Your Opinion on Vista?

[Stallyon]

I use Vista Ultimate 64-bit version. I haven't had a problem with it, except the 64-bit IE which doesn't have a version of Flash player for it yet. I think it's generally great. Everyone bagged XP to the devil and back when it first came out, why should Vista be any different?

[god0fgod]

So you're basically implying that all Windows users are not sensible. That's a rather naive statement.

- Adam

Almost spilt my drink.

[Liquinn]

Vista tends to use more resources than XP and Home, when not even needed.

[symbolicpixel]

I would not even touch a Linux platform; there are way too many versions, that is one reason.

[Stallyon]

Vista tends to use more resources than XP and Home, when not even needed.

XP uses more resources than Windows 98 or 2000, when not even needed.

[AdamR]

Vista tends to use more resources than XP and Home, when not even needed.

That's open to interpretation. If we're talking about Superfetch, Vista is using essentially all of the physical memory in order to cache commonly used and anticipated programs ahead of time. Just because the resources are being used doesn't mean they're being wasted. Now if we're dealing with under 2GB of RAM, you may notice a slowing effect as a result since a lot of swapping will occur between physical memory and page files.

With my 4GB RAM machine, I regularly see 2.5-3.5GB of physical memory filled with no programs "open." My HDD is accessed significantly less than my XP machine because of this.

- Adam

[god0fgod]

I would not even touch a Linux platform; there are way too many versions, that is one reason.

That makes no logical sense.

Oh, there's too many DVD's in that shop so I'm not going to bother watch a movie tonight.

?????

[Nicholas the Italian]

Adam,
I have no doubt that if a system has 4 terabyte of RAM the OS should use 100% of it, because the wasted space is that which is not used.
The question is: is Vista able to run decently on a system with 512 megs of RAM (disabling whatever unneeded flashy feature it lets you disable)? If the answer is 'no', it is a black hole, not an operating system.

[Tripp]

I would not even touch a Linux platform; there are way too many versions, that is one reason.

That makes no logical sense.

Oh, there's too many DVD's in that shop so I'm not going to bother watch a movie tonight.

?????

Wow, you are truly ignorant. You make such an absurd statement above but yet you're calling him out on his...yeah...

Act with sense and switch to a non windows OS.

And Adam, not everyone gas 4 GB of RAM....Vista itself is a pretty penny depending on what package you get...so by far, not a lot of people will have 4 GB of RAM

You have to think of Vista in terms of how fast the average computer is and how much knowledge the user has.

[mcdanielnc89]

I absolutely love it. I have had absolutely NO PROBLEMS with it. I am running on 2gb of ram, 160 gb hd, and amd processor.(i think)... I have tons of stuff installed, over 2000 music files, about 15 movies, and about 30 programs(software) It runs like a charm, is more organized, I have updated to SP1. and it works even better..

[AdamR]

The question is: is Vista able to run decently on a system with 512 megs of RAM (disabling whatever unneeded flashy feature it lets you disable)? If the answer is 'no', it is a black hole, not an operating system.

I'm running it on a 1.5Ghz P4 with 512MB RDRAM and a 64MB GeForce 2 GPU with Superfetch disabled. It actually runs very nicely as an OS. Now, the problem comes when I start launching programs. IE/Firefox will regularly take up well over 100MB of RAM with only a few tabs open and other programs will do the same thing.

I experience the same thing on a Linux or OS X system with 512MB RAM. The OS itself will run fine on 512MB RAM. But you can forget multitasking.

And Adam, not everyone gas 4 GB of RAM....Vista itself is a pretty penny depending on what package you get...so by far, not a lot of people will have 4 GB of RAM

You have to think of Vista in terms of how fast the average computer is and how much knowledge the user has.

At no time will I ever advocate someone with subpar system specs upgrade to Vista. Heck, I've told people who are running OS X Tiger on 512MB RAM to stick with it and not go to Leopard until they upgrade their machine.

On that note, try buying a desktop or laptop with less than 2GB of RAM. They're hard to find in retail stores in ratio to the other systems that are offered. Most desktops are running 3GB off the shelf.

Things need to be upgraded at some point in time both on the consumer side and the OEM/Software producer side. If you don't have the proper specs, then don't upgrade. It's that simple. You wouldn't expect someone with a CRT TV to buy a Blu-ray player.

- Adam

[Nicholas the Italian]

It actually runs very nicely as an OS. Now, the problem comes when I start launching programs.

Does anyone else see a contradiction here?
I tried it on a 512MB machine (a notebook, actually). Yeah, once you've waited a couple of minutes for it to load, it works ( ). It creates a 400MB swap file, but yeah, it works.
You just can't run applications. But yeah, who needs applications when you've got such an operating system?

I don't mean to bash Vista, really, but I would expect an operating system to scale well with the hardware he is on; make a super-awesome OS that runs wonderfully on petahertz machines, but let it run in a "basic mode" with a Win2K-like skin that can run with 256 megs, please!
It would also be intelligent for Microsoft itself: main reason for which many aren't upgrading is the resource hog, be it real or "invented" doesn't matter.

BTW, I'm quite curious about how will Windows 7 be from this point of view. I don't expect it to have lower requisites than Vista, but maybe for the first time they won't be higher? We'll find out.

[AdamR]

It actually runs very nicely as an OS. Now, the problem comes when I start launching programs.

Does anyone else see a contradiction here?
I tried it on a 512MB machine (a notebook, actually). Yeah, once you've waited a couple of minutes for it to load, it works ( ). It creates a 400MB swap file, but yeah, it works.
You just can't run applications. But yeah, who needs applications when you've got such an operating system?

If you read the next line I stated the same thing happens with Linux or OS X. And it's typically not the OS designer's fault: it's the application designers. I used Firefox just as an example. Firefox is a living hell when it comes to memory usage. Only now in Firefox 3 are they fixing these issues. Program developers, while acknowledging the fact that having more RAM at their disposal will allow the program to do more complex tasks, have also become lazy as the cost of RAM has been dropping exponentially.

- Adam

[Stallyon]

Adam,
I have no doubt that if a system has 4 terabyte of RAM the OS should use 100% of it, because the wasted space is that which is not used.
The question is: is Vista able to run decently on a system with 512 megs of RAM (disabling whatever unneeded flashy feature it lets you disable)? If the answer is 'no', it is a black hole, not an operating system.

Ever tried running Windows XP on a 486? Technology changes, as does requirements. There's no difference between when Windows XP came out and people bagged the hell out of it, claiming they'd never use it, it's bloated and uses far too many resources.

This whole Vista bashing is major deja vu as far as I'm concerned.

[Nicholas the Italian]

Ever tried running Windows XP on a 486? Technology changes, as does requirements. There's no difference between when Windows XP came out and people bagged the hell out of it, claiming they'd never use it, it's bloated and uses far too many resources.
This whole Vista bashing is major deja vu as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, if fact I do think Vista will be considered a good OS in due time. It's just 2-3-4 years ahead of its time, as XP was.
I switched to XP on 2005, I guess I'm not going to switch to Vista before 2010 (unless Win7 is so "wow" that I decide to skip it altogether, but it's rather unlikely).

Also, please consider the "Moore law" is no more valid. As we approach the physical edges, a lot of parameters of modern hardware are increasing less and less rapidly.