JPHiP Forum
General => Akihabara => Topic started by: chera on December 24, 2006, 11:45:15 PM
-
Could H!P'sters who have tried out Windows Vista share their experiences? With release less than 2 months away, I'm interested in seeing whether it's worth the hassle of upgrading from XP and reinstalling all my apps.
I'm very conservative with my OS's: I only upgraded to XP in 2003, after using Windows 2000 for 3 years. And I'm still using OS X Panther on another computer. I'm not really impressed with the fancy visuals of Vista because after all these years of using XP and 2000, my theme is still Windows Classic, with all effects turned off.
Processor and RAM-wise, I should be able to run Vista with no problem. The only bottleneck is video: my laptop (a ThinkPad R52) only has 64MB of graphics memory on a Radeon X300, which is less than the 128MB minimum for Vista Capable.
-
^ Hm there are a few versions of the R52 it looks like, the one I am seeing has a Intel 900 with 128MB..
I for now would not run Vista on a labtop, unless it was specificly made for it, has to do with graphics but also with power consumption. Some default settings in Vista are made to have it work smoothly, but reduce battery life.
Aero Glass and all the other frills require memory and CPU power to work.
That said an X300 should be able to run Aero Glass Vista (but the <128MB will probably disable the feature), I have used a PCIxpress X300 for testing without problems.
If you are still using the classic theme, you might only have advantage of the improved security features while running, but thats about it.
Vista (in my view currently) is about security and looks.
Vista is going on my work-desktop next week to see how it behaves during daily work (including program development) together with Office 2007, w'll see, it will need some getting used to with the file-explorer but I like the 'search' box which is actually a combined search/run/connect to network shares without having to click the 'Run...' like in XP.
-
Vista (in my view currently) is about security and looks.
Is that "security" as in "it crashes/hangs less" or as in "fewer more resistant to /trojans/spyware/virii"? I've never been infected, so it's the former that I want.
-
^ I think they mean less trojans/spyware/viruses (yes, I actually checked (http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/plural-of-virus.html) to make sure I was using the plural of Virus right.. how sad)
-
It is also about crashes/hangs because they shifted a lot of drivers out of the kernel space again (putting them in started with W2000) because they (meaning things like display drivers) have a tendency to crash the most.
Yes most crashes these days are not directly in Windows but in drivers not written by Microsoft, they are coming back from the 'speed improvement' and going back to stability.
-
For all those interested in Vista, check out this site http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt
the info there may help you with your choice. You can also find that document here http://storeandserve.com/download/661570/VistaCost.doc.html
-
my freind tried it out he said it reminded him of a cheap ripoff of mac osX
-
i have a friend that has use it and his opinion of it is that "it rocks" so im guessing its good. well as for myself i like the new quality and effects. for the computer i have now, it may hiccup a bit while running vista (first i'll need to upgrade to 1 gig though, but gfx is the problem) but im gonna build a new system anyway and it'll be ready for vista =]. i tried using vista for a bit on someone elses computer, i say any windows will do fine but i'll get vista because i like the new feel to it. its always nice to have a new theme and all that seeing the same thing everyday.
-
my freind tried it out he said it reminded him of a cheap ripoff of mac osX
Poeple should remember Vista was *designed* (and actually a mockup shown) *before* al those new flashy mac OSX thingies.
Main problem: the 3D interfaces was never completed :evil: so now Sun (yes Sun not Apple) 'steals the show' with there 3D desktop.
Yup, Microsoft dropped the ball in a lot of places with Vista.
-
i used it for a few months, and it was alright i guess. the main things i noticed.
1) NO driver support
2) amd64 3000+,1g ram, 256mb radeon x600pro ... is slow. i would say 2g ram and a newer vid card would be needed.
in 6 months to a year, you'll have no choice but to upgrade. it's the way of the future.
-
Haven't ried it but the only thing i noe is:
Vista---> resources eater.
