Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Windows Vista - $2525 Just for HARDWARE

begin  oe_protect.scr 
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ yttrx ] on Thursday 14 September 2006 03:18 \__
> 
>> Mark Kent <mark.kent@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> begin  oe_protect.scr
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> Geez. My computer cost less than 10% that price. And the O/S (Opensuse)
>>>> was free.
>>>> 
>>>> Build Your Own Windows Vista System
>>>> 
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>| Being forward looking is never cheap. We've configured a system that
>>>>| will run Vista superbly, but it's really not complete. The lack of
>>>>| practical high definition optical drives and DirectX 10 hardware means
>>>>| that the system will likely to be upgraded at least once in its
>>>>| lifetime.
>>>> `----
>>>> 
>>>> http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2015423,00.asp
>>> 
>>> This really is for people with money to burn, isn't it?
>>> ...     How much cash to you want to blow today?
>>> 
>> 
>> Actually, because my company is one of those damnable Microsoft Partners,
>> I get a little book of software four times a year, and have been running
>> Vista on a couple of machines for testing since the first betas were
>> released.
> 
> 
> Betas might be slower because of the accompanying debugging 'bits', but have
> you yet come to the point of Registry clogup? What about malware? Many would
> justifiably argue that Windows XP starts quickly and remains snappy when
> they first receive a machine or install the O/S. But what will it be like a
> few months down the line? Vista is, after all, a 6-month extension of
> Windows XP (Server 2003). It's would be naive to expect it to have fixed
> everything/anything. It's like comparing Dapper and Breezy. Or Edgy and
> Dapper.
> 
> 
>> I'm running the absolute most recent developer build at the moment on
>> a machine with a 3.6ghz single core processor with hyperthreading turned
>> on, 3 gigs of RAM (four gigs, but three usable of course), and an
>> nVidia 7900GT, and with every single bit of idiot eyecandy turned on
>> full blast...
>> 
>> It works just fine.  Also, directx 10 will work with my current video
>> hardware with no problem.
>> 
>> I understand that the final build of Vista will include more idiot
>> eyecandy than what I've got access to here, but I think the article
>> above isn't quite accurate.  I paid a few thousand for the machine its
>> running on almost exactly 11 months ago now, and upgraded the video
>> card about three months ago.  It's fine.
> 
> 
> Will everyone be able to afford this type of PC? Moreover, how many
> Vista-capable computers are out there at the moment? There are two
> situations to consider here:
> 
> 1) A household can afford a low-end machine
> 
> 2) A household cannot afford a new machine, but it has an old machine.
> 
> What will be the better/best route then? Will it be staying with a
> problems-ridden O/S? Upgrade the existing machine to Linux? Buy a Linux
> machine? Or buy/upgrade to yet another problems-ridden O/S, which here is an
> impossibility?
> 

Or for that matter, who would want to spend several thousand in order to
have a computer which can do more or less what can be done now.  Okay,
the GUI will be fancier, which might help for when it locks up, or
during those interminable disk-reads where the virus-guarding software
is checking every damnable thing it can get its paws on.

For the kind of money talked about here, you could fit out a nice home
network with a couple of general purpose & gaming machines, a PS3, a
mythtv box, an Asterisk PBX and a file & print server/router/firewall.
Especially if you're prepared to reuse old cases, keyboards, and such
like.

-- 
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
DeVries' Dilemma:
	If you hit two keys on the typewriter, the one you don't want
	hits the paper.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index