Why Vista Wont Suck

[SaiyanPrideXIX]

I don't see why I should be forced to upgrade my RAM, my Video (which will require me to jump to yet another Mobo, more ram, and a new proc . . . ) and my monitor this time too? I never had to do that with any previous computer in the PS/2 architecture, now MS is cramming it up my ass every three years. So yeah, I'm tired of being put through the forced upgrade regimen.

My only point is, you're NOT being forced to upgrade. You're being forced to upgrade if you want Windows Vista and the features it entails--which, clearly, most people here don't. I just don't understand why people are so up in arms about it. It's the same thing as ANY advanced program that comes out. Want to play Fear? Need a good video card. Want to use photoshop CS? Need good ram. Want to rip and burn dvds? Need a DVD writer. To me this is the same type of thing.

Besides all this, for all we know by the time Vista is released a 5 ghz beast with 2 gigs of ram will be the 'average' machine. At the rate things have been going it wouldn't surprise me.

 

[DiebytheSword]

I think it's your lack of technical understanding that's hindering what you should be seeing here pride. None of these things that Vista or the DRM scheme are adding are great technological breakthroughs. In fact, most people have been playing video games in the resolutions that will be offered with the new progressive scan stuff. What is irking me, and the rest of the world, is that you are paying to "upgrade" to DRM. Nothing more, nothing less, you are not going to gain anything by buying HDCP ready hardware other than A FORCED UPGRADE to protect Digital Rights. Sure, I can skip out on HD-DVD and BluRay, but I don't want to, and I don't want to upgrade my graphics card for absolutely no reason at all. I don't mind the other stuff, yeah you need a DVD drive to watch DVDs, but no one ever made you buy a new monitor and video card to go with those drives. See my point?

I'll agree with you about the baseline machine, and to an extent MS OSes have always been unkind to older computers. But the level of bloat on Vista is insane. I'll repeat: 2GB of ram to use the OS search function

 

[SailorAlea]

I was always a Windows fan. Always. I thought XP was the greatest thing to come out. But from what I hear about Vista it's just going to suck ass. Problem is, I know I can't switch to Linux because 1. I know nothing about it. 2. I play video games constantly. And now I won't be able to play video games because they'll require something only Vista has, not to mention i'll need to spend an extra $2,000 on parts or computers just to make it work.

Apparently i don't have the privilage to have nice stuff. Because I have to save for everything, and getting paid $7.50 an hour and only working 20 hours a week means i have to save for over a year to get what i want in computer parts (that is of course if i'm going to buy a decent computer)

So one way or another I'm ****ed. That's just great.

Where in the WORLD are you people getting these numbers from? An "extra $2,000 in parts"? You can buy a Vista-capable video card for about $150, and a Vista-capable processor for about $100-200.

There are TWO ISSUES here:
ONE is that Vista requires a better video card, and a better processor than XP. This is logical, as the OS is MUCH newer. This is not a problem!

TWO is that Vista, going along with Intel and the MPAA, are making it so if you want to watch -HD- content from Blueray and HD-DVD, you need an HDCP-Compliant monitor and a HDCP-Compliant video card, neither of which have hit the mainstream industry yet. What happens if you DON'T have an HDCP compliant card/monitor? It'll still play the video, but in normal TV resolution, progressive scan.

You people are confusing the issues.

Windows VISTA does not "force" you to upgrade any more than a new video game like F.E.A.R. does. Vista DOES force you to upgrade if you want to watch the next-gen Blueray/HD-DVD movies.

 

[Fire Phoenix]

Where in the WORLD are you people getting these numbers from? An "extra $2,000 in parts"? You can buy a Vista-capable video card for about $150, and a Vista-capable processor for about $100-200.

There are TWO ISSUES here:
ONE is that Vista requires a better video card, and a better processor than XP. This is logical, as the OS is MUCH newer. This is not a problem!

TWO is that Vista, going along with Intel and the MPAA, are making it so if you want to watch -HD- content from Blueray and HD-DVD, you need an HDCP-Compliant monitor and a HDCP-Compliant video card, neither of which have hit the mainstream industry yet. What happens if you DON'T have an HDCP compliant card/monitor? It'll still play the video, but in normal TV resolution, progressive scan.

