why go vista? i am un convinced

tomanders91 · 3 Jan 2007 at 12:45

64bit supports more ram aswell, home premium 32bit supports 4gb max, 64 s upports 8gb, but who is going to be using 8gb in the next few years lol.

this_is_gav · 3 Jan 2007 at 14:53

The_KiD said:
The recomended spec says I need PC's with 1Gb of RAM and a 128Mb GFX card in each machine... wtf for? All I want my staff to do is make word docs, run sage, email etc, why all of a sudden do I need high end (well mid range) PC's to do this on?

The recommended spec for XP was 128mb of RAM. And oh how I remember how Microsoft got absolutely slated and even threatened for false advertising because of it. In short, this time, they're looking forward a bit.

Vista works fine with 512mb, and even then there's minimal swapping. It's not actually all that more demanding than XP is at the moment.

128mb graphics memory is only needed for Aero. You could have a S3 Virge 2mb card and it'll work the same way as it did in XP.

sajtion said:
its bloatware with hundreds of useless features and functions except directx 10 which microsoft unfairly restricted only to vista but trust it's not worth it, don't buy into this crap windows vista

People complain when MS support all the legacy stuff, stunting development, people complain when they don't.

DX10 just wouldn't work in XP. I could work, but it would be so slow, it just wouldn't be feasible, let alone practical or worth the development costs. It's good that MS is cutting free and taking the potential for gaming that bit further.

Most games for the foreseeable will support both DX9 and DX10 anyway. Did people complain this much when we moved from DOS to Windows-based games and freed us from the pure annoyances of the Sound-blaster compatibles?

bledd. said:
since people are discussing vista's up button

in explorer, if you press F6, does it change the address bar to editable text? (this is how i always navigate in explorer)

can't remember how it behaved when i tested vista..

Unfortunately not, no.

bledd · 3 Jan 2007 at 15:53

thanks gav

for some reason, when i read your name i always see

this is gay, lol

OzyOly · 3 Jan 2007 at 15:55

bledd. said:
thanks gav

for some reason, when i read your name i always see

this is gay, lol

I thought it was "this_is_gay"

I didn't know it wasn't untill you pointed it out.

this_is_gav · 3 Jan 2007 at 17:58

bledd. said:
thanks gav

for some reason, when i read your name i always see

this is gay, lol

Trust me, you're not the first. It's stuck for a few years now, and while I find that actual name amusing enough, I do like it when people think it says "gay"

cubepusher · 3 Jan 2007 at 21:41

DanF · 4 Jan 2007 at 08:32

Does retail licensing let you install previous versions of the same line of OS's like volume licensing does? as in with volume licensing you license for XP Pro now however your also covered to install and run W2K Pro or older NT line OS's.

This could allow people to buy Vista now but install later when there's better support for drivers and games. In the meantime they would be able to install say XP Pro from their disk for another machine.

Edit: well it does for retail Windows XP, I imagine that it's the same for Vista.

KELTICKNIGHT · 4 Jan 2007 at 09:56

proply get ulimate version in retail,will wait couple of months as ms always have probs to sort out,main reason for upgrading to vista is dx10 for gaming,i usually turn off all the frills in xp,so would the same in vista
xp ben stable sinse sp2 which only couple of years,will see ps's for vista tooo
pity there not another window based system link windows out there,not talking linx
pity also you couldnt get the ulimate version in retail in 64 bit version only as would be cheaper

Mundu · 4 Jan 2007 at 10:20

I haven't been following Vista at all and even though I won't be getting it at first I don't want my main PC running on old P a year down the line. So it looks like I'm basically being forced to uprgrade.

The first PC I ever bought was on the day of the release of XP, which was pretty lucky considering my family were going to buy it the day before but my dad hated the salesman. I don't see any point in upgrading that PC to vista because it's just a second rig anyway and would probably struggle to run Vista.

TBH I don't even know if my current main rig would be considered a high spec rig anymore.

Asus A8N SLi, AMD64 3700+, Patriot 2GB PC3200, POV 7800GTX, WD 250GB, NEC ND 4550, E-MU 0404, Hiper Type R 580W

What's the difference between the different versions of Vista anyway?

TVR_Fan · 4 Jan 2007 at 10:37

Cogent said:
hello!

i was wondering whos actually planning on going vista and why?
xp seems to do everything i want and all my software works a treat and its fast! yay...

the vista betas i had were quite bad but of cource there betas and RC releaces so i am sure the proper versions will be better

but again my original question WHY>?!

One thing:

Aero Glass

If you do not have the PC to run Aero Glass, then don't upgrade to Vista. Anyway I am not getting Vista Until late 2007, because it will be a while, before we see Vista games coming out.

However I hope I can get Vista maybe before Halo 2 and Crysis.

semi-pro waster · 4 Jan 2007 at 12:06

Mundu said:
Asus A8N SLi, AMD64 3700+, Patriot 2GB PC3200, POV 7800GTX, WD 250GB, NEC ND 4550, E-MU 0404, Hiper Type R 580W

What's the difference between the different versions of Vista anyway?

Your PC is no longer high end, simply because faster equivalents of pretty much everything have been released but it is still a very respectable machine.

Microsoft give a listing of the differing features of the versions on their website, so that might be of some use.

KELTICKNIGHT · 4 Jan 2007 at 12:20

saw that few days ago
still hard to know by microsoft website which is better for games,premium seems said on microsoft,ulimate offers best of all

Captain Fizz · 4 Jan 2007 at 12:21

cubepusher said:
It will take, it has to take for the simple reason of the increased memory, i don't know about anyone else here but i'd say the ability to run 64gb ram would be a huge boost...

or did i miss a something?

You missed that Windows 2003 has supported 64GB of RAM for years...
(128GB now... link )

And that I have 2GB and have never used more than 4GB and that was when working with images.
Does your home PC provide a rather exceedingly large database for a bank or something?
That's one of the only reasons I could see justifying using that much RAM.
(Or equiv business applications)

I'll be leaving Vista for 6 months~a year.

Installed XP from the day it was released... Kept Win98SE & Win2k installed for the apps/games etc that wouldn't run on XP at the time.
(And to use hardware that wasn't supported etc)

Got updates to the bugs... Programs started being compatible, drivers got released more etc.
Then XP was lovely rather than just good.

Once Vista has matured a bit - Been tested and fixed by other peeps - Then I'll move to Vista.