Windows Vista

**imdying** · 7th March 2007, 08:24

Originally Posted by John Banks

Requiring 1GB of RAM and taking up 512MB of that is also ridiculous. I mean, most laptops and computers on the market now come with either 512MB or 1GB. Not only do you need to run the operating system, you need to load other programs to actually do work on top of that.

I gotta ask... did you think that XP, requiring 128MB of RAM and taking up 256 was also ridiculous when it first came out... given that you were well lucky to even have 128MB when XP came out?

**Ixion** · 7th March 2007, 08:30

Originally Posted by imdying

I gotta ask... did you think that XP, requiring 128MB of RAM and taking up 256 was also ridiculous when it first came out... given that you were well lucky to even have 128MB when XP came out?

Yes. Yes I did. Still do.

**imdying** · 7th March 2007, 08:47

Originally Posted by Ixion

Yes. Yes I did. Still do.

And yet funnily enough, it stopped being 'ridiculous' and long long time ago. RAM is cheap, nuff said..

**The_Dover** · 7th March 2007, 09:18

Originally Posted by imdying

And yet funnily enough, it stopped being 'ridiculous' and long long time ago. RAM is cheap, nuff said..

Half a gig for an operating system is criminal.

Nuff said.

**Scouse** · 7th March 2007, 10:23

Originally Posted by The_Dover

It's an operating system, the least it should do on modern day hardware is fucking operate. It's like an asthmatic, one legged marathon runner with blisters and a lack of access to ventolin.It's shit.

So you dont like vista then Ben..?

**scracha** · 7th March 2007, 13:07

Yep. Can the linux and OS-X kiddiscripters stop hijacking the tread. It's truly pointless. I could easily highlight a dozen aspects of Vista that would compel users to choose it over OS-X or linux.

Regards to it being "bloatware". Well, developers want an easier job of programming so if an OS has more features, API's and 3rd party drivers then it'll get "bloated". This normally results in faster development time, cheaper software and more stability. Who cares if it requires 1GB and a core duo. In one or two year's time that will be (at least) what most users are running. Contrary to common thought, Microsoft aren't stupid enough to think that most people will upgrade to Vista within the first couple of years so they've obviously developed an OS with better hardware requirements in mind.

FYI, Vista Ultimate (the one with all the Aero interface and all the other bells and whistles) runs at a useable speed on one of my old machines (3 year old Sempron 2400 with 512MB and a 128MB 9600 graphics card). For sure, it doesn't run as fast as when I boot it up from a DSL distro but then again it's got SLIGHTLY more features and just a FEW more applications

**scracha** · 7th March 2007, 13:22

Originally Posted by The_Dover

Half a gig for an operating system is criminal.
Nuff said.

Yeah, folk said that about the 8KB ones "back in the day"

**Scouse** · 7th March 2007, 13:33

I thought that Millenium was great it ran on my old first generation pentium 160mmx very well never once had a blue screen of death from it and it seemed to have all the hardware drivers I needed already imbedded within

**skelstar** · 7th March 2007, 13:59

I recall a friend trying to get WinMe going and the first thing it said was: "there are no drivers available for your Modem...you can find new drivers on the internet"

Paraphrased of course

**Scouse** · 7th March 2007, 14:05

I never had that problem mind you back then my modem was a 1996 28Kbps isa slot modem

**The_Dover** · 7th March 2007, 14:06

Originally Posted by imdying

The future is looking grim for you...

Not really, I've got 1.5 gig of ram in my laptop now and the bloatware is running farily well.

But why does it seem to crash and hang when I leave it on overnight with nothing but a web browser open?

Must be the quality programming.

**Squeak the Rat** · 7th March 2007, 14:12

Originally Posted by The_Dover

But why does it seem to crash and hang when I leave it on overnight with nothing but a web browser open?

It's v1.0, aka the price you pay for being an early adopter.

**John Banks** · 7th March 2007, 15:21

Originally Posted by imdying

I gotta ask... did you think that XP, requiring 128MB of RAM and taking up 256 was also ridiculous when it first came out... given that you were well lucky to even have 128MB when XP came out?

Yes. XP's RAM requirements are extremely bloated.