-
Poeple should remember Vista was *designed* (and actually a mockup shown) *before* al those new flashy mac OSX thingies.
Main problem: the 3D interfaces was never completed :evil: so now Sun (yes Sun not Apple) 'steals the show' with there 3D desktop.
Yup, Microsoft dropped the ball in a lot of places with Vista.
People should remember that the Aqua interface (those new flashy mac OSX thingies) has been around for more than 8 years. And the Sun 3D desktop (Project Looking Glass) has been in development for about seven years, went out of sight for a while and now is back. And the 3D desktop that's stealing the show is not Sun's, is one developed by Novell for it's Linux distro, a project called Compiz, that has its best example in a program called Beryl
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nsUKXEaTgcg
http://youtube.com/watch?v=CBRba0jsxGQ
-
The only thing that I really really liked about OSX was Expose, the 1-click windows management system. After using Expose, the thought of using Alt-Tab or dragging the mouse to the Start Bar seems obscene.
All the other 3D flash is just for show, but Expose actually improved my productivity.
If Vista has similar flashy features to OS X, but none of the productivity enhancements, I don't relaly know what I have to look forward too.
-
The only thing that I really really liked about OSX was Expose, the 1-click windows management system. After using Expose, the thought of using Alt-Tab or dragging the mouse to the Start Bar seems obscene.
That kind of feature actually was shown in the mockup for Vista (before Apple showed/implemented it) and not completed :evil:
IE7 has a simular feature for tabbed webpages.
Can't says I use those 'enhancements' I am still a taskbar junky.
@reyfer: that is actualy XINE, an X-Windows feature.
While I do not like effects when opening a menu (certainly not rotating) is does look flashy :)
And: even more a resource hog (e.g. CPU/highend graphics card needed)
BTW this kind of 3D interface (walls you have your programs on) is from even more then 10 years ago but only available on high-end X-Windows workstations then, they are just now 'coming down' to 'normal' desktops.
(Whish that Apple hadn't dropped the Lisa for the Mac)
-
@frblckstr1: I'm using it on my linux, and it is called BERYL. To confuse it with XINE (which by the way is a multimedia playback engine) is something I don't understand. And about resource hog, it is working great on my PC, AMD Semprom 2800+, 1 GB ram, and an Nvidia GeForce FX 5500 512 Mb. And I still can do all my work.
-
Ah, sorry name confusion (not using *nix that mush just keeping an eye on it till I find enough usefull programs for me)
I was actually refering the Xgl, the underlying Xwindows technology (incl. OpenGL) that is used to 'do it' a.f.a.i.k.
Novell uses it also: http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/xgl/
And I mean resource hog because a video card with 512MB (I think you mean MB not Mb) and 1GB of memory is even more then the spec Vista uses.
Running this on a 32MB video card and 256MB memory... I don't think so.
-
Ah, sorry name confusion (not using *nix that mush just keeping an eye on it till I find enough usefull programs for me)
I was actually refering the Xgl, the underlying Xwindows technology (incl. OpenGL) that is used to 'do it' a.f.a.i.k.
Novell uses it also: http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/features/xgl/
And I mean resource hog because a video card with 512MB (I think you mean MB not Mb) and 1GB of memory is even more then the spec Vista uses.
Running this on a 32MB video card and 256MB memory... I don't think so.
You're right, it is XGL.
And about running Vista on a 32MB video card and 256MB memory... I dare you to show me proof that somebody actually did it, because I talked to Microsoft techs here and in USA and they laughed at me. As a matter of fact, the Vista System requirements specify at least 128 MB video memory.
What is a Windows Vista Capable PC?
A new PC that carries the Windows Vista Capable PC logo can run Windows Vista. All editions of Windows Vista will deliver core experiences such as innovations in organizing and finding information, security, and reliability. All Windows Vista Capable PCs will run these core experiences at a minimum. Some features available in the premium editions of Windows Vista—like the new Windows Aero user experience—may require advanced or additional hardware.
