Anthony, this is where I think you're missing the point. I don't mind something that requires a lot of resources, etc. Everything eventually has to upgrade. What I and others are contending is that the system resources required in order to get what we get are outrageous.
In other words, the new GUI basically sucks. It is not as though Aero provides you with features that make me say "my goodness! I can't believe I didn't have this before". Will most users sit and press Windows-Tab to watch the sliding windows go by for infinity? I doubt it. I think more users will be unhappy with the fact that things like theme management, which is completely editable in WindowsXP is virtually impossible to edit within Vista. So, cutesy desktops etc. are gone. While people will like the new functionality of a Media Center purposes built in, the new Media Center Interface adds some functionality that we do want. At the same time, by changing the menuing system the way in which they have, those who bought Microsoft's MCE Keyboard will find that it takes MORE keystrokes to access common features then it does in the current version of Media Center. Aero's improved Networking Services are nice, but remember, for users of the "Basic" Aero Home, most of that functionality will not ship with the product at all. In the end, a big part of "buying in" is evaluating what you are getting for what you pay. What the base problem most of us have isn't just the fact that the system requirements went up, it's that what we get for those increased system requirements just isn't very good. If Microsoft offered MS-BOB and told me it was the next generation but had incredible system requirements, the fact that it had higher eye candy but sucked wouldn't matter. So, we get eye candy in Vista, but most of the functionality changes do nothing to enhance the ability of the user to make the best use of the OS. The end user is now: * Locked out of major desktop changes * Made to use more keystrokes for many activities * Provided a much more stark Windows Update which provides users almost no information as to what they download or are installing without multiple clicks. * Creates a reverse swing Start-Menu that while pretty, suffers when a user has a large number of applications installed. In otherwords, Vista as of right now is an OS with high requirements that presents (I'm using Ultimate) a super-dumbed down interface where functionality is limited. If I thought the increased system requirements "got" me something, I wouldn't complain as much, but I'm not seeing where it "gets" me anything. In fact, just the reverse. More then that, as many of us are systembuilders here, system requirements are important to how we conduct business. The requirement of a 128MB dedicated DX9 video card means for many that new machines sold right now will struggle with Vista. That can come back to haunt you. People love to buy a PC around $400-$500 which is why companies like Dell, etc. flog the hell out of them. But in the end, small OEMs will be the ones to hear complaints when those same boxes sold today struggle with Vista in 9 months. CW -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Q. Martin Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 1:00 AM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] I'm convinced, Vista is garbage. Thane Sherrington (S) wrote: > At 09:30 AM 05/06/2006, Chris Reeves wrote: >> Rendering 2d for your video card, as someone pointed out is child's >> play. >> Having it continuously in a 3D enabled mode means it's using more power; >> more heat; more chances for a nice graphics crash. Not sure what great >> benefit there is in that. > > And how many laptops have 128MB of video RAM or more? Not many. So > Vista isn't for laptops, clearly. Of course, they're looking to the > future, when we all buy new ones. :) > They are looking to the future...and eventually, most folks will get another one, but there are always plenty of new folks entering the laptop market. They'll like the new stuff and won't give a hoot about vidram...
