Delay it again, and make it worth buying

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Microsoft... I don't know (doubt) that you are reading this, but if, by some
off chance that you do, I sincerely hope you take this suggestion seriously.
Delay Vista, yet again, and fix it... Fix it so that hardware requirements
wont break everyone's bank. Fix it so that it is not such a resource hog...
There are other OS out there (not as compatible with the Microsoft programs
that I prefer to use) that are already compatible with 64 bit technology,
which do not use up every little piece of memory and CPU that most computers
of today have to offer. Concluding: Do whatever it takes for Vista to be less
of a resource hog. Some of the features that are built in are nice, but take
TOO much to run. Work on technology that DOESN't require most average PC
users to go out and buy an extremly expensive computer. I would buy a more
efficient OS faster than I would by a tank like Vista.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/co...crosoft.public.windows.vista.hardware_devices
 
Ah if only the rating system had negative numbers... obviously you've never
beta tested OS's before. I did the NT5 aka win2000 and what became XP and at
beta 2 stage there was almost no drivers for anything. As for expensive
computers ..pfffffffttttttttttttttt. I can buy a x64 system minus monitor
for $600 Cad. that'll run it fine, I could put one together for $300 with
used parts that'll run it fine. If you have to save lunch money then it'd be
just as expensive for a good system for XP. Resouce hog,
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah, even XP needs a gig of ram to be effective. Ram is
cheap and sure Vista needs a gig or more, but again, ram is cheap. Unless
one is a hardcore gamer or into heavy duty photo/video editing, cad,
animation, then you don't need "expensive", only they do. And ther is no
"optimization" done to the code in beta2 (and that will include memory ops),
RC1 should have almost all that, so "gee, Jim it's slow" yet it runs just
fine on my other box a amd xp2800+ and nforce2, fact it's running just as
good as XP outside a few glitches, and I can't really tell the diff speed
wise 90% of the time. Also resources/mem usage is a bit illusionary with
Vista, seems bad but for those familiar with win server 2003 know it's not
what it seems (hint: vista is based on win server 2003 not XP). BTW, MS
employees won't read this forum, it's an unsuperviesed users forum only.

"(e-mail address removed)"
 
I'm with you Peter. Resources are so cheap, they're basically free. Dumb to
worry about things being "resource hogs". Who cares anymore? Besides, what
you see in a beta and in a final product are unrelated.

People who whine about resource usage are clueless and are just doing it
because it thinks it makes them look not clueless ;-)
 
The hardware requirements are hardly going to break everyone's bank. I am
running Vista on two different older computers that at the most cost me $500
each to put together and that includes the multiple SATA drives on one. I
have a new Dell that if I put a Video card in to get the Aero Glass effect
would make the total price $750 including a flat screen monitor. Hardly a
"break the bank" situation for someone in the market for a computer these
days.

As for being a resource hog, the same things were said about XP when it came
out. The computer I am on right now is running Vista with the same programs
and windows open that I always have on XP and is using about 100MB more than
XP does in the same situation. Considering that it is a Beta OS and has
extra code in it right now, I don't see that as being a resource hog.

Ted






"(e-mail address removed)"
 
The computers that will have Vista on by default when estimated for release
will likely compare to at the least your old 3-4 Ghz P4 with 1 GB memory for
the basic setup.

Slowness in some applications like games may be rooted in the beta graphics
drivers instead of the OS too. For a particular case I saw the perf went
from unusable to pretty close to normal by switching the drivers.


"(e-mail address removed)"
 
My system runs a lot faster on XP than Vista (Athlon Xp 2000+ with 768MB
RAM). I agree RAM is cheap, but this not implies any vendor can write
inefficient code because of that. Anyway all we know Vista is at Beta
stage and lacks code and memory optimization, so need to wait until RC1
to get a fair point of view against XP.

Peter M escribió:
 
Peter,your missing his point! I think he means many people go out and buy a
low end Dell with 256mb of Ram who know little about computers except to push
the power button. I too feel many people will be sadly dissapointed with
Vista if they install it on one of these machines. Of course they can upgrade
and make it work. But many will be choose to just stay with XP. Many will
think spending $200+ for a OS and then spend even more on their computer to
get it to run right is not realistic.
 
funny that we are in this debate again... whats weirder is that apart from
the glitches i find that vista B2 is faster than xp on my system (although it
is possibly not as fast as a fresh install of xp, i cannot remember how fast
that was) BTW i am running an A64 4000 with 2 gig of ram.
 
I am running the same CPU with a little less RAM and I notice Vista is not
quite as quick as a fresh install of XP. Certainly start-up and shut-down
are slower. Office apps seem quicker in Vista. Odd... All subjective, of
course.
 
John is correct about what I mean... There are people out there that have
bought these Dell systems, cheap, that will discover what a waste they have
made... And for all of you that say your computer runs fine with it, and that
you barely spent anything (because you appear to have built it), I have two
things to say:

a)YOU BUILT IT! lol.. my whole point of this suggestion was the average
user.Since when did "average" mean IT tech? The average person will spend a
good $1000 when Vista comes out... ATLEAST... To get the computer built.

b)You say it runs fine. Big difference between running fine and running
exceptionally fast, which leads into my next paragraph.

Do we not all want our next generatin of computers to run faster? We don't
seem to be evolving our computers for speed, we seem to be making them for
looks (Windows Aero) and features that look good. Microsoft is making OS that
use the same percentage of increasing resources, instead of trying to reduce
that percentage.
 
Maybe the hardcore gamer or the graphic artist is looking for faster, the
average home user is looking for more visual effects and more little apps
running in the tray, like 3 or more IM clients, Google Desktop, all that
other stuff.

--
Mark

Keeping the fun in dysfunctional!

"(e-mail address removed)"
 
May be Vista is optimized for new generation of CPUs? On my system XP
has two years installed with a lot of software on it, and I can say it
runs very very well, and noticeably faster than Vista's fresh install.


CrAy-Z escribió:
 
Back
Top