Microsoft is including a rating
system, known as the Windows Performance Rating, in
Windows
Vista, which will enable PC buyers to see how well a particular model can handle the new operating system. The tool
ranks your computer on an overall scale of 1-5, and ranks specific components as well. The tool is likely to benefit PC
retailers, who will be able to use a relatively low score as a rationale for selling upgrades, but it could also leave
some consumers bewildered by what may seem like mediocre scores for relatively high-end systems. Trying out the new
system on a number of PCs, CNET found that a recent Sony Vaio with a 1.83GHz Intel T2400 and 1GB of RAM scored a
middling 3, though the rating system gave it a whopping 5.6 for its processor and 5.5 for memory. In the meantime,
Microsoft is also preparing another tool, the Windows Upgrade Advisor, which will allow computer owners running Windows
XP to find out whether their computers have the right stuff to use Vista. If it's anything like the Performance Rating,
we assume it'll tell you to install major upgrades, even if you're running the latest $5,000 Quad SLI, 2GB RAM, Athlon
64
gaming rig.
posted March 16th 2006 10:03AM
Anyone saying Vista doesn't use much ram, or would run well on a 384M machine, is simply lying. Plain and simple.
I've been testing it for some stuff I'm doing and on a 512M machine it swaps in and out to load pretty much any of the preferences/system properties/etc. A 1G machine is decent, but still has 200-300M swapped out, again, just basically setting up the machine. This is not running (or even having installed) any additional applications, IE, etc.
It will get better as they optimize and turn off debugging, but 5308 needs at least 1G of ram to be usable, and anyone saying otherwise is a Microsoft lackey.
This is another perspective:
VISTA in portuguese has two meanings.
1. a view. "I have a beautifull VISTA from my window to the river"...
2. eyes. To see. "Something got into my VISTA, auch. Help please".
So, it can´t be good.
This gateway add is laughs,
3 Great reasons.
1)Free memory upgrade 256MB to 512MB
2)Free double hard drive upgrade to 160MB
3)Free DVD RW drive upgrade.
Is this a blast from the past with a whopping 160MB upgade. The proof reader should be fired....
Some of you people don't get it. Sure a Intel GM950 is not a gaming graphics chip but it runs Mac OS perfectly smooth. The problem with Microsoft is that they are sloppy. Why not make an "OS" and have everything else as optional. I don't know about you but I use my friggin computer for the APPS. I don't use it for the OS. The OS should be transparent. Give me an OS with the option to install exactly what I need and doesn't use resources running processes that I will never EVER use. I'm so tired of this s***. I'm going to move to Macville.
You really should envy my machine, it has the following scores:
MP +1680
ATK +190
MAG +580
DEF +690
MOV +230
though I heard that some features in Aero will require you to have at least MAG 600, so you'll probably want to get that sacred magical amulet to raise your scores...
Do you think it'll run on a P4 3.4Ghz with 2GB of ram and a geforce 7900GT XXX?
Vista...? You mean a copy of MAC OS! The smooth graphics, the transparencies? All design copies of Mac! And theier bad copies of it as well! Vista still looks rubbish. XP was average but Vista just looks like a upgrade gone wrong. Take Internet Explorer they finaly have added tabbed browsing when Firefox, Opera and others had it first, yet their trying to lay claim to the idea!
Another thing, Mac offeres you complete backwards compatibility! With the new OSX you also get OS 9.0 to run the older programs, two OS Systems for the price of one. I try running a Win 95 .doc or Win 3.0 .doc on XP and it dies! So much for their beloved backwards compatibility.
Finaly, Vista claims to be "more secure than previous windows versions" ha! My guess is as soon as its out you will need to get your virus checkers on it ASAP. It's amusing since Mac processing structure and programming layout make it more secure than windows, you only need to get a virus checker for it when you put windows on the machines! To be honest, Vista looks like microsofts last stand agains the superiour systems from LINUX and Mac. Good by windows, you my be common but thats soon chaning.
IBM Thinkpad R51 with Pentium-M/Centrino 1.8 GHZ, 1 gig RAM, and a shitty integrated intel 82855 video card. Vista 5342 runs like CRAP. I wasn't expecting Aero Glass, but it won't even play a DVD because it says my video card isn't good enough. I got this thinkpad because I wanted to do serious work, and have no interest in games. And now Vista's giving me a rating of 1 because I "have no gaming memory" as it puts it so kindly. This is an expensive laptop, 1 year old... quite frankly this is ridiculous.
