Horst Herb wrote: > On Saturday 10 February 2007 22:51, Peter Machell wrote: >> Vista is a lot better out of the box than any MS OS before it, but >> probably not more reliable than XP SP2, which is (finally) a >> reasonably mature and securable system. > > I'd suggest reading recent reports in the German IT magazine c't where they > thoroughly dissect Vista and revise that statement > > Design certainly appears better than the previous windows versions, with > security a bit less of an afterthought and more incorporated into core > design - but implementation is still largely untested, with many bugs already > known,a huge service pack already looming, and way too many API functions > undocumented and apparently still changing (see eg the nVidia driver > disaster)
And I'm told that you can forget running Vista on any PC with less than 2GB of RAM, and even then your application won't have much space to play in, and thus 4GB of RAM is not overkill for Vista. And if you want the "Aero" translucent windows and other eye-candy, then you need an accelerated 3D graphics card with at lest 512MB of dedicated graphics memory (i.e. most laptops and many current desktops are out - you'll only see graphics which are very similar to those in Win XP). Oh, as Horst say, it had better be a graphics card for which Vista drivers are available. Oh, and forget installing 64-bit Vista on your 64-bit CPU (as almost all CPUs are these days), as there are almost no 64-bit Vista device drivers available for anything, let alone graphics cards, and no, the 32-bit drivers don't work on 64-bit Vista. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
