So you think the system requirements for software should never increase?
512 megs of ram isn't that uncommon these days.
As to Aero, whats wrong with requiring full DX 9 hardware with 128 megs of
ram? You don't need to run Aero to use Vista so they were right in
designing Aero for the future, remember its a complete redesign of the UI to
move it all into 3d and better to do it all at once then a small piece at a
time. No need to design it so it can run on less powerful hardware as that
would limit it from its full potential. Think about it from the perspective
of a programmer, should they be forced to target the UI they make for their
apps to run on a multitude of UI renders? Wouldn't it be much better for
them to assume an Aero UI can take advantage of everything?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Ruset" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "The Hardware List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 04, 2006 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: [H] I'm convinced, Vista is garbage.
I have access to the Vista betas via my company's MSDN subscription.
I've played with some of the previous betas and pretty much came to the
same conclusion as Chris.
First off, the system requirements are a joke. One of the nice things
about previous versions of Windows is that they would run (slowly,
perhaps) on systems with low amounts of RAM. I once had Windows 2000
Server running on a P2-300 with 128MB of RAM, running as an Active
Directory domain controller in a production environment. Vista requires
512MB of RAM as a minimum.
Areoglass's requirements are also a joke. I'm sorry, but I shouldn't
need to have a dedicated graphics controller with 128mb of RAM just to
get transparencies, the weird ALT-TAB replacement, etc. I'm running on a
6 month old Dell Inspiron 700m laptop with an Intel 850 graphics
chipset. Granted, it's not the best, but I'm sorry, it should be enough
to run Vista with at least some of the 3D effects.
The UI changes are extremely frustrating. The stanard File - Edit - View
menus on explorer windows are gone. You have to dig through some menus
to enable them. The new start menu is pretty bad as well.
I didn't really look into Device Manager at all, as the system supported
all of my hardware right out of the box. I also didn't care about
encrypting my file system, so I can't comment about any of Chris's
experiences there.
XP, I believe, is pretty much the pinnacle of Windows development. Vista
is mostly XP with some eyecandy, IE7, and a lot of frustrating usability
changes. I don't think people are going to rush out and say "HEY I GOT
TO UPGRADE TO VISTA" like we saw with Win95 (or even to an extent with
XP.) Vista will move units only because OEM's will preload it.
Playing with Vista has made me more interested in desktop Linux. I'm
typing this in Thunderbird from SuSE Enterprise Linux Desktop 10 RC1.
It's actually the first Linux I can say that I have played with that
things mostly "just work." Novell has invested a LOT of R&D into making
Desktop Linux much, much better. I think SLED 10 would be great on a lot
of corporate desktops. Maybe in 2-3 more releases it may be ready for
Joe Consumer. Unlike Vista, I can actually *USE* the 3D desktop effects
(XGL).
I'm just afraid of having to support Vista when it comes out. It will be
the first version of Windows that I won't know inside and out.
-ben