You people are confusing the issues.

Windows VISTA does not "force" you to upgrade any more than a new video game like F.E.A.R. does. Vista DOES force you to upgrade if you want to watch the next-gen Blueray/HD-DVD movies.

Yeah, sarcasm is a wonderful thing aint it?

Also, before F.E.A.R came out, I had everything i needed to play it on all high settings with no lag or frame drops. When Vista comes out, I'll need to up grade to watch ****. Do i need High-Def? Nope. But it's a nice addon. And seeing as I don't own a T.V like most people in America do, I'd be real nice. 2 gigs of ram for an OPERATING SYSTEM is NUTS. I only have 1 gig of ram. Which is more than enough for any game out.

Do I need Vista? That's the question at hand. The answer to that is: Yes. I do. Because I want to play video games, and most video games aren't compatable with Linux. Some are, sure. But not all. And unlike some, or most, i'm a hard core gamer. I want to be able to go out, buy any game, and be able to play it within reasonable settings. Vista will not allow that for me all because of Direct X 10.

2 gigs of ram to run a search function is crazy. How on earth do you expect me to play a ****ing video game if I can't even run a search on my computer? My dad's four year old laptop with a 9 gig hard drive, 1.2 ghz, and 128 mb of ram can do windows XP. Don't give me that "you don't need to upgrade" crap

 

[bile]

All in all.. I say its about ****ing time


Personally ... The sooner old dogs get new ****ing PC's The sooner Next Gen Games can really start pouring out on the PC.


Its upgrades like these that force people to ditch their old peices of **** and get with the times, because technology on a whole cannot improve if everyone sticks with their old lame ass parts.


No .. nobody likes spending 2500 $ on parts and a new OS, but tbh, If upgrading wasnt mandatory .. would you do it? .. no. and technology wouldnt improve, because nobody would need to upgrade.

thats all there really is to it

you can not like it as much as you want. Either save up and upgrade, stick with your junk, or get a mac. its that simple.

 

[Zeonix]

....Oh yeah, thats exactly why Microsoft is doing this. They are trying to help the gaming community.

When Fear came out, I wanted to play it on max settings. What did I do? I bought 512mb of ram and then it ran perfectly. I currently have 1 gig. To tell me that Vista is more of a system hog than FEAR is amazingly stupid. I mean...how many bullets and broken boxes and explosions and death is going to occur when Im using the search function?

 

[SailorAlea]

You guys believe whatever you want. Want to pretend Vista is the end of the world, when it's actually mostly a good thing? Knock yourselves out. There is an unbelievable amount of willful ignorance going on in this thread, so I wash my hands of it.

 

[Zeonix]

Then inform us Queen of the Enlightened. I don't know anything about Vista, and I haven't pretended to know. I just don't understand why a search function requires more ram than playing FEAR on the highest settings.

 

[|Overlord|]

It seems like Windows XP Shortcuts/Noobproof

The auto-defrag and more secure kernell stand out.

I'm sure it will need patches for hotfixes and the such, but I do see potential.

True, Windows Me introduced new features such as system restore, witch was improved in xp, only partly trhe difference being is that xp wasn't based around dos while me was.

There shouldn't be need for so much worry on vista's behalf & not being compatible with hardware, there is also a 32bit version in the works (starter edition), & If you have a 64bit processor then there is no reason as to why you cannot run vista on your machine (provided you meet other requirements to).

 

[Fire Phoenix]

True, Windows Me introduced new features such as system restore, witch was improved in xp, only partly trhe difference being is that xp wasn't based around dos while me was.

There shouldn't be need for so much worry on vista's behalf & not being compatible with hardware, there is also a 32bit version in the works (starter edition), & If you have a 64bit processor then there is no reason as to why you cannot run vista on your machine (provided you meet other requirements to).

Other requirments? You mean like 2 gigs of ram? Yes, because majority of everyone has 2 gigs of ram.

Apparently I'm ignorant because I like to play games and Vista doesn't allow me to do that because i don't have enough ram. When someone tells me an OS needs more ram than a video game, I say to hell with it.

