How do you feel about Vista & hefty Hardware requirements?

[skilzygw]

I don't know what to think. I understand that I want my OS to look nice and high res. Like OS X. However I don't think it should be a resource hog that kills all other or steals processor cycles from other apps. Back and forth I go. I want pretty, but I don't want to pay for pretty.

How do you all feel about Vista? Is the "graphics" worth it in your opinion?

thanks.

 

[Npl]

I havent found 1 single thing to like about Vista yet.
D3D-driven GUI my ass, I dont want a dozen apps occupying a seperate buffer each, even if most of them are occluded( im using "Classic View" in WinXP ). Database Filesystem - nice way to waste resources if your incapable to use a Player with integrated MediaLibrary. DRM - wont even start arguing.

The only thing that WinXP is lacking is scaling up Fonts and GUIs nicely on higher Resolutions, everything else that Vista provides is a step back.

 

[fallguy]

Wont bother me, I tend to have high end hardware anyways.

Im sure you can make it look like Win2000 if you wish, just like with XP. Its how I run XP, I dont really care for the new look, and I like to try and limit how much resources the OS uses.

 

[see colon]

all these years people have complained about windows bloat and i never really believed them. vista is the first windows OS i don't think i'll upgrade to at launch.

 

[wireframe]

I don't know what to think. I understand that I want my OS to look nice and high res. Like OS X. However I don't think it should be a resource hog that kills all other or steals processor cycles from other apps. Back and forth I go. I want pretty, but I don't want to pay for pretty.

How do you all feel about Vista? Is the "graphics" worth it in your opinion?

There is certainly more to say (and hope for) about Windows Vista than just the GUI, but perhaps that is best left to another thread or later in this one.

To answer your question, I am not sure which is better: a resource hog or an OS that doesn't use the resources at its disposal. The latter is definitely true about Windows as of now. Your CPU is doing all the work and only getting a little help in some increasingly less important 2D acceleration features. The point of the Vista GUI revision (other than making more money for MS) is to make your GPU take over the work of drawing the screen. Done right, this should free up your CPU to do more important things. Of course, you may end up with so much eye-candy that it still grinds to a halt, but if you would have Vista draw a GUI like the one on XP, for example, you should end up with better performance provided you have the 3D accelerator hardware (SM 2.0 and up from what I gather).

This is not to say that Microsoft won't make an inefficient OS with lots of bloat, putting features where we need them least and leaving out simples ones that we do. However, the GUI aspect of Vista should be scalable and better use the hardware resources at its disposal. Personally, I think it's high time we made a real jump in OS features instead of these incremental ones that cost us more in piecemeal upgrades. I'm all for killing "legacy" and ready for a new revolution in computing (not that Vista will be it). So, there lies my bias.

 

[Sxotty]

Looking at anandtechs article regarding apple g5 processors it definitely does not seem that OSX is a low over head speedy OS by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[BlueTsunami]

The ONLY aspect of Vista that has gotten me interested is WinFS. I was excited about the GUI (Aeros) but it loses its charm after a little while. After the charm is dead and gone....it begins to feel like XP's cousin (thats always dressed in a shiny suit). The hardware requirements are ridiculous, instead of revolutionizing the OS...they opt to make it prettier...at the expense of resources. You do have the ability to scale back....but scale back enough and your back with the WinXP GUI. I was reading a review (before I got Vista Beta1) and the reviewer stated that Vista (in its current form) has been hatcheded down throughout the years (from what Microsoft first promised). It now is in a form that pale in comparison to what it could have been.

The sad thing (for those still holding out for hope), the only real big deal about Beta2 (which is being released this Fall) is it comes equiped with a prettier GUI.

Looking at anandtechs article regarding apple g5 processors it definitely does not seem that OSX is a low over head speedy OS by any stretch of the imagination.

It isn't, but the FEEL I get from is much more speedy than WindowsXP. This comes from running an eMac (1.0GHz G4 with 640MB of 133MHz SDRAM). I've been running this system for a while...and its not getting bogged down, unlike WindowsXP..where if not held by the hand...gets bloated very easily (and runs very innuficiently).

 

[swaaye]

Vista may have steep requirements but my experience with the beta has been pretty nice. It really feels faster and smoother than XP IMO. The graphics engine is particularly exciting though and could become annoying. But the OS does not feel "bloated". It feels faster than Win98SE honestly. And it is faster/quicker/smoother than XP I believe.

 

[Frank]

Why would most people want or need to buy a new computer if not for games or a new version of Windows that requires it? I's not as if a computer that's three years old is obsolete for surfing, Office, MSN and downloading, which is what the vast majority does with it. Moore's law needs all the help it can get, nowadays, to keep the IT industry profitable.

 

[ANova]

I'll reserve judgement for the final build before I really decide but Vista doesn't excite me in the least at this point.

 

[3dilettante]

When I eventually get around to a new system, Vista will be standard. I'd probably do what a lot of people are going to do and cut nearly every GUI feature back, shouting "Keep your stinking paws off of my system resources, you damn dirty ape."

Most real innovation in Vista is apparently delayed to some unknown future date. The window dressing that's left is something I don't want to waste my time on.

 

[Frank]

For home use, most people want XP, "because it looks much nicer", the newest version of MSN and their favorite file sharing program. They don't care very much about all the other things.

And yes, even on a Pentium 800. Because that's what everyone uses, you don't want to look backward, and it looks much nicer. And if it gets too slow, it's time to buy a new computer.

 

[swaaye]

Yes, the masses are highly predictable.

 

[skilzygw]

I guess I dont want to buy a new pc for some crappy bloated OS. But rather because the software I want to run needs it.

 

[Sxotty]

Well vista does have the potential to significantly speed up games, and that alone makes it worthwhile to me...

 

[3dilettante]

The revamped DX handling should be helpful, though I wonder if it won't wind up breaking a lot of compatiblity for programs (even ones not 5 years old) that were programmed under the old stuff.

OpenGL might be in a little trouble, though.

 

[ANova]

OGL is out the door and basically all versions of DX below 10 will run slower then they do on XP.

That coupled with all the built in DRM bs, No thanks.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

it'd be nice, if when you're playing a game, for example, you had the option of stripping down everything that is uneeded so it doesn't waste resources. like a click box on the launch icon for "take candy away". or perhaps boot up in gaming mode or something (you can check off a list of startups that you don't need). i typically kill all killables before firing up resource heavy games (especially since im running a p4 1.4G in 2005).