In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Rasker
<spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 18 Jan 2007 13:56:42 +0100
<pan.2007.01.18.12.56.40.382493@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> Op Thu, 18 Jan 2007 12:01:05 +0000, schreef Roy Schestowitz:
>
>> Walt reviews Vista: Eh.
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | We're willing to bet those among you that don't make gagging sounds
>> | whenever you're in eyeshot of a PC have probably already played with
>> | Vista a bit. Maybe you don't have the last beta installed on your
>> | machine, but you've sat down to a Vista box and at least logged a
>> | few minutes with oohs and ahhs at Aero and Flip 3D. So by this
>> | point you probably well understand that Vista, while being a major
>> | step forward for Microsoft, will for most users represent something
>> | more of a long overdue feature pack, finally bringing Windows up to
>> | date with OS X.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/18/walt-reviews-vista-eh/
>
>
> When I stated several months ago that Vista required some 10 - 20 times
> the system resources of a current PC, Windows apologists laughed at me.
> One of those specimens even said that Vista would run on anything with a
> 1GHz CPU and 256MB of RAM. Uh-huh.
>
> "The vast majority of existing Windows PCs won't be able to use all of
> Vista's features without major hardware upgrades. They will be able to
> run only a stripped-down version, and even then may run very slowly."
>
> So Erik, there's your "On older hardware, it will run just fine in a
> reduced functionality mode": Yeah it will run almost as good as XP runs
> under normal conditions - that is, with all kinds of malware and registry
> bloat slowing the system to a crawl.
>
> "Microsoft says that Home Basic can run on a PC with half a gigabyte of
> memory and that Premium and Ultimate will work on a PC with one
> gigabyte of memory. I strongly advise doubling those numbers. To get
> all the features of Vista, you should have two gigabytes of memory,
> far more than most people own."
>
> Two gigabytes is at least four times the amount of memory most people have
> today.
>
> "Even more important is your graphics card, a component most people know
> little about. Home Basic can run on almost any graphics system. But
> Premium and Ultimate will need a powerful, modern graphics system to
> run well."
>
> Powerful as in: at least four times the amount of normal graphics memory
> and a hefty GPU. Double the hardware resources once again.
Wanna bet Microsoft and Intel had a little tete-a-tete some time back?
:-)
>
> "On a three-year-old H-P desktop, a Vista upgrade installed itself fine.
> But even though this computer had a full gigabyte of memory and what
> was once a high-end graphics card, Vista Ultimate reverted to the Basic
> user interface. And even then, it ran so slowly and unsteadily as to
> make the PC essentially unusable."
>
> The third machine was a new, small Dell XPS M1210 laptop. In general,
> Vista ran smoothly and well on this Dell, but some operations were
> annoyingly slow, including creating a new message in the built-in
> Windows Mail program. This surprised me, because the Dell had two
> gigabytes of memory and a fast processor."
>
>
> I think my calculations were quite correct after all: *at least* quadruple
> RAM, double graphics card, and double CPU speed. In my book, that makes
> 4x2x2=16 times the amount of system resources. *At least*, because even
> a bit of stinting on memory or graphics power will apparently "make the PC
> essentially unusable."
>
> But wait, there's more! -- or perhaps I should say "less"?:
>
> "If you bought a PC in the past few months, and it had a "Vista Capable"
> sticker on it, it should be able to run at least Home Basic."
>
> Huh? What kind of a con job is this? So people get "Vista Capable"
> machines foisted upon them, to find out that it only runs Home Basic -
> sort of like XP in a crapped-down mode. People should be warned for this.
EULA fine print, presumably. ;-)
>
> And then there's the modes home user, who just uses a PC for a bit of
> e-mail and doing a bit of work after hours. Surely, they don't need all
> that eyecandy, and those whistles and bells of the Premium or Ultimate
> versions?
>
> "But some regular users may need Vista Ultimate if their companies have
> particular network configurations that make it impossible to connect to
> the company network from home with Home Basic or Home Premium."
>
> So Vista Premium can't even perform all the normal functions of your
> average network client computer? Welcome to the wonderful world of
> software racketeering, where artifical limitations and roadblocks are set
> up in strategic places, forcing people to buy the most expensive version.
>
> Talking of which: why would normal office workers need some Ultimate-like
> version? It's like giving all employees a Formula 1 race car instead of a
> normal car -- with the difference that a Formula 1 race car is indeed a
> bit faster.
Could be worse. At least a Formula 1 race car can be driven in the
rain (with a tire change). NASCAR doesn't have that option. :-)
>
>
> So what on earth makes this man say that Vista is a "worthy" product? Ah,
> there it is: "... a slicker version of Solitaire."
Feh. I can play Solitaire on Linux...Pysol. :-) I could probably even
set up the machine to fire up X and Pysol, and not allow the user to
run anything else thereon.
Now...erm, why would anyone want Vista, again?
>
> Richard Rasker
>
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #11823822:
signal(SIGKILL, catchkill);
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
