgPk]

I got a Microsoft Windows E-Newsletter recently touting the benefits of VISTA. It included an opportunity to download a Beta version from MS, along with their "Vista Update Manager" or some such thing. Sooooo...I got the Update manager loaded and ran it and guess what??? the list of installed programs that "May not perform as expected" was a mile long. Vista suggested that I remove these programs (about sixteen in all), download Vista and then reload the programs...all this for a BETA version of an OS that I don't even think I want!!!!

 

[mike_n_herrin]

Vista ultimate only takes up ~5 gigs on the disk, the actual install file is 2.52 gigs.

From MS's web site: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/evaluate/hardware/vistarpc.mspx

Minimum Supported Hardware Requirements for running Windows Vista

Minimum Supported RequirementsProcessor
800 MHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor2
System Memory
512 MB
GPU
SVGA (800x600)
Graphics Memory

HDD 20 GB
HDD Free Space 15 GB
Optical Drive
CD-ROM Drive5

it would appear Vista takes up considerably more than just 5 GB.

 

[Matt1809]

it would appear Vista takes up considerably more than just 5 GB.

No, not it wouldnt. Thats the minimum you need to run the system reasonably. Ie, acutally have space to save things, and so on, which is different fromt eh amount of space it takes up on the disk. When you first install vista, you will see it only takes up around ~5 gigs. Trust me, i have it installed.

They are encouraging PC manufacturers to switch to hard disk drives with integrated flash memory to try to speed up Vista's read/write access to the disk.

And so what? Any OS that supports that technology will be able to use tha to speed up their system. Vista runs just fine on a normal hard drive.

This is an attempt to boost the OS's performance a bit by encouraging users to stick usb flash drives into the usb ports, so that Vista can use the flash memory as more swap space.

No. Readyboost doest not load the swap file, but Superfetch files. This improves the speed of loading programs, and is not endemic of a performance issue with the system. It is simply using the resources available to it to make it perform as fast as it can.

 

[BrandonSBCA]

I have used the RC1 version of Windows Vista which I had downloaded from Microsoft. Then I installed it as a second OS alongside my current XP installation. The look of the OS blew me away, I was quite impressed with it. They did a major overhaul to the look of Windows, and I agree with the previous post that it does look a lot like MAC OS. At first I felt a bit lost until I knew where everything was.

To get all the bells and whistles of the new visual style you need a good 3D graphics card. My 128Mb ATI Radeon 9800 Pro managed just fine and it's a few years old now. I am using a Socket 478 Pentium IV 3.0 GHz processor and 2Gb of RAM with an SATA HD. I think the large amount of RAM helps alot since it's an older PC. I do think it's worth upgrading to, hopefully it won't be too expensive!

I want Windows Vista but my computer sucks!

 

[jj102087]

I tried RC1. I couldn't keep it long because the network I'm using to connect to the internet doesn't recognize Vista. I definentely liked how it looked. Looked a lot smoother and, futuristic if you will. lol. But I also didn't like how many things aren't compatible with Vista (hardware and software alike). Although I'm sure (and hope) that will change as we get closer to the official release.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

...I'm having some trouble understanding the point of the Vista OS. I had assumed Microsoft wanted to offer a new and more intuitive look and feel to Windows, but it is too similar to XP for this to be the case..

i have heard (and maybe incorrectly) that Vista was reprogramed from the ground up. And that it doesn't not contain all the legacy code in previous versions. I had heard this recently and that this was the reason it took so long to get the OS out. I don't know if it's true or not. But if it is...then i can kinda see that as being "the reason" for vista. Having said that...i'm very afraid of all the whispers and what not about a lot of DRM in Vista. I don't like the idea of DRM and i wont buy or run Vista if it implements a lot of DRM. I just wont do it. But i am reserving my opinion until i see Vista on a machine and and hear how it works once it's released.

 

[Matt1809]

I have not attempted to test Vista's security measures in any formal way. It does let an awful lot of adware through when surfing the internet, however, something which doesn't happen, of course, with Mac and Linux.

I call bullshit. Ive been running vista for more then 6 months and havent had one bit of spyware/adware/viruses get installed.

It is expected that individual copies of Vista will cost up to $400.

That is only for the ultimate edition and such. Normal consumer versions will be in line with that of Windows XP.

Microsoft has tried to tweak the kernel a bit, but it's still more than 99.999% Windows 2003. That is why the delays have made so much news. They suggest MS is having significant problems internally.

And where is this 5 nines figure coming from? Or do we just like making up numbers? And they did restart it. It was being built using the Windows XP codebase, however they switched midway through to use the Windows 2003 codebase.

I have tried Vista RC1 and I actually like it. I think it will be more secure than Win XP. But the code is astonishingly bloated (Win XP requires 1.5 GB of hard drive space to install; Vista needs 15 GB - 10X as much!

Vista does NOT take up 15 gigs. That is the minimum for it to run properly. The actual code itself its under 5 gigs. There is a difference.

Having said that...i'm very afraid of all the whispers and what not about a lot of DRM in Vista. I don't like the idea of DRM and i wont buy or run Vista if it implements a lot of DRM.

The DRM in vista, mainly the protected video path stuff was added so Vista would be complient with HDDVD and BluRay, and had to be added if they wanted to say it was compatable with next-gen formats. Everyone else will have to add the EXACT same technology, including Apple and Linux, if they want to be fully complient with next gen standards.

