[aldo_14]

Or so it would seem.  (well, sort of no TFT support.  slight misphrase in the title)

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/
[q]
(snipped)
Graphics: To render the screen in the GPU requires an awful lot of memory to do optimally - 256MB is a happy medium, but you'll actually see benefit from more.

CPU: - the target is to make Vista perform far better on dual-core and multi-core processors.

RAM: 2GB is the ideal configuration for 64-bit Vista, we're told. Vista 32-bit will work ideally at 1GB, and minimum 512.

Bus: AGP is 'not optimal' for Vista.

Display: Prepare to feel the red mist of rage - no current TFT monitor out there is going to support high definition playback in Vista.
[/q]

It strikes me that's pretty ludicrous to plan an OS that would require hardware upgrades for the majority of people, especially when it comes to corporate users.... what's the impetus for people to switch now?  

Businesses aren't going to spend thousands (+) on new hardware if Xp or 2000 (ignoring the Linux, etc, users of course - their only impetus to switch would be MS kickbacks) works perfectly fine for their purposes on older hardware.

Home users - principally non-gaming ones - will have the attraction of any additional Vista features tempered by a big upgrade cost (especially, again, the ones who only use their machines for typing and browsing).

So it seems daft.  not to mention wildly excessive for an Operating System; something which IMO should use the bare minimum of resources.

[Fineus]

Pffft... that's rediculous. Lack of TFT support alone makes that unviable.

Also, what average application such as Word and Office requires more than 512MB of memory? Few.. even none. Why create an OS that requires that much at a minimum then?

What are they putting in it? XP runs fine on even quite basic systems. What's new in Vista that requires all this raw power?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Kalfireth
Pffft... that's rediculous. Lack of TFT support alone makes that unviable.

Also, what average application such as Word and Office requires more than 512MB of memory? Few.. even none. Why create an OS that requires that much at a minimum then?

What are they putting in it? XP runs fine on even quite basic systems. What's new in Vista that requires all this raw power?

Some 3d based pish for the interface AFAIK.

[Fineus]

Mmm, I went ahead and read the topic after posting that (based on the snippet you provided).

While it sounds interesting that vectors will be used, I wonder what actual advantage that will provide to the user? I'm all for beautiful and fantastic looking graphics but there's a time and a place for everything. My copy of Notepad works fine for simple text notes - so why should I use Word for the job? Why fix what isn't broken?

This whole thing smacks of software and hardware companies jerking eachother off at the expense of the consumers. We now need to upgrade our monitors to new monitors which aren't even available yet if we want to use certain technology when realistically there is no need.

I am... irritated. Hopefully things will not go this way - if they do I honestly hope the consumer market rises up in a bold "**** off, Microsoft" move and sticks with XP / migrates to Linux. I am not going to replace my entire system just so that I can use Microsofts latest product.

[Kie99]

Well **** that.  Its off the scale.  Doesn't seem that much better than XP anyway.

Playing games is going to be a nightmare though.

[redsniper]

That's absurd. If I ran Vista on my comp, I wouldn't be able to run anything else since it would use up all my resources. XP eats enough RAM as it is.

[achtung]

Linux is looking better by the minute.

[DaBrain]

Uhm... I just lost all interest in Vista.

Using my system resources to encrypt all buses in my PC is just unacceptable!

I'm not willing to pay for a feature that makes my PC slower, just to protect some other (rich) peoples movies or software.

They should find a better way to protect their stuff. I don't care.

So, no, I'm not going to buy Vista and I think many people won't.


BTW 3d Interface...

[CP5670]

Seen this before, and I call BS. There are just too many things wrong with this. SATA2 providing the performance of SCSI disks? This guy is clueless.

However, he is probably right about the monitor thing (it will be an issue with HDTVs as well). Although it only applies as far as watching HDCP encrypted movies in full quality is concerned, and there will be certainly be cracks to get around it. I believe a group of professors has already discovered flaws in the HDCP system.

[Mongoose]

Jeez...I only have 512 MB of RAM to begin with, and I'll be damned if a new Windows version forces me to upgrade it.  What are they doing with that desktop, rendering a full-screen hi-poly version of Clippy dancing around? XP runs reasonably quickly on my family's 1.3-gig Dell with 384 megs of RAM; I know they're not going to be performing any hardware updates any time soon.  If this is true, Microsoft's just shooting themselves in the foot.

[Descenterace]

Originally posted by aldo_14
what's the impetus for people to switch now?

Because Billy claims it's the best Windows yet and 'we got it right this time, honest'.

Never underestimate the stupidity and gullibility of the Human Race.

[pyro-manic]

Amusingly, Page admits that there are no monitors out there that will do HDCP, and that this is a problem. Frankly, it's the consumer's problem, however, according to him. "It's up to you [the users] to say, 'Where's my HDCP?'"

Hahahaha. F*ck that. I'll stick with my pirated and stripped-down XP SP1 thanks very much. I'll wait for the tech geeks to find a way around it, and then I'll follow that.

[Flaser]

As I tire of the millions of clones the gaming industry pumps out under the so called label: 'innovation'...
...as I tire of multi-hundred dollar professional software that fails to deliver the same expertise and performance once expects...
...as I realize, more and more of my software is freeware, or semi-open-source product...

...taking on a Linux course, or plainly...
...thinking outside the box, seems more and more likely.

(Not to mention DIRT CHEAP - or even better, a GOOD INVESTMENT as the demand increases for competet IT personel!)

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by CP5670
Seen this before, and I call BS. There are just too many things wrong with this. SATA2 providing the performance of SCSI disks? This guy is clueless.
 

There's a link to the original source in the article.

[CP5670]

Yeah, I've seen the original interview. A lot of it still makes very little sense.

[aldo_14]

Then you know it must be by Microsoft.

EDIT; it's definately a real person, and a real scheduled speech; http://www.microsoft.com/australia/events/teched2005/programinfo/solutions.aspx

[IceFire]

I saw a quick video clip on a system in Linux that uses the 3D card (via OpenGL) to make nifty interface tweaks just like Windows Vista does except without the massive requirement for system performance.

Bloatware...

[Ace]

Actually some of this makes perfect sense. XP was supposidely going to be the last but upgraded OS design.

With the upcoming new nanotech based LCDs with insanely high resolutions, the current way of rendering the GUIs (using bitmap chunks) isn't going to scale well.

Vectors do that much better. While most of their new features are frivilous, they are doing a good thing in at least the CPU and display departments for future compatability.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by IceFire
I saw a quick video clip on a system in Linux that uses the 3D card (via OpenGL) to make nifty interface tweaks just like Windows Vista does except without the massive requirement for system performance.

Bloatware...

I think Sun were working on something similar as a POC for Solaris, too.

[MicroPsycho]

The part about Vista running better on dual core computers I can buy, but an OS that uses 2 gigs RAM? nope, that's just bull****, I can't see any reason for it to use that much, maybe 512 at the most. I can also see how Vista would benefit from a GPU, but 256mb vid card is major overkill. I just can't comprehend how an OS can use that much resources.