how do you feel about Microsoft vista, will you upgrade?

big_D

OK, I'll stick with Linux, it uses around 130MB with KDE and Firefox open. Here I currently have MySQL, Apache, Knode, Kontact, Amarok, Kopete, Skype and Open Office open, plus a bunch of desklets running and it is hanging around the 300MB mark - and that inlcudes running transparency effects and shadows etc.

bug77

Maybe, but why limit yourself to 300MB when you can have an OS that does it in 800? (I know they'll clean the code and reduce memory footprint in the final version, but knowing M$ they'll go the 'wth, 4GB won't be so uncommon within 2 years' way)

What I really dislike is that anything above Basic Edition comes with loads of crappy stuff like Media Center apps which I never use. But you'll be forced to load parts of those at startup as well. Because M$ thinks you should

Sandok

People whining about RAM is really I dunno, strange to me seeing how cheap ram is nowadays and honestly, who here still runs on ONLY 512 and all? Most computers are already @ 1 GB and tis still rising.

And the media apps are crap for some and not for others. I honestly have no problems with any of the current ones on XP and I prefer seeing the same proggies on other computers I visit instead of seeing a compeltely different app and all... But hell, I am lazy

Honesty though, Vista is made for strong systems and hell, if you don't wanna play games and have a weak PC, linux is the way

Judas

imo..... it's been roughly 5 years since the last release of a windows OS that is widely used.. that's a record with MS considering the numerous major releases before.... 95/98//2000/me/xp... and frankly i don't consider xp SP1/SP2 releases nor 98SE... (nor 64bit or 2003 since they are still not widely used yet and 2003 is more server only...)

in any case, 64mb is the minimum requirement for ram on XP..... 5 years later, having a minimum of 512 (although i think even if you had 256mb of ram, it would still install and run realitively fine) is nothing to sneer at...

Nor is the PF.... 800mb? BIG whoop, we can't have OSes and programs increaseing in complexity without having slightly larger footprints and space requirements.... it's completely ilogical....... although i'll admit 800mb is quite a leap from the typical 100-150mb pf initial.... but it's not rediculious.... and being it's still beta.... who cares what it shows... i'm sure it'll be down to the 400mb... and if it's 400mb... that's just fine and reasonable...

7gb of space required for installation? my guad... what are you guys mad? with these massive half Tb drives we've got now..... your going to cry over 7gb? i'm sure with the final release it'll be shrunk down as well..

We've also got to consider that we are dealing with most likely a large move to 64bit installation... i wouldn't doubt that 90% of the vista installation will be all 64bit installations seeing as vista will be loaded on newer machines rather then older.... course they will provide 32bit for the older... but i can't see MS shipping vista as 2 different products (32bit in one box and 64bit in another).....

they will most likely put vista on a DVD for installation, auto detect if your hardware is capable of 64bit.. and then recommend 64bit if it sees it (or auto install with 64bit).... only makes sence..

In any case, i think vista has a good chance in the future..... i think it'll probably trim itself down to a 5gb install.. or for really cramped computers... manage to even settle with a 2.5gb install (windows XP Pro will only install with a 1038mb partition... any smaller then that and it WILL NOT)....

big_D

I have:

32MB (full, no possibility for expansion)
64MB (full, no possibility for expansion)
384MB (full, laptop, no possibility for expansion) - OK, is currently with my mother
512MB laptop (room for a SO-DIMM)
784MB (full)
1GB (full)
1GB (room for another GB with 512MB DIMMs or 4GB when upgraded to 1GB DIMMs)

All of the above machines work well with Linux, although the 32MB machine is running as a firewall. The 64MB machine works fine with DSL, the 384MB laptop is used by my mother on a daily basis as her main machine, running SUSE Linux.

The 512MB laptop works fine with XP and Linux. The rest will probably have enough memory to run Vista when it is released.

But the thing is, Vista isn't claiming to do anything that Linux can't do in 300MB or so of RAM, so what is it doing with the other 500MB? If 300MB is enough to do 3D shennanigins with transparency effects, whilst working as a web server, why should I need to upgrade from 1GB to even more to do the same under Vista?

Yes, most top end machines today come with 1GB or more, but a lot of budget to middle spec machines come with 512MB or less (I've seen a couple of AMD64 machines advertised recently that still come with only 256MB RAM).

