Windows Vista: Out Of The Norm

landbeforetimelover · **on:** November 22, 2007, 06:28:46 PM

I've been fuming about this for a while, and I thought I should bring it up. Microsoft has been setting a trend with it's operating systems. Requirements have been just about doubling every time they created a new one. Vista steps out of that norm though:

Minimum system requirements chart for microsoft operating systems:

Windows 95:

8mb ram
200mb hard disk space
60mhz processor (or 50. I can't remember)

Windows 98:

16mb ram
500mb hard disk space
100mhz processor

Windows 2000

32mb ram
1024mb hard disk space
133mhz processor

Windows xp

64mb ram
2048mb hard disk space
266mhz processor

Windows vista:

1024mb ram (16X of xp!)
20,480mb hard disk space(10X of xp!)
1024mhz processor(4X of xp!)

In between every other operating system, there is about double the specs jump, but not with vista. Also, the other operating systems ran fine on their minimum system requirements. Vista does NOT. In reality, to use vista effectively, you really need thses specs:

2048mb ram (32X that of xp!)
100gb hard drive(50X that of xp!)
2,457mhz processor(10X that of xp!)

This is causing everyone to go out and buy a new computer unless they spent thousands on their existing one that came with xp. It's an outrage! :angry: I'll never buy into vista. It's terrible!

DarkHououmon · **Reply #1 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:31:21 PM

Heh. Whatever you say. Personally I want to try Vista before I label it so harshly.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #2 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:32:24 PM

I've tried vista and it sucked beyond belief except on my fastest computers.

: Not much to offer either.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #3 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:34:06 PM

I still want to try Vista for myself. Kylie has Vista on her computer and it runs just fine.

Manny Cav · **Reply #4 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:34:54 PM

I've tried Vista before. It was quite slower than my XP laptop I'm posting on (in stuff like copying files, etc.), and the specs were over twice that of my laptop.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #5 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:37:52 PM

Fact #1:

It took 8 minutes just to start with it's minimum requirements

Fact #2:

I have had many customers come back to me saying that they want XP back because they hated how slow vista was.

Fact #3:

even on my fastest computers, vista gives me constant trouble. It took over a minute for the start button to come up when I clicked it at times.

Fact #4:

vista has many bugs. Microsoft admits it itself and assures people that it is getting a service pack out ASAP that will fix everything.

Manny Cav · **Reply #6 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:41:06 PM

Quote from: landbeforetimelover,Nov 22 2007 on 04:37 PM

Fact #3:

even on my fastest computers, vista gives me constant trouble. It took over a minute for the start button to come up when I clicked it at times.

This happens to me sometimes on a Vista computer I use occasionally, but it isn't normally the start orb. It's normally when I'm trying to copy files, and sometimes, when I'm using Internet Explorer, the entire window (and even the computer itself) will freeze for several minutes before unfreezing like there was nothing wrong. Sometimes, I've had to force a shutdown over this.

DarkHououmon · **Reply #7 on:** November 22, 2007, 06:41:51 PM

Quote from: landbeforetimelover,Nov 22 2007 on 06:37 PM

Fact #1:

It took 8 minutes just to start with it's minimum requirements

Fact #2:

I have had many customers come back to me saying that they want XP back because they hated how slow vista was.

Fact #3:

even on my fastest computers, vista gives me constant trouble. It took over a minute for the start button to come up when I clicked it at times.

Fact #4:

vista has many bugs. Microsoft admits it itself and assures people that it is getting a service pack out ASAP that will fix everything.

:: shrug :: Whatever. That won't convince me to change my mind. I want to try Vista.

Petrie. · **Reply #8 on:** November 22, 2007, 07:36:56 PM

Turn off the eye candy in Vista and it probably is faster than that, but then it looks like XP and Microsoft doesn't want that.

: Not flashy enough.

Service pack out first, then maybe I'll try. Eventually XP will stop getting the support it needs to keep going with software and virus updates (2009 or so I've heard).

