I personally think that a DX11 requirement is a good thing to drop for core operating system function. They really need to trim the fat on their OS.
The biggest gripe that I (and most other people I know) have with Vista is that it virtually takes an excellently spec'd machine and turns it into a bottle of molasses.
My company has over 30,000 windows based machines and none of us in the IT department can justify even thinking about 'up'grading to Vista due to its stout minimum requirements.
have you even attempted to run Vista? my freaking desktop from 2 years ago runs it just fine with crappy on-board video and an ancient AMD 3800+ just fine. i also have 3gb of ram, so im sure that makes some difference.
"Just fine" huh? Sounds like a great justification for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in licenses to upgrade their 30,000 corporate systems (not to mention the labor costs involved). Just think how much more awesome those systems will be now that they can run DX 10.
@sjdurfey Have you ever worked IT? 2 years is a new system in the IT world. I work IT part time at my school, and I can't justify people upgrading to vista. Software compatibility is still a challenge, and the OS is unfamiliar. There are a lot of quirks and because of the lack of users getting solid fixes is very difficult. I can think of four instances in my last 3 hours of shifts at work where we had programs that were written for XP that would not work 100% with vista (Yes even in compatibility mode- many will not even install without compatibility mode) and two Vista compatible programs that did not work 100%. Unless you are very computer savvy, and have the need for the extra memory allocation or a specific feature- its just not a good idea.
That being said vista is getting a lot better very quickly. And Whats the deal with Mac users replacing 1500 computers every 2 years and getting on a high horse about how they always work better? The computer looks exactly the same- and you do the exact same things (word processing email and internet) how does Jobs dupe you into thinking that because he released a new OS you need to buy a new computer to keep up?
To be honest, i spend £300 on upgrades, from a 4 year old pc, and there only game improvement on my vista machine, the actual vista performance is hardly any different, my vista loads quicker than my xp ever did, stays quick booting rather than my xp and looks nicer, so for those who want more security vista is a good move.
Leopard works just fine on older macs latter G4 or better. (and is faster in some ways on the older machines due to streamlining). Apple generally requires far less of a hardware upgrade compared to Windows Releases (this is often due to the fact that Apple machines are always speced with med-end to high-end components only).
If you work in IT, then you know that percentage wise, you have less people crying to you over OS X issues.
Apple's machines have higher quality parts in them than most windows machines, because your going to be spending (or at least you were) twice as much on it. The reason the windows machines are less is because they don't lock all the hardware down to begin with. And it requires less upgrade, because it has the more HQ and faster parts.
i stand corrected then. ive never worked in IT. the only large scale IT project ive seen is at my current university, and every computer is no more than 2 years old. i was just merely trying to point out this stigma that you need a top of the line computer to run vista properly, which isnt true at all.
@YoJIMbo They don't require a big hardware upgrade for every release because they release a new one every year which only would qualify as a Service Pack if the updates were in Windows, yet they charge you for it! You are paying money for service packs, with Windows, they are free, and you can either keep the money or buy new hardware.
Are you trying run Vista Ultimate on an E-Machine? What are you talking about? My copy of Vista is very snappy and thats with 1.5 GBs of ram, a PCI Express ATI x700, and a 3 Ghz Pentium D. The big issue with Vista is drivers. They are the culprit.
Yeah except these "service packs" you speak of add hundreds of new features and new versions of applications. I wish Windows users would quit trying to make it sound like 10.4 and 10.5 are similar just because they same base number. 10.4 to 10.5 is like going from XP to Vista (without the problems). Apple releases"service packs" OS updates as 10.5.1, 10.5.2 which are obviously free. So in 6 months Apple will have sent out at least 2 service pack updates, it'll be over a year before Microsoft finally get SP1 out the door since Vista's release. Get your facts straight.
Also, by this rationale XP (v5.1) is just a service pack to Windows 2000 (v5.0).
Come to think of it, what feature did XP introduce over 2000? The only feature I can think of that I use on a regular basis is Remote Desktop. I'm sure there are other things, but none seem all that spectacular.
You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$
You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$
Apple doesn't release every year an upgrade, it might seem like a year to you because it takes MS ages to actually finish an upgrade. Do not call a OSX upgrade a serive pack, because if that's the case Vista is a service pack as well as most of the features intended for vista where left out to actually get Vista to market and provide income for MS. Windowsusers just get fucked by MS who let's them work for years on an Windows version without fixing the bugs or improving the OS.
Leopard runs still fine on Macs that where purchased at the same time when the first version of XP was released. That is something MS can't offer to their userbase. But there is some logic in that as MS has deals with PC manufacturers. They scam windowsusers by forcing them to buy new systems while most of those users could easily be using their old machines if MS did the effort to provide real service to their customers.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
RyanTV @ Feb 9th 2008 4:18PM
I personally think that a DX11 requirement is a good thing to drop for core operating system function. They really need to trim the fat on their OS.
The biggest gripe that I (and most other people I know) have with Vista is that it virtually takes an excellently spec'd machine and turns it into a bottle of molasses.
My company has over 30,000 windows based machines and none of us in the IT department can justify even thinking about 'up'grading to Vista due to its stout minimum requirements.
sjdurfey @ Feb 9th 2008 4:38PM
have you even attempted to run Vista? my freaking desktop from 2 years ago runs it just fine with crappy on-board video and an ancient AMD 3800+ just fine. i also have 3gb of ram, so im sure that makes some difference.
caleb @ Feb 9th 2008 4:53PM
"Just fine" huh? Sounds like a great justification for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in licenses to upgrade their 30,000 corporate systems (not to mention the labor costs involved). Just think how much more awesome those systems will be now that they can run DX 10.