Edit: And SUSE with transparency and 3D effects loads into 170MB with some desklets and Firefox running.

big_D

Judas,

agreed, it is still Beta, so the footprint is likely to drop, but it is still more than 4 times that of Linux with similar capabilities enabled. I can't see them dropping it down to the 200MB mark which would be reasonable... I hope they can do something about the footprint, but I just don't see them getting it down to a sensible amount.

Don't forget, this is just the OS we are talking about, not 800MB with a bunch of office applications open...

That's how Novell currently package SUSE Linux, the DVD detects the processor and defaults to the correct type of installation - and if you use the 32-bit CD in a 64-bit PC it says something cheeky about nice hardware, why don't you install the 64-bit version to make the most of it

mike2h

no way until sp1 comes out.

Sandok

I got no clue where you live but here, even the low end machines have minimum 1gb nowadays

And your PCs have to keeep up with the times though... Living with that much ram just let's you run an OS and not much else imho. I have 2 Gig and love being able to load and run many programs and Vista is supposdely though Laptop friendly so I really doubt all 512 will be used

Judas

problem is..

Although i find there is alot of useless services running around on a typical windows retail installation.... there are still services that are very excellent and just plain work great.

Remember, we are dealing with MS who is trying to make something that will make things as simple as possible. Windows XP is already pretty damn great at what it does... you plug something in... it WORKS.... (usually if they follow standards preset)... no having to install extra drivers or software.. and frankly this is where alot of companies are screwing people over.

See when i buy say an I-pod or I-river or whatever the hell, they give you a software cd.... you pop it in and just bloat the living crap outa your machine with useless garbage..

OR..

do what i do and throw away the cd and just plug the sucker in.... fire up windows media player (or perhaps your own player that supports what is required)... and do what you can there... leaving your machine still clean as a whistle..

Now, i beleive windows Vista is setting everyone up with ever possible service.

Just take a look at the screenshot... notice the processes... 47! WTF? every machine i've build, with all the nessary startup processes and services (standard with windows, and removing the hot key poller for ATI's hot keys from startup and soundman for realtek audio) i sit anywhere from 19 to 21 processes running apon startup.... 47!? what the hell are they running, they do not SHOW us what is running, i feel there is INDEED a pile of useless shit running and 800mb is indeed not true...

47 omg.... when i see anything over 30 processes running on startup of any windows machine, i think SPYWARE all over the place. and it's generally true....

We will see...

big_D

I live in Germany

Go to the local electrcal market here and most laptops have between 512MB and 1GB, the desktops are probably 70% 1GB, the rest 512MB. But look at the ads in the magazines where they are fighting over the lowest price, you'll finx MX4000 graphics and 256MB to get that extra couple of € off the price.

The base leve Dell Dimension 1100 comes with 256MB of RAM for example.

I wouldn't buy a PC now with less than 1GB of RAM, but there are a number of people who wouldn't understand the difference between 256MB and 1GB, other than the 256MB costs a lot less money...

Lenovo/IBM, Asus and Toshiba laptops all come with 512MB base for many of their models.

I'm currently sitting at one of my 1GB workstations, it has 115 processes running, including mail server, mail client, news reader, OO.o, Firefox, desklets, mp3, skype, IM and a bunch of other things and it is barely pushing 400MB. SUSE uses the rest of the memory as a disk cache...

But even the 384MB 1Ghz P-III laptop is more than powerful enough to run OO.o under Linux without straining itself - OK, I don't run the transparency and 3D effects because it only has an old SiS shared memory card in it.

It is only MS Windows that is pushing for more and more memory, Mac OS X, Unix and Linux need a fraction of the memory to do the same thing, and in many cases better...

It feels like the times when we switched from CBM64's to Amiga's and Atari ST's, a game would be squeezed into the CBM64 and the same game was still squeezed into the Amiga, which had 4-8 times the memory. I saw the code of one game (I had a friend who worked for a software house), whilst the CBM64 code was very tightly written to be able to squeeze it into the available memory. The Amiga on the other hand was very poorly coded in comparison, instead of a very tight loop to make a delay, there were 10's of pages of NOP's (No Output's). Basically when the memory and processing power is available to the developer, they will use it whether they need it or not, quality and efficiency of code goes out of the window.