And then I see Kurt` tell us about an amazingly awsome OS that has better graphics and a way better customization layout with a 3-D Desktop that uses 0% of your video card... only to find out it's a Linux. And the only reason I haven't switch to such an OS is again GAMES.

 

[Enix]

Where in the WORLD are you people getting these numbers from? An "extra $2,000 in parts"? You can buy a Vista-capable video card for about $150, and a Vista-capable processor for about $100-200.

Yea, no kidding, I could build a top of the line pc for under 1k. Let's see:

- sexy black case with flashy lights and see through side panel: $60
- amd athlon 64 bit processor/mobo combo: $180
- 1gig DDR SDRAM memory: $70.00
- 250 gig harddrive: $99
- Geforece 6800Ultra videocard:$250
-Dvd-rom drive:$30
-Dvd burner: $50
- Wireless Mouse/Keyboard combo: $50
- 7.1 Surround sound speakers: $80

- Having a kickass pc that can run vista: priceless [ok shoot me now]

Now I woud love this system, and its cheap as hell, not even $900... And vista will run just fine on it.

 

[Fire Phoenix]

Yea, no kidding, I could build a top of the line pc for under 1k. Let's see:

- sexy black case with flashy lights and see through side panel: $60
- amd athlon 64 bit processor/mobo combo: $180
- 1gig DDR SDRAM memory: $70.00
- 250 gig harddrive: $99
- Geforece 6800Ultra videocard:$250
-Dvd-rom drive:$30
-Dvd burner: $50
- Wireless Mouse/Keyboard combo: $50
- 7.1 Surround sound speakers: $80

- Having a kickass pc that can run vista: priceless [ok shoot me now]

Now I woud love this system, and its cheap as hell, not even $900... And vista will run just fine on it.

Let's not forget taxes and you don't have enough ram.

 

[Enix]

- another gig of ram $70, a total of $940, and $58.75 tax a grand total of $998.75, still under 1k.

 

[Zeonix]

Please send $998.75 to [email protected].

I like how hes telling people they need to spend a minimum of 999 bucks (even though shipping and handling will break that 1k mark) for a new pc, plus however much Vista is just so they can use the friggin OS.

 

[Enix]

I am not saying you need to spend $999 on a pc, im just sayin a kickass system is cheaper then you think.

 

[Zeonix]

Thats not a kickass system, but ok.

 

[Enix]

You just like to argue dont you? =P

How is a 64bit system with a 250gig HD 2gigs of ram, a 256 meg Geforce 6800ultra and a dvd burner for under 1k not kickass, I would like to see what you think is a kickass system...

 

[|Overlord|]

Other requirments? You mean like 2 gigs of ram? Yes, because majority of everyone has 2 gigs of ram.

Apparently I'm ignorant because I like to play games and Vista doesn't allow me to do that because i don't have enough ram. When someone tells me an OS needs more ram than a video game, I say to hell with it.

And then I see Kurt` tell us about an amazingly awsome OS that has better graphics and a way better customization layout with a 3-D Desktop that uses 0% of your video card... only to find out it's a Linux. And the only reason I haven't switch to such an OS is again GAMES.

Vista won't require 2gb of memory, it's just a reccomendation. I Should have the final beta in a few days from my brother & set it up on a spare hdd to see what it's like. If you can get the beta on your hands, don't bash it till you use it.

 

[g0jack]

Vista won't require 2gb of memory, it's just a reccomendation. I Should have the final beta in a few days from my brother & set it up on a spare hdd to see what it's like. If you can get the beta on your hands, don't bash it till you use it.

I have experience with playing a game above minimal requirements and below recommended.
Not pretty. I wouldn't want my OS to lag :/

 

[|Overlord|]

I have experience with playing a game above minimal requirements and below recommended.
Not pretty. I wouldn't want my OS to lag :/

True, yes, but if your one of those people with money and have a machine with a dual core chip you shouldn't need to worry as much (atleast i'm guessing). I'm begining to wonder myself if the oem companies will start making a lot of demands for 1gb memory modules for there machines, I also wonder how they would price them (A lot of consumers that have no knowlege of computers are likely to go rush in and buy and new pc from an oem based company such as hp, & they could price it expensively, i'd be suprised if the memory companies would report shortage of the parts not long afterwards).