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #9 on:** November 22, 2007, 07:54:16 PM

If you turn off everything you don't need in msconfig, it still is as slow as a snail. <_<

Kor · **Reply #10 on:** November 22, 2007, 08:07:23 PM

I have vista on my other pc, the one I play video games on it seems to run ok, just takes ages to boot up. Also though I have a dsl it is at times to stupid to realize I have the dsl plugged into it. I only go online with it to see if there is any patches to the game I just installed to play, or at the same time any updates to vista. And all the games I have to set to run as administrator. I'm not a power user, I guess the term is, so I'm likely to not notice other problems that Vista has.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #11 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:33:43 AM

Yeah, most people don't. Microsoft makes most of it's money via the buisnesses and organizations though. My school will never switch to vista, I know that. We just got several hundred new laptops with vista and the admin reformatted them to xp pro (smart guy)

Littlefoot · **Reply #12 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:55:03 AM

Quote from: landbeforetimelover,Nov 22 2007 on 05:37 PM

Fact #1:

It took 8 minutes just to start with it's minimum requirements

Fact #2:

I have had many customers come back to me saying that they want XP back because they hated how slow vista was.

Fact #3:

even on my fastest computers, vista gives me constant trouble. It took over a minute for the start button to come up when I clicked it at times.

Fact #4:

vista has many bugs. Microsoft admits it itself and assures people that it is getting a service pack out ASAP that will fix everything.

LOL 8 minutes to load in minimun specs? hahah where you tested it P3 machine, even in my slowest pc it just take 45 second to load 1.6 ghz 512 ram bro.

Like I said before lot of ppl are scare to change, that happened with XP at the beginning and if the fact is the money man computers are now cheaper than ever. Is easy to build a pc with good requirements to run Vista.

Every OS is not perfect, that’s why it needs constant updates but this is part of the process, is completely normal than a new OS came with bugs. This doesn't mean that Vista is bad OS. As a technician is our job to find what's wrong and learn how to fix it not cry or discredit a new technology. If you don't like it don't use it, let others to try.

I’m a beta tester of the Service Pack 1 v275 and it made wonders in Vista, everything run smooth, fast and more efficient. In my store I suggest my customers to try it because all the laptops I sell come with Vista.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #13 on:** November 23, 2007, 01:59:29 AM

I'm not saying that vista is a bad OS at all. It's wonderful, but it just takes too much to run. I got Ultimate SP1 and it sucks except on my really fast computers (3ghz and up). It still doesn't change the fact that microsoft is screwing everyone over as much as possible.

I've installed vista hundreds of times (and I hate the installation process BTW) for clients. Very few actually liked it. I never install it on a clients comuter if they have less than 1.6ghz and a gig of ram, but they still don't like it.

Kor · **Reply #14 on:** November 23, 2007, 02:53:09 AM

It does seem a very unpopular OS, including among the pc games themed podcasts I listen to.

Manny Cav · **Reply #15 on:** November 23, 2007, 11:28:33 AM

I will certainly say that I've encountered far more bugs and hiccups than I ever have in XP. Plus, there are a lot of incompatabilities, and it's so drastically different. I have trobule navigating through some of the control pannels and settings. There's just too much of a drastic difference between XP and Vista. They could have at least made it a little more gradual.

lbt/cty_lover · **Reply #16 on:** November 28, 2007, 06:52:32 PM

This is what my computer teacher said about Vista:

It takes up about ten times as much as XP
It is virtually the same as XP
It is a lot slower than XP
It is expensive for the good version (Vista Ultimate)

I personally use Mac OS X Leopard. When I first got my computer, it had OS X Tiger. When I upgraded to Leopard, it ran at the exact same speed and took up about the same amount. It is also so much better than Leopard.

PS- That little thing, Windows Sidebar, is exactly based off of Apple's Dashboard. The difference is that it doesn't come up over all open windows.

landbeforetimelover · **Reply #17 on:** November 28, 2007, 07:05:19 PM

The windows sidebar sucks crap.

: It uses like 200mhz and 120mb of ram just to be open with windows. Windows xp requires 266mhz and 64mb ram.

: Windows vista's sidebar uses almost as much resources as the entire windows xp operating system. -_-

Manny Cav · **Reply #18 on:** November 28, 2007, 07:35:37 PM

...What's the "Windows sidebar?" I'm not exactly an avid Vista user (my own computer is XP).

lbt/cty_lover · **Reply #19 on:** November 28, 2007, 07:37:11 PM

Sidebar is a little bar that appears that has different applets. These applets are modifiable.

Dashboard is a full-screen window that appears and has different widgets. They are also modifiable, but they are also better.