For people who can afford to keep upgrading to the latest and fastest machines all is great, for those that have a perfectly functional PC, they suddenly find they need to buy a new PC to do the same tasks they were already doing comfortably with the old machine, for no visible benefit, other than maybe some snazy visuals that get in the way of doing their work.

As said above, I've currently got around 115 processes running - although Linux lets you look at all of them - and it isn't even pushing 400MB...

Judas

i can run probably 100 processes as well.. but it all varies on what specifically is running... and there own footprints..

i've loaded up a single process and it's instantly consumering 50+mb right outa the box.... no realy reason...

but windows vista..... there bloody well couldn't possibly be 47 processes running @ startup... i'm sorry but i just can't conceive it.... MAX 25... there's just no frigen way 47 is startup.... someones yanking our chain at the INQ.. which... imo, has generally zero weight

RIV@NVX

You know, typical SUSE installation goes around 3 GB. In 3 GB you can get so much software that you don't know where to start. I don't mind Windows Vista taking 5 GB or 10 GB, but I want it to justify the space it takes.

Which I doubt. They were stripping the promised features during the last year or two. If they stripped some unimportant junk, noone would care. But, I must admit that WinFS was actually pretty cool.

As for the effects, transparencies, stuff like that: Mac OS had it for years, Linux will get it this year (Xgl/Compiz - it's already in nearly ready phase). It's definitly not "Microsoft thought about it first".

kelticknight

will wait to see what final os will be,but not in hurry to get,probly wait few months or better till all bugs are gone or first sp1

CDsDontBurn

i voted: can't wait

although, in the current situation i am in, it will be a while before i can get my hands on a final release of vista. ATM, i have the 5229 beta, which is rather dated i've heard. winXP will serve it's purposes for me just fine, but i am actually anticipating for me to get vista put onto my machine.

blown503

Xp works great for anything I do. paying hundreds of dollars again and again will not improve anything. Anything vista will do I can get xp to do There will be no feature that will be in vista that will be worth the latteral move.

blown503

I have 5308, and its not worth anything yet. Xp still rules on this one.

Sandok

Wow very nice poll Almost a thrid per choice

CDsDontBurn

yea, this poll compared to most others seems to be very close. very rare that polls are like this.

Tril

I voted for I need more info. Apart from 64bits support, I haven't heard much about what's new in this OS. Is there a place somewhere on Microsoft website where all the new features are detailled?

It feels like the change between Windows 2000 and Windows XP. Apart from graphical changes, on the surface they are very similar.

There are still people using only a small amount of RAM. I have 256 MB of RAM in my Windows XP computer. I would prefer having more but the computer is too old to make it worth to buy more RAM. I'll increase my amount of RAM when I buy a new computer and I see no reason to buy a new one.

If you don't play games (I prefer gaming consoles), encode videos or do any task requiring a lot of cpu power and gpu power, I see no need for the most recent computer and OS.

Microsoft is creating a need to do business (you can't blame them, it's their job). I'm talking about new software that does (more or less) the same thing as old software.
Windows2k vs Windows XP
All the different versions of Microsoft Office. How many different versions are there? Office 12 is supposed to be released about at the same time as Vista. Each version comes in many different editions : student, basic, standard, small business, professional, professional enterprise.

Of course there are improvements between versions and editions but you have to weight the advantages and disadvantages before making a buying decision.

In the end, I won't upgrade to Vista until I buy a new computer and that will be no sooner than one or two years. I'll probably choose to buy a new console before buying a new computer.

Falstaff

sure why not, my God it just has to be better

GeneralClaymore

Yes of course I am, It be my normaly staying up to date thing. I already ready for it, It just we dont have HDCP video cards yet. I have the montior .

People the DRM in Vista isnt the same as sony DRM. DRM vista is there to stop people from taking files off your computer for protection for your computer. Its not the same DRM that gonna telll you what to do with your media.

sk3

I voted for "i need more info"

I think Vista is consuming much more memory than XP because micro$hit want's to move forward with .NET appz. We can se an example like ATI CCC. It consumes much memory. So my opinion is that vista will be "full .NET based" in the future but i don't think micro$hit will release something that consumes more than 512MB when they recomend at least that memory (its almost more 25% than the recomended memory. i think that will make too much "paging"). I'll stay will XP and see what Vista has to offer when it's released. I guess i can be wrong but i'll wait and see.

big_D