A Windows Vista Capable PC includes at least:
* A modern processor (at least 800MHz).
* 512 MB of system memory.
* A graphics processor that is DirectX 9 capable.
Windows Vista Premium Ready PCs
To get an even better Windows Vista experience, including the Windows Aero user experience, ask for a Windows Vista Capable PC that is designated Premium Ready, or choose a PC that meets or exceeds the Premium Ready requirements described below. Features available in specific premium editions of Windows Vista, such as the ability to watch and record live TV, may require additional hardware.
A Windows Vista Premium Ready PC includes at least:
* 1 GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor.
* 1 GB of system memory.
* Support for DirectX 9 graphics with a WDDM driver, 128 MB of graphics memory (minimum), Pixel Shader 2.0 and 32 bits per pixel.
* 40 GB of hard drive capacity with 15 GB free space.
* DVD-ROM Drive.
* Audio output capability.
* Internet access capability.
From http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx
-
And about running Vista on a 32MB video card and 256MB memory... I dare you to show me proof that somebody actually did it, because I talked to Microsoft techs here and in USA and they laughed at me. As a matter of fact, the Vista System requirements specify at least 128 MB video memory.
From http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/getready/capable.mspx
I was not refering to Vista for that (more to other 'standard' *nix actually)
Vista does not need 128MB video memory to run unless you want Aero with Glass (it does want 512MB RAM) and its an 'enforced' limit to 'get performance'.
Haven't retried lately to force an install on less RAM, not sure if any RTM version actually allows it.
-
If you game expect there to be some compatibility issues. For example, World of Warcraft and Warcraft III have sound issues (WC3's problem is actually resolvable with the use of a 3rd party program). And like others have said, there may be driver issues. There's all the issues of Vista being resource intensive and the like, but having said that I'm still able to run the most resource intensive games (Oblivion, Neverwinter Nights, Dark Messiah of Might and Magic) out there at a reasonable speed and my computer only scores a 4.8 or so on the "Vista Experience" scale.
Let's put it this way; Vista is kind of fun to install and try out just because it's a new OS, but if you have to reliably produce with your computer in anyway you should wait until Vista becomes well established as far as the drivers/program compatibility goes. Also, if you don't like the idea of having to tinker around to get all your old programs and external hardware running Vista is also not for you. Furthermore, a lot of the newer features are aimed at user-friendliness and an increased amount of wizards rather than any real increase in efficiency.
-
There's all the issues of Vista being resource intensive and the like, ... out there at a reasonable speed and my computer only scores a 4.8 or so on the "Vista Experience" scale.
My system is scoring 2.6 (for gaming) and 3.1 (for Business Graphics) as lowest points.
CPU is 4.2 (3GHz P4) memory at 5.3 (2GB interleaved), HD is 5.3 (160GB SATA)
And I must says for now its performing faster at most programs then XP on this same hardware. But that might be attributed mainly also to a new install (and still have no virus scanner active), the XP had been running/upgraded/misused for 2 years.
-
edit--> oops, didn't realize reyfer already linked the article on the last page. XD
not sure how many of you really care about issues of DRM (or will be investing money in HDCP hardware and content), but for anyone who is interested, give this a read:
www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt (http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt)
vista is adding unnecessary overhead in the encryption of HD signals (from, for instance, Blu-Ray or HD-DVD videos), in an effort to prevent illegal use of the signal (for copying, etc). in order to do this, vista will require additional cpu cycles to process the encryption and decryption. furthermore, vista will require additional certification of hardware, so that in the case of video cards, the HD signal isn't being sent to an unauthorized chip where it can then be ripped. in this regard, even though GPUs are already released as HDCP-"schema"-compliant, they have not been properly authorized under vista, and most likely will be denied access to the encrypted HD signals.