So I'm trying to figure out why we "need" Vista. It looks exactly like Win XP, to my eyes.

Perhaps you should read this then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_windows_vista

 

[blondish]

The DRM in vista, mainly the protected video path stuff was added so Vista would be complient with HDDVD and BluRay, and had to be added if they wanted to say it was compatable with next-gen formats. Everyone else will have to add the EXACT same technology, including Apple and Linux, if they want to be fully complient with next gen standards.

Just another reason NOT to use DRM-infected formats. which will probably not be as easily cracked as DeCSS was for CSS.

 

[Corny]

i have heard (and maybe incorrectly) that Vista was reprogramed from the ground up.

i don't know from where these rumours come all the time. they have been telling them since win95, and everytime it was clear pretty soon that it is not true

 

[mike_n_herrin]

/\ I wish soooo bad that i could recall where i had heard that...i never believe rumors, i just help spread them around.

 

[Matt1809]

If prices are "in line" with XP, then I would expect to have to pay $400. Every copy of XP I ever bought cost me $300, and that was a few years ago. I have bought a few copies of SuSE at $70 to $100 each, but almost all of the Linux I have used has been free.

The upgrade from any semi-recent Windows os to Xp home is sub $99.

Microsoft refuses to release any figures in this regard. Everything at MS is top secret, so everyone who comments on this takes a guess at the numbers. Many sources are saying there has been no change, but I don't believe that. It's always been curious to me why MS never wants to discuss stuff like this

Perhaps you should check out:
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showforum.aspx?forumid=14&tagid=83

Could it be your not looking for their information?

I'm not sure who you think said Vista "takes up 15 gigs", but it wasn't me! As I said, you need 15 GB of free hard drive space to install Vista. Because Win XP executes so slowly, I have always run it from a RAM disk, when I have used XP. My RAM disk is only 4 GB, of which XP uses about 1.5 GB. I wouldn't be able to install Vista to my primary system if I wanted to. That's an important consideration to me.

Well for those of us who dont run our OS from a RAM Disk, I should think the amount of space vista takes up is not an issue.

English translation: “It looks exactly like Win XP”!

Not really. There is a difference between look and feel, and the interface.

There's not one thing in that article that I need, except better security. In fact, a lot of it really turned me off. More DRM? Voice recognition that doesn't work? Can someone please explain to me why we need Vista?

Sigh, once again the DRM is for BluRay and HDDVD support. Second aside from crappy youtube videos, the voice recognition works pretty well.

Well I cant tell you why you'd want vista, but I know why I do. Im a big fan of media center, especially having an Xbox 360. It is more stable then XP from what i have seen, the performance is also better, World of Warcraft runs much more smoothly on Vista. Previous Versions/Shadow copy is amazing, and I like the idea of Bitlocker, which I currently have running on my Vista partition. And tha changes they have made to Audio/Video playback are very nice, they work much better if your system is under stress then they did in Xp.

Security is also very nice in vista, especially if your running the 64 bit version. And so on, there are alot of nice things if you take the time to learn about them.

 

[blondish]

Just found out about cablecard support--you can't even copy or view files recorded by Media Center to another PC. *claps*

Seems like MS is beholden to too many content providers these days. That's what, HD-DVD, Bluray, WMV , WMA, Protected Video, Protected Audio Paths? Nt just one or two things here. Nevermind that I doubt these things that exist on XP will be cracked as easily as on vista (Patchguard etc). CableLabs is notorious about their encryption (which is why you couldn't use Cablecard in a Windows Media Center prior to vista) and if it's cracked we'll probably see an automatic update similar to the Windows Media Player "critical update" when Janis was cracked a few months ago.

So, these don't benefit the user in any way unless you prefer DRM over a file that (Gasp) can actually be copied to another computer. The security benefits are more for content distributors than the user, because when Joe 6pack things "security", they don't want spyware, adware, etc.

 

[cozmik]

With my new ThinkPad, I am receiving an "ExpressUpgrade" to Vista Business. I will be installing it, simply because I am so not fond of XP at this point. Hopefully everything will go well, but the Vista Upgrade Advisor so far says that basically nothing I have (track pad, printers, sound card, etc) is known to be compatible or not. Not very promising.

 

[mike_n_herrin]

Just found out about cablecard support--you can't even copy or view files recorded by Media Center to another PC. *claps*

Seems like MS is beholden to too many content providers these days. That's what, HD-DVD, Bluray, WMV , WMA, Protected Video, Protected Audio Paths? Nt just one or two things here. Nevermind that I doubt these things that exist on XP will be cracked as easily as on vista (Patchguard etc). CableLabs is notorious about their encryption (which is why you couldn't use Cablecard in a Windows Media Center prior to vista) and if it's cracked we'll probably see an automatic update similar to the Windows Media Player "critical update" when Janis was cracked a few months ago.

So, these don't benefit the user in any way unless you prefer DRM over a file that (Gasp) can actually be copied to another computer. The security benefits are more for content distributors than the user, because when Joe 6pack things "security", they don't want spyware, adware, etc.

as far as i'm concerned at the moment. I will NOT be upgrading to Vista because of the DRM stuff and other copy write protections MS is building into their product. more reasons to learn Linux if you ask me.