what do you think about the upcoming windows vista?

coolone33

give your opionion please
it seem look nice, but require a very good pc to run it.

Little_John

Windows ME looked nice and how crap was that

Lots of people will upgrade then moan about all the bugs even with beta testing they never get it right so I will be staying put on windows 2000 or XP until its sorted, as for pc specs required I dotn consider 800mhz and 512mb or memory to be a good pc.

It would be sicide on microsofts part to make there new OS not able to run an pcs over 2 or 3 years old, it may run like a dog but it will run. the specs to meet the new Aero requirements are slightly higher and I think most people will fall down on the graphics front. I also think that 15GB of drive space is excessive for an operating system especailly whe alot of entry level pc's that meet the other requirements may only have 40GB of drive space.

coolone33

i do want to point out that Windows ME and 95, 98) are 16/32 bit mixed operation system.
the stability of windows 2000/xp come from its pure 32 bit based OS.

wolfman

If you want to play it safe or avoid any possible problems, then staying with your current OS until SP1 is out (usually 6 months) for Vista.

I personally will probably switch straight away. I'm a .Net/Java developer so it's always nice to have the latest software. From running Vista here on an old machine, you'd don't need the highest of specifications. It does mean disabling a lot of the graphical features.

Personally I think a lot of the security bug concerns going round are just people kicking up dirt. A secure setup goes beyond just the bare operating system. If there are any problems it'll probably be a minority.

Little_John

coolone33 wrote:

i do want to point out that Windows ME and 95, 98) are 16/32 bit mixed operation system.
the stability of windows 2000/xp come from its pure 32 bit based OS.

I know but windows 98 osr2 and then even more so osr 2.5 were solid operating systems, Milenium edition came out and it was worse that windows 95

MercilessKiller

Little_John wrote:

Windows ME looked nice and how crap was that

LOL?!?! !!!!!!? Don't be so closed minded!

98 was a sucess, server 2000 (and 3) was a success, windows xp (home & pro) was a success..

Just because ME wasnt, doesnt mean vista wont be!!! jeez.

Vista looks amazing. It has GREAT usability.

OF COURSE it will have vunrabilities when it is released. THats why they have windows update. If you have MUCH sensitive important data then stick with what you have as Wolfman said, until Vista's more fixed..

Personally I'll upgrade ASAP as I'm just a student and its not like I hold 10,000 customer records on the machine.

As long as it looks good, is good to use (which it is, anyone who tested the beta will know that), and its secure, then its a good OS.

The first 2 are already done, and im SURE the 3rd will be too in time!

Thats my view. Dont be so anti-vista just because you dont like microsoft. Grow up :j

chunter

wolfman wrote:

From running Vista here on an old machine, you'd don't need the highest of specifications. It does mean disabling a lot of the graphical features.

Wolfman, just what sort of a spec do you have aon the old pc? What's the minimum it'll run at without the fancy graphics.

wolfman

chunter wrote:

Wolfman, just what sort of a spec do you have aon the old pc? What's the minimum it'll run at without the fancy graphics.

Well to be fair it's not the the oldest of machines. It's a Celereon 2.4Ghz, 768mb RAM (around 4 years old I think). Not a well put together machine (an HP). We basically switched off all of the graphical settings, and nice-to-have's. Having said that we don't use it as a regular user would, it's for testing applications and using IE7.

No idea what the minimum is. Microsoft will have a recommended and minimal requirements spec'd somewhere. If you're unsure, wait until it comes out and see how others with a similar spec fare.

MercilessKiller

min is 128mb GFX,
512mb Ram

and I cant remmeber exactly but around 2.4ghz min for a processor.

Recommended is 128/256 gfx,
2gb ram
3.2ghz 64bit

Rex_Mundi

wolfman wrote:

I personally will probably switch straight away. I'm a .Net/Java developer so it's always nice to have the latest software.

If it's so important to you to keep up with the latest MS developments. Why don't you pay to be a part of MSDN? This way you will always be a part of getting the latest MS software way before it's released.

Rex_Mundi

MercilessKiller wrote:

min is 128mb GFX,
512mb Ram

and I cant remmeber exactly but around 2.4ghz min for a processor.

Recommended is 128/256 gfx,
2gb ram
3.2ghz 64bit

I seem to remember MS saying that the minimum for XP is 128MB of RAM.

Would anyone honestly recommend running XP on this now?

I think you should look at the top end of what they're saying now, then take Moores law into account before upgrading to Vista. Maybe you'll have a decent starting system then.