the article compares microsoft and HD video to apple with iTunes, where content publishers will be forced into complying with microsoft's (or apple's) rules, or else not be able to sell their content to windows (or iTunes) users. in short, the approach microsoft is taking with vista to ensure DRM comes at the cost of the consumer: either with the performance impact from the lost cycles due to encryption/decryption, or with the additional cost of specialized hardware that does exactly the same as what lesser/cheaper hardware does with non-DRM'd content.
makes you wonder about those "minimum" system requirements, whether the new features really justify new hardware, or if the extra requirements are to pre-emptively support the security overhead. of course, if you have no (short term) plan to adopt Blue-Ray or HD-DVD (or any other HDCP-related signal transmission), then this is all moot. but considering that a number of people are willing to adopt vista (citing vista's "new features", how they will supposedly remedy XP's problems), i for one agree with the prediction of digital-content monopoly that apple/iTunes holds on music.
as far as my experience with vista goes, i got in on the beta run and gave it a go. i was not impressed in any way, be it interface, performance, features, or anything else. just fyi: i am no longer an avid gamer, so my computing applications are not strictly performance/graphics intensive. i run nlite builds of XP corp for my XP installs, and on my home server i have win2k3 running half a dozen basic networking services. as i see it, in order for microsoft to be able to target a large audience (to support a wide range of users and hardware), it has to have an all-inclusive package of windows--hence the idea that all vista DVDs will be vista ultimate, but only certain things will be installed/accessible given proper keys/activation. i have found this approach to be somewhat of the downfall to XP: if you install a whole bunch of services in an effort to provide the greatest amount of compatability among applications, games, users, etc--inevitabily there will be services that are left unused by the user--which are then exploited. with nlite, i trim the fat of XP which i dont use (ie: messenger & co., plus pre-configured security levels, etc), such that upon format/install, XP is running exactly everything i need it to run, nothing less and nothing more. (compare nlite as the opposite linux, where you build your install from the ground up, ie: compile, tailored as you need). of course, not everyone knows what every component in windows is doing, so they have no idea whether they can cut it out or not... and yet, this will be a similar problem under vista, since it will be unrolled as an image with all services installed. the unix-like least-permissions model is nice, but preliminary reviews have already indicated them as being flawed. (the "authorize" dialog is simply "yes" or "no", and uninitiated users wont know which to click... inevitably clicking yes). of course, there's the vlite project (vista equivalent of nlite), so i look forward to that.
basically, my two cents: vista is a step up from XP... and also two steps sideways. there are certainly improvements and new features that resolve problems in XP, but my prediction is that after vista gets a large adoption, those two steps sideways will reveal themselves as problematic ("off course"), and that step forward won't be so impressive anymore.
-
^ A few things are not entirely correct in the above post.
HDCP is hardware, no overhead for HDTV/HDCP when its available, just pump the bit stream thru from the DVD to the videocard/TV. The overhead is mainly for the downgrading to 480i on your screen (maybe because newer video cards will do this in hardware anyway and newer LCD screens will be HDCP compliant even on DVI e.g. see the new 30" HP display)
DRM is something the movie companies require not Microsoft, you can fault Microsoft for implementing it but thats about it.
There is a huge performance difference (in a possitive way) between Vista beta's and the RTM.
The tests Microsoft had someone do on some labtop/desktop systems reflect what I have seen 'in real life' for now.
About the only thing people will need 'new' is probably a videocard/screen, most normal hardware bought in the last year will work.
Was anyone able to buy a *new* system with less then a 1GHz CPU in the last year?
(not counting the UMPC's)
Anyway, not going to Vista for my home systems yet.
-
I tried it at laptop (IBM Thinkpad T42) i must say i didnt dislike it :) I like the graphics. The only think is that i is kinda of a memory hog... i ran it with 750MB ram but i think 2GB is a real requirement is you want to run games and stuff...
-
im running vista rc1 32 bit right now on my desktop and the only problem ive had so far is recovering from sleep or standby.. when i converted from xp i only had to install 2 drivers...my printer and my sound card... it read everything else...i give it two thumbs up for now..