Vista works fine on any PC that can handle . The problem is people want to use out of date PC's to run brand new software. I have had Vista since release date no issues yet!
the problem is that people still want to BUY brand-new, out of date computers.
Dell is talking about XP on NEW machines (that have what you'd call "outdated" components) because they need to sell millions of crappy $450 boxes.
The idea that a good, modern, new computer can be had for $450 is the problem here. (and here Apple has a leg-up, they ONLY sell machines they believe to be capable and this-generation, and while that makes people think Apple is expensive, it's actually a much more modern concept.)
Dell can't really just stop producing outdated low-end crap, that's basically their market, but they also don't want to ship hardware that can't run the software that's preinstalled (Vista) ...so they're in a bit of a conundrum.
That's why I stopped using (and building) PCs. The very idea that you have to upgrade every year is ridiculous. We have a CRT iMac from the late 1990s that runs OS X Tiger and manages to handle Photoshop and most Universal programs just fine. It may be a little slower, but the person who uses it stands by it and won't upgrade because it's still doing the job without a hitch, crash, or problem.
I have no interest in Vista myself, because I run Windows in virtualization on a MacBook, and every benchmark I've seen says that XP runs great in Parallels or Fusion, but Vista drags horribly under the same conditions.
There's no reason to use Vista, anyway. I don't give a damn about DirectX 10. Why would I need it when I'm playing the newest, best games on my Xbox 360 (GTA IV tonight!) while "Games for Windows" consists of MMORPGs (which I hate), FPS games with lots of eye candy, and RTS games that are all basically rip-offs of Warcraft..? All those genres are represented on consoles. I'd argue that if you want an eye candy game like Crysis, then you're not playing it for gameplay (reviews were mediocre) but because you just want bragging rights for being able to get it to run on your rig.
There's not a single thing in Vista that makes me want it. I run XP in coherence mode, so it basically looks like OS X to me. I rarely use it, anyway, because most functions are better in OS X. I pull up IE to play Netflix movies, sometimes.
If you got Vista on your computer when you bought it, then it's obviously the best choice for you. Your computer is optimized for it. Most people, however, don't gain anything from using Vista, and in fact end up losing speed.
I'll go Vista when they sort it out a bit more and make it less sluggish. I already suffered at the user-end of Windows ME. I'm not making that sort of mistake again.
"There's no reason to use Vista, anyway. I don't give a damn about DirectX 10. Why would I need it when I'm playing the newest, best games on my Xbox 360 (GTA IV tonight!) while "Games for Windows" consists of MMORPGs (which I hate), FPS games with lots of eye candy, and RTS games that are all basically rip-offs of Warcraft..? All those genres are represented on consoles. I'd argue that if you want an eye candy game like Crysis, then you're not playing it for gameplay (reviews were mediocre) but because you just want bragging rights for being able to get it to run on your rig."
There is so much wrong with that I don't even know when to start. I'll just sum it up with this: when stating that a game is universally played just for the 'eye-candy,' you should at least lie and say you've actually played the game. Crysis is amazing. Truly amazing.
And you know nothing about PC gaming. Truly nothing. So I bet you're happy with your Mac!
the Nook Color proved it was an undercover tablet all along, Barnes and Noble has hit back with this latest Nook as proof of its focus on one thing: reading.
The most commented posts on Engadget over the past 24 hours.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Vista works fine on any PC that can handle . The problem is people want to use out of date PC's to run brand new software. I have had Vista since release date no issues yet!
the problem is that people still want to BUY brand-new, out of date computers.
Dell is talking about XP on NEW machines (that have what you'd call "outdated" components) because they need to sell millions of crappy $450 boxes.
The idea that a good, modern, new computer can be had for $450 is the problem here. (and here Apple has a leg-up, they ONLY sell machines they believe to be capable and this-generation, and while that makes people think Apple is expensive, it's actually a much more modern concept.)
Dell can't really just stop producing outdated low-end crap, that's basically their market, but they also don't want to ship hardware that can't run the software that's preinstalled (Vista) ...so they're in a bit of a conundrum.
That's why I stopped using (and building) PCs. The very idea that you have to upgrade every year is ridiculous. We have a CRT iMac from the late 1990s that runs OS X Tiger and manages to handle Photoshop and most Universal programs just fine. It may be a little slower, but the person who uses it stands by it and won't upgrade because it's still doing the job without a hitch, crash, or problem.
I have no interest in Vista myself, because I run Windows in virtualization on a MacBook, and every benchmark I've seen says that XP runs great in Parallels or Fusion, but Vista drags horribly under the same conditions.
There's no reason to use Vista, anyway. I don't give a damn about DirectX 10. Why would I need it when I'm playing the newest, best games on my Xbox 360 (GTA IV tonight!) while "Games for Windows" consists of MMORPGs (which I hate), FPS games with lots of eye candy, and RTS games that are all basically rip-offs of Warcraft..? All those genres are represented on consoles. I'd argue that if you want an eye candy game like Crysis, then you're not playing it for gameplay (reviews were mediocre) but because you just want bragging rights for being able to get it to run on your rig.
There's not a single thing in Vista that makes me want it. I run XP in coherence mode, so it basically looks like OS X to me. I rarely use it, anyway, because most functions are better in OS X. I pull up IE to play Netflix movies, sometimes.
If you got Vista on your computer when you bought it, then it's obviously the best choice for you. Your computer is optimized for it. Most people, however, don't gain anything from using Vista, and in fact end up losing speed.
I'll go Vista when they sort it out a bit more and make it less sluggish. I already suffered at the user-end of Windows ME. I'm not making that sort of mistake again.
"There's no reason to use Vista, anyway. I don't give a damn about DirectX 10. Why would I need it when I'm playing the newest, best games on my Xbox 360 (GTA IV tonight!) while "Games for Windows" consists of MMORPGs (which I hate), FPS games with lots of eye candy, and RTS games that are all basically rip-offs of Warcraft..? All those genres are represented on consoles. I'd argue that if you want an eye candy game like Crysis, then you're not playing it for gameplay (reviews were mediocre) but because you just want bragging rights for being able to get it to run on your rig."
There is so much wrong with that I don't even know when to start. I'll just sum it up with this: when stating that a game is universally played just for the 'eye-candy,' you should at least lie and say you've actually played the game. Crysis is amazing. Truly amazing.
And you know nothing about PC gaming. Truly nothing. So I bet you're happy with your Mac!
@ZeroCorpse : Wait a minute. I thought Mac users bragged that Macs run Vista the fastest, than any other computer?