Vista what you really want

[candle_86]

Ok have been testing vista sense it was renamed vista and if you want to be vista ready I would follow this advice, lower spec will work but not for desired compatabilty. Vista will ship for OEM's in July and will be on shelves in late October.

64bit Dual Core, or fast 64bit single core
1gb of ram
DX 9 compatable video card
DVD drive with region encoding (feb CTP DVD will not work in older DVD drives without region)


Those are what you need to run vista at its potential, the video card is required for Aero Glass affect, so dont expect your GF4 to run glass. 64bit is because the os is being optimized for 64bit computers, a 32bit edition will be released, but having seen it on an XP 2600 would not recomend it.

[ctjoyce]

Well if you would bother to read any of the MS press releases or watch any of the FSX videos you would know that Those are not what you will run it at its potential, more the base specs.

Dual Core 64Bit processer
2GB of RAM
256MB DX9 or greater video card (512MB or greater for gameing)

Vista is running more heavily on your system, and thus needs better hardware. They also changed how they render graphics so that it will be all the GPU insted of the CPU doing about half or more.

Cheers
Cameron

[candle_86]

CJ ignore the MS press releases, I have been running vista, i have vista dual booted on this computer rght now, its just slow. MS is telling you to buy alot of expensive stuff you dont need, belive them if you want. These specs listed are those that have gotten great speed and power on all builds of vista, argue if you want, but I have been part of the vista community longer than most on this site have known about it.

[Gunny04]

I agree with candle, No OS Would need super hardcore specs, look at windows XP, I ran it from 2001 october to early 2004 Febuary on a 900Mhz Celeron with 128 Megs of ram..... I never had a single problem with it, even though 256 is recomended, 128 works fine, just cant run certain programs....... Now I ran XP on a AMD Athlon 3200 2.2Ghz with 512 megs of ram, and no difference, it actually seems somewhat slower, but that is probably bigger hard drive or no computer for a year etc..... in any case, when I got a gig I noticed nothing improving...... So I'm pretty sure the MS Stuff is just bloated to make companies a fortune to prepare for an OS that can run at half or less than what they say, its just your normal thing, it revolves around a topic not spoken on this forum, My Expierence has led me to NEVER believe published specs needed, not lowest, nor highest....... Cheers, Gunny

[Viper22]

just one question... what is the "aero glass effect"?

[Delta_]

Wikipedia Vista.  There is an image of aero glass on the right aswell.

Looking at the list of XP versions i'm interested in the Ultimate Edition.

[quote]This edition will work as a superset of the Home and Business editions and additionally come with podcasting support

[Hai Perso Coyone?]

Can someone tell me if my PC will be able to take Vista?

[candle_86]

Yes you can run vista, may be somewhat slow but it will run fine.

[fish-n-pilot]

CJ ignore the MS press releases, I have been running vista, i have vista dual booted on this computer rght now, its just slow. MS is telling you to buy alot of expensive stuff you dont need, belive them if you want. These specs listed are those that have gotten great speed and power on all builds of vista, argue if you want, but I have been part of the vista community longer than most on this site have known about it.

Are you high?

I am a software engineer and have been beta testing VISTA (longhorn) for well over a year now and have the latest release installed. I also beta tested XP64 bit a year or so back. I would NEVER suggest to the people in this forum who run flight simulator and other games that they need or want VISTA unless they are ready to make some hardware upgrades, and even then... it will probably be a year (from now) before VISTA is clean of the major bugs. I would recommend XP x64 before I would suggest VISTA be considered.

The absolute minimum specs (CPU: 1.5GHz+ / RAM: 512MB+ / HDD: 6gb+) are posted for those who want to run VISTA for web surfing, basic picture viewing and a few other jobs. Anybody who runs FS9 on the minimum specs that MS posted to run WindowsXP is flying in a virtual stutter world or with little or no complicated scenery.

Vista requires serious hardware upgrades to perform at even close to it's best..., did you notice it uses DirectX10? Did you notice the DVD is over 3GB in size? It

[ctjoyce]

Ahh I finally come out of the shadows to say thank you to Dave. I am currently dual booting Vista right now, and can tell you that without glass its very XP, but with all the overtones and pains of Mac's OS X. I have said it time and again, its not going to be worth the upgrade as 85%+ of the client base is not going to want to spend $600+ on an upgrade, or even a new computer. What M$ should really be doing is get DX10 to run with XP. Get better XP64 support from companys, and wate for the new hardware (larger RAM modules, Next Gen CPUs, DX10 Vid cards) to come out, and get eaten up by the end user. Then when about 70% of the client base has compatable systems then switch. Another thing we are forgetting is that to be able to maximise the Vista expirence you need a 64Bit processer. This means that Schools, Government, and Busnesses are all going to have to replace their servers laptops and PCs. A upgrade that will cost billions of dollars.

I don't know, but theres something very NT about the launch of Vista.

Cheers
Cameron

[fish-n-pilot]

theres something very NT about the launch of Vista.

Cheers
Cameron

It is said history tends to repeat itself...


Until the hardware market supports the OS 100% and the cost of that hardware is reasonable, VISTA is worthless.... and even then we will not know the potential (good or bad) of VISTA until allot of hardware is sold and MS R&D's their OS off the backs of the public.

I plan on sticking with x64 as my primary OS until the rediculous marketing scheme blows over. I quad boot x32, x64, linux and Vista.

[fish-n-pilot]

but with all the overtones and pains of Mac's OS X.

Isn't it funny how much vista looks like a MAC?

I guess stealing the source code over 20 years ago was not enough for him... he wants to rub it in Steve's face with this release.

[fish-n-pilot]

Can someone tell me if my PC will be able to take Vista?

It will run it... but you wont like how slow it runs on that hardware, or how long it takes to figure out all the quarks.

By the time you get done with all the frustrating settings and get to installing video games, you will figure out your FS9 runs worse because you do not have the supporting hardware the OS wants you to have installed in order to make FS9 perform the same as it does on XP x32.

[candle_86]

fish i offically am calling you a moron. I dont care how long you have been playing with vista, I am part of the largerst vista community on the planet, and we have a somewhat better uderstanding than you apperntly. I would like to ask you to politly shut your trap, as you are either incompetent, stupid, or a liar. It is also possible you are a combination of all. As for your games not working, umm you really are dumb ent ya, Vista DX10 includeds a software layer for DX7-9 emulation, so no offense please stop giving advice on vista, as it seems to me you work for MS instead of an actual vista user. Though feel free to head over to http://winvistasecrets.com and tell everyone over there, they are unable to run vista well. Also tomorrow I will take some screenshots of my system with vista. But please save me from your stupidity, first talk to people that play with vista 24/7 and then you might understand it a little more. I have had copies of vista sense 2003 with the 3000 builds so I do belive my experince far out weighs yours.

[Delta_]

Vista has Windows 2000 requirements for running it without Aero.  DX9 is the only requirement if you are using Aero.  You need a decent system for Aero, and a really good system for Aero glass.