Other crappy things about Vista other than that its extremely slow
- those stupid dialog boxes that try to protect you from yourself that can't be disabled
- screen fonts are too big to begin with and can only be enlarged, not reduced
- its ugly. dialog boxes are too big, line spacing is weird, etc.
Apparently the original 2003 longhorn looked better than this piece of crap. I am not anti-Microsoft. I have been a lifetime Windows user and can't stand OSX or Linux. But what the fuck are they thinking??? And why is it 8 times bigger than XP when it doesn't have tons of cool stuff bundled with it? The interface looks like it was made by a retard high on acid. Back to XP I go...
It seems to me the only people complaining about it are the people that have never tried it...
please, complain about it 'if' and 'when' Vista ever screws up.
that's why i'm a macintosh user,never ever gonna switch back to pc and windows anyway not many years they have.
Dont worry about the rating scores. I have an Athlon 64 3000+ Venice Core and it gave me a 2 in x64. The rating system doesnt mean anything.
How can you guys (and girls) complain about OSs being able to run on 256mb of ram, windows 2000 needs atleast 384mb to run nicely, if your complaining about not being able to use 256mb of ram, how come nobody around here is saying that they want their 14 year old computer with 2mb of ram to run vista? All of you complaining need to consider the fact you will need to upgrade, for lots it will take less than $150 to get a new graphics card and an extra ram stick.
All these people who keep saying how Vista is slowing their pc down. lol It's because you're stupid. Vista is a top of the line os and deserves a top of the line pc if you expect to be able to run it's full potential up to speed. My pc just flies through vista ultimate. I have 4 gigs of ram and Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T9300 (2.5GHz/800Mhz FSB, 6MB Cache). What do you know? A top of the line pc for a top of the line operating system. duh!
I might not even bother with vista yet, I've got the vista bricopack from crystalXP and enough RAM to do what I want when I want. I'll wait 2 years or so until we start getting "Designed for Windows Vista" stickers which acctualy mean something and then buy a new PC. At the mo I've got enough virus software to keep XP secure and I'm quite happy with it.
I've got a Celeron "D" 2.8 Ghz rig running 1 Gb of dual channel pc2700 ddr memory and an "old" fx5200 128 Mb Video card. Vista has been running just fine even though I get a rating of 2 ( My ancient video card... ) seems as though vista put most of it ratings based on video cards...
To all those who are slamming vista....
I have loaded vista rc1 x64 onto my machine.
I have so far, not had any major problems as yet, the origonal problems that i had with driver incompatabilities in beta 2 have almost been extinguished. As far as the rating system goes, the score you are given is not an average, but of the lowest scoring section, in my case the, gaming graphics section, my nvidia 6600 gave a score of 3.8 which is still quite good. All the graphics rendering in aero has been seemless.
Here is the score that i got and what you can expect.
processor - 4.7, (Pentium D 3.0ghz)
Memory - 5.0, (2 Ghz Kingston)
Graphics Aero - 3.9, (winfast nvidia 6600 w/256 Ram)
Graphics Gaming - 3.8, (winfast nvidia 6600 w/256 Ram)
HDD Transfer - 5.4, (WD 200GB 7200 rpm)
Overall 3.8
Now i might point out that this machine cost me AU$2500 with all peripherals. In this day and age, if you buy a PC and spend much less than that, you have to expect that its not going to run state of the art software, like what you are reviewing.
Anyway, nice work Microsoft.
ps. to all the macOS users, who think that the sun shines out of there asses, because there system runs quicker and you dont get viruses, well have fun with your one OS and the FIVE programs that you can use on it!! I have choice.
If you really think vista is going to be crap then options are :-
1. Stick with XP and forget the pressure put on users by other users to upgrade. Wait a year for hardware to catch up. Vista will be buggy just like every other new MS OS. Wait for SP1 at least.
2. If you don't play games try linux and a good modern distro like Fedora Core 6 or Ubuntu. Maybe dual boot with XP if you play the the odd game. However like any new OS linux has a learning curve but well worth it in the end with low resource needs compared to windows.
3. Go buy a MAC