Dan @ Feb 9th 2008 4:55PM
@sjdurfey
Have you ever worked IT? 2 years is a new system in the IT world. I work IT part time at my school, and I can't justify people upgrading to vista. Software compatibility is still a challenge, and the OS is unfamiliar. There are a lot of quirks and because of the lack of users getting solid fixes is very difficult. I can think of four instances in my last 3 hours of shifts at work where we had programs that were written for XP that would not work 100% with vista (Yes even in compatibility mode- many will not even install without compatibility mode) and two Vista compatible programs that did not work 100%. Unless you are very computer savvy, and have the need for the extra memory allocation or a specific feature- its just not a good idea.
That being said vista is getting a lot better very quickly. And Whats the deal with Mac users replacing 1500 computers every 2 years and getting on a high horse about how they always work better? The computer looks exactly the same- and you do the exact same things (word processing email and internet) how does Jobs dupe you into thinking that because he released a new OS you need to buy a new computer to keep up?
Blaine Oliver @ Feb 9th 2008 5:01PM
To be honest, i spend £300 on upgrades, from a 4 year old pc, and there only game improvement on my vista machine, the actual vista performance is hardly any different, my vista loads quicker than my xp ever did, stays quick booting rather than my xp and looks nicer, so for those who want more security vista is a good move.
YoJIMbo @ Feb 9th 2008 5:16PM
@Dan
Leopard works just fine on older macs latter G4 or better. (and is faster in some ways on the older machines due to streamlining). Apple generally requires far less of a hardware upgrade compared to Windows Releases (this is often due to the fact that Apple machines are always speced with med-end to high-end components only).
If you work in IT, then you know that percentage wise, you have less people crying to you over OS X issues.
Drew @ Feb 9th 2008 5:38PM
@YoJIMbo
Apple's machines have higher quality parts in them than most windows machines, because your going to be spending (or at least you were) twice as much on it. The reason the windows machines are less is because they don't lock all the hardware down to begin with. And it requires less upgrade, because it has the more HQ and faster parts.
sjdurfey @ Feb 9th 2008 5:41PM
@Dan
i stand corrected then. ive never worked in IT. the only large scale IT project ive seen is at my current university, and every computer is no more than 2 years old. i was just merely trying to point out this stigma that you need a top of the line computer to run vista properly, which isnt true at all.
Tech^Cellfish @ Feb 9th 2008 6:06PM
I agree. And most corporate computers don`t need and don`t have DX10 capable hardware.
PeterF @ Feb 9th 2008 7:06PM
@YoJIMbo
They don't require a big hardware upgrade for every release because they release a new one every year which only would qualify as a Service Pack if the updates were in Windows, yet they charge you for it!
You are paying money for service packs, with Windows, they are free, and you can either keep the money or buy new hardware.
LongshotX @ Feb 9th 2008 7:27PM
Are you trying run Vista Ultimate on an E-Machine? What are you talking about? My copy of Vista is very snappy and thats with 1.5 GBs of ram, a PCI Express ATI x700, and a 3 Ghz Pentium D. The big issue with Vista is drivers. They are the culprit.
Johan S @ Feb 9th 2008 7:58PM
I think the problem is Vista needs high end hardware, but Microsoft acts like it doesnt.
blinkcowz182 @ Feb 9th 2008 8:01PM
@PeterF
Yeah except these "service packs" you speak of add hundreds of new features and new versions of applications. I wish Windows users would quit trying to make it sound like 10.4 and 10.5 are similar just because they same base number. 10.4 to 10.5 is like going from XP to Vista (without the problems). Apple releases"service packs" OS updates as 10.5.1, 10.5.2 which are obviously free. So in 6 months Apple will have sent out at least 2 service pack updates, it'll be over a year before Microsoft finally get SP1 out the door since Vista's release. Get your facts straight.
caleb @ Feb 9th 2008 9:52PM
Also, by this rationale XP (v5.1) is just a service pack to Windows 2000 (v5.0).
Come to think of it, what feature did XP introduce over 2000? The only feature I can think of that I use on a regular basis is Remote Desktop. I'm sure there are other things, but none seem all that spectacular.
Sam Winter @ Feb 9th 2008 10:31PM
@PeterF
You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$
Sam Winter @ Feb 9th 2008 10:32PM
@PeterF
You are an idiot. Apple only charges for major 10.X releases such as 10.5 Leopard. Meanwhile, smaller service packs come every few months as 10.X.1, 10.X.2, 10.X.3, etc. The difference with MS is that Apple releases new systems much faster. Just because new editions come faster and are still called Mac OSX with a codename does NOT MEAN that they are "service packs". The last two editions of OSX, 10.4 "Tiger" and 10.5 "Leopard", were especially major upgrades. You are going to sit here and call Vista a totally new OS from XP and yet call 10.4 Tiger or 10.5 Leopard a service pack? That just shows your ignorance of Mac OSX and your bias of M$
iPriest @ Feb 10th 2008 10:26AM
@ Peter F
Apple doesn't release every year an upgrade, it might seem like a year to you because it takes MS ages to actually finish an upgrade. Do not call a OSX upgrade a serive pack, because if that's the case Vista is a service pack as well as most of the features intended for vista where left out to actually get Vista to market and provide income for MS. Windowsusers just get fucked by MS who let's them work for years on an Windows version without fixing the bugs or improving the OS.
Leopard runs still fine on Macs that where purchased at the same time when the first version of XP was released. That is something MS can't offer to their userbase. But there is some logic in that as MS has deals with PC manufacturers. They scam windowsusers by forcing them to buy new systems while most of those users could easily be using their old machines if MS did the effort to provide real service to their customers.
Drew @ Feb 10th 2008 10:31AM
@caleb
Windows XP added an integrated firewall for one thing. Also a better GUI. That is just